Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I really appreciate all your efforts today.
I've really appreciated the very thoughtful and excellent presentations by my colleagues before me.
My comments are going to probably add a bit more colour to the comments that my colleagues have made so far.
I'm going to start off by saying one of the things I had heard before we started this committee session was that this committee is very much influenced by the Prime Minister's Office. I just want to say I've had no calls, no talks, no instruction from anybody from the PMO. Everything I'm about to say is absolutely from my head, from what I believe and from the research and evidence I've been able to gather.
I have listened intently to my colleagues on the other side and I very much appreciate them putting their arguments forward. I've not heard anything yet that makes me want to support this motion.
I'd like to go through a few things. I'm reiterating a number of points that have already been mentioned, but adding a few more elements.
I believe there's absolutely no evidence of political interference. It's been validated not only by the public prosecution office, but also by the RCMP.
The public prosecution office put out a press release on May 8 that said:
In March, 2018, Mr. Norman was charged with one count of breach of trust contrary to s. 122 of the Criminal Code for allegedly leaking confidential information regarding the contract for an interim Auxiliary Replenishment ship with the Canadian shipbuilding company Chantier Davie.
In this case, as in every case prosecuted by the PPSC, only two factors were considered: whether there was reasonable prospect of conviction and, if so, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge. It was the conclusion of the PPSC that both criteria were met when the charge was laid. After reviewing further evidence provided to the prosecution, some from applications for records that were not part of the investigation file...and some volunteered by the defence, the PPSC is no longer of the view that a reasonable prospect of conviction exists. In particular, the Crown has concluded that it will not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Norman’s conduct in this case amounted to a serious and marked departure from the standards expected of a person in his position of trust.
This decision was based on the evidence, the law, and the principles regarding reasonable prospect of conviction, which are set out in the PPSC Deskbook....
No other factors were considered in this decision” said Kathleen Roussel, Director of Public Prosecutions “nor was there any contact or influence from outside the PPSC, including political [interference] in either the initial decision to prosecute Mr. Norman or in the decision to stay the charge today.”
The principle of prosecutorial independence is key to the PPSC’s mandate. PPSC prosecutors are expected to be objective, independent, and dispassionate in the exercise of their duties, and to exercise those duties in a manner free from any improper influence, including political influence.
The Canadian Press put out an article on May 14. The Canadian Press interviewed the RCMP, and the article said:
In an interview Tuesday with The Canadian Press, two RCMP officers involved with the Norman probe emphasized the importance of independence in their work....
The Mounties insist their work on the Norman file was thorough, independent and highly professional.
From both of those groups there is absolute validation that there is no evidence of political interference.
As my colleague in the House, Minister Blair, mentioned yesterday, our responsibility is to ensure that the integrity of the judicial process is maintained. I believe it has been maintained.
The second point that had been mentioned is why Vice-Admiral Norman was singled out, out of, I believe, 73 people who were listed, and that decision to do so was politically motivated.
My colleague, Mr. Virani, in the House yesterday mentioned there were three factors that are really important to reiterate. First, the decision to conduct investigations is made by the RCMP, which is independent; second, the decision to lay charges and take someone to court is made by the Director of Public Prosecutions, who is independent; and third, the decision to withdraw a charge is made by the Director of Public Prosecutions, who is independent.
For me, all those decisions absolutely had no political interference.
There was also some talk about documents and a delay in sending them in or trying to hide some things. Again, my colleague in the House yesterday was very articulate, and he warrants repeating.
He mentioned the process of how these documents are identified and how they get to the actual court system. He said that the way it works is that, on an O'Connor application for third party records, the documents are identified and then, if there are claims of privilege, the issue goes to the court. Then the court goes into the claims of privilege, ascertains whether they are valid or not and makes a decision. That is how one respects the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary.
My understanding is that initially when there was a demand for third party records, 144,000 were identified, then they were further culled to make sure that they were relevant to the case at hand, and that's where the 8,000 number came up. Then the claims of cabinet confidence are made, not made by the members of the political staff but by civil servants. When those claims of privilege are made, a judge then verifies if they are valid or invalid. My understanding is this happens in litigation in this country every day, and nothing was different in this particular case.
The next point I want to talk to is that I, too, believe that this is a bit of a fabricated partisan exercise. I think that it moves us away from talking about some of the key issues of the day. Every week I have a meeting with my team, and on Thursday mornings they tell me what is top of mind for them. The things that matter in my riding of Davenport now are the urgency of our taking more and fast action on climate change. They are worried about making sure that they have the skills they need to continue to be successful on an ongoing basis. They want to ensure that our arts community continues to be successful in downtown Toronto, and they are very concerned about the Ford government's cuts to education, public health, public transportation and libraries. I wanted to mention all of those in terms of what is top of mind for the people in my riding of Davenport.
Then I was very taken by Mr. Gerretsen's comments at the beginning of this session because I, too, had a lot of those questions in my mind. I think where I've landed is that we have a number of independent groups with highly respected professionals. We rely on them to do their jobs to the very best of their ability, and I think that has absolutely happened in this case. I think it's also up to them to review, in every instance, if there's anything that needs to be improved or anything that needs to be done differently as they move forward.
I don't hear anything yet that causes me to feel that I should be supporting this motion before us. I appreciate the opportunity to be able to speak today.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.