Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 13th, 2023

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to thank the witness again because he's walking us through a timeline that is going to help us put the puzzle pieces together. As I mentioned, when pieces of information and/or intelligence are taken individually, it's hard to put the puzzle pieces together.

Mr. Morrison, you mentioned that the reading package of August 17, 2021, which included the July 20 memo, had information that prompted you to do a follow-up. You then saw in December 2021 a draft, which was finalized in January 2022. We know that an order in council dated January 4 named Jody Thomas as the national security and intelligence adviser and she began her role on January 11, 2022.

She has testified that immediately when she took on the role, and in her previous role as deputy minister of national defence, one of her concerns was that the acts of the People's Republic of China were of concern. This was not something that was new to people. I, myself, sat on the national defence committee during my first mandate and was made aware of concerns of national security issues with respect to China, Russia and other states actors.

Could you walk us through what you would do differently or what you would recommend? You received the reading package in August. We were in an election at that time. Cabinet was sworn in later that year. Therefore, there was a delay of approximately five months before you actually received the draft. They were gathering more information, I'm assuming, which you had requested.

Could you let us know what you would do differently or what would you recommend to us to help the NSIA, future NSIAs and departments to see if we could have been doing something differently in that timeline?

It seems like a quite a bit of time from the time you requested the follow-up and the time the draft came. I'm assuming intelligence is not something where you send out an email and hope to get information back. This is gathering and various people are working on that. As you mentioned, we were also dealing with the evacuation of Kabul.

Could you let us know what you would recommend in that regard?

[David Morrison]

My intent in commissioning the new memo—and I should say that it was also a report not intended for anybody to take action—is that I wished to drill down to try to convince myself of the details, or more of the details of exactly what had been going on.

My information is that the United Front workers department of the Communist Party of China has existed in one form or another in Canada since the 1950s. I was interested to know what had been happening in all of that time. What was the exact nature of the foreign interference threat in Canada and what should we do about it?

I asked the team to come back to me with everything they could marshal in terms of examples, specific examples, of what China was doing in Canada so that I could inform myself and, if necessary, inform the Prime Minister. That was the intent behind my commissioning the additional work.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you for that.

Without revealing intelligence information, in furthering that deep dive or asking for follow-up, were specific names of members of Parliament then provided to you? You don't have to reveal the names, but....

[David Morrison]

No, they were not provided to me. Again, I think the committee should be aware that now we're into January 2022. According to the protocols in place at the time, action had already been taken in the first half of 2021, action that had been spurred by the intelligence that arrived following the Uyghur motion.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you so much. That was very helpful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Madame Gaudreau, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to continue our discussion, Mr. Morrison.

I'm looking for who is responsible for the individuals who are in office. In the case of the chief of staff, it's the Prime Minister. In the case of Ms. Thomas, the national security adviser, it's also the Prime Minister. We also met with the special rapporteur, who also reports to the Prime Minister. In fact, we've realized that our intelligence culture is outdated. Everyone agrees on that.

If we're here today, it's because we're wondering whose responsibility it is. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here.

Is it up to the Prime Minister? There should have been steps to take upstream to be ready for the next elections, among others.

[David Morrison]

Thank you for the question. It's an important one.

Certainly in my view, Madame Chair, we need to distinguish between the Prime Minister's exempt staff and career public servants like me and Jody Thomas, who will serve whoever is in government.

I went on at some length in response to another question, as did Madame Thomas, about the changes to legislative frameworks and to public service business practices that are being undertaken right now to tighten up systems.

I've also made the point that some of our structures and systems may not be optimized for the threats Canada faces now and in the future. Addressing all of those challenges will require the public service to do some deep thinking and also require the government of the day to make some decisions, should it come to machinery changes, for example.

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

At the end of the day, if individuals are struggling to do their job accurately because of the amount of information, it would be normal for them to be helped, i.e., given manpower and new means.

Several witnesses have told us that your predecessor left frustrated, because he even published a report that wasn't well studied. If there had been more staff to be able to process the raw information that everyone receives, so that no information slips through the cracks, we wouldn't be here, would we?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Ms. Blaney.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I do want to come back to the follow-up piece to the report that you've talked about. You've indicated that you can't give us the memo about it, but you have brought it up several times. What can you tell us, and in what context did you send it?

[David Morrison]

I commissioned it. That's an important point. As I've stated, it is also important to know that I didn't know how long I was going to be the national security and intelligence adviser. I considered as serious the issue of foreign interference, and I therefore challenged a team of analysts within the Privy Council Office—so not CSIS but folks who worked directly for me—to help educate me as best they could on all of the threats I should be worried about. That led to the memo I have referenced, which, as has been established, wasn't actually finalized until after I left the job.

It included information that has already been read into the record today. It included international comparisons, because Canada was certainly not the only country that faced foreign interference from China. Some of our Five Eyes partners have, and it's a thing on which we compare notes with others internationally.

Certainly, that is the case in another hat I have recently worn as the Prime Minister's G7 sherpa. Within the G7 context we have also been discussing the threat of foreign interference, in general, and China, in particular.

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

Speaking of foreign interference, we know that one of the challenges is that when we have people in Canada who have loved ones in these authoritarian countries, sometimes what they are asked to do is impacted by what could happen in other countries. We know we don't have jurisdiction there.

Is there any conversation about how we deal with this, because it is an eminent threat, and just saying that we can't do anything doesn't seem like the best response? In partnership with other countries, is there any discussion about what next steps could be taken to address this issue?

[David Morrison]

Let me refer you back to how I tried to end my introductory statement. I do think you have put your finger on something that is very important for Canada and Canadians, given the size and diversity of our diaspora communities and how many of the family members remain behind, sometimes in authoritarian countries. Public hearings on this would be a helpful first step toward being able to eventually do something about it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

It's now Mr. Berthold's turn, and he will be followed by Mr. Fergus.

We're listening, Mr. Berthold.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Mr. Morrison, I've been listening to you from the beginning. I've listened to several witnesses since the beginning of these hearings on the case of Mr. Michael Chong. One thing amazes me, and that is to see that no one has taken responsibility for the information coming from just about everywhere.

You confirmed, today, that you have repeatedly read these memos that talked about foreign interference. You practically confirmed the content of the memo that had been revealed by Global News, saying that it was top secret, but that the whole content had practically been revealed in that article. Your predecessor, Mr. Vincent Rigby, said he had read between 5,000 and 7,000 documents in 18 months. He even challenged me to sit in the national security adviser's chair to see the extent of the work.

That's precisely the problem: We sit people like you or like Mr. Rigby in these chairs to analyze this information. Who makes the connections between the different pieces of information, who makes the necessary cross-references, and who makes sure that we determine what's important?

Hearing you and everyone else who has come before us since the beginning, everyone has been informed, but no one has made a decision.

When you see the word “information”, are you purposely not taking any action because you figure someone else will do it for you, Mr. Morrison?

It's worrying for Canadians and it's worrying for the Chinese diaspora. It's also worrying to know that people who are appointed to positions like yours are incapable of being the eyes of Canadian citizens, who need people who will see elements like these.

[David Morrison]

Madam Chair, I thank the member for his question.

I won't go through the dates again. I've given you my opening statement and I've said that I believe the system in place with respect to Mr. Chong functioned according to the relevant protocols at that time.

The honourable member has asked a much bigger question—a good and thoughtful question—about what do you do when there is such a volume of intel reporting. In response to a previous question, I used the word “triage”. I do think we could be better at flagging up to the national security and intelligence adviser—flagging up to me when necessary—particularly relevant pieces of information. Within Global Affairs, where I've been for the past seven or so months, we have tried to tighten up our own efforts to ensure that I know what I need to know and to ensure that the Minister of Foreign Affairs knows what she needs to know.

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

Mr. Morrison, I listened to your opening remarks, but the fact remains that it's still worrisome. You realize it now, but it wasn't done back then.

How can we be sure that people won't respond in exactly the same way?

I'll give you a specific example. On May 12, The Globe and Mail published an article in which it was mentioned that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service had provided the government, specifically your department, Global Affairs Canada, with a list of other diplomats from Beijing who should be considered for expulsion because of their interference activity.

Is this a note that was sent with the notation “For your information only?”

[David Morrison]

Thank you for the question, but I would need some clarification.

When you say “for your information only,” do you mean that the information was passed on to me personally?

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

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service provided the government, Global Affairs Canada, for which you are responsible, with a list that included the names of other diplomats.

Was this list sent to your department with the notation “for your information only”? If so, who will take action in relation to this list? Obviously, it won't be you, since you took no action when you received these notes.

[David Morrison]

Madam Chair, I would once again encourage folks not to believe everything they read in the newspapers.

My second point is that if I had the date of The Globe and Mail article you just mentioned correct, that was May 12, and I would remind you, Madam Chair, that we did expel a Canadian diplomat on May 8. As a part of the normal way in which we do diplomacy and intelligence, the system is always on the lookout for foreign interference, and when it happens we'll take the necessary actions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Mr. Fergus.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Morrison, again I feel obliged to say this. No one is questioning your abilities and your service to our country; it's been exemplary. I will only presume, because I only have evidence to say so, that you have conducted yourself honourably and with a lot of attention to the details and that you do the best that you can. As Mr. Rigby, your predecessor, had pointed out, there is a lot of reading material that comes across your desk. As you answered questions to me about things that are being sent up for information or things sent up for action, if it's classified information that's stuff that you do carry on. Even in spite of getting an information note, you still acted on the material because your experience had taught you that there was something you wanted to dig further on.

I thank you for your work.

I'd like to go back to a question regarding the Johnston report. Mr. Johnston said on page 21 of his report, “There is uncertainty about whether there was money, if it actually went to staff or the provincial MPP, and there is no intelligence suggesting any federal candidates received these funds.”

The media reported later that there was no evidence of covert funding—although this was largely overlooked and the public narrative persisted that candidates, sometimes identified as Liberal candidates, received these funds. NSIA Thomas and the Prime Minister's chief of staff both testified to PROC that there was no evidence of money flowing to federal candidates.

Mr. Morrison, does that seem true to you in terms of what Mr. Johnston wrote in his report?

[David Morrison]

It seems accurate, yes.

As the committee knows, I have had various positions over the past number of years. I was one of those who was determined to get to the bottom of this. I was interviewed by the independent special rapporteur, as many others were, on multiple occasions. I would encourage anyone who has not read the independent special rapporteur's report to read it, because I think it is a very credible account. It is not accurate to suggest that Mr. Johnston said, “trust me”. I recently appeared in camera before NSICOP, a different committee—that was only several days ago—and went over many of these same issues.

I, as a Canadian, and as a Canadian official, am very satisfied that Mr. Johnston had access to what he needed to have access to and that he got to the bottom of the kinds of issues you just mentioned.

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

Thank you for that.

I do agree. I think it's actually a very easy read. It was very accessible. I found that it was very far away from being a whitewash. It was very much a very frank note that identified where we've been, what the threat is, or what the threat seems to be now, the direction in which it's trending and what steps we need to take to make sure we close that gap.

Is there anything in the Johnston report that you would take issue with given your knowledge and your depth of experience in all of this?