QUESTION PERIOD — Justice
Vice-Admiral Mark Norman
May 16, 2019
Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
Senator Harder, on Monday you said there was no political interference in the Mark Norman case because the people responsible for enforcing the law and for prosecutions handled the case independently.
In reality the government did not fully disclose all relevant documents to both sides in this case and, indeed, fought very hard to keep the documents hidden. As Marie Henein, Mark Norman’s lawyer, told a press conference last week, “For six months we have tried day in, day out to get that material. It should have been handed over. It should have been handed over to the RCMP. It should have been handed over to the prosecution. It was not. As to why, I don’t know. I leave you to answer that.”
Senator Harder, a court order had to be issued. Why did the government hide documents from the authorities and the defence? Is that not a form of interference?
I thank the honourable senator for his question. The Government of Canada, as any government, has the obligation to ensure that cabinet confidences and other confidential materials that are appropriately protected are, in fact, protected. There is often contestation in respect of what those documents might be.
The Government of Canada has complied fully with the requests in the circumstances that involved Vice-Admiral Norman. This matter is one that, as I’ve repeated several times now, has been under the independent management of the RCMP in the case of the police and of the prosecution service in the case of the prosecution itself.
Even after the court ordered the government to release the documents, the government did not fully comply. For example, in January the court heard that the Chief of the Defence Staff, Jonathan Vance, and the Chief of Staff to the Minister of National Defence did not search their personal telephone and email accounts for information related to the Mark Norman case despite being instructed to do so.
Senator Harder, the government’s actions in this case are the complete opposite of the openness and transparency it promised Canadians. By not obeying the court order and withholding documents, wasn’t the government trying to weigh the scales of justice against Mark Norman?
I thank the honourable senator for his question. Let me again reassure him that the Government of Canada has provided the information that it was able to provide and that the independent prosecution service determined that prosecution should take place. The independent service also concluded that a stay of prosecution should occur. As far as the government is concerned, this matter is at arm’s length from the government and in the appropriate authority of the prosecution service.
Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In 2017, the Minister of Defence, Harjit Sajjan, stated that he supported the Chief of the Defence Staff’s decision to suspend Vice-Admiral Mark Norman. Oddly, that was over a year before Mr. Norman was charged with breach of trust for allegedly disclosing government secrets about military procurement. What did he know at the time?
If the government you represent were transparent, it would allow us to question witnesses to find out what the minister, the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister’s entourage had to do with this latest in a series of Canadian justice system wranglings.
As if the government’s suspect decision were not enough, neither Minister Sajjan nor Prime Minister Justin Trudeau were in the House when MPs voted unanimously to apologize to Vice-Admiral Mark Norman. For a Prime Minister who has made a habit of apologizing for all kinds of things since taking office, that is surprising, to say the least.
Does Minister Sajjan still have the credibility and legitimacy to hold office in this government?
I thank the honourable senator for his question. Of course, the government has full confidence in the Minister of Defence. Minister Sajjan has performed his extraordinary role with great diligence and has accomplished much in almost three and a half years in office.
I should also speak to the premise of the question. Given the implied criticism of the Prime Minister not being in the House of Commons at the time the house took a particular vote with respect to the vice-admiral, I should assure all Canadians in this house that the Prime Minister was on his way to Toronto to host a dinner for the visiting Prime Minister of Croatia, which of course is an appropriate and completely compelling reason not to be in the House of Commons.
