Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'll now read the motion into the record:
That, in relation to its order of reference of Wednesday, May 10, 2023, concerning the intimidation campaign orchestrated by Wei Zhao against the Member for Wellington—Halton Hills and other Members, the Committee
(a) order the production, (i) within one week, of the July 2021 CSIS report entitled “People’s Republic of China Foreign Interference in Canada: A Critical National Security Threat”, together with all records concerning the transmission to, distribution within, analysis of and handling by, the Prime Minister’s Office, the Privy Council Office, the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development and the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, of this report, and
(ii) within three weeks, of all other memoranda, briefing notes, e-mails, records of conversations, and any other relevant documents, including any drafts, which are in the possession of any government department or agency, including the Security and Intelligence Threats to Elections Task Force, the Critical Election Incident Protocol Panel, any minister’s office and the Prime Minister’s Office, containing information concerning planning or efforts by, or on behalf of, foreign governments or other foreign state actors to intimidate a Member of the House of Commons,
provided that
(iii) these documents be deposited without redaction with the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, in both official languages,
(iv) a copy of the documents shall also be deposited with the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, in both official languages, with any proposed redaction of any information which, in the government’s opinion, could reasonably be expected to compromise the identities of employees or sources or intelligence-collecting methods of Canadian or allied intelligence agencies,
(v) the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel shall promptly notify the Committee whether the Office is satisfied that the documents were produced as ordered, and, if not, the Chair shall be instructed to present forthwith, on behalf of the Committee, a report to the House outlining the material facts of the situation,
(vi) the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel shall assess the redactions proposed by the government, pursuant to subparagraph (iv), to determine whether the Office agrees that the proposed redactions conform with the criteria set out in subparagraph (iv) and
(A) if it agrees, it shall provide the documents, as redacted by the government pursuant to subparagraph (iv), to the Clerk of the Committee, or
(B) if it disagrees with some or all of the proposed redactions, it shall provide a copy of the documents, redacted in the manner the Office determines would conform with the criteria set out in paragraph (iv), together with a report indicating the number, extent and nature of the government's proposed redactions which were disagreed with, to the Clerk of the Committee, and
(vii) the Clerk of the Committee shall cause the documents, provided by the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel pursuant to subparagraph (vi), to be distributed to the members of the Committee and to be published on the Committee’s website forthwith upon receipt; and
(b) makes the evidence received during this study available for its study on foreign election interference.
Madam Chair, the motion before the committee is straightforward and critical to getting the answers that MP Chong deserves, that members of the House deserve and that Canadians deserve.
How is it that an accredited Beijing diplomat was threatening the safety and security of a family member of a sitting member of Parliament and seeking to intimidate that member by threatening his family? How is it that CSIS knew about it, drafted a report on it in July of 2021, which, in turn, was circulated to the Prime Minister's own department and to relevant departments, including Global Affairs Canada, and that, notwithstanding that, for two years, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills was kept in the dark?
It wasn't until he was notified by The Globe and Mail that he was made aware. The Prime Minister has claimed, incredibly, that he had no idea—this from a prime minister who supposedly is briefed regularly on national security matters, who supposedly reads everything; and from his chief of staff, who came before this committee and claimed that supposedly nothing is held back from him.
It is very difficult to believe the Prime Minister at the best of times, but as MP Chong clearly stated before this committee, if it is true the Prime Minister didn't know, then that is also extremely problematic and raises real questions about his “fitness” as Prime Minister in dealing with serious national security issues. This is including something as serious as an accredited Beijing diplomat seeking to intimidate a sitting member of Parliament to interfere with their ability to do their job, to speak on behalf of their constituents, and vote in this place on behalf of their constituents and on behalf of Canadians.
This motion essentially provides for two key things. The first is the production of papers for where this CSIS memo went.... As Jenni Byrne, the former deputy chief of staff, highlighted to this committee, there is a tracking system. Michael Chong also mentioned that there is a tracking system that would make it very easy to determine exactly whom this memo went to and when it went to various officials and departments. It's important to know that. It certainly is relevant to understand where this breakdown occurred or whether something more serious happened, namely that the Prime Minister or senior officials in his office knew about this and covered it up for two years.
The second component of the motion relates to production of all other memoranda, briefing notes, emails and other documents surrounding this memo and surrounding the government's knowledge of intimidation attempts by Beijing directed towards members of Parliament.
The process for the production of documents set out in this motion is one that balances, on the one hand, the need for this committee to be able to see as many of the documents that are out there as possible, while at the same time protecting national security interests.
The motion recognizes that the PCO, quite frankly, is in a conflict on this. The heart of this issue is a memo that went from CSIS to the PCO, and what happened after that is a critical question.
It is imperative that it not be the PCO, that it not be this government—which has so much to answer for—that gets the final say over what is produced and what isn't, what is redacted and what isn't. Given that, what this motion provides for is that the government—through the PCO, through the normal process—review documents, identify what documents are relevant and make what they see as appropriate redactions, and then provide them to the parliamentary law clerk.
He has a full national security clearance. Unlike the PCO and this government, he is completely independent and not in a conflict. Give him the opportunity to look at and compare the unredacted version of the documents and suggested redactions, then make a final decision on—having regard for national security and other considerations—what the final redactions should be. Thereafter, the documents come to this committee.
This process is not a novel one. In fact, it is one that involved the parliamentary law clerk, who recommended this process. It was one that was adopted with respect to the production of documents from PHAC in relation to the Winnipeg lab scandal. Those documents were never produced. The Liberal government blocked their production, resulting in a finding of contempt of Parliament for the chair of PHAC and highlighting the lengths to which this government has gone in the past to cover things up and not be transparent. I hope that won't happen in this case.
The PCO and the Prime Minister.... This government is in conflict. We need an independent process, and we need to move ahead expeditiously because it's not just a matter of calling witnesses. It's important that we call witnesses, and we've made some progress in that regard, but we need, to the greatest degree possible, unredacted documents.
What we don't need is what this government has provided, with the support of the NDP, in the past: an ATIP standard of production with respect to redactions, which has resulted in page after page of blank documents. It's completely unacceptable. It's completely unnecessary and I would hope that, if the Liberals are sincere and truly concerned about what happened to Michael Chong and his family and want to get answers, they will support a process that allows this committee to truly do its work and empowers the parliamentary law clerk, not the Prime Minster's Office and the PCO—which are in a conflict—to make a determination as to what should be redacted and what should not.
Thank you, Madam Chair.