Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the opposition for taking the time to explain their points and for bringing forward this motion through Standing Order 106(4).
I'd like to point out that this committee, for the last three and half years, has been a very strong committee, in my opinion. It has worked very well together. It has travelled and done studies together. It has advanced policy and studies that Parliament and the government have been able to reflect on.
I would also say that the vast majority of those reports came forward in a unanimous fashion, where we all sought compromise to find ways to move forward so that we could have unanimous reports and show the strength of the entire committee working together collaboratively.
It has been an honour for me, as we near the end of this session of Parliament, to have had the opportunity to serve on this committee, and in particular with the members of the opposition.
When I first learned of this—and what I have stated to this point was that I am very much interested in understanding why the opposition parties thought it was necessary to bring this forward. I've made a point of trying to stay objective in this and trying to receive as much information and understanding as to why the opposition felt the need to do this.
Mr. Bezan, I don't have prepared written notes. I really wanted to hear what you had to say, so that I could try to formulate an opinion on it. I heard a number of the comments that Mr. Bezan made, and that Mr. Garrison made. I just want to go through a couple of them.
Mr. Bezan started by talking about why the charges were laid and whether or not they were politically motivated. The one thing that we know and that's been extremely clear is that the Public Prosecution Service and the defence for Vice-Admiral Norman have both indicated that there was no political interference. The defence for the vice-admiral said this.
The other issue is this. I know that it's linked, and Mr. Bezan and Mr. Garrison, in previous conversations we've had, have linked the PCO element to this. Where does the Privy Council Office fall into this? I find it unfortunate that members are treating the PCO and talking about the PCO as though it's some kind of political organization. It is a department of the government, and it has a responsibility like all departments to look into matters when matters are brought forward to it. If the PCO thinks that something illegal has happened, it can inform the RCMP so that the RCMP can get involved.
Another issue that was brought up by Mr. Bezan was with respect to the release of documents, and why documents were being kept secret. Some 8,000 documents were released by the government, perhaps not in accordance with the timeline the opposition would have liked, but there's a process for the release of documents. With respect to these documents, all were released by the government and all were released in their full form. The redaction and confirmation of the redaction was handled by the court as it related to what the courts thought was relevant and what needed to be shared with both sides of this case.
The other issue that Mr. Bezan raised was about former prime minister Harper allowing the release of confidential documents. Unfortunately, the former prime minister does not have the authority to release those documents at this point. It's all good to say that he would release them but, to the best of my understanding, it would not be within his authority to do that.
We also heard about using secret names and code words. Mr. Bezan has raised this quite a few times in question period. I know that an individual came forward to state this, however, the chief of the defence staff, when questioned on this, said categorically that it never happened. This is the chief of the defence staff saying this.
There is also questioning as to MP Leslie and his sudden decision to not run again in the next election. MP Leslie made his reasoning extremely clear about why he was choosing to make this decision and that he fully supported this government and the direction that this government has been taking.
Then, of course, Mr. Bezan raised the question of what evidence led to the stay that occurred, because, as a result, charges are not currently being pursued anymore against the vice-admiral. I think that's a really good question. There are a lot of really good questions. The issue that I have is whether this is the forum in which those questions should be answered.
I'll give you an example of one of those questions that I'd love answered. It appears as though, after interviewing three former Conservative cabinet ministers—one of whom is sitting at this table—the prosecution service decided not to proceed at the current time with the charges. I'm not so much interested in wanting to know what was said. I'm more interested to know this: If information came forward from previous Conservative ministers, why did they wait so long to bring that information forward? Why wasn't that information brought forward at the earliest convenient time in order to exonerate Vice-Admiral Norman? I think that's the question.
I respect the fact that I'm a politician and I do not represent or work for an independent body such as the prosecution service or the RCMP. I also respect the fact that it's somebody else's job to get down to figuring out if illegal activities happened, and if they did, who's responsible.
I really appreciate Mr. Garrison's comments and what he had to offer to this. My only concern is that Mr. Garrison focused on giving Vice-Admiral Norman the opportunity to tell his story. I think that it's entirely possible for him to tell his story, and in fact, he's even implied that he will be telling his story. I don't think it needs to be done before a parliamentary committee in order for him to be able to tell that story.
He also referenced the minister's comment about regrets. I don't know for a fact why the minister said that, but I think that the average person would assume that when somebody says, “I regret to have seen somebody go through that”, it's a general statement. I can say that I regret that too. I think everybody in this room regrets the fact that somebody had to go through that, in particular, when it now appears as though they shouldn't have gone through it.
To Mr. Garrison's points about addressing and telling the story, this motion is so much more than just asking Vice-Admiral Norman to come here and tell his story. This is a motion that in my opinion...and perhaps the only thing that I agree with Mr. Bezan on is his comment earlier when he said that this seems politically motivated. Indeed, it does seem politically motivated.
What seems politically motivated is that the Conservatives refuse to accept the fact that there was no political interference in this because it doesn't fit the narrative that they're trying to advance. I don't know why that is. I can speculate on it and I can imagine that it's because the economy is booming. We're seeing the best economic activity this country has seen in generations. We have unemployment at the lowest it's been in generations. We have 300,000 fewer children in poverty than we did in 2015. I see the motivation behind this, because there's really nothing else to go after.
I came here wanting to know and wanting to understand a good reason this motion should be passed and this study should be done. I'm open to continuing to listen to what other members have to say. Unfortunately, all that I'm seeing at this point is that there's a particular motive when all the evidence suggesting that this should happen is not supporting that.
With that, Mr. Chair, I'll yield the floor back to you.