.
18,000
Oct 17, 2024 A segment from Justin Trudeau's 6 hour testimony from The Foreign Interference Commission today. Lawyer for CPC MP Michael Chong cross examines Trudeau at Foreign Interference Commission. Oct 16 2024 📢 BREAKING CANADIAN POLITICS WITH BORING BITS REMOVED AVAILABLE ON THIS CHANNEL EVERY DAY AROUND 3PM PT (6PM EST) CATCH THE ACTION WITHOUT THE SNOOZIN 😴 💤 0:00 Playground For Foreign Interference
1:20 NOT ATTEMPTS SUCCESSFUL INTERFERENCE
2:17 Multiple Spies
2:29 Trudeaus Lawyer Tries To Divert
2:50 Trudeau Being Coached
3:00 Lawyer Tries To Explain Reality To Trudeau
6:26 Globe And Mail Discovered This Not You
7:55 You Should Know If Youre The PM
9:02 Trudeau Doesnt Think He Should
9:13 Well Beyond Particular Names
9:40 MISPOKE UNDER OATH
9:57 Caught In A LIE
11:40 Liberal Logic Keeping Canada Safe
12:44 Why Does This Need Explaining
14:09 CSIS KNEW FOR YEARS
14:51 Debate Or Not DO YOUR JOB
15:02 Pretends This Was Intentional
16:13 You Didnt Know You Had A Choice
16:45 IT WAS LEAKED THATS WHY YOU ACTED
17:35 Antithesis To Your Government
19:20 Downplaying concerns
20:42 Evidence Repeatedly Proves You Wrong
TRANSCRIPT
Chan prime
minister my client was here in September
and gave evidence to the commissioner
and one of the concerns that he
expressed is that this country has
become in his words a playground for
foreign interference by States like PRC
and India uh Mr medino
uh was here last week and disputed that
phrase playground of foreign
interference given the revelations by
the RCMP and by you sir on Monday isn't
Mr Chong's assessment closer to the mark
than Mr mendan she
knows no I think it enforce it
reinforces how wrong Mr Chong is because
what this week has been all about is
demonstrating the capacity and the
reality that Canada has been both
detecting foreign interference and
acting on it I would suggest that
knowing about this and revealing it to
the public and creating um diplomatic
males to put it lightly uh is an example
of us pushing back strongly against uh
NOT ATTEMPTS SUCCESSFUL INTERFERENCE
attempts at interference in this country
not just attempts or successful
interference yes you confirmed this
morning uh that your government's
assessment of the prc's targeting of
Michael Chong and his relations in Hong
Kong uh is not foreign interference but
is instead uh lawful diplomatic
activity sir uh there have been there
were in 2021 four intelligence products
we've only seen one of them but there
were four concerning uh
uh PRC activities directed at my client
all coming from CIS the one that we've
been able to see in some unredacted form
is the famous IMU from the 31st of May
which I expect you've seen before it
says
explicitly that CIS regards there as
Multiple Spies
being multiple threat actors including
the ministry of State security uh are
you aware of that sir I can show you the
document if it helps but you may be
familiar with it already uh I
Trudeaus Lawyer Tries To Divert
commissioner sorry just just before the
Prime Minister answered my friend said
you you confirmed this morning that the
prc's targeting of trong was not for an
interference I I'm and I'm uh my
recollection is the prime minister
testified that xia's targeting of Chong
was not foreign interference um so I
believe that that was the evidence the
Trudeau Being Coached
Prime Minister gave but I stand to be
corrected by my friend
yes I was talking about Jo yeah um it's
much of a muchness to me sir so my point
Lawyer Tries To Explain Reality To Trudeau
is this the ministry of State security
you're familiar with that agency yes is
there any such agency in this
country I think drawing parallels
between Canadian structures and and the
PRC structures is extremely difficult at
best uh yes particularly in the case of
the MSS because it's a foreign
intelligence agency and we don't have
one of those
right we have an intelligence agency
that focuses on uh collection
internationally which is cus right right
but we don't send spies abroad and we
don't send secret police abroad isn't
that right
sir I'm not going to speak to uh cus
operations but I can tell you there are
cus employees all around the world sir
my point is this the MSS is PRC I'm
missing something about well let me get
to it does MSS is prc's equivalent of
Russia's FSB or the Soviet Union's old
KGB or indeed India's raw the research
anal the US CIA right we don't have
anything like that my point sir is that
if a diplomat a so-called Diplomat wayo
in this country is sending information
about a Canadian MP two Canadian MPS as
it turns out back to MSS not back to the
foreign departments not back to uh
foreign affairs but to China's spy
agency that sir is not lawful
diplomacy don't you agree with that I'll
say two things about that first of all
I'm not entirely certain that you
understand what CIS is uh if if not
Canadian's um Agency for collecting
Intel
overseas um and secondly in terms of the
analysis of what xia or others were
doing um I am obviously not an expert in
the hierarchies within the the People's
Republic of China's various agencies but
what I can say is I defer to cis's
conclusions on these because they are
the intelligence agency that provides me
information provides us information on
um foreign activities
particularly um Bad actors uh cis's
conclusion in this case uh that we've
seen before this commission is that the
actions that xia engaged in in regards
to your client did not constitute
foreign uh interference now I I am
reporting that I am not the person who
made the analysis and determination that
it was on one side of the line or others
I have confidence in our agencies that
do make that determination however sir
xiawei was not a lawful Diplomat he was
a foreign intelligence agent he was a
Chinese spy do you accept that uh I
accept when I I I will state that he was
uh ejected from Canada because he was no
longer able to uh even carry the uh role
of Diplomat which was his overt role but
I also explained that there were
situations in which cisus has concluded
that he engaged in foreign interference
activities albeit not towards your
client Michael Chong so I put it to you
Globe And Mail Discovered This Not You
that jwe was out Ed as a foreign spy not
by your government but by the globan
male um there is no question that the
criminal who leaked the information to
the media uh had a role to play in uh
our decision to expel uh Michael Chong
but as I said there were sorry expel xia
uh but there were three uh factors that
went into that decision to declare him
Persona NADA one was the escalating uh
tensions between Canada and China where
they despite repeated attempts uh
refused to decrease or stop their
interference activities two was the fact
that xiawei was indeed and this perhaps
goes to your contention uh was engaged
in uh foreign interference activities
albe it not towards Michael Chong and
three was the fact that uh his name was
plastered across the newspapers made it
impossible for him to continue to be a
diplomat in Canada enop reports that cus
identified xiawei as a candidate for
expulsion in
2019 several years before the glob and
mail story but your government let him
stay here nothing was done about him and
You Should Know If Youre The PM
you on your own evidence had never even
heard of him until you read about him in
the globe that morning I put it to
proder that is head of government you
ought to have known who xiawei was and
what was going on should someone not
have informed you about his
activities as I've said a number of
times in my role as prime minister I
need to know the behavior of China I
need to know the behavior of India I
need to know the behavior of Russia in
regards to Canada in regards to
Canadians in regards to Canadian
interests I do not need to know the
operational details to be able to
establish and empower the um agencies to
actually go after that now I need to
know the type of things they are doing
but knowing the actual name of the
individual there are such a large number
of names that I trust and count on my
intelligence agencies to do the
follow-ups on the dozens of diplomats
that they must keep a close eye on
uh across the country at all given times
Trudeau Doesnt Think He Should
he's sitting with a list of names of uh
potential uh problematic people uh does
nothing to help uh keep Canadians safe
Well Beyond Particular Names
in the role that I have but sir it goes
well beyond particular names because
what you weren't told was that there was
a debate raging in your government
between CIS on the one hand and Global
Affairs on the other cus assessed that
these activities we see it in the 2021
IMU
were threats to the security of Canada
cus conducted a trm of Michael trong on
the 2nd of May for that same reason
meanwhile Mr Excuse me it was not a trm
MISPOKE UNDER OATH
it was a defensive briefing actually I I
misspoke this morning so you caught me
on that it was a defensive briefing to
Michael Chong not a threat reduction
measure which is apparently an important
distinction but I well we I'll leave
that for now I thought Mr Chong's
evidence was that he was informed by C
was a trm in any event uh that was after
Caught In A LIE
after the leaks that's what I'm talking
about that okay that I believe that was
a trm it was the earlier 2023 that was a
tr23 precisely so you've got the
security service on the one side
assessing that these are foreign threats
this is foreign interference you've got
Mr Morrison and jod Thomas Global
Affairs saying no you've misunderstood
this is consistent with the Vienna
convention what you ought to have known
but we're never told sir was that there
was this debate going on and that it was
causing uh disagreements between
agencies
about how to properly analyze and
characterize particular instances
Michael Chong happens to be one there
may very well have been others someone
ought to have told you that and so you I
want to push back on this notion that
we've heard from other Witnesses and
actually let me push back on that right
there that I testified earlier today
that I am fully aware and indeed
regularly apprised of tension between of
constructive creative tension of
disagreements of perspective between
diplomats and spies or between our
Global Affairs Canada
and before before May 2023 that there
was a dispute in your government about
whether xiawei was acting lawfully right
not about this particular person but
about uh a range of diplomats from many
different countries who are engaged in
uh in questionable activities that we
have to make determinations around which
ones and when uh we kick out knowing
full well that as soon as we PNG anyone
we lose diplomats on the other side who
are not engaged in subterfuge so there
Liberal Logic Keeping Canada Safe
are many factors that go into when one
takes a PNG decision if we were to to
kick out every single Diplomat uh who uh
who raised uh concerns we wouldn't have
any diplomats and therefore no
representation in any of our adversarial
countries and part of diplomacy is
making sure that we do have people there
and the price of that is having people
here now what our intelligence agencies
are constantly doing as you're pointing
out is uh keeping an eye uh you know
metaphorically or actually on many of
these people while engaging in an
ongoing
dialogue sometimes a debate with foreign
Global Affairs Canada to ensure that
we're getting that balance right of
protecting Canadians and allowing uh the
work that Canadians are doing overseas
in these countries uh to continue to
Why Does This Need Explaining
further protect Canadians sir you've
characterized this debate as a good
thing in your words this morning other
Witnesses have come and called it a
healthy debate I want to suggest to you
that it wasn't a healthy debate having a
debate about what foreign interference
means and where the line is between that
and lawful uh uh diplomacy is fine to a
point but at a certain point where one
of your agencies is saying one thing and
the other one is saying the other
someone has to come to you as the head
of government and say we have this
dispute it's causing us trouble in
operationalizing particular instances my
client's instance being one but no doubt
there were others someone should have
come to you the NSA should have come to
you and said prime minister we've got
this difference of opinion we want want
you to know both sides and we need your
guidance but no one ever did that and so
you were left in the dark but that is
exactly why uh The Authority for ping
someone rests in the Minister of Foreign
affairs's office and uh she was very
much closer to this debate because it is
her responsibility and when the decision
was elevated to okay uh we uh should
possibly and probably PNG this
individual
then I was brought in uh as part of uh
the discussion around that recognizing
that it was her authority to do sir when
CSIS KNEW FOR YEARS
the story came out in the Globe and Mail
Mr Morrison explained to us that Global
Affairs went back looked at its records
found that in fact CIS had been raising
alarms about w we xia's activities years
before but they had never in in Mr
Morrison's words moved Beyond The
Working level meaning they somehow had
not come to the attention of leaders
within Global Affairs uh so again I say
to you that this is a failing of this
government to take uh serious situations
and and serious debates about what's
foreign interference and what isn't and
actually resolve them it's all well and
Debate Or Not DO YOUR JOB
good to debate them but at a certain
point a judgment has to be made and
someone has to give governance and
guidance about how things should proceed
and that wasn't done until until we read
about it in the glob mail on the contr
Pretends This Was Intentional
second of May choosing to not act is a
judgment the fact that it wasn't
determined in those uh previous moments
that the threshold for PNG had been met
was an active decision yes you can act
by ping someone but you can also act by
saying no we're going to keep this
individual under surveillance we're
going to keep or or keep keep keep them
within uh what we know I can't speak to
whether or not there is active
surveillance on any individual or not
but continue to be aware of this
individual and what they are doing
because it is it has uh purpose finding
out when that right line is and when
that moment is is not something uh to be
taken lightly and it is something that
rests on the collected and Collective
expertise of people who've been working
in the security and intelligence uh
domain for uh years to develop the the
expertise on when that timing is right
You Didnt Know You Had A Choice
so it wasn't a matter of you choosing
not to act when it came to wayo you
didn't know you had a choice before you
at all because officials never told you
the ACT is not mine I do not determine
when someone should
Madie can ask Madie just just a moment I
think just wait for him to answer and
same thing on your side just wait for
the question to we go back to debating
days at Mill so there's a little bit of
back and forth there my point sir was
IT WAS LEAKED THATS WHY YOU ACTED
that there's no evidence that this was
put before Madame Jolie or whoever the
foreign minister was at the time either
it all came to a head because of the
leak and what I'm suggesting you have
rightly said that the leak is Criminal
absolutely right should not have
happened
but uh this this debate which I say is
not healthy but was festering in your
government boiled over with someone
taking the Law into their own hands what
they ought never to have done and
revealing all this to the world and only
then did you react there was nothing
proactive that's my concern sir well the
issue with the criminal who leaked this
information is
um they got it wrong in what they
leaked and
regardless of what's in the newspapers
or not it is incumbent upon a serious
Antithesis To Your Government
responsible government not to react
to partisan attacks or uh erroneous uh
but uh uh
salacious uh headlines but to react on
the substance of things and that's
exactly what we did when we as a
government collectively in the person of
the foreign min Minister made the
determination uh that it was time to uh
PNG jahwe so you seem to be suggesting
that Michael Chong
overreacted in worrying about his
relations in Hong Kong no not at all
well that is what you're suggesting no I
am I am suggesting that confronted with
or faced with a leak that is itself
erroneous that suggests that uh China uh
has uh threatened with violence his
family as the inference of the leak and
the subsequent headlines were Mr Chong
had every right to be concerned and even
outraged as did everyone as were we by
the idea that his family had been
threatened with direct physical violence
which is what the leak and the leaker um
suggested we now know that that is wrong
and that is why it is really important
that governments act based on actual
analysis and actual intelligence and
evaluation of that intelligence and not
just what appears as you say in the
globe in mail well sir I told Mr K this
yesterday and I'll say it to you Mr
Chong does not share your seeming
Downplaying concerns
confidence that his relatives in Hong
Kong will never be coerced or threatened
Ed or even physically harmed by that
state it is not a rule of law democracy
it is not a state that has a track
record of
respecting uh people's freedom of
conscience freedom of political thought
and so these concerns that he has
whether they are based in intelligence
that was misinterpreted in the glob male
or not are legitimate and fair and you
seem to be wanting to downplay them and
I want to push back on them no I am not
downplaying them in the least what I am
saying
is as a responsible government as a
government that is making decisions
about how best to protect Canadians
including uh and especially
parliamentarians we need to rely on the
best
intelligence and evidence and Analysis
and recommendations of our security
agencies and that is what we have leaned
on in terms of concluding
what threats were there on Mr Mr Chong
and uh What uh what positions and
postures we should take because of it we
are a country that leans on its
intelligence agencies not on criminals
Evidence Repeatedly Proves You Wrong
leaking things to newspapers one final
Point sir the evidence repeatedly has
been that other parts of the government
have not relied on cis's warnings in
fact the minister of Public Safety
doesn't even seem to have received them
or certainly didn't read them the same
as is true of the nsia the same seems to
be true of the clerk of the privy
Council so it's all well and good for
you to say we're a country that respects
our security agencies the evidence sir
has been that the security agency has
been sidelined and the concerns it's
been trying to raise have been neglected
and sometimes not even read I think much
of what uh we have demonstrated through
this commission as a government is that
we have taken seriously from the very
first day threats to National Security
through creating things that Mr ch was
opposed to like the National Security
and intelligence Committee of
parliamentarians but I would suggest if
Mr Chong wanted to be part of an
organization that was taking security
seriously he implore his leader Pier POV
to get a security briefing so he can
hear directly from CIS on the challenges
threatening his institution the
Conservative Party of Canada I'll take
that advice back to him thank you prime
minister thank you commissioner thank
No comments:
Post a Comment