House of Commons photoLost her last election, in 2019, with 36% of the vote.
Mr. Chair, would the minister agree with me that the Crown has a duty of disclosure specifically when it comes to making sure that the defence has everything it needs in order to exculpate itself if it does have the documents in its possession? Does he not agree that this is exactly what the duty of the Crown is in this matter?
Mr. Chair, is the minister aware that the application for the production of these documents commenced on October 12, 2018?
Mr. Chair, not quite. On February 22, the defence was in possession of zero documents. Would the minister agree with me on that?
Mr. Chair, I am going to argue with the minister on that point. I do not believe the court indicated it was satisfied. In fact, as the minister should know, the actual application was never determined. In fact, the staying of the charge came prior to the judge weighing in on it, but there is much obiter from the judge on her concerns about the documents and how slowly they were coming forward, if they were coming forward at all.
The minister indicated today that the department had turned over all documents that were needed. Will the minister say that once again in the House of Commons now?
Mr. Chair, at the end of a press conference with respect to the staying of charges with respect to Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, counsel actually said the following, which I would like to read if I may:
There are lots of questions that need to be asked and answered about this whole process the last couple of years. And I think some people who have been involved in this need to reflect on what happened and why it happened and their role in it.
Would the minister agree that it is appropriate for him to order a commission of inquiry within his department pursuant to the Inquiries Act?
That is actually not the quote, Mr. Chair. What the act actually says is that it is when the case will attract great public interest. I can think of no case that has attracted more public interest, other than SNC-Lavalin, than the case of Mark Norman.
Once again, could the minister tell me whether the director of public prosecutions provided a section 13 notice. I might as well go further to tell him what I am driving at. I would like to know whether cabinet discussed the section 13 notice under the umbrella of the Attorney General of Canada seeking advice from his colleagues.
Mr. Chair, I appreciate the clarification. I am wondering, though, if the minister can illuminate us. Is he saying that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada was not provided a section 13 notice pursuant to the Director of Public Prosecutions Act on the staying of the charges against Mark Norman?
Mr. Chair, I would like to know from the minister whether he received a section 13 notice prior to the director of public prosecutions and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada staying the charges against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.
Mr. Chair, it is more than an article that appears in the newspaper. This is a quote from the RCMP and in it the RCMP is indicating that it wishes to go back and take a look at the information that was levelled with respect to the charges against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.
As a result, I am wondering if the minister can let us know whether he still believes this case is closed, given that the RCMP wants to go back and investigate further.
Mr. Chair, further to questions regarding the RCMP, today two members of the RCMP indicated that they would “like to get the totality of the information and do a proper analysis.” In other words, they are asking for certain information to be passed to them from the federal prosecution service.
Will the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada discuss this matter with the federal prosecution service?