Breaking: Trudeau Admits Missing At Least Five Crucial Reports Or Memos Intended For Him to Authorize Defensive Briefs to MPs

Justin Trudeau Describes For First Time His View of “PRC Targeting Paper” Held Back By His Advisor in 2023

For the first time, Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has testified on his view of two explosive Canadian intelligence reports, including the “Targeting Paper,” which described how Chinese diplomats assessed Canadian MPs based on how helpful or hurtful they could be to Beijing. Trudeau confirmed that this report was not shared with him by his key security advisor, Jody Thomas.

Additionally, Trudeau addressed three memos starting in 2019 that intended to brief him on foreign interference threats, all of which he claimed never reached his desk, with the intended briefings for Parliamentarians, which he was requested to authorize, only occurring in June 2024.

The inquiry into foreign interference in Canada’s elections has uncovered deep, ongoing divisions between Trudeau’s top aides and Canada’s intelligence community, with particular focus on two pivotal reports: the CSIS Targeting Paper and the PCO January 2022 Special Report. These documents, which detail how Beijing has sought to influence Canadian politics, have become central to understanding how the government responded—or failed to respond—to the growing threat of interference.

The CSIS Targeting Paper, drafted in 2021 and circulated to a small number of public servants in 2023, “named names” and outlined how Chinese diplomats categorized Canadian parliamentarians into three groups: those friendly towards Beijing, those neutral or potentially persuadable, and those deemed antagonistic due to their criticism of China’s human rights record, particularly on issues like the Uyghurs and Hong Kong. During his testimony, Trudeau played down the significance of this report, arguing that such categorization is a normal part of diplomacy.

“What the targeting paper actually talks about is that China has broadly classified parliamentarians in their diplomatic activities—some as being positive towards China, others who are neutral or convincible, and others who have spoken out against China,” Trudeau said. He noted that this diplomatic behavior was not surprising or new to him, comparing it to Canada’s own tactics during the NAFTA negotiations with the Trump administration. “That’s just a part of diplomacy right there,” he claimed.

However, Trudeau acknowledged that despite some “interesting tidbits” in the report, his National Security Intelligence Advisor (NSIA) had decided not to pass it on to him in 2021, deeming it not significantly relevant to his understanding of China’s behavior. “I have faith, having looked at the paper, that it was indeed the right decision by the National Security Intelligence Advisor—that it wasn’t a document that significantly added in a relevant way to my understanding of the situation.”

The actual contents of this paper are unknown, and blocked from the Commission by Trudeau’s Attorney General.

The PCO January 2022 Special Report, reviewed by The Bureau, outlines an alarming situation. Based on over 100 CSIS reports, it detailed a covert network that implicated 11 Toronto-area candidates in the 2019 federal election in interference operations, involving clandestine fund transfers from the Toronto Chinese Consulate into proxy networks. This report stemmed from a sensitive investigation in the Greater Toronto Area, culminating in CSIS seeking a technical surveillance warrant in March 2021. The Special Report was flagged as highly sensitive and formed the backbone of the inquiry’s scrutiny of Chinese influence in Canadian elections.

Both of these reports became focal points in the inquiry, revealing deep disagreements between Trudeau’s political aides and intelligence officials. Katie Telford, Trudeau’s Chief of Staff, testified that Global Affairs Canada held a divergent view from CSIS, particularly regarding the scope of foreign interference threats. The inquiry has exposed a consistent reluctance within the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) to act on intelligence warnings, reflecting a broader divide between diplomacy and national security.

Three Memos and Delayed Briefings

In addition to the two reports, Trudeau faced questioning over three memos that called for him to authorize broad briefings on foreign interference risks and plans to brief Parliamentarians. Commission Counsel pressed him on why these memos, intended to reach him in 2019, 2020, and 2021, were not acted on.

“These decision points didn’t get to me,” Trudeau stated, acknowledging the breakdown. “But I made it very clear throughout conversations that I would have approved of, and encouraged, briefings.”

“Nobody flagged this was something of importance that was stalled, and therefore, as you pointed out, they weren’t acted on in my office,” Trudeau concluded.

As a result, Parliamentarians were not briefed on foreign interference threats until June 2024, years after the intelligence reports had first raised the alarm.

“Do you have any idea why no reply was given to all of those seeking authorization?” Commissioner Hogue asked.

“In the third case, it actually didn’t get to my office,” Trudeau said, while offering no explanation for the second, and pointing to COVID-19 in the first.

Trudeau’s testimony, which continues today, combined with that of senior aides such as Telford and Brian Clow, highlighted the troubling rifts between the PMO and Canada’s intelligence agencies. The intelligence community, led by CSIS, has consistently sounded the alarm about Chinese interference in Canadian politics, while the PMO and Global Affairs have often pushed back on CSIS’s assessments.

The inquiry has revealed that Global Affairs and the PMO tended to downplay foreign interference concerns, particularly those involving China, in favor of maintaining diplomatic and economic ties. This stance has been at odds with CSIS, which has taken a much more hawkish view, warning of serious threats to Canada’s democratic system.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe to The Bureau

Related Topics:#TheBureau #TrudeauChina ElectionInterferenceCanada feature InquiryIntoForeignInterference PMOCSIS

Up Next

Canadian man euthanized after COVID shot injuries

Don't Miss

Inside the Shocking Parliamentary Ethics Hearing That Reveals the Depth of Media Bias in Canada

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Jasper rebuilding delayed as province waits for federal and local government approvals

Business / 3 hours ago

Trudeau leaves office with worst economic growth record in recent Canadian history

Alberta / 4 hours ago

Before Trudeau Blames Alberta, Perhaps He Should Look in the Mirror

Uncategorized

Taxpayers Federation calling on BC Government to scrap failed Carbon Tax

Published on January 16, 2025

Todayville

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

By Carson Binda

BC Government promised carbon tax would reduce CO2 by 33%. It has done nothing.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is calling on the British Columbia government to scrap the carbon tax as new data shows the province’s carbon emissions have continued to rise, despite the oldest carbon tax in the country.

“The carbon tax isn’t reducing carbon emissions like the politicians promised,” said Carson Binda, B.C. Director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. “Premier David Eby needs to axe the tax now to save British Columbians money.”

Emissions data from the provincial government shows that British Columbia’s emissions have risen since the introduction of a carbon tax.

Total emissions in 2007, the last year without a provincial carbon tax, stood at 65.5 MtCO2e, while 2022 emissions data shows an increase to 65.6 MtCO2e.

When the carbon tax was introduced, the B.C. government pledged that it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 33 per cent.

The Eby government plans to increase the B.C. carbon tax again on April 1, 2025. After that increase, the carbon tax will add 21 cents to the cost of a litre of natural gas, 25 cents per litre of diesel and 18 cents per cubic meter of natural gas.

“The carbon tax has cost British Columbians a lot of money, but it hasn’t helped the environment as promised,” Binda said. “Eby has a simple choice: scrap the carbon tax before April 1, or force British Columbians to pay even more to heat our homes and drive to work.”

If a family fills up the minivan once per week for a year, the carbon tax will cost them $728. The carbon tax on natural gas will add $435 to the average family’s home heating bills in the 12 months after the April 1 carbon tax hike.

Other provinces, like Saskatchewan, have unilaterally stopped collecting the carbon tax on essentials like home heating and have not faced consequences from Ottawa.

“British Columbians need real relief from the costs of the provincial carbon tax,” Binda said. “Eby needs to stop waiting for permission from the leaderless federal government and scrap the tax on British Columbians.”

Uncategorized

The problem with deficits and debt

Published on January 13, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Jake Fuss

This fiscal year (2024/25), the federal government and eight out of 10 provinces project a budget deficit, meaning they’re spending more than collecting in revenues. Unfortunately, this trend isn’t new. Many Canadian governments—including the federal government—have routinely ran deficits over the last decade.

But why should Canadians care? If you listen to some politicians (and even some economists), they say deficits—and the debt they produce—are no big deal. But in reality, the consequences of government debt are real and land squarely on everyday Canadians.

Budget deficits, which occur when the government spends more than it collects in revenue over the fiscal year, fuel debt accumulation. For example, since 2015, the federal government’s large and persistent deficits have more than doubled total federal debt, which will reach a projected $2.2 trillion this fiscal year. That has real world consequences. Here are a few of them:

Diverted Program Spending: Just as Canadians must pay interest on their own mortgages or car loans, taxpayers must pay interest on government debt. Each dollar spent paying interest is a dollar diverted from public programs such as health care and education, or potential tax relief. This fiscal year, federal debt interest costs will reach $53.7 billion or $1,301 per Canadian. And that number doesn’t include provincial government debt interest, which varies by province. In Ontario, for example, debt interest costs are projected to be $12.7 billion or $789 per Ontarian.

Higher Taxes in the Future: When governments run deficits, they’re borrowing to pay for today’s spending. But eventually someone (i.e. future generations of Canadians) must pay for this borrowing in the form of higher taxes. For example, if you’re a 16-year-old Canadian in 2025, you’ll pay an estimated $29,663 over your lifetime in additional personal income taxes (that you would otherwise not pay) due to Canada’s ballooning federal debt. By comparison, a 65-year-old will pay an estimated $2,433. Younger Canadians clearly bear a disproportionately large share of the government debt being accumulated currently.

Risks of rising interest rates: When governments run deficits, they increase demand for borrowing. In other words, governments compete with individuals, families and businesses for the savings available for borrowing. In response, interest rates rise, and subsequently, so does the cost of servicing government debt. Of course, the private sector also must pay these higher interest rates, which can reduce the level of private investment in the economy. In other words, private investment that would have occurred no longer does because of higher interest rates, which reduces overall economic growth—the foundation for job-creation and prosperity. Not surprisingly, as government debt has increased, business investment has declined—specifically, business investment per worker fell from $18,363 in 2014 to $14,687 in 2021 (inflation-adjusted).

Risk of Inflation: When governments increase spending, particularly with borrowed money, they add more money to the economy, which can fuel inflation. According to a 2023 report from Scotiabank, government spending contributed significantly to higher interest rates in Canada, accounting for an estimated 42 per cent of the increase in the Bank of Canada’s rate since the first quarter of 2022. As a result, many Canadians have seen the costs of their borrowing—mortgages, car loans, lines of credit—soar in recent years.

Recession Risks: The accumulation of deficits and debt, which do not enhance productivity in the economy, weaken the government’s ability to deal with future challenges including economic downturns because the government has less fiscal capacity available to take on more debt. That’s because during a recession, government spending automatically increases and government revenues decrease, even before policymakers react with any specific measures. For example, as unemployment rises, employment insurance (EI) payments automatically increase, while revenues for EI decrease. Therefore, when a downturn or recession hits, and the government wants to spend even more money beyond these automatic programs, it must go further into debt.

Government debt comes with major consequences for Canadians. To alleviate the pain of government debt on Canadians, our policymakers should work to balance their budgets in 2025.