Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 16th, 2023

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

I don't think documents necessarily need to be released to members who are being briefed about specific individuals targeting them. I think they need to be briefed orally about who's involved so that they can equip themselves to protect themselves. I don't think it necessarily means a conveyance of documents.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

For the second round, we will start with.... Is it Mr. Calkins?

It's now over to Mr. Berthold. Then we will go to Mr. Fergus, Ms. Gaudreau and Ms. Blaney.

You have five minutes, Mr. Berthold.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, Mr. Chong, I want to commend you for holding tight to your principles and standing up despite everything that's going on right now. I want to point out that all of this started, if I'm not mistaken, with a motion you put forward in the House of Commons to recognize the genocide of the Uyghur people. The motion was supported by members of every party, except the members of cabinet, all Liberal ministers.

Is that correct?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Yes.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you.

It's important to make that clear, because what I'm looking for today is information. There's been a lot of talk about information and information sharing, but there's been little action on the government's part. Despite this flow of information, the government seems to be nonchalant about doing something.

We know that CSIS flagged what the diplomat was doing, in 2018. We also know that CSIS had had a significant counter-intelligence file on him since 2020. I'm talking, of course, about the infamous diplomat tasked with collecting information on you and your family.

We learned from the Globe and Mail article that you had been targeted, and the government claims to have known nothing about it.

How do you explain the nonchalant attitude of the Prime Minister's Office and the Prime Minister himself on this issue? Not only does it affect members of Parliament, but it also affects many members of the Chinese diaspora here, in Canada.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

There is no way to explain the government having the information and doing nothing about it.

It's really inexplicable, and that's why I think the committee really needs to get to the bottom of where these CSIS intelligence products went by looking at their tracking records on the top secret system. This is a system separate from the Government of Canada's regular computer systems that CSIS uses to transmit intelligence products to what I believe are the 17 national security points within the Government of Canada, one of which includes Global Affairs Canada. They also include the Privy Council Office and the other various central agencies and departments.

I think it's really important for the committee to understand where this information went within the Government of Canada so that these systemic problems can be addressed, because if we are to take the Prime Minister at his word that he did not know of this information, nor did the public safety minister, then clearly there was a breakdown. We need to know exactly who had the information and why it didn't go to where it needed to go for action.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

That brings two things to mind.

The fact that the diplomat was expelled tells us that the Globe and Mail's source was pretty reliable. According to that source, CSIS had a list of diplomats who should be expelled because of their involvement in foreign interference threat activities. That means other Canadians are being targeted by the same actions carried out against you.

Do you think the government needs to take action as well? It's well and good to be informed, but that has to be followed up by action. Only one action was taken. No one was arrested. No one else was expelled.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Yes, I think the government should use every tool at its disposal to combat foreign interference. Expelling a single diplomat is pointless. That's not how you tackle the overall issue of foreign interference.

I think there's a whole range of tools that the government needs to use. If we look at other democratic allies, we see that they've been much more willing to expel diplomats of authoritarian states when those diplomats are engaged in activities that are inconsistent with their diplomatic or consular status.

I think recently of the fact that Germany expelled some 20 Russian diplomats, just in the last several weeks, for activities that were subversive.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Chong, I know you're a man who believes in institutions. I know you're a hard-working parliamentarian. You talked about ministerial responsibility earlier, saying that the Prime Minister was ultimately the person responsible. That idea seems to have fallen by the wayside these past eight years. Many ministers have been found to be in breach of ethics. They issue a statement, and a week later, they change their story.

What place does ministerial responsibility still have in our system, in Canada?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

The responsibility falls on ministers.

Ultimately, it rests with the Prime Minister.

If you look at the open and accountable government document on the government's own website—the foundational guiding document of the ministry—it's clear that the Prime Minister alone is responsible for the machinery of government and has a special responsibility for national security.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Over to you, Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank you, Mr. Chong. I've followed your political career for quite some time, long before I got into politics, so I know you to be someone who believes firmly in our institutions.

When I first read the Globe and Mail articles, I was deeply disturbed and concerned—as you made clear that you were—because of the privileges we have as members of Parliament and the role that we need to be free to play.

In reading some of the comments and in hearing your testimony here, I can see that you are trying to protect the security services and the information that you received to respect your obligations as a former cabinet minister and to respect the counsel that is shared with you, but I'm trying to figure out how we go forward.

Are there things that you would like to share with this committee that you know you can't share in public?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

The only information I don't want to share in public are the specific threats that were directed at me in the last several years that appear to be related to the PRC. I don't want to talk specifically about those threats, for obvious reasons. That's the only information that....

I've conveyed those threats to the appropriate agencies and authorities in the federal government and to my local police force of jurisdiction.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I'm assuming also that those threats were shared with you from our security agencies in your most recent briefings.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Yes, the threat regarding Mr. Wei Zhao was shared with me by Mr. David Vigneault the day after the Globe report.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Without going into details or specifics, were there other threats that were shared with you?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Were there specific threats shared with me? No.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

According to what I read in La Presse, you met with CSIS on four occasions. You spoke at length about your briefing on June 24, 2021, but you had three other meetings.

First of all, is it true that you met with CSIS three other times?

Second of all, can you share with the committee any details you're able to disclose regarding the nature of those discussions?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Sure.

First of all, I know the June 24, 2021, date because I looked it up. I met with CSIS beyond that several times. As I've said before, those other meetings with CSIS were for me to convey to CSIS specific threat activities that I believe I had been the target of, one involving the last federal election campaign and other threat activities, I believe, directed at me outside of the campaign. I don't want to get into specifics of what those threat activities were, but that was my reason for conveying them to CSIS during these three other meetings.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I'll try not to get into the specifics. Maybe you can confirm some of the dates, because La Presse had reported that it sounded like CSIS had an interaction with you. I just want to make sure that the dates are—

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

I can't confirm that right now—

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

No, but—

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

—but I would be happy to provide the committee with other meetings I had with CSIS, yes.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

For the record, I'm just going to lay out the dates that La Presse reported. They talked about August 5, 2021, February 5, 2022, and then July 18, 2022.

If you could be so kind as to share with the committee at a later time, that would be very helpful.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

I'm happy to confirm whether or not those are the correct dates.

I can tell you right now why those three meetings took place. It's because after my initial meeting on June 24, 2021, where CSIS opened up a channel of communication with me—as they did with some other 40 MPs, I believe—they briefed me on the general nature of foreign interference threat activities. I was, I believe, subject to some foreign interference threat activities, so I conveyed those threats to CSIS.

As I said earlier, I don't want to get into the details of what those threats were, but that was the reason for the three other meetings. I will get back to the committee on whether or not those were the actual three dates.