Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for your efforts to get us the proper room and for what you have done.
I believe it's very important for this committee to investigate what happened to Vice-Admiral Norman over the last four years plus.
On Tuesday, the members of the House of Commons who didn't run out of the chamber unanimously approved the following:
That the House recognize Vice-Admiral [Mark] Norman for his decades of loyal service to Canada, express regret for the personal and professional hardships he endured as a result of his failed prosecution, and apologize to him and his family for what they experienced during their legal conflict with the government.
It's my understanding that you don't apologize to someone unless you think or know you've done something wrong. When the Government of Canada does something wrong, it is our duty as parliamentarians to hold government to account on their wrongdoings.
What I'd like to highlight are some of the actions taken by the government during the dismissal and trial of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, which I feel an investigation by this committee would shed light on and answer Mr. Gerretsen's questions.
This entire saga began in 2014 when the Royal Canadian Navy's two supply ships had to unexpectedly and immediately be retired. Supply ships are floating gas stations and superstores vital to keeping our Halifax-class frigates fuelled and supplied while on duty.
Vice-Admiral Norman, head of the Royal Canadian Navy at the time, spearheaded the project to convert a cargo ship to a new temporary supply ship until the new ones could be completed. A preliminary agreement was reached in July 2015 and finalized just before the 2015 election in October. Again, why would it take so long for a decision to have been made in July and then not have been approved and finalized until October? That in itself is a question.
It was leaked in November 2015 that the new Liberal cabinet was considering reopening or even cancelling this contract. While the cabinet did not ultimately choose to cancel it, the RCMP was shortly thereafter asked to investigate the source of the leak.
We all know the Prime Minister himself was one of the biggest proponents of an RCMP investigation. This is where the first question emerges that the committee needs to investigate. Why the sudden urge to investigate this particular leak? It's well known that Ottawa leaks, with stories and details leaking from all the government departments multiple times a day. Why was this leak, above all others, singled out for investigation?
Over the course of the investigation we learned that 74 people were privy to the information regarding the November 2015 cabinet meeting that was leaked. That leads us to the next question. Out of all the people who had access to the information, why was Vice-Admiral Norman singled out?
On January 9, 2017, the Chief of the Defence staff, General Vance, informed Vice-Admiral Norman he was being suspended, and on January 13, 2017, that suspension was made official.
On March 9, 2018, 14 months later, Vice-Admiral Norman was formally charged with one count of breach of trust by the RCMP. This leads to a third major question for the committee members. Why did such a long time pass between the time he was suspended and the time he was charged? Why did it take 14 months after the suspension for any official charges to be laid?
If the RCMP was only ready to file charges in March 2018, what did General Vance know that the RCMP did not know in order to suspend Vice-Admiral Norman 14 months earlier? What did Katie Telford and Gerald Butts tell General Vance on their meeting of January 9 to put him 14 months ahead of the RCMP?
We already know that the Prime Minister had some advance knowledge of the charges coming, as he stated at a town hall on February 1, 2018 that the Norman case would inevitably lead to court processes. That's another question there as well. What did the Prime Minister know to make that statement five weeks before the charges were officially laid?
As 2018 progressed, Vice-Admiral Norman and his legal team prepared for the upcoming trial. During the pretrial phase, he and his team requested documents from the government to help prove his innocence, which my colleague Mr. Bezan has mentioned, but two questions emerged from the ensuing delays and the eventual document dump by the government.
First, if the government was so sure of their case against Vice-Admiral Norman, why were they fighting so hard to keep the documents from court? If they were fighting so hard to prevent those documents from going to court, yet they were so sure that they had a case, why would they fight giving the documents to the court?
Second, once they finally released all the documents, why were so many of them so heavily redacted?
We also learned that the Department of National Defence was using code words or phrases in emails and documents so they could avoid being part of the disclosure by government. This is a serious attempt to avoid accountability and hide the truth. We need to know who authorized the use of the code words and phrases.
This also leads to another more serious question: Have code words and phrases been used on other files as well, and is this just the first we've heard of it?
The minister was unable to answer that question when it was posed to him in the House yesterday during the committee of the whole, but it's a question we must get answers to during our investigations. Using code words and phrases on important or sensitive files could have consequences on any ATIPs, questions on the order paper, court-mandated document disclosures and media inquiries since this government came to office. If this has been standard operating procedure, it's a serious violation of ethics and accountability, and Canadians must be made aware of it.
We fast-forward to May 2019, and the charges against Vice-Admiral Norman are stayed. In its statement regarding this stunning change of events, the PPSC told Canadians that information disclosed by the defence made the case completely unwinnable, which brings us to a few final key questions.
If the defence had full access to these documents, how did the investigation into the leak miss them? Why did the PPSC seemingly drop the case right after our parliamentary colleague General Andrew Leslie agreed to testify on Vice-Admiral Norman's behalf? Yes, he announced that he was going to retire, but it was not announced that he was going to publicly announce that he was going to testify in favour of Vice-Admiral Norman at the trial. Perhaps most importantly, what evidence did Vice-Admiral Norman's defence team find that so thoroughly destroyed the case against them? We still don't know what that was.
An investigation by this committee will allow us to get the answers to those questions and more. Vice-Admiral Norman has said that he has a story to tell, and, as with SNC-Lavalin, a parliamentary committee is the appropriate venue for that story to be told.
One thing that shines through the timeline of events in questions of the Vice-Admiral Norman affair is the prevalence of political interference from the Prime Minister's Office. When it comes to political interference of this government's actions, we have a clear pattern of constant political interference in independent decision-making bodies for the sole purpose of partisan political gain. It's just like the old saying: Once is a chance; twice is a coincidence; three times is a pattern.
Once was political interference into the direction of the SNC-Lavalin trial, trying to pressure the Attorney General of Canada into overruling the director of public prosecutions for partisan purposes.
Twice was political interference in the procurement process of new fighter jets, manipulating the request for proposals to exclude the best option available in order to fulfill the Prime Minister's election promises.
Three times was political interference in the trial of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman by delaying or releasing documents with massive or complete redactions, accusations of coaching witnesses and the Prime Minister's publicly announcing how the trial would progress well before the public prosecutor's office got to those points.
In October, the defence team sent a request for documents to the government. After a nearly six-month delay, the documents were released, or rather, selected parts were released. A 60-page document from the former clerk of the Privy Council to Prime Minister Trudeau regarding Vice-Admiral Norman was delivered to Norman's defence team in March 2019. It was requested in October and not delivered until March. The problem was that it was almost completely redacted under the claim of solicitor-client privilege. It was also not the only disclosed document with massive redactions for the same reason. Neither the clerk nor the Prime Minister is a solicitor, nor is either a client. How does it apply in these cases?
Both Judge Heather Perkins-McVey and the lead defence attorney, Marie Henein, stated this exact question in March. The committee needs to hear from all those involved to learn how solicitor-client privilege can possibly apply here, besides as an excuse not to release politically damaging information.
Allegations were made throughout the trial process that the Department of Justice lawyers were coaching trial witnesses to direct their testimony. While prepping witnesses is an accepted practice, directing their testimony toward a potentially false path to help the prosecution is illegal. This is a serious allegation, especially when it's laid against Government of Canada employees.
The committee must ensure that the rule of law is being upheld. Challenging the rule of law has already happened before with this government, and we on the committee need to ensure, hopefully, that once is a chance rather than a very disturbing pattern.
Media reports and public statements have made it clear that the Prime Minister was a driving force behind the RCMP investigation and the trial of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman. The Globe and Mail reported that the Prime Minister was the one pushing the RCMP to investigate Vice-Admiral Norman. In 2017, well before the completion of the RCMP investigation, the Prime Minister said publicly that the investigation, as my colleague said, “will likely end up before the courts”. In February 2018, well before any charges were laid against Vice-Admiral Norman, the Prime Minister said publicly that the Norman case would “inevitably” lead to court processes.
If there was no political interference in this case, why would enough people know that the Prime Minister was pushing the RCMP investigation for it to leak to The Globe and Mail? If there was no political interference, why did the events stated by the Prime Minister publicly end up being a reality just a few months later?
Those are three separate times in this case that reek of political interference or guidance of the process by the Prime Minister's office. Once is a chance; twice is a coincidence; three times is a pattern.
Canadians deserve the openness, the transparency, that should be afforded by their government. If the government is unwilling to do that, then it's our duty as parliamentarians to investigate what it is trying so hard to hide. If the government has done nothing wrong, why is it not being forthright with information, details or explanations on the case? Innocent people do not try to cover up wrongdoings they haven't committed.
This is also about accountability. If the Government of Canada is not accountable to Parliament, then it's accountable to no one. That's not the kind of country any of us wants to live in. That is why this committee must investigate the Vice-Admiral Mark Norman affair and get to the bottom of what actually transpired. It's in all Canadians' best interests that we do so.
Finally, to answer Mr. Gerretsen's question, Vice-Admiral Norman says that he has a story to tell that Canadians want to hear. This committee, with the protection it would afford Vice-Admiral Norman through parliamentary privilege, would provide a safe place for Vice-Admiral Norman to tell his story.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.