Skip to main content

Vice Admiral Mark Norman reacts during a press conference in Ottawa on May 8, 2019.

Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press

A Senate committee is launching an inquiry into the failed prosecution of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.

The Senate’s national defence committee has voted 7-5 on a motion from Conservative Senator Jean-Guy Dagenais to examine the circumstances that led to the military’s second-in-command being suspended and charged with breach of trust.

Vice-Adm. Norman’s two-year ordeal ended earlier this month when the charges were stayed.

Story continues below advertisement

Conservatives, who allege Prime Minister Justin Trudeau politically interfered with the case, tried to get the House of Commons defence committee to initiate an investigation but the Liberals used their majority to block that effort.

Conservatives had better luck Tuesday at the Senate committee, passing Sen. Dagenais’s motion with the support of independent Sen. Diane Griffin and unaffiliated Sen. David Richards.

The motion calls on the committee to explore why the charges were laid and subsequently stayed, inviting Vice-Adm. Norman, General Jonathan Vance, chief of defence staff and Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan to testify, along with any other witnesses it deems pertinent.

The committee is to conduct its inquiry and report to the Senate by no later than June 20.

Vice-Adm. Norman had been accused of leaking government secrets to Quebec’s Davie shipyard, supposedly to help it nail down a $700-million contract for a navy supply ship that had been approved by the previous Conservative government and which the new Liberal government decided to review in 2015 before eventually finalizing it.

In staying the charges, Crown prosecutors told the judge that new evidence they’d received from Vice-Adm. Norman’s defence team had led them to conclude there was no reasonable chance of convicting him.

Both the Public Prosecution Service of Canada and RCMP have insisted they acted independently and professionally, without any political interference.

Story continues below advertisement

Sen. Dagenais said his motion wasn’t aimed at creating a political circus. Rather, he said it’s a chance for Vice-Adm. Norman to tell his side of the story after two years of having his reputation shredded in public.

But independent Liberal Sen. Terry Mercer, who said Vice-Adm. Norman is a friend, predicted the committee inquiry will be a fishing expedition aimed at damaging the Liberals just months before this fall’s federal election.

Sen. Mercer suggested the committee should also hear from officials in former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper’s office and his defence minister, Peter MacKay, who told Vice-Adm. Norman’s defence lawyers that they’d authorized the Vice-Admiral to stay in direct contact with Davie about the supply ship contract.

He questioned why the Conservatives didn’t volunteer that information to the RCMP or prosecutors.

“What bothers me about this, they knew this but they let Vice-Admiral Norman go through this for two years. You could have ended it by coming forward and saying, ‘Hold it guys, we asked him to do this, we directed him to do this, he did nothing wrong.’ ”

A number of independent senators expressed concern that Vice-Adm. Norman may not want to face a grilling before a Senate committee after everything he’s been through. And even a Conservative senator who voted for the motion, Sen. Thomas McInnis, predicted Vice-Adm. Norman won’t accept the invitation or, if he does, will say very little because it might be injurious to a potential civil suit.

Story continues below advertisement

.

Related topics

Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter
To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies