Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My remarks are going to touch on a few elements of the Vice-Admiral Mark Norman affair, but I'll begin with some context, and I appreciate the ability for us to go beyond the session. We know that this is really an attempt by Conservative and NDP members of this committee to appeal to at least a few of the Liberal MPs to examine the Mark Norman affair. As I said before the committee began, he has given 38 years of service to Canada. I think we can afford him a few hours of examination into this ordeal.
In Kingston today, the Minister of National Defence, the Honourable Harjit Sajjan, is involved in the awarding of degrees and, tomorrow, the commissioning scripts of about 300 young men and women at the Royal Military College of Canada.
I know Mr. Gerretsen knows about that; he is proud of that school.
What are we telling future leaders within the Canadian Armed Forces if Parliament is prepared to vote against a simple inquiry into the most controversial incident regarding a senior member of the Canadian Armed Forces in my lifetime? I say that as a veteran. What are we saying to the 300 young men and women who, tomorrow, get their commission to serve our country, when we cannot examine the ordeal that Vice-Admiral Norman has gone through?
Mr. Chair, you and I were at a charitable event last night. A couple from B.C. came to me and said that they sat on the plane from British Columbia to Ottawa with someone in the navy. They said that within five minutes the woman they sat with was talking about the Mark Norman affair and how deeply it upset her and her comrades in the Royal Canadian Navy. That is why this parliamentary committee should be seized with the matter.
I won't go into it in much detail, but Mr. Spengemann does a disservice to examination of the Mark Norman affair, because there is so much to examine.
The Privy Council Office, unfortunately, under clerk Wernick, became politicized and Canadians saw that through SNC-Lavalin and the affair. It was the Privy Council Office that commenced this ordeal for Mr. Norman. It appears that, out of 73 who were aware of cabinet leaks from the November 2015 cabinet meeting, his was the one name that was given to the RCMP. That led to a breach of trust charge—not related to a sole-source contract with Davie, but related to the breach of trust from the cabinet meeting of attempts to interfere with or delay that contract.
I want my friends on the other side to realize this. Former prime minister Harper, Premier Kenney and I have all said that we'd be happy to waive all cabinet minutes. I would be happy to testify at length about the reason why a sole-source contract for an auxiliary oiler replenishment vessel was made with the only shipyard available to fulfill that contract at the time.
The breach of trust charge does not stem from that. Clearly, at some point the DPP and the RCMP determined there were sufficient grounds to lay a single charge of breach of trust against Vice-Admiral Norman based on leaks from the November 2015 cabinet meeting, which, for the record, I was not at. I was a former minister by that point.
To suggest that I or other people were sitting on information that would exonerate Mr. Norman does a disservice to Mr. Norman. It also shows an obtuse approach to looking at this issue, and it's an attempt to hide a proper examination of the issues.
This lays it at the feet of the Privy Council, and my colleague Mr. Bezan highlighted that. When a lawyer for the Privy Council, who does advise the Prime Minister.... That is their function. It's normally not political, but it has been politicized under this Prime Minister. When Paul Shuttle, a lawyer with the PCO, attempts to talk to the prosecution to “engineer the issues at stake”, that is deeply concerning and reveals, from the beginning, political direction. The code words reveal potential political deception and delay.
Don't take my word for delay on its face. Let's quote counsel to Vice-Admiral Norman, Marie Henein, who many Liberal MPs have enjoyed quoting from time to time in the last week. She said, “We have been, and you have all been with us for six months as we have tried day in and day out to try to get that material. It should have been handed over. It should have been handed over to the RCMP. It should have been handed over to the prosecution. It was not. As to why, I don't know. I leave you to answer that.”
We are the “you”. We are seized to examine these matters. She was speaking to the media, but really, counsel to Vice-Admiral Norman was speaking to us. She was speaking to Mr. Gerretsen and Mr. Fisher.
Why do I talk about those gentlemen? I know they care a great deal about the military communities they represent, having served in both their communities. CFB Shearwater, or 12 Wing Shearwater, is adjacent to Mr. Fisher's riding, but as he knows, many families live in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. RMC is having a very special weekend, and Base Kingston, I know, is very important to Mr. Gerretsen. They represent those communities, and I want to see that today.
I know the parliamentary secretary, who is here, attended a lovely graduation ceremony and is very proud of the military service in her family. I'd like to see her represent that today, because our modest proposal is not a royal commission of inquiry. We owe Vice-Admiral Norman and military families watching this case a few hours of examination. And I'm sorry if it's an election year.
As I've said, I'd be happy to have my cabinet discussion documents waived over the contract to Davie, which, by the way, was on time, on budget. Asterix is serving with our military now, making sure we have a blue-water navy as a G7 country.
I know, Mr. Chair, as a veteran you value our ability to project our force, project our capabilities, on our own, not in reliance on other people, not begging, borrowing and stealing. All parties own some blame for letting the navy get to the position where we were relying on one tanker. When there was a fire on the Protecteur, our patchwork to get to the new ships fell apart, and that's why there was a sole-source. It was done well. We should all be applauding Vice-Admiral Norman, not apologizing to him in the House of Commons.
I'll loop back. I'm making an appeal here to Mr. Gerretsen, as MP for Kingston and the Islands; Mr. Fisher, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour; and Ms. Romanado. I'm not sure if she votes here or not. This is more important than the regular stuff we engage in, because this is an opportunity for the committee to make sure that this type of thing never happens again, so that the 300 young men and women getting their commission, serving where we ask them to, know that their government has their six....
We're not going to let another ordeal like this happen again. I know they probably share as many of the concerns and questions as I do. Maybe there was not interference in the delays in the PCO investigation, the code words. I will correct Mr. Gerretsen. The chief of the defence staff did not deny the use of code words. He gave context to the fact that acronyms and things like this are used. In my experience, I don't remember “Kraken” being used in my time in the forces—maybe call signs. Maybe you had a comrade with an unusual name like that, Mr. Chair, but this is the very context. There are questions for the chief of the defence staff. There are questions for Canadian Armed Forces leadership.
That's why my colleague's list is, I think, a reasonable one. Even if we pare it down, which we'd be amenable to, I think we owe it to our men and women in uniform to examine this to the extent we can, and offer, as my colleague Ms. Gallant said, a safe space for Mr. Norman, who has restrictions with respect to political speech while he is in the military and while he is in the process of being reinstated.
You can see I care a great deal. I'll reiterate, he's given 38 years. I'll give context: you may know that his father, General Norman, served as well. Every day of his life, Mark Norman has either been in a military family serving our country or in uniform serving our country. Thirty-eight years, let's give him a few hours.