Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 1st, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Next is Madame Gaudreau.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Is that the end of my time, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Yes, it is, Mr. Turnbull. It went quickly.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

It did.

Thank you, Ms. Thomas.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Go ahead, Ms. Gaudreau.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to again discuss the culture within Canada's intelligence community, specifically within the Prime Minister's Office.

Are people outside the Prime Minister's Office who have expertise able to understand all the raw intelligence you have to sift through in order to identify what is really serious? I'd like to know, because my sense is that something in between is missing. It's coming to light that there was an empty space, a gaping hole, and now you're trying to fix it.

I'd like to hear your views on that.

[Jody Thomas]

Thank you.

I think what's important to note is that senior members in the Prime Minister's Office have daily reading packages on daily intelligence, similar to mine, generally on geopolitics—where we have troops stationed, points of interest in terms of the Prime Minister's international work—the same as every G7 leader.

Specific with FI—foreign interference—what has not happened and is now happening is that the unverified pieces of intelligence, or the unnamed sources or the unnamed individuals, are now being shared with him in a more regular manner.

The Prime Minister's Office gets reading packages. They're put together by the client relations officers. It's the same process everybody follows. They also get weekly briefings by a group that works for me—the intelligence assessment secretariat in PCO—and either they will have a weekly brief on a range of issues or they will ask for a curated package on a specific issue.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I have just a few seconds left.

What wasn't that information systematically identified before, when it's being done now?

[Jody Thomas]

Again, I can't speculate on previous practice, and you will hear from my predecessors.

In my opinion and per the direction of the Prime Minister, he wants to be briefed, period, whether it is credible or not, and so he will be provided that information.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Mrs. Blaney is next.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to go back to the discussion we had about the fact that you gave the example of being away on leave for a month and there was information and nobody was there to read it, so it was a bit of a black hole. I'm just wondering if you could explain if that's been remedied, if there's a process in place to remedy it, but also, is that not an issue of security in itself? Was that not something that was sort of concerning when you came back after being gone for a period of time, and you saw, oh, there's this stuff...?

I understand what you're saying. There are big things happening all over the world, and you have to respond, and Afghanistan was hot, but you don't know what's hot in what's left that hasn't been read, so I'm just trying to understand.... Was that not something that was concerning about security? Again—

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

Sorry, but the interpretation isn't coming through anymore.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Is it working now? Can you hear what I'm saying now? It works again.

I think it's fair that Ms. Blaney go from the top. Thank you.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Well, hopefully you got most of that question, but I know that my friend did not, so I will repeat it.

I'm just trying to get clarification. What we heard from your testimony is that you were on leave for a month. During that time there was information provided, and it sort of fell into a black hole. I acknowledged that when you returned there were important things happening in the world that, of course, were brought to your attention.

My concern is that when things are left behind, isn't that an issue, potentially, of national security? If nobody is reading, the group isn't reading, so that you can draw attention to things, that's concerning to me.

I also want to know if that has been remedied, or if you're in the process of remedying that. How are you doing that?

[Jody Thomas]

I think that's a really important question.

Number one, there should be, as I said previously, no single point of failure in terms of intelligence. That's why we are now bringing critical intelligence to deputy ministers to analyze and to give advice on.

That piece of intelligence, in July 2021, named the only people who could read it, so the deputy minister of defence was the only person in defence who could read it. That's different from “must” read. Sometimes there are pieces of intelligence of which the collectors—CSIS or CSE generally, sometimes the RCMP, sometimes CFINTCOM—say, “No, you must read this,” and then it's put in front of me.

That particular piece of intelligence was less pertinent to my job as the deputy minister of defence. I was the only one in the department who could read it, but it wasn't necessary for me to read it in order to function as the deputy minister of defence. There is a difference there.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Then what I'm hearing you say to me is that things can get lost. That's what worries me. Again, I go back to that point. We're talking about a point of privilege for a member of this place who did not know the circumstances in which he was living. Really, that's how I perceive it. There are other names that are being added to this list.

It wasn't pertinent for you, so where is the stopgap to make sure that nothing falls through? Again, what I'm hearing is that we have a black hole. If nobody says we must read it, then the black hole will continue, and one day, hopefully, somebody will figure it out.

[Jody Thomas]

Thank you.

That's not exactly what I said. I said we have fixed this going forward. For particular pieces of intelligence that reference members of Parliament.... That one in July did not mention MP Chong by name. Going forward, when there is a reference to a member of Parliament, it will be brought to the attention of the deputy minister community. It will be read by me, or whoever is acting for me, and by other deputy ministers. It will be discussed, and a plan on what to do about it, going forward, will be made. That will often include informing the MP about the situation. It certainly includes informing ministers and the Prime Minister, per their direction.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

We will now go to Mr. Calkins, followed by Monsieur Fergus.

Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and through you, thank you, Ms. Thomas, for being here today.

I want to talk a bit about Zhao Wei. When did the Prime Minister first become aware that Zhao Wei was the accredited diplomat at Beijing's Toronto consulate, and that he was the diplomat involved in the foreign interference activities?

[Jody Thomas]

I can't give you a precise date. In the analysis and the discussion of the information regarding Mr. Chong, it came to light that there was a particular individual. I would have to go look at my notes to give you an exact date.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Would you be able to provide that to the committee after you leave today?

[Jody Thomas]

I would be able to provide you with the date on which it was discussed by me. I can't tell you if it was discussed previously.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Thank you.

We know that Zhao Wei was targeting a sitting member of Parliament and his family. He was spying on Chinese Canadians.

The Globe and Mail reported, on May 12, 2023, that CSIS was providing information to Global Affairs on Zhao Wei's activities as early as 2020. In the same report, Dan Stanton, a former manager in counter-intelligence at CSIS, said that this information would have been shared with the Privy Council Office.

Why was it only when The Globe and Mail reported that Zhao Wei was targeting Michael Chong and his family that the government saw fit to expel Zhao Wei?

[Jody Thomas]

I think that question is best directed to Global Affairs Canada.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

It looks a lot to me like it's political damage control. It's very hard for me to believe, Ms. Thomas—and maybe you can shed some light on this—that only one accredited diplomat from Beijing is currently acting in this way. Are you aware and can you tell this committee of any other diplomats who are behaving in this way?