Debates of May 15th, 2019

Department of National Defence—Main Estimates, 2019-20

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

I have pictures.

As the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said, “The only tweet that the Conservatives will not change is their affiliation with Faith Goldy. They seem to be very proud when it comes to those actions.” It is out there for Canadians to see whether they like it or not.

When it comes to association with far right movements, personalities and ideas, could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence inform the House how racist—

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Chair, I rise on a point of order. We are talking about the Department of National Defence and the main estimates in committee of the whole. I believe the member is completely off base here. I would ask her to come back to actually talk about things that are important to the brave men and women in uniform who serve our country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for his point of order. Certainly relevance is an issue. I am mindful of the fact that in debate, even in committee of the whole on issues pertaining to the budgetary expenses, in this case, of the Department of National Defence, there is a broad range of liberty given to members. However, the debate should be centred on the expenses and the nature of programming as it relates to the department in question that is before us. I would ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to keep that in mind in the course of her remarks and comments.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Chair, I thank my Kanata—Carleton colleague for her 31 years of service with the Canadian Armed Forces.

Our government and the entire leadership of the Canadian Armed Forces are committed to building a defence team with values of diversity, respect and inclusion. As members know, racist attitudes are totally unacceptable and incompatible with our military, with us and with every military service. We have measures in place to ensure that conduct reflecting such attitudes will not be tolerated and may result in disciplinary action.

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, maybe my hon. colleagues will like this question better.

In 2013, defence spending was $15.6 billion, dropping below 1% GDP under the previous government. In 2018, defence spending was $21.3 billion. The Leader of the Opposition's plan for defence has no specifics, and that means perhaps more cuts for our men and women in uniform all over again. They will not even have their electoral platform costed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Could the parliamentary secretary compare that lack of vision and transparency with our own defence policy?

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for her question.

We have reinvested massive amounts in the Department of National Defence, partly through our national defence policy. The former government withdrew from the world stage, but we brought Canada back.

Our defence policy includes $32.5 billion in spending and a 70% increase over the next 10 years. We will keep working hand in hand with our NORAD and NATO allies.

We will keep making crucial investments in key areas of our department for our men and women in uniform.

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, the government understands that diversity is our strength and an essential factor in mission success. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence tell us how we are working to meet our objective to increase the representation of women by 1% every year over the next 10 years to 25% of the overall force?

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Chair, we do indeed want to increase personnel. We also want to increase the number of women in the Canadian Armed Forces. That is why we have made some changes. For example, female candidates will be moved to the top of the waiting list when they apply for military college. We will also give former female soldiers the opportunity to re-enlist. We launched the women in force program to show women the benefits of a military career. We want to increase diversity and the number of women. That is exactly what Canadians expect of us.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Chair, it has been an interesting night so far.

I want to go back to the Minister of National Defence on a number of issues that were raised.

As we know, in the Vice-Admiral Norman case, the minister has said publicly, and in here tonight, that he regrets the fact that Vice-Admiral Norman had to go through this legal process.

Let us be clear. Did the minister say that Vice-Admiral Norman had to go through this? Exactly how does the minister feel about the vice-admiral having to be subjected to the RCMP investigation? Does he regret that the RCMP did a search and seizure of Vice-Admiral Norman's home; that he lost his position, for two years, as the vice-chief of the defence staff; that there were over two years of uncertainty and disruption of his great career; that there was stigma associated with the powers of state being brought to bear against him and that his reputation was besmirched?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, as I have stated before, I regret that Vice-Admiral Norman had to go through this. I can understand how difficult it must have been for him and his family, but it is also important to note that the entire process has been completely independent, as I stated and as has been verified by the prosecution and the defence. We needed to make sure that we respected his service and that we respected the actual process within Canada.

When the situation changed, the criteria were met, and I have authorized the reimbursement of the legal fees.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Chair, he regrets it. Now that Vice-Admiral Norman has been exonerated, will the minister apologize on behalf of the Department of National Defence?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, as I stated when we started the committee of the whole, I completely agreed with the unanimous consent with regard to the motion.

The best way to respect someone, and I respect Vice-Admiral Norman's service in this country, is to respect the process. We have respected the process, as confirmed by the prosecution and the defence.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Chair, through this process, documents were withheld that would have exonerated Vice-Admiral Norman a long time ago. Will the minister publicly table in this House those documents that were withheld from Vice-Admiral Norman?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, it is extremely important to give someone the full opportunity and show respect for someone's service and the actual process.

That process has been completely independent. Our department worked to make sure that all the requirements were met. In fact, I spoke to the deputy minister to make sure that we had the appropriate resources in place to support that process.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Chair, in the minister's mandate letter, it said that they were going to increase accountability and transparency and that when his department, or he himself, messed up, they were going to come clean and be fully transparent.

Canadians deserve some answers here. Will the Minister of National Defence provide those answers and table the documents Canadians want to see?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, through this entire process, independence has been respected. That has been verified by the prosecution in terms of the case. I am happy to quote the prosecution:

No other factors were considered in this decision, nor was there any contact or influence from outside the PPSC.

That is the best way to respect someone's service to this country.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Chair, that is actually taking a quote out of context, because what the prosecution said, as well as what the defence lawyer said, was that in the staying of the proceedings and the dropping of the court case, there was no political interference. However, as Marie Henein pointed out, the government was trying to put its fingers on the scales of justice to tip them in the government's favour.

Obstruction of information, withholding of documents and coaching of witnesses is what we got from the government.

We already know that the Prime Minister, publicly, on two occasions, said, before the charges were laid against Vice-Admiral Norman, that he was going to be charged. Why did the Prime Minister think that? Did the Minister of National Defence or his department provide information to the PMO to suggest that they were going to be charging Vice-Admiral Norman, even before charges were laid?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, just because the member opposite makes an accusation does not make it true. In this case, we have the appropriate judicial process within Canada, and that is what we have respected in making sure of the independence. We have been fully co-operative. No DND documents were withheld. Through this entire process, it has been completely independent, and nothing was taken out of context. I am actually quoting the statement directly.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Chair, one of the major fundamentals in our independent judicial system is that people are innocent until proven guilty. When these charges were brought against Vice-Admiral Norman, he went to the Department of National Defence for legal funding assistance. Who in the Department of National Defence made the decision to withhold those funds, essentially saying one is guilty until one proves one is innocent?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, the entire judicial process has been respected all the way through. When it came to the legal fees, the former deputy minister at that time made the decision that the criteria were not met. When the situation changed, the criteria were met and I immediately authorized the reimbursement of the legal fees.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Chair, who made the decision to withhold legal assistance? When everybody else in the PMO and within departmental staff were allowed to lawyer up on this case, including members of Parliament, were allowed to get their legal fees covered by the Government of Canada, who in the minister's office or in the Department of National Defence made the decision that Vice-Admiral Norman was not worthy to have legal assistance?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, as I stated, the criteria were not met, as decided by the former deputy minister. Once the circumstances had changed, it was reviewed, the criteria were met and I immediately authorized reimbursement of the legal fees.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Chair, the minister is not answering the questions. He said on TV this weekend that the criteria have changed. Who changed the criteria that made it possible for Vice-Admiral Norman to finally have his legal fees paid after the government almost bankrupted him?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, I said the criteria were met. Because the situation had changed, the criteria were met, and based on that new information and that change, I immediately authorized the reimbursement of the legal fees.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Chair, I want to change gears a little. I want to get back to a previous question about the Auditor General's report 3, from the fall of 2018, and the Macdonald-Laurier Institute report on Canada's future fighter replacement, “The Catastrophe: Assessing the Damage from Canada's Fighter Replacement Fiasco”. I recommend that the minister actually read this report. It is a condemnation of the government's management of the Department of National Defence and procurement in general.

In that report it clearly stated that the Auditor General, in a draft report, recommended in paragraph 59 that “National Defence should not purchase interim aircraft until it implements a plan to recruit and train pilots and technicians.”

Who in the department would intimidate the independent office of the Auditor General to remove that recommendation?