PROC Committee Report

Question of Privilege Related to the Intimidation Campaign Against the Member for Wellington—Halton Hills and Other Members: Conservative Supplemental Report

This Supplemental Report reflects the views of the Conservative Members of Parliament who serve on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs (“PROC”): MP Michael Cooper (Vice-Chair of the Committee, St. Albert—Edmonton), MP Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L’Érable), MP Blaine Calkins (Red Deer—Lacombe), and MP Eric Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry).

Introduction

Conservatives concur with the finding of the Committee’s report that Wei Zhao be held in contempt of Parliament for orchestrating efforts on the part of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to intimidate MP Michael Chong and other MPs. However, we assess the Committee’s report to be inadequate. The report does not provide a sufficient account of the breakdown in the machinery of government, under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, which allowed for this incident to occur. It further fails to acknowledge two facts which had a significant impact on the Committee’s ability to do its work in undertaking this study. Namely, that Minister Bill Blair was evidently not entirely forthcoming with the evidence he provided to the Committee, and that the sustained efforts of Liberal MPs to block the Committee from ordering relevant documents prevented the Committee from being equipped with all available facts.

This supplemental report will detail what Conservatives observe to be a proper account of the breakdown in the machinery of government that led to this contempt of Parliament. It will also provide evidence of Minister Blair’s misleading testimony, and comment on the efforts on the part of Liberal MPs to obstruct the study by preventing the Committee from ordering relevant documents.

A Breakdown in the Machinery of Government under Justin Trudeau’s Watch

The scale of the breakdown in the machinery of government, under Justin Trudeau’s watch, in relation to the subject matter of the question of privilege, was not adequately addressed in the Committee’s report. Accordingly, we will detail the significant failures on the part of Justin Trudeau, the then-Minister of Public Safety Bill Blair, and multiple Trudeau government officials. These failures resulted in MP Michael Chong being left in the dark for two years about the fact that he and his family in Hong Kong were being targeted by the PRC.

Ultimate responsibility for these failures rests with Justin Trudeau. As Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau is singularly responsible for organizing the machinery of government. This includes special responsibilities for national security.[1] These special responsibilities involve organizing the government such that there is an appropriate flow of information and intelligence to decisionmakers.

It is evident that there was a breakdown of the information and intelligence flow throughout Justin Trudeau’s government. This is demonstrated by the fact that at least two CSIS memos warning that the PRC was targeting MP Chong and other MPs were sent to multiple points at the highest levels of Justin Trudeau’s government but were not acted upon. It is likely that MP Chong would still be in the dark, and no action would have been taken in response to this interference by the PRC, had it not been reported on by The Globe and Mail beginning on May 1, 2023. Only then was MP Chong briefed by CSIS and the Prime Minister’s National Security and Intelligence Advisor, and Wei Zhao was expelled from Canada.

The May 2021 CSIS IMU

The first CSIS memo warning that the PRC was targeting MP Chong and other MPs was a May 2021 CSIS Issues Management Brief (IMU), which was sent to then-Minister of Public Safety Bill Blair, Minister Blair’s Chief of Staff, the Deputy Minister of Public Safety, and the Prime Minister’s National Security and Intelligence Advisor (NSIA) via Canada’s Top Secret Network (CTSN). The IMU specifically mentioned that MP Chong was being targeted by the PRC, including by Wei Zhao. According to the Director of CSIS, David Vigneault, an IMU is a type of note prepared by CSIS designed to bring to the attention of decisionmakers information deemed to be of “high importance”.[2]

Mr. Vigneault testified at the Committee that the IMU was sent to the Department of Public Safety “with the very specific directive to forward it to the [M]inister [of Public Safety].”[3] Notwithstanding this, Minister Blair claimed that he was unaware of the IMU. Minister Blair further claimed that he did not have access to the secure terminal in which the IMU was stored. This terminal was located on the same floor as Minister Blair’s office, in the office of the Deputy Minister of Public Safety.

At the Committee, Minister Blair blamed the Director of CSIS for not personally briefing him on the IMU. Minister Blair stated that he was reliant on the Director of CSIS to personally bring matters of importance to his attention. Minister Blair stated:

“The way in which the information was brought to the attention of the [M]inister was that it was determined by the director of CSIS what intelligence information the [M]inister needed to know. They would then print out a copy of that and have me attend at a secure location, and the Director of CSIS would brief me.”[4]

Minister Blair’s testimony was contradicted by Mr. Vigneault, who acknowledged that “a lot of the information that is exchanged between CSIS and the [M]inister comes directly from me or one of my senior officials.” However, Mr. Vigneault added:

“However, I think it’s important to note here that we also have a lot of exchanges of documentation. The exchanges of documentation come, as I mentioned earlier, mostly through electronic means to the department, so that it is able to be printed and made available to the [M]inister.”[5]

The foregoing is the means by which the IMU was transmitted to Minister Blair. We find it concerning that Minister Blair was not forthcoming about this common means of transmitting information to him from CSIS. This appears to be a convenient omission on the part of Minister Blair to evade responsibility.

According to the then-Deputy Minister of Public Safety, Rob Stewart, it was up to Minister Blair “to decide which briefings he wants and which he doesn’t.”[6] When Minister Blair was asked whether he instructed his officials to brief him on IMUs, he did not provide an answer.[7] It is alarming that Minister Blair wouldn’t confirm whether he instructed his officials to bring to his attention matters deemed by CSIS to be of “high importance”. This does not lend confidence to Minister Blair’s execution of his duties as Minister of Public Safety. In fact, it raises the question: what other matters of “high importance” flagged by CSIS did Minister Blair miss?

Minister Blair also testified that his Chief of Staff, Zita Astravas never reviewed the IMU. Likewise, neither Mr. Stewart nor the NSIA at the time, Vincent Rigby, reviewed the IMU. Notwithstanding that the IMU contained information CSIS deemed to be of “high importance” transmitted specifically for their attention, the IMU effectively went into a “black hole”.

The July 2021 CSIS Memo

The second CSIS memo was a July 2021 intelligence memo (July Memo) that was sent to the Deputy Minister of Public Safety, the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Deputy Minister of National Defence, and the NSIA. The July Memo warned that certain MPs were being targeted by the PRC. Although the memo did not expressly name MP Chong, it contained details— including about MP Chong’s family in Hong Kong—that would have made it apparent to persons familiar with the matter that MP Chong was one of the MPs who was being targeted.

No action was taken by any of the officials to whom the July Memo was sent. At Committee, then-NSIA Jody Thomas acknowledged that the memo went into a “black hole”.[8]

Ms. Thomas was one of the recipients of the July Memo as the then-Deputy Minister of National Defence. Ms. Thomas was on vacation at the time the memo was received by the Department of National Defence. Ms. Thomas never read the memo. By the time Ms. Thomas returned from vacation, the memo had been destroyed through the Department’s destruction processes.[9] Notwithstanding that Ms. Thomas was the only person in the Department authorized to review the memo, there were no protocols in place to ensure that the memo was maintained for her review upon returning from vacation.

Ms. Thomas further noted that “it’s incumbent upon the Deputy Ministers [who received the memo] to brief [their] ministers.”[10] She confirmed that the memo was sent to three Deputy Ministers but went nowhere. None of the respective Ministers were briefed. This is an indictment of the national security culture and the flow of information and intelligence within Justin Trudeau’s government.

According to Ms. Thomas, although the July Memo was sent to the NSIA in July 2021, it was not “presented” to the NSIA until August 2021. Around the time that the memo was sent, the position of NSIA had become a “revolving door”. In July 2021, the Prime Minister had an interim NSIA, Mike MacDonald. During this time the memo went unread. By the time that the memo was “presented” in August 2021, the Prime Minister had a new interim NSIA, David Morrison.  

Mr. Morrison testified that the July Memo was in his reading package on August 17, 2021. However, he had “no recollection of receiving it or reading it then.”[11] Mr. Morrison stated that he eventually read the memo “when the dust from Afghanistan settled.” Despite the alarming contents of the memo, Mr. Morrison tried to downplay its significance, claiming that the memo “was never intended to spur action by readers.”[12] Mr. Morrison was unable to explain how the memo could have been written in a way to spur action. We submit that a memo that states that the PRC “has taken specific action to target Canadian MPs” [13] should suffice to prompt immediate action by the NSIA.

Mr. Morrison’s casual dismissal of the July Memo’s significance is even more concerning considering Justin Trudeau had called a federal election two days prior to the memo appearing in Mr. Morrison’s reading package. At the time, Mr. Morrison was also a member of the five-member Panel as part of the government’s Critical Election Incident Public Protocol (“CEIPP”). The CEIPP was established to counter and make known to the public threats of foreign interference in federal elections.

One would reasonably expect that given Mr. Morrison’s dual roles, he would have been even more concerned about the contents of the memo. Mr. Morrison’s disinterest in an intelligence memo flagging PRC interference against sitting MPs casts doubt on his judgment and fitness for the roles that he served in as the NSIA and as a member of the CEIPP Panel. This also applies to his current role as Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. We further observe that Mr. Morrison’s dismissive approach portended the failure of the CEIPP Panel to respond to what subsequently has been revealed to be a sophisticated strategy by the PRC to interfere in the 2021 election for the purposes of helping Justin Trudeau’s Liberals and defeating certain Conservative candidates.

After finally reading the July Memo months after it appeared in his reading package, Mr. Morrison stated that he was “interested enough to have commissioned a follow-on piece…within our intelligence community in an attempt to gain the fullest possible picture of [Beijing’s] foreign interference in Canada.”[14] This follow-up memo was not finalized until January 2022—five months after Mr. Morrison had initially received the memo in his reading package. Mr. Morrison was unaware of whether the Prime Minister was briefed on the follow-up memo, and could not otherwise say what was done with it within the government.[15] However, given that MP Chong first learned that he was a target of the PRC via The Globe and Mail, it is evident that no action was taken to inform and protect MP Chong and the other MPs from the PRC’s activities against them.

Minister Blair Misled the Committee

We conclude that Minister Blair deliberately misled the Committee during his appearance on June 1, 2023, regarding the circumstances surrounding his failure to read or otherwise be briefed on the IMU. The IMU concerned intelligence that MP Chong and his family were being targeted by the PRC.

The IMU was sent on May 31, 2021, to the attention of Minister Blair. Minister Blair claimed that he was unaware of the IMU, and otherwise did not learn that MP Chong and his family were being a targeted of the PRC until this was reported in The Globe and Mail on May 1, 2023.

At Committee, when probed about why he had been unaware of the IMU, Minister Blair repeatedly claimed that the Director of CSIS had made the decision not to share the information contained in the IMU with him. Minister Blair characterized this as an “operational decision” by the Director. Relevant testimony of Minister Blair on this point includes:

“The [D]irector [of CSIS] determined that this was not information the [M]inister needed to know, so I was never notified of the existence of that intelligence, nor was it ever shared with me.”

…

“In this case, the national security and intelligence agency made a determination that this was not information that needed to be shared with the [M]inister, and they did not share it with me.”

…

“This is a situation where it’s an operational decision of CSIS as to what information needs to be passed along to government. In this case, they made an operational decision that this was not required. Two years later, when it was leaked to the press, that information was subsequently shared with me.”[16]

On its face, Minister Blair’s testimony is absurd. Why would CSIS issue an IMU to Minister Blair on intelligence about which an “operational decision” had been made not to share with him? This defies common sense and lacks credibility.

Minister Blair’s testimony was directly contradicted by the Director of CSIS, David Vigneault. Mr. Vigneault testified that CSIS issued an IMU to the attention of Minister Blair to make him aware that MP Chong and his family were being targeted by the PRC. As Mr. Vigneault stated:

“I think the fact that we did an issue management note [IMU] speaks to the notion that we wanted to highlight the information.”[17]

Mr. Vigneault further explained the significance of transmitting the intelligence via an IMU. According to Mr. Vigneault, CSIS issues IMU’s “when we see we have something of high importance.” As Mr. Vigneault stated:

“[W]e have instituted this process called an “information management note”. That would be shared to bring attention to something more specifically. That was the purpose of this note. It was to bring it to the attention of the people to whom it was destined to go.”[18]

We also need not rely simply on Mr. Vigneault's testimony. Contemporaneous CSIS records, released under the Access to Information Act, validate Mr. Vigneault's evidence. A copy of the IMU, as released by CSIS and which Conservatives tabled with the Committee, is annexed.

Minister Blair made a second appearance at the Committee where he was asked to clarify his earlier testimony. Minister Blair explained: “I assumed that if the [D]irector did not share information with me, then he didn’t require that I see it.”[19]

We are not satisfied with Minister Blair’s explanation. It was a blatant attempt by Minister Blair to evade responsibility for having given false and inaccurate testimony on June 1, 2023. This false and inaccurate testimony was not an instance of Minister Blair merely misspeaking. Rather, Minister Blair actively misled the Committee.

To support this conclusion, we make the following observations. Minister Blair used very specific words, including that an “operational decision” had been made by CSIS. He was unequivocal in his words. Moreover, Minister Blair made the claim repeatedly. Taken together, it is evident the Minister was deliberate in his choice of words and did not misspeak.

It is shocking that Minister Blair was unaware of the intelligence concerning the targeting of MP Chong by the PRC that CSIS had specifically sent to him as a matter of “high importance” via an IMU. This constituted a serious breakdown in the flow of information and intelligence under Minister Blair’s watch. As Minister, Mr. Blair bears responsibility for this breakdown. Instead of accepting responsibility, Minister Blair pointed to the Director of CSIS and a supposed “operational decision” that had been made to keep him in the dark. Minister Blair had to have known that no such operational decision had been made, and yet he said so anyway. This is supported by Minister Blair’s later testimony when he stated that he merely “assumed” that the Director “didn’t require that I see [the intelligence].” That is markedly different from Minister Blair’s June 1, 2023, testimony where he spoke definitively of an “operational decision” by the Director of CSIS.

Minister Blair had a duty to be truthful in his testimony to the Committee. Minister Blair was not truthful. He misled the Committee, in a self-serving attempt to evade accountability for a massive failure that occurred under his watch as Minister of Public Safety.

Misleading a parliamentary committee is a serious matter; indeed, it can amount to a contempt of Parliament. It cannot be overlooked. Accordingly, we are reporting Mr. Blair's misleading evidence to the House of Commons, since a question of privilege may be involved, to give the House an opportunity to reflect on these matters.

Liberal MPs Obstructed the Production of Relevant Documents

The Committee failed to obtain all relevant documents and evidence due to a sustained coverup campaign by Liberal MPs on the Committee. These documents included the IMU and the July Memo.

This coverup campaign was at times supported by New Democrat and Bloc Québécois MPs. Consequently, the Committee was unable to fully investigate the question of privilege concerning MP Chong and other MPs who were targeted by the PRC. It follows that the findings and recommendations of the Committee’s Report are based on incomplete evidence and information. This is unacceptable.

It is conclusive that there was a significant breakdown in the machinery of government that left MP Chong in the dark for two years that he and his family were being targeted by the PRC. The Speaker of the House of Commons found a prima facie contempt of MP Chong’s privileges as an MP. Following the Speaker’s ruling, the House unanimously passed a motion that this prima facie contempt of privilege be referred to the Committee to investigate.

The Committee had a responsibility to fully investigate the circumstances surrounding MP Chong being targeted by the PRC, and the fact that Justin Trudeau’s government failed to inform MP Chong of this. The production of documents was critical to the Committee’s ability to undertake a full investigation. The importance of document production was noted by MP Chong when he appeared at the Committee. MP Chong said that it was necessary for the Committee to “obtain the documents and tracking records” to identify the “systemic problems” that resulted in a breakdown in the machinery of government that left him in the dark.[20]

Accordingly, Conservatives introduced multiple motions calling for the production of all relevant documents. At every step, these efforts were thwarted by Liberal MPs, undoubtedly at the direction of Justin Trudeau and his PMO.

After months of Liberal obstruction, MP Chong felt compelled to write to the Committee urging that it exercise its unfettered powers to obtain all relevant documents related to the PRC’s intimidation campaign. As MP Chong observed:

“Without such information, the Committee will not be able to fully understand what took place and will not be able to make recommendations to the House to prevent future occurrences to me or other [M]embers.”[21]

Liberal MPs ignored MP Chong’s letter, again undoubtedly at the direction of Justin Trudeau and his PMO. Instead, they proceeded to conclude the study and prepare a report without having ordered or reviewed any relevant documents. As a result, the Committee was placed in the untenable position of writing a report and making recommendations based on an incomplete body of evidence. Incredibly, The Globe and Mail, which first reported that MP Chong and his family were a target of the PRC, had access to documents that Liberal MPs blocked the Committee from obtaining.

Liberal MPs feigned that their efforts to block the Committee from receiving documents were due to national security concerns. These claims are groundless. The production motions introduced by Conservatives contained a mechanism by which the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel would make redactions as necessary to protect national security. Significantly, the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel has a Top Secret security clearance. Given this, there was no credible risk that the production of relevant documents would have in any way compromised national security.

Instead, national security was used as a ruse by Liberal MPs, undoubtedly at the direction of Justin Trudeau and his PMO, to shield Trudeau and his Ministers from accountability for this serious breakdown in the machinery of government.

This is part of a pattern of obstruction and coverup by Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government. This government cannot be trusted to be truthful and transparent with the information it provides to Parliament. Rather, it has gone to unprecedented lengths to hide the truth.

This is supported by the finding of the Ad Hoc Committee of Parliamentarians, which reviewed the Winnipeg Lab documents. The Committee, comprised of MPs from all recognized parties as well as three retired judges, found the decision by Justin Trudeau’s government to withhold the Winnipeg Lab documents was “mostly about protecting [the government] from embarrassment”, and not legitimate national security concerns.[22]

Having regard for this record of coverup, coupled with the unfounded national security concerns raised by Liberal MPs, it is evident that the true underlying motivation of these efforts was to protect Justin Trudeau from political embarrassment. That Liberal MPs on the Committee put the political interests of Justin Trudeau ahead of getting to the bottom of why MP Chong was kept in the dark for two years is an abdication of their responsibility and casts doubt on the credibility of the Committee’s report in the face of this information void.

Conclusion

The circumstances surrounding the subject matter of this question of privilege constitute a serious breakdown in the machinery of government. As Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau bears ultimate responsibility. It is evident by the conduct of Liberal MPs on the Committee that their primary objective in participating in this study was to protect Justin Trudeau from political embarrassment. This objective was put ahead of a complete investigation into what happened and holding the government to account.

Finally, we emphasize our observation that Minister Blair intentionally gave false and inaccurate testimony to the Committee in an effort to shield himself from responsibly for his failure to read an intelligence memo sent to him by CSIS and flagged for high importance. We submit that this may amount to a contempt of Parliament and ask that the matter be referred to the House for further consideration.