National Defence Committee on May 16th, 2019

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

MP Gerretsen.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Chair, I was just going to ask if we could suspend for five minutes for us to caucus, as we've done in the past.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Approved.

We are suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

I think where we left off was that you were not willing to amend your amendment. We have the amended motion from MP Garrison on the table, and we're still open for debate.

Mr. Spengemann.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Chair, thank you very much.

I want to start by thanking Mr. Garrison for introducing the amendment because I think it reflects the sentiment on the part of the committee that Canadians should hear from Vice-Admiral Norman.

I do not, however, believe that this forum is the right one, not necessarily because of jurisdictional issues but because of the optics and the politics. Vice-Admiral Norman is one of our highest-ranking military officers and it's a question about political interference. Optically, we should not insert him into a politically charged forum to make the case that he needs to make. There are other avenues.

That said, I share the sentiment that we need to recognize and we do recognize his service and his family's service, as was pointed out, and everything he's done for our country. Once again, the apology that we made in the House on Tuesday was important.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Thank you.

MP Gallant.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

I just have two questions. First, what would be a more appropriate environment? Second, if you feel that it would be harmful for him to attend, what if we invited him and he could always choose not to attend?

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

I think there are plenty of options for Vice-Admiral Norman to choose. I don't think we should make that choice for him.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Like what? Name one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Mr. Bezan.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I happen to disagree strongly with Mr. Spengemann.

The parliamentary privilege that we enjoy here gives us powers that allow us, as a collective body in the House and as creatures of the House, as committees, to hear from witnesses, to do studies, to initiate inquiries and to administer oaths to witnesses. We can regulate our own affairs, and our history as a committee has been that we have been able to take the partisanship out of it and deal with the subject matter at hand.

If we really want to find out the truth, then we need to hear from Vice-Admiral Norman. He has said very clearly that he has a story to tell that Canadians will want to hear. Let's give him that opportunity, where he has privilege and the freedom to speak without repercussions, and that will allow us to undertake the proper investigation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

MP Gerretsen.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

To answer Ms. Gallant's question about where the environment is, not everybody watches what happens in this committee. There are a lot of avenues. Anything that did happen in this committee would make its way to the public via the media. That would be the most reasonable place for him to tell his story and that is what he has already hinted that he'll be doing.

My concern with the amendment.... I really do appreciate Mr. Garrison for bringing this forward. The one thing I'll say about Mr. Garrison is that in the time he's been on this committee he has genuinely tried to collaborate and find alternatives and vehicles forward and I really appreciate that. My concern is with something that Mr. Martel said but also something that is being said by all members of the committee. Mr. Martel said, and I quote, through the translation, that if Liberals refuse, then they must have something to hide.

You're setting up a scenario where there could be no other option. The option is either you're going to do this or you have something to hide, but there is another option. It's the option of whether or not this is the right place and the right forum for this to occur.

When you make comments to the effect of “if Liberals refuse, they have something to hide”, you're making this hyper-political and partisan. The question is whether that belongs in a case that has been heavily looked over by the RCMP and the Public Prosecution Service, when they've clearly indicated that there is no evidence to suggest that political interference occurred.

I'm just really concerned about the hyperpartisan approach that is being taken by the Conservatives, so to bring an individual here for that purpose, in my opinion, would feed nothing more than that appetite.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

On the amendment, I have MP Garrison next and then MP Gallant.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to be very clear that I've made no such statement about the Liberals having something to hide, and my concern, once again, is for Vice-Admiral Norman and that he be able to appear here.

The difference about this place is that it is on the record. It is not in the media where someone else can interpret his remarks and choose to report part and not report another part. It's an official record. It's available for posterity and he would be under the protection of parliamentary privilege so that he does not have to worry about repercussions, in what has been a very difficult situation for him, for anything that he says here.

My interest in moving this motion, once again, is to provide a forum that does not exist in any other form in our country. This is the only place where he can make his comments with the full protection of his right to do so.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Thank you.

MP Gallant.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

At the risk of putting my colleague Mr. O'Toole on the spot, it's clear that members opposite are not aware of the restrictions and the possibility that some type of harm could come to Vice-Admiral Norman should he go directly to the media, in addition to the rationale Mr. Garrison just told us.

Perhaps Mr. O'Toole, having been a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, could let the committee know the types of things that could happen to Vice-Admiral Norman were he to say things in public, as opposed to under the protection of parliamentary privilege.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

That can occur, but we can't have members questioning other members.

I'm going to have to move to MP Spengemann, and then to MP Bezan. Then if Mr. O'Toole wants to jump in there, he can do that.

MP Spengemann.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Chair, again very briefly, I'll make the point that it really should be Vice-Admiral Norman's choice and option to do as he sees fit. If this committee were to extend an invitation to him, that, in itself, would be a political statement with subtle political pressure to come and testify. If he were to write to us and ask to testify, that would be a different scenario. We are not facing that scenario.

I think we should give him the maximum amount of space to depoliticize himself, to the extent that he sees fit, rather than pulling him into a setting within which he may not be comfortable testifying.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

MP Bezan.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

First of all, I want to address what Mr. Spengemann just said. If we actually were to receive a request from Vice-Admiral Norman to appear before our committee so he could tell his story, would you be in favour of making sure that opportunity existed?

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

We'll cross that hurdle if and when it arises. He hasn't written to us, so we don't face that scenario.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I want to follow up on Mrs. Gallant's comment that under the Queen's regulations and orders, Vice-Admiral Norman, as the second-highest ranking officer in the Canadian Armed Forces, has to respect his responsibilities under the National Defence Act. Those regulations and orders were in place the entire time he was suspended. He wasn't fired; he was still in service. He's always had to respect that. Whatever he has said publicly has been in line with his responsibilities under the National Defence Act as vice-admiral of the Canadian Armed Forces. I think that's important.

To go back to Mr. Gerretsen's comment, it's not us saying that you guys are doing a cover-up or that you are trying to hide something; it's going to be perceived by the public as such. I would just say that you have the opportunity to shine a light and at least give Vice-Admiral Mark Norman the opportunity to appear and actually state what happened, in a safe place like Parliament Hill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

MP O'Toole.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a couple of things, and then I'll respond to Ms. Gallant's question.

I'm a bit perplexed by many of my Liberal friends saying that an invitation would be political. This is political. It's about a leak from a cabinet meeting from Scott Brison. It's a breach of trust charge that hung over Vice-Admiral Norman. In fact, he was relieved of his command position as vice-chief of the defence staff well before the actual charge. At its heart, this is political. This is why it's in question period. This is why we would be seized with it.

Mr. Brison is no longer here. Mr. Brison's name was trending on Twitter about a cabinet shuffle if Scott Brison hadn't left. This was actually Scott Brison before. It is political, colleagues, whether you like it or not, and I think, if my friends are convinced that political didn't extend to political interference, then they should have no hesitation to allow some questioning of some of the principals.

Mr. Garrison has at least said that we could allow a form of a protected, appropriate forum for Vice-Admiral Norman to speak at invitation so he can always deny it. I think that's the perfect way to proceed. It is a huge compromise from our large list; we recognize that, but it would be the only forum possible for him to be able to speak. Why? I'll refer to Ms. Gallant's comments that Queen's regulations and orders provide restrictions on political speech for Vice-Admiral Norman, and he is not permitted while serving to make political pronouncements with respect to the government of the day. Any member of the Canadian Armed Forces cannot publicly criticize the government they serve, so he is in a quandary that he can only find relief from at this forum until he retires from the Canadian Armed Forces, and after the last two years, he should be able to be reinstated and make his own decisions about his retirement and how long he'll continue serving.

I appealed, and I wasn't going to speak again. I appealed to specific members because of the unique circumstances and because of the 80,000-plus people, uniformed and civilian, and their families watching this. Rather than the Liberals turning themselves into pretzels to try to find ways not to do this, I think Mr. Garrison's compromise is a perfect ability. If the majority is going to be used to just crush it, just come out and say that. I think that would be more straightforward, as Mr. Bezan said. This is an opportunity for Vice-Admiral Mark Norman to air his concerns about this ordeal, which has been terrible. If they don't want to provide that platform for him, I would prefer you just say that as opposed to impugning motives.

This started with Mr. Brison and a leak and an investigation the Prime Minister ordered, so we did not start this affair. Our responsibility is always to get to the bottom of it. The whip is cracked, and we're going to lose the vote; just do your thing.