Madam Speaker, as I was stating prior to question period, the Government of Canada has had no inappropriate involvement in the case in question. Allegations of political interference in the prosecution of the case are absolutely false and without merit.
As the Public Prosecution Service of Canada has made clear, “The PPSC has not sought or received instructions in respect of the prosecution of Mr. Norman from the Privy Council Office or any other government department or body.”
The director of public prosecutions, Ms. Kathleen Roussel, went on to say that “I am confident that our prosecutors, in this and every other case, exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.”
The sub judice convention exists to protect the parties in a case awaiting or undergoing trial and persons who stand to be affected by the outcome of a judicial inquiry. It is a critical element in maintaining the fairness of the criminal trial process before the court. To protect and maintain fairness, the rule restrains parliamentarians on statements made about ongoing legal proceedings, especially criminal cases, before the courts. For this very important reason, members of Parliament are expected to refrain from discussing matters that are before the courts.
In respect of Vice-Admiral Norman’s legal expenses, the government’s policy on legal assistance and indemnification establishes the framework to provide legal assistance and indemnification to Crown servants and matters greatly for the protection of the Crown’s interest, the fair treatment of its employees and the effective management of an organization. Where an individual makes an application to the government for assistance and indemnification under the policy, the application receives fair consideration and a decision is made, as was the case in respect of the vice-admiral.
For the rest of my time, I would like to once again address an issue that has come up several times over the course of this debate.
That concerns the issue of sub judice. We have heard this repeated over and over again in the context of this debate and in today's question period.
There is no better encapsulation of this than the one provided by the Hon. Peter Van Loan in the House on May 11, 2015, when he was a member of the previous government. Quoting House of Commons Procedure and Practice at page 504, he said:
...Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters before the courts, or under judicial consideration, in order to protect those involved in a court action or judicial inquiry against any undue influence through the discussion of the case. ... It is deemed improper for a Member, in posing a question, or a Minister, in responding to a question, to comment on any matter that is [before the courts].
The position to invoke the sub judice rule was taken by the Harper government on no fewer than 300 different occasions in this country. It is important to note this, because people need to understand that what is being asked here is that we directly intervene.
I will end by noting that I find it highly ironic that the opposition, through this motion, is demanding that our government politically interfere in an independent prosecution that is currently before the Ontario Court of Justice.