James Bezan

[Business of Supply, May 15th, 2019]

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?

[Business of Supply, May 15th, 2019]

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?

[Business of Supply, May 15th, 2019]

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?

[Business of Supply, May 15th, 2019]

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?

[Business of Supply, May 15th, 2019]

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?

[Business of Supply, May 15th, 2019]

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?

[Business of Supply, May 15th, 2019]

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.

[Business of Supply, May 15th, 2019]

Madam Chair, based upon what happened to Vice-Admiral Mark Norman and the fact that he was used as an example by the government to start this witch hunt, the government has brought in a culture of fear and intimidation through lifetime gag orders.

Will the Minister of National Defence please explain why he needs to put lifetime gag orders on his staff, who are military members, as well as going across other departments within the Canadian government? Was it all about intimidation? Was it all about a culture of fear and using Mark Norman as the minister's whipping boy?

[Business of Supply, May 15th, 2019]

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?

[Business of Supply, May 15th, 2019]

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?