Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 13th, 2023

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

You, as the national security and intelligence adviser, were a member of the panel of five of the critical election incident public protocol. Am I correct in that?

[David Morrison]

Yes, you are.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

The fact that a PCO official provided you, on August 17, two days into a writ period, with a memo indicating that parliamentarians were being targeted by a foreign regime.... You, as the national security and intelligence adviser and as a member of the panel of five, didn't twig to the fact that this could be an issue in a campaign that had just been called two days prior?

[David Morrison]

Let me begin by saying that my participation in the panel of five and my awareness of the role that this panel plays during our elections began when I was named acting national security and intelligence adviser on the first of July. There were, I recall, several meetings, briefings and scenario-playings of the panel of five in the run-up to a widely anticipated election.

My clear expectation was that, if there was any real and imminent threat to Canada's democracy, the SITE task force would make that part of its regular briefings and, in fact, part of its daily written briefings to the panel of five.

The answer to the question is no, I did not anticipate being informed of a threat to Canada's democratic processes in a lengthy info note that came without warning in my pack.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

With the greatest of respect, sir, you were informed. You were informed on August 17, two days into the writ period. You, as the national security and intelligence adviser and as a member of the panel of five, were informed of foreign activities targeting Canadian citizens, targeting Canadian parliamentarians. You were informed, sir.

You can't say that because you weren't informed in the capacity of the CEIPP. You were informed as the national security and intelligence adviser. That's the fact that's troubling to me. Two days into the writ period, the PCO saw fit to provide you with a nine-page memo on foreign interference in Canadian elections, and you did not twig to that fact or deal with it through the critical election incident public protocol. I find it simply astonishing that someone in your position.... You say that you're not a career public servant, but, sir, you've been in the most senior ranks of government for over a decade, so you can't hide behind the fact that you're not a career public servant. Frankly, in listening to the testimony today, I fear that you've watched Yes, Minister and taken that as a training guide rather than as a comedy. I'm reminded of Sir Humphrey Appleby, who said that clarification isn't meant to provide clarity. “It is [meant] to put oneself 'in' the clear.” That is what we're seeing here.

You mentioned that there was a follow-up piece. You asked for a follow-up piece. On what date did you ask for that follow-up piece?

[David Morrison]

May I begin, Madam Chair, by stating explicitly that my opening remarks were, in fact, intended to provide clarity on an issue that has bedevilled many people, understandably, because it's a complex issue. I said explicitly that I think there are two areas of misunderstanding in the July 2021 memo, and I did my best to try to inject some clarity into that.

The answer to the question is I don't recall the exact date that I asked for the follow-up memo.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I would ask, then, if you could come back to this committee and provide the date on which you asked for the follow-up memo, and the date that you received the follow-up memo. Could you share that memo with this committee?

[David Morrison]

If I can answer, Madam Chair, I'm sure the follow-up memo is top secret and, therefore, unable to be shared with the committee. I am told that I saw a draft in December 2021 and that the memo was finalized in January 2022. For the record, most of it has already been published by Global.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Excellent. Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Bains.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Morrison, for joining us today.

I'm going to go back to a question my colleague put forward. You mentioned that there was a committee on human rights, and all the members, including Mr. Chong, were sanctioned and targeted. In that same vein, every member of Parliament's been sanctioned by Russia, and now we've seen news reports suggesting that Russia was involved in an information campaign fuelling the convoy.

Are we targeted? Does being sanctioned constitute being a target?

[David Morrison]

I think the community thinks of these things as part of a spectrum. Yes, sanctions are obviously a form of targeting, so my answer would be yes.

Anyone who has been subject to sanctions by Russia or by anyone else has been targeted because research needed to be done to know how to create the list of the people who were subsequently sanctioned.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

That target constitutes a threat. Are we under threat?

[David Morrison]

The sanctions that were meted out to the members of the international human rights subcommittee of the standing committee that I mentioned were sanctions about travel to China and about financial dealings with China. That is, in itself, the sanction. It isn't a threat and it doesn't constitute foreign interference, because it's all above board. Canada does this all the time with respect to Haiti, Russia, Belarus and Iran.

The process of researching individuals in a different country and then later sanctioning them is part of how diplomacy and sanctions work. It is not in itself foreign interference.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

After learning about the situation with our colleague Mr. Chong, the government expelled Zhao Wei from the country.

Is it difficult to expel a foreign diplomat?

[David Morrison]

The process is not difficult. The decisions to expel foreign diplomats are not taken lightly.

In the tool kit of diplomacy that we use when we disagree with action and we want to protest action, it begins with conversations and statements. It goes through written exchanges and, ultimately, can get as serious as declaring someone persona non grata, which is what we did in the case of Chinese foreign interference.

Again, as I said, I was very involved in that. There is a public perception about Mr. Zhao's activities.

Let me say that the Vienna convention allows you to expel anyone for any reason, and you don't have to give a reason. We have been very clear with China, going back several years, that foreign interference is unacceptable. Police stations are unacceptable, balloons are unacceptable and interference in our institutions and our democracy is unacceptable.

We eventually expelled a foreign diplomat and then China, as everyone knows, on May 9, expelled one of our diplomats.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you. I'm going to move on.

On June 2, at another committee that I'm a member of, we heard from Dean Baxendale, chief executive officer of the China Democracy Foundation. He told us:

Under the Harper government, a number of MOUs were entered into directly with the RCMP. This allowed some 25 China communist agents—we'll call them “policing agents”—to enter the country to look at repatriating supposed criminals from Canada. A number of them were deported during that period of time—about 290 [of them].

Is that consistent with the types of arrangements the Harper government was signing to improve relations with China and would that be consistent with China's MO?

[David Morrison]

I'll answer very quickly, Madam Chair.

It's not a subject that I know anything about.

Several folks have commented on my trajectory: I only arrived back in Canada right at the end of the previous government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Mr. Cooper, you have five minutes.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Mr. Morrison, in answer to the last question posed by Mr. Nater, you said that with respect to the follow-up to the July 2021 CSIS memo, you saw a draft in December of 2021, and that draft was finalized in January of 2022. When Mr. Nater asked you to provide a copy of that to the committee, you said that you would be unable to but that much of its contents had been reported by Global News.

For the record, Madam Chair, I would like to note that Global News did in fact, on March 8, report a January 2022 “Special Report” that was prepared by PCO, which was date-stamped and finalized, suggesting that it was intended to be read by the Prime Minister and his senior aides.

That memo, or “Special Report”, contained, among other things: that “A large clandestine transfer of funds earmarked for the federal election from the PRC Consulate in Toronto was transferred to an elected provincial government official via a staff member of a 2019 federal candidate,”; that “We assess that Canada remains highly vulnerable to Chinese foreign interference efforts.”; that “We base this judgment on intelligence that highlights deep and persistent Chinese Communist Party interference attempts over more than a decade”; and, that “The group allegedly involved at least 11 candidates and 13 or more aides.”

In short, Mr. Morrison, you have conceded what the Prime Minister and this government have repeatedly denied and attempted to cover up.

Did that PCO memo, that January 2022 Special Report, come to the attention of the Prime Minister?

[David Morrison]

Thank you for the question, Madam Chair.

I left PCO on or about the fifth or sixth of January of 2022. I don't believe that I even saw the memo until very recently, so I can't answer whether it came to the attention of the Prime Minister.

What I will say is that all such allegations of money transferring hands and direct influence in our democratic institutions by the People's Republic of China were investigated by the independent special rapporteur, and I would commend his report to anyone wishing further information.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Chair, I think it's pretty incredible....

Changing gears, Mr. Morrison, through you, Madam Chair, when you last came before this committee, you said that there was "there was no spike in foreign interference...in either the 2019 or 2021 elections." I'd ask you to explain how you can reconcile that assertion with the CSIS briefing that Erin O'Toole received, wherein he was informed that, in the 2021 election campaign, Beijing had launched an orchestrated campaign targeting him and the Conservative Party.

[David Morrison]

Thank you for the question, Madam Chair.

I would respectfully suggest that questions about what CSIS did or did not brief to Mr. O'Toole be put directly to CSIS. I know there will be an opportunity to do so this evening.

As I think the committee knows, I was a member of the panel of five for the 2021 election. I've answered the question on this several times. We were not made aware of any spike in foreign interference during either the 2019 or the 2021 election. That finding was validated by two separate after-action reports.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. O'Toole was briefed of foreign funding to create misinformation, human resources to amplify misinformation through proxies coordinated by the United Front Work Department, foreign controlled social media platforms spreading disinformation and an active voter suppression campaign against Mr. O'Toole and the Conservative Party.

Are you suggesting that these activities are normal and that it wouldn't constitute a spike in foreign interference by a hostile state such as Beijing?

[David Morrison]

Madam Chair, thank you for the question.

I would say that I am familiar with the account that has shown up in the media of what took place in that briefing. I'm also saying what I've said before. There's a baseline level of foreign interference in Canada. That did not spike in the 2021 election. That finding has been validated by independent observers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Just so everyone knows, I've entered into the third round of questions where we go five, five, two and a half, two and a half, five and five. That will bring us to the possibility of a fourth round, which I'll adjust to balance out for each party to get an equal amount of time. I'm watching the clock and I'll keep doing that.

Please, if we continue like this, we'll actually get through it all.

Mrs. Romanado.