Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 13th, 2023

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

I have in my hands an article from Global News by Marc-André Cossette, which says that, via a statement issued by your department while you were, I believe, the deputy minister of Global Affairs, you said the following:

“Mr. Morrison does not recall having received any written material regarding threats to MPs during this time,” according to a spokesperson for Global Affairs Canada, where Morrison now serves as deputy minister.

“He also does not recall any oral briefings or discussions on the issue while NSIA,” the department said in its statement.

However, you admitted today before this committee that you were not only functionally aware of threats to members of Parliament—even though you claimed you didn't know their names—but also that you were acutely aware of and have even taken credit for initiating responses to the special report originating in December and talked about in January 2022.

How can you have a premeditated, vetted correspondence coming out of your department while you're the deputy minister that completely contradicts what you've said here today at this committee?

[David Morrison]

I believe the actual question had to do with the targeting of MPs, and that's the question to which I responded. I not only claimed not to know the names, but also that I didn't know the names of any of the MPs who had been targeted until I read them in the press.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Deputy.

Monsieur Fergus.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Mr. Morrison, first of all, as a result of your work as an NSIA, you are privy to a number of documents that are of top security, national security at the highest levels. You have come to this committee and testified and frankly illuminated us on a number of issues. You participated in the review by the independent special rapporteur, and as you had mentioned in your responses to the previous questions you went to a secure room, you received the information, and you answered questions fully and frankly. You've appeared before the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians and yet you're still able to come here and tell us, to the best of your abilities.... While fulfilling your obligations to keep secrets secret, you're able to share with us a number of facts and information, which have allowed us to glean a lot more about what is going on.

I'm not going to ask you a political question, but this is a serious question. Has being informed and being privy to this secret information stopped you from being able to have, to the best of your abilities, a frank exchange with members of Parliament without threatening or compromising our national security?

[David Morrison]

I think when David Johnston was before the committee, he talked about needing to have some kind of firewall in his head or some kind of protection against revealing things that he is not supposed to reveal. That is an aspect of this business that all of us in the business have to grapple with. I would point out that everything I said in my opening remarks came from either The Globe and Mail or David Johnston's report. So all of that has been available to all Canadians for a number of weeks now.

I like to try to be forthcoming with parliamentarians exercising oversight. That's how our system works. There are some things that can't be shared. In general I think intelligence exists on a need-to-know basis, and that principle needs to be protected because of sources and methods, but in general, I think it is good that we are having this debate about the role of intelligence in Canadian society and indeed the changing nature of national security.

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

And of course it's a lot easier to be able to speak authoritatively and to understand the distinctions between rumour, innuendo, and fact, and that usually comes by informing yourself.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you very much.

Madame Gaudreau.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

We've had some great exchanges and I just have two questions.

My first one is for Mr. Morrison.

I'd like us to return to our main issue. You were part of the election working group, and I'm trying to understand a few things. I'm thinking of Mr. O'Toole, who, after the election, could have been your boss. He would have been the head of government of a G7 country and the target of Chinese agents.

I'd like to understand how it is that no alarm bells went off at such an important juncture. I think your words will help me explain to the people who come to me in the field and are surprised.

[David Morrison]

I thank the member for her question.

In answer to your question—and this is what I was trying to get at in the way I framed my remarks—I think anyone who is the leader of an opposition or who aspires to be the leader of a G7 country, or any country, frankly, should recognize that they are very likely to be targets for foreign intelligence agencies, for foreign governments. Those could be targets of influence or targets of interference.

We certainly build profiles in this country on all sorts of people in other countries, because that's what our national interests demand. It is important to know the background of, the inclinations of, the likely policy positions of leaders and opposition leaders in other countries.

I tried to say several times that there is nothing necessarily nefarious in a foreign government building a profile on a prominent Canadian. As I said, this is part of what we do via our embassies. Frankly, it helps make our diplomacy more effective if the Prime Minister knows something about the background—something that's not available on the website—of a foreign leader before he meets that foreign leader.

It was said by one of my questioners from this side of the room that this seems to be normal activity. It crosses a line when it is coercive, deceptive or threatening to an individual or an institution. That is the definition of foreign interference and that is what is unacceptable.

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

So, once again, thresholds are extremely important. Otherwise, there's too much sloppiness, because some information, while important, isn't deemed important enough.

I'd like to ask you one last question. You've been a sherpa, that is, a representative and organizer for the G7 summits. In Charlevoix in 2018, Canada hosted the G7, and a rapid response mechanism was put in place. We have to say it. Did this mechanism, which must have worked very well, fail to do its job?

I was just telling you about the leader of the official opposition, who could have been the prime minister. How is it that we were able to act in the past, but it's different now? I'd like to understand that, but I can't.

[David Morrison]

Madam Chair, that's an excellent question.

The member is right. Following the G7 Summit held in Charlevoix in 2018, Canada created the Rapid Response Mechanism Canada to try to coordinate the efforts of the G7 countries.

And it's to bring to light issues of misinformation and disinformation.

Canada hosts the secretariat for the mechanism within Global Affairs. It is networked throughout the G7 countries. It is that mechanism that was operative within Canada during the 2019 and 2021 elections.

I would be happy to follow up directly afterwards on the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you so much.

Mrs. Blaney.

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

Thank you so much, Chair.

This will be my final round with you, Mr. Morrison, so I thank you for your time with us today.

Something has been niggling in the back of my mind as we have asked you questions. One of the things I remember your saying is that when you receive the intelligence, you trust that action would have been taken—appropriate action.

I'm wondering whether I am missing something.

We have had intelligence agencies in here and they have testified that they give information but they do not recommend actions. Based on that, I'm trying to understand where in that process you felt that action had been taken.

[David Morrison]

Action had been taken by the same organization that produced the intelligence. It is an accurate statement that the way the system works is that the collectors collect and they feed to consumers. On the basis of that, portraits form over time from disparate pieces of intelligence, the kinds of one-off reports that I spoke of. Sometimes they're only a paragraph long, right up to the kind of nine-page assessments I spoke of. That is meant to allow consumers such as me and others who are advising the government to form pictures of what's really going on out there. There are multiple collection agencies, and there are multiple consumers.

In the case we're talking about of threats against Canadian MPs, it happens to have been the same agency, to the best of my recollection, that first picked up the intelligence. They were the ones who then did the defensive briefing to Mr. Chong.

In general, there's a collection function and an assessment function, and then the likes of people like me read, are briefed or participate in discussions on intelligence. I should say that those discussions are not informed only by intelligence. Intelligence is an input into the discussions, but, from where I sit, I consume intelligence, but I also consume diplomatic reporting.

We have people all over the world who send us reports every day that give a view as to what is going on. In a collegial fashion, the deputy minister community at the highest level comes together to debate issues. We sometimes have different views as to exactly what is going on because we may read slightly different things and we may talk to slightly different people. Out of that comes a picture.

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

Thank you.

We know that the diaspora communities have been ringing this alarm for quite a while. I think that is one thing I find frustrating about this process. We did have people saying very clearly that there are issues happening and that we should all be aware of them.

You have talked to us several times about the fact that Mr. Johnston recommended public hearings with these communities. You amplified the need for that.

We've also heard testimony from these communities that they have come forward many times asking for help, but with very little success. These folks, who often come from countries with authoritarian governments, are not interested, necessarily, in talking with government or with police.

In the system you're part of, how are voices like theirs heard and amplified? Based on what we're seeing, I don't think they are. I want to know if there is a process and if that is being reviewed internally as well as these public hearings.

[David Morrison]

I've already made my views known on the importance of this particular issue of the challenges that we are facing. I believe I characterized it as the greatest long-term threat with respect to Chinese foreign interference. Diaspora communities will grow. Frankly, we don't know as much as we need to about what is going on.

I'm not, frankly, aware of the mechanisms that members of communities have to register concerns. They clearly don't feel listened to. That's why I think public hearings would be an appropriate next step.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

With that, Deputy Morrison, our time has come to an end.

It is National Public Service Week. I do echo the comments by Mr. Fergus and thank you for your service. I thank all people who serve. We do push hard and we have a lot of work to do. I have the utmost confidence in the people who are helping us get there.

I do want to thank all members for the meeting today.

The good news is that we'll be back together again at 6:30 tonight in room 225. With that, I'm wishing you all to keep well and safe.

The meeting is adjourned.