Debates of May 15th, 2019

Department of National Defence—Main Estimates, 2019-20

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Tonight's debate is a general one on the votes under Department of National Defence. The first round will begin with the official opposition, followed by the government and the New Democratic Party. After that, we will follow the usual proportional rotation.

Each member will be allocated 15 minutes at a time, which may be used for both debate or for posing questions. Members wishing to use this time to make a speech have a maximum of 10 minutes, which leaves at least five minutes for questions to the minister.

When a member is recognized, he or she should indicate to the Chair how the 15-minute period will be used, in other words, how much time will be spent on the speech and how much time will be used for questions and answers. Members should also note that they will need the unanimous consent of the committee to split their time with another member. When the time is to be used for questions and comments, the Chair will expect that the minister's response will reflect approximately the time taken by the question, as that time counts toward the time allocated to the party.

I also wish to indicate that in committee of the whole, comments should be addressed to the Chair. I ask for everyone's co-operation in upholding all established standards of decorum, parliamentary language and behaviour.

We will now begin tonight's session.

The House is in committee of the whole, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), consideration in committee of the whole of the votes under Department of National Defence in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2020.

Debate, the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

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

Madam Chair, I will be using my time for questions.

This is the third time in four years that the Minister of National Defence has had to appear at a committee of the whole. That is not because we are fond of him but because we have some concerns about the way he has managed the department.

The most recent report from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute on fighter jets says in the conclusion that the current government has put its own partisan political interests ahead of the interests of the Canadian Armed Forces and the men and women who serve us in uniform and ahead of our national security.

Yesterday, as members know, we passed in this House a unanimous motion to recognize Vice-Admiral Mark Norman for his loyal service to Canada. We expressed regret for the personal and professional hardship he endured from his failed prosecution, and this House apologized to him and his family for what they had experienced.

The minister, in interviews this past weekend, said that he regrets what happened to Vice-Admiral Norman and he regrets the process. Will he apologize now directly to Vice-Admiral Norman on behalf of the Government of Canada?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Madam Chair, it is nice to be back in committee of the whole. I disagree with the member; I fully believe that he actually just wanted to get together in this beautiful forum here for a discussion. Next time, he can just pick up the phone and I will be happy to have a discussion.

As we saw yesterday, this place unanimously passed a motion to recognize Vice-Admiral Norman for his decades of service to Canada and to express regret for the hardship he has endured over the past few years during this independent process.

Like the rest of the chamber, I support this motion, but I want to assure my colleagues that this was the result of an independent process since the beginning.

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

Madam Chair, that regret and apology was on behalf of the House. What about an apology on behalf of the Government of Canada, and in particular an apology on behalf of the Department of National Defence, which orchestrated his suspension and the charges that were ultimately brought forward?

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

Madam Chair, I am part of the House, and as I stated, I agreed with the motion that was passed unanimously.

I also want to stress, as I have before, the quote from the prosecution. It said, “No other factors were considered in this decision, nor was there any conduct or influence from outside the PPSC, including political influence in either the initial decision to prosecute Mr. Norman or in the decision to stay the charge.”

In addition to this, when the circumstances changed—

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The answers should be approximately the length of the questions. Maybe the minister will be able to add to his comments.

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

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

Madam Chair, I guess the minister of defence has the same problem as the Prime Minister in that he has trouble saying sorry when he is personally involved but will apologize for things that are completely unrelated to the administration of his department or the Government of Canada.

As members know, the minister is a former police officer, so I would think he would have some interest in how this investigation was carried out. Why was this issue not dealt with through the military court martial system? What investigation was carried out by military police and the national investigation service concerning Vice-Admiral Mark Norman?

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

Madam Chair, I thank the member for recognizing my military service.

We have to realize that when an investigation is launched by our police forces, including the RCMP, it is independent of the government. We need to make sure that this is respected. That is exactly what we did, including in the investigation, while respecting the independence of the judicial system.

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

Madam Chair, my question asked what the military police and the national investigation service dug up first in their investigation, before Vice-Admiral Mark Norman was suspended?

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

Madam Chair, DND does not charge people. As I said, once information was put forward, there was an importance to remain independent in the investigation. This is how we respect the processes within our democracy.

Our police service is independent and our judicial service is independent, and we have respected this all the way through.

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

Madam Chair, on what date did the minister learn that Vice-Admiral Mark Norman was going to be suspended, and did he sign off on that suspension?

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

Madam Chair, I was notified in the month of January. I do not remember the exact date. I was notified by the chief of the defence staff and the deputy minister at the time, who provided information to me. I supported the decision that the chief of the defence staff made at that time.

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

Madam Chair, just yesterday in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister said during question period, “Measures were brought forward against the vice-admiral at the direction of the chief of defence staff. That is known by everyone.” The Prime Minister then reasserted that statement.

Based on what evidence did the chief of the defence staff order Vice-Admiral Mark Norman to be suspended?

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

Madam Chair, I supported the decision of the chief of the defence staff when it was brought to my attention. As I stated here—and it is very important—the entire process, from the beginning, has been independent. It is the most important way to respect someone's service. I have deep respect for Vice-Admiral Norman's service, as I do with all members here.

In this case here, not only the prosecution but also the defence confirmed the independence of the system.

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

Madam Chair, the minister keeps referring to the process and that he took the recommendation of General Vance, chief of the defence staff, who ordered the suspension of the vice chief at the time, Vice-Admiral Norman.

Is the vice chief of the defence staff not appointed on the minister's authority? If that is the case, why was he not suspended by the minister's authority?

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

Madam Chair, as the member knows, since he was parliamentary secretary to the minister of national defence at the time the Conservatives were in government, the chief of the defence staff has the sole responsibility for the administration and command of the Canadian Armed Forces, and that authority is actually under the chief of the defence staff.

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

Madam Chair, I will ask again. Did the Minister of National Defence personally sign off on the suspension of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman?

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

Madam Chair, when it comes to the administration of the Canadian Armed Forces, this is the chief of the defence staff's responsibility, something that I respect. When the decision was made, I supported it.

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

As you know, Madam Chair, throughout this whole process, the Liberal government has been accused of withholding evidence and dragging its feet in turning over documents that were subpoenaed by the defence team of Vice-Admiral Norman. I would like to know who in the Department of National Defence counselled the minister's staff not to search their private cellphones and emails when instructed to do so by the court.

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

Madam Chair, we take the matter of ATIP requests and subpoenas very seriously. I had a discussion with the deputy minister to make sure that we had the appropriate resources to deliver on this. The department does get a lot of requests, and all the steps within the process were followed.

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

Madam Chair, we learned through the process that the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces tried to hide evidence and skirt around access-to-information laws. We know for a fact that they used code names to get around it. They would go to any lengths, in both the minister's office and within the department, to stifle any dissent, and they would roll over anyone getting in the way of their agenda.

How many times was the code name “Kraken” used to reference Vice-Admiral Norman in documents?

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

Madam Chair, no code names were used. When it comes to the entire process, it has been independent from the start to the finish. This has been confirmed by the prosecution and the defence, and the witnesses who testified allowed their testimony to stand.

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

We know, Madam Chair, that there were code names used. We know that because a whistle-blower within the Department of National Defence testified at the pretrial hearings for Vice-Admiral Norman, and that individual asked to be protected so that there would be no repercussions or reprisals brought against him.

Will the minister personally guarantee that this individual will not be subject to reprisals for speaking out?

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

Madam Chair, from the start until today, the entire process has been independent. We produced 80,000 documents, and 18,000 documents were reviewed.

Absolutely none of this would happen. We encourage any of our members, if there is any wrongdoing, to come forward, but what is very important is that it has been confirmed by the defence and the prosecution that the process from the beginning until today has been completely independent.

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

Madam Chair, just because he is using Liberal spin and trying to hide behind a few words about independence does not make it true.

It was reported by David Pugliese on December 20, 2018, as follows:

...one witness Norman’s lawyers called revealed that his superior, a Canadian Forces brigadier general, told him Norman’s name was deliberately not used in internal files—meaning any search conducted for records about Norman would come up empty....

The witness, a military officer, told the court that he was processing an access-to-information request in 2017 that returned no results. When he sought clarification, [he was] told: “Don’t worry, this isn’t our first rodeo. ... Send back the nil return.”

I have to say that there is a culture within the minister's office to hide documentation and withhold evidence from attempts to mount a real, true independent defence.

Now I will move on. The minister's former chief of staff, Zita Astravas, was also told and coached by lawyers within the Department of National Defence not to search her personal phones for references to Vice-Admiral Norman.

Why was the minister's former chief of staff counselled to disobey a subpoena issued by a court?