Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 13th, 2023

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

Thank you.

That is interesting in itself. Those are two very important jobs. It's too bad that somebody didn't see that maybe that was too much for one human being.

I have another question. During this time when you were the acting NSIA, you said that the report came to you and it was not intended to cause “action”, that it was just “for awareness”, and that the report did not name any MPs.

I'm just wondering: In the pathway of this information, who would ask for the names of MPs? Because it seems to me that there's something there and nobody knew what it was for an extended amount of time, so I'm just wondering, who would ask?

[David Morrison]

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the question.

The second thing I tried to say, in addition to how it was not a report that was intended to spur action, is that when someone like me reads that report, we have awareness that it is based on underlying intel. There are other reports that have been sifted through and analyzed that build up to this assessment.

I actually have a fairly high degree of confidence in our security agencies that if there's an action that needs to be taken because of a development, something that shows up in intel, they will take that action.

Jody Thomas was very clear that in the intel, when it first surfaced, with respect to the MPs in February and March 2021, there was no physical threat. There was some alarming information. It's up to others in the system to determine how loud that alarm is ringing and what actions are required to be taken.

In answer to your question, Madam Chair, when someone like me reads it, we can be quite certain that others already know the information and have taken action on it, or it wouldn't be buried in an assessment report.

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

Thank you for that.

We can argue about whether the action was appropriate from our opinions, but it is alarming to me that we have multiple MPs who were targeted and they just didn't know. That's concerning.

You said that Mr. Chong was provided a defensive briefing, but I want to be really clear. According to the testimony that we've heard, he was provided the defensive briefing, but he had no idea that he and his family were being targeted specifically.

When you look at that, how does that make sense? If I don't know that I am being targeted, as a human being, and I'm provided information, that information is helpful—Mr. Chong said it was helpful—but it doesn't allow me to assess the issue in a meaningful way. That's what I'm really concerned about, because at the end of the day, to me, this is not partisan. This is a broken system—I don't think everything's broken, but there's a part of it that's broken—that we need to fix so that parliamentarians feel they have faith in the system, and Canadians have faith in the system.

Can you explain from your perspective or give me insight as to why he was provided a defensive briefing, but he did not know that both he and his family, both internally and externally to Canada, were being targeted?

[David Morrison]

Thank you for the question, Madam Chair.

It's a question that would be better posed to the head of CSIS, who I know is appearing before you later tonight. I think at least part of his answer will be that he was guided by the CSIS Act as it is in place and as interpreted, and was somewhat constrained in the information he felt he was able to provide to Mr. Chong.

I think other witnesses have shown clearly, and 20/20 hindsight has shown very clearly, that that's not acceptable. It wasn't sufficient, which is why there is, as of May 16 this year, a new regime in place that will allow anyone involved in briefing MPs to go further than has been the case up until now.

The second thing that I tried to say on this issue in my earlier testimony is that we need to be slightly cautious that it is not abnormal for foreign governments to be discussing Canadian citizens or permanent residents. I tried to say that that, in itself, is not necessarily cause for alarm. It depends on capability and intent.

[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, you say it's not abnormal for foreign states to be commenting on Canadian citizens. In this particular case, we have evidence in a memo of a diplomat threatening a sitting member of Parliament because of his doing his job of speaking on behalf of his constituents, and threatening to sanction his family. For you to suggest or dismiss it as just a foreign state talking about someone in some way that shouldn't have raised alarm bells is completely unacceptable and really undermines your credibility.

You said that the system functioned properly. I want to go back to that point.

The system functioned properly, even though a sitting member of Parliament, Mr. Chong, was not briefed. The system functioned properly even though that information you sat on resulted in a Beijing diplomat being able to stay in Canada for two more years to harass and intimidate Chinese Canadians. However, you say, sir, through you, Madam Chair, that is a case of the system working properly.

Also, Mr. Morrison, you sat on that memo, which contained information that has resulted in the expulsion of a diplomat, Mr. Zhao Wei. Do you support the decision to expel Mr. Zhao Wei?

[David Morrison]

Just to be clear, I never said the system functioned properly. I said the system functioned. I read my remarks. I've just gone back and reread them, so maybe the transcript will show....

I said, “I would submit that the system did function according to the protocols that were in place back in 2021.” That's what I believe—

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

I asked you a question, Mr. Morrison. Do you support the expulsion of Mr. Zhao Wei, which is based on information that you sat on and allowed him to stay there for two years. Yes or no?

[David Morrison]

I was the person directly involved in the expulsion of Zhao Wei, so, yes, I definitely support that expulsion.

I would say, though, that I can't go into all of the details but there is information that has circulated in the media and elsewhere about Mr. Zhao Wei that is not accurate. I would say, though, that he did engage in—

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

Mr. Morrison, you answered my question.

Now, you poo-poo and downplay the significance of the information that was before your desk, the Prime Minister's national security and intelligence adviser, on the basis that it was buried in a memo and that somehow that shouldn't have captured your attention. We're talking about a nine-page memo. It's hardly a book, Mr. Morrison, and you're the national security adviser to the Prime Minister. Do you not take responsibility?

[David Morrison]

Madam Chair, I think the question's been asked and I think I've tried to answer it a number of times.

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

No, you don't take responsibility.

[David Morrison]

I can try again to say, number one, that the memo did not name Michael Chong. It was a memo designed to raise awareness—

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

A sitting member of Parliament—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Please pause, Mr. Cooper.

Deputy, I'm going to say to you there was a series of comments that were made within that exchange. I have to appreciate your attempts to answer and not be given the floor.

This institution that we're creating and that we're trying to improve is not one that always functions well. The way people interpret comments and the way they are repeated often don't match the way they're delivered.

Your opening comments will be part of our binder. Members will be able to review them. I can assure you and reassure you that what members—some more than others—want to take from them, they will.

With that, for me, when it comes to this issue, it's very important. The minute there was a good exchange, a good hour, I rewarded good behaviour. I commended it. I appreciated it.

I try not to interrupt, but right now I am taking some time here to interrupt, because the members need to understand that this chair will take time when we're not taking turns and allowing everyone to satisfy their role.

That's how simple it is.

I am going to give the floor back to Mr. Cooper, but, Deputy, rest assured that I will provide you some time to answer if you would like it. Your being here to provide us information is important. I also want to make some comments today, too.

We need to understand how our institutions work. Oftentimes people who are on the elected side, who have not had the exchanges, don't really really understand where there is overlap and how it works. What you know and what we know doesn't always match. This is our opportunity to better understand what you know.

Thank you for that.

I hope everyone got to take a nice little breath.

Mr. Cooper, you have the floor.

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

Madam Chair, through you to Mr. Morrison, as the Prime Minister's national security and intelligence adviser, do you take any responsibility for this failure? Do you take any responsibility, yes or no?

[David Morrison]

I'm sorry. Do I take any responsibility for...? I missed the word.

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

For this failure, the fact that you had this information on your desk in August 2021 and you did nothing.

Do you take any responsibility for that?

[David Morrison]

Madam Chair, I challenge the premise of the question.

I did read the report. I'm sure that in the course of my role as acting NSIA and as foreign and defence policy adviser, it informed how I advised the Prime Minister. I did commission a follow-on piece into the subject area.

Thank you.

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

Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Let me just say in conclusion that it seems that people fail upward in this government as long as they remain loyal to the Prime Minister.

Isn't that right, Mr. Morrison?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

With that, we are at time.

Mr. Cooper, I do not anticipate hearing your voice until it's your turn again, or whomever else it is.

Deputy Morrison, the floor is yours.

[David Morrison]

I have nothing to say to the fail upward comment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

That's appreciated.

With that, we will go to Mrs. Romanado for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Through you, I would like to thank Mr. Morrison for being with us today.

I'm trying to determine the question of privilege for Mr. Chong. I'm going to clarify a couple of dates. After I do so, could you make sure I have the right information?

We understand that, on February 18, 2021, Mr. Chong introduced the opposition day motion. On February 22, 2021, there was a vote. Subsequent to that vote, you mentioned influence maps were created on the members of the subcommittee on human rights, which would have included Mr. Chong. No physical or imminent threats were in that.

I understand the issues management note of May 2021—I don't have the exact date—was prepared. No specific threats were made, and no MPs were named specifically. Subsequent to that, Mr. Chong received the first defensive briefing on June 24, 2021—a defensive briefing that did not include specific threats.

On July 20, 2021, there as an assessment and deep dive done—this famous memo—that did not require action and did not name any MPs. It appeared in your reading package of August. Could you clarify the exact date? That, of course, did not, again, include names of MPs. You had follow-up action identified.

Mr. Chong has testified that he initiated meetings with CSIS on August 5, 2021, February 25, 2022 and July 18, 2022.

I'm trying to get a better understanding of when the specific threat to MP Chong gets to MP Chong. I'm trying to understanding when he was made aware of the specific threat. I understand he mentioned he learned about it through the media on May 1, 2023—I think. We're trying to determine the point of privilege.

Could you clarify the date of the May 2021 issues management note, the reading package date and which date Mr. Chong was made aware of the specific threat to him that would have constituted an intimidation tactic?

[David Morrison]

Madam Chair, thank you for the question.

I believe the issues management note is dated May 30 or 31, 2021. The date I gave as the Privy Council Office reconstructing when it arrived to me.... It's been in the press that I was on some medical leave earlier in the month, but it arrived in my reading pack on August 17.

I don't know exactly when the more fulsome brief was given to Mr. Chong. That's a question to put to CSIS.

Your timeline is largely accurate. I don't want to have confused things with the use of the term “influence map”. My point was simply that diplomats around the world keep lists of people in order to do their jobs so that—