Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.
I signed the letter asking for today's meeting to consider hearings by the defence committee into what will always be known as the Vice-Admiral Norman case, involving the abandoned breach of trust prosecution.
I did so primarily because I was concerned about, and I remain concerned about, damage to Vice-Admiral Norman, who served this country with honour and distinction. I'm concerned about damage to his career, I'm concerned about financial damage that he may have suffered. I am concerned about the impacts on his family of this long, drawn-out process. Most importantly, I am concerned about the damage to his reputation as a naval officer.
I believe that we have sufficient evidence in public to suggest political interference in this failed prosecution, especially in the wake of the SNC-Lavalin affair, which also raised very serious concerns about attempted interference in a prosecution.
There are three specific reasons I felt this committee should hold hearings. The most important of those for me was to give the chance for Vice-Admiral Norman to tell his story in public. The government has virtually unlimited possibilities for telling its story and getting attention to its version. Even the opposition parties have a lot of space in public to talk about this case. Vice-Admiral Norman doesn't have that opportunity. I think it's very important he be afforded an opportunity to come here—and as he said, he has more to say—to say that on the record in public before this committee.
The second reason was to examine the role of the defence minister. There many aspects of this case that touch on a minister who we provide oversight for in this Parliament. There are the questions about the handling, or not handling, of evidence needed by the defence in this case. There are questions about the treatment of Vice-Admiral Norman during this whole process. Finally, there's the question of redress, which would largely be the responsibility of the minister.
My desire to hear from the minister increased when he made his statement saying he was expressing regret about what had happened. To me, the word “regret” implies some kind of agency. What is it actually that he regrets? Is there something that he did that he regrets or something that he didn't do that he regrets? I would like the minister to have a chance to explain the statement of regret before this committee.
The third reason is that there is a long list here, and I believe there are others who may have pertinent information about this case and that they should also have the chance to come forward and explain their actions, their inactions or what evidence they might have.
If there is, as a result of these hearings, direct evidence of contact between the PCO and/or the PMO with the office of the prosecutor, this raises very serious concerns about the independence of our justice system from political interference. I think it's important that we answer that question to the best of our ability.
The final thing I want to say is that without these hearings, I'm not sure that Vice-Admiral Norman can ever be made whole, that we can ever restore him, even if financially, partially compensated. Really, can he restore his reputation without the chance to come here and tell the committee his side of the story? For those reasons, I would hope that we would proceed to hold the hearings as outlined in the letter.
Thank you.