Information & Ethics Committee on April 21st, 2023

[Raphaël Glucksmann]

Yes. Thank you very much for your question. I think it's an important one.

The committee was set up much before Qatargate and the scandal. I pushed for the creation of the committee. It was especially after Brexit that I saw we needed to set up this kind of committee. We worked for three years and a half and we were supposed to finish our work, and then came the Qatargate. I pushed very hard, despite the fact that people—you're right—connected to social democrats were involved.

I believe that we worked in our committee in a tripartisan manner from the very start. The protection of democracy is above partisan differences. It is actually the protection of the framework that allows us to disagree with each other. Second, I think it's our duty to fight corruption, to fight foreign interference, including in our own respective political families or groups.

I was pushed to go on with the leadership on the committee because everybody, including those from other political groups, trusted that I would go after reforms and also truth, not having any consideration for what the flag was of the people who were actually betraying democracy.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

With respect to Qatargate, the charge is that the MEPs in question furthered the interests of a foreign state. Is that correct?

[Raphaël Glucksmann]

Yes. Actually it goes even beyond that. The charges are also about criminal organization.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

What led to the suspicions of these individuals and their activities? Was it the existing framework? My review of some of the reporting on it was that some of their activities weren't particularly sophisticated. However, they remained undetected for some time. What led to their detection and the charges, arrests and prosecutions?

[Raphaël Glucksmann]

First of all, it was the investigation by Belgian secret services. They followed the action of one man, Mr. Panzeri, who was a former MEP. Then it led to discovering the connection with existing MEPs, and also trade unions and NGO people. It was actually the secret service organization. This was not us discovering that.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thanks very much for your response. I'm out of time.

I appreciate your sticking around for a few more questions. Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We'll have another chance.

Ms. Hepfner, you have five minutes. Go ahead, please.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to welcome and thank our witness in French. My French will improve, but, for the time being, as I'm still more comfortable in English, I’ll continue in that language.

I'm a former journalist, I'll let you know, so it's been really frustrating for me to see the amount of misleading information out there in the world. At the same time, we see a decline in the number of newsrooms.

In particular, lately, something stood out for me on the American social media platform Twitter. We've seen news organizations like NPR in the U.S., the BBC and, here in Canada, the CBC/Radio-Canada labelled as state-funded or government-funded media. Coincidentally, this is happening at the same time Russian news outlets and government accounts are being allowed back onto that platform.

I have this article that was published this morning in the Kingston Whig Standard entitled “Russia uses Twitter to attack democracy”. In it, there is quoted a former Conservative cabinet minister who was a Canadian diplomat and is an expert on Russia. He says that this labelling of public broadcasters is “outrageous...it implies that these outlets are under government editorial control” in the way that, say, Russian television is.

I'm wondering if you agree with this characterization. What do you think of this labelling of public broadcasters and media outlets?

[Raphaël Glucksmann]

Thank you very much for your question, Madam Hepfner.

I have to say that Twitter recently is becoming more and more worrying for us. Mr. Musk is somebody who plays with rules and who has an agenda. Our problem is not that Mr. Musk has an agenda, but that we should take care that this agenda doesn't conflict with our national security and the decency of our public debates.

To your question, this is a typical error made by European leadership for so long. There is a huge difference between your public radio and our public radio, and Russia Today. Not seeing that and finding the same characterization for all of these as state-sponsored media or whatever is actually erasing the truth about Russia Today. Russia Today is a propaganda tool. It's not the media. NPR, for instance, or BBC are media. You can disagree with their news, but they have a deontology. They have a board. They have independence. They are not on the same level.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you.

In Europe, in fact, I think you have decided that foreign interference tactics can take many forms, including disinformation, suppression of information, manipulation of social media platforms, and threats against and the harassment of journalists, researchers and politicians.

Would you say that this labelling of actual media could be considered foreign interference?

[Raphaël Glucksmann]

I'm not sure I would label it as foreign interference. I would label it as “useful idiocy”, maybe, enabling foreign interference.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

That is fair.

If a Canadian politician actively requested that an American billionaire label a Canadian news organization as government-funded, what would you say about that?

[Raphaël Glucksmann]

I don't want to enter into the Canadian debate. I'm not aware about this. However, I would just repeat what I have said: Our public radios and TVs are media. Russia Today is a propaganda tool engaged in a war, so not seeing the difference between both is really problematic.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you.

My ears perked up, I have to say, when you said that one of the best things your Parliament had done was to impose regulations on platforms. I have to tell you that we're doing similar things here in Canada with a couple of pieces of legislation I've been lucky enough to work on in my work on the heritage committee. Do you think there's a—

Am I out of time? Okay. I'll come back.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm sorry about that.

That completes this round. We appreciate the fact, Mr. Glucksmann, that you are going to stick around.

We'll have two five-minute rounds, one each for the Conservatives and the Liberals, and then two and a half minutes for each of the Bloc Québécois and the NDP.

Mr. Gourde, you have five minutes.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to acknowledge the expertise today’s witness brings us. We are delighted.

Foreign interference in our democracies surely has a purpose, and it’s very interesting to consider the geopolitical factors that explain why this influence is important to countries like Russia and China.

You talked about this a little at the beginning of your presentation. Is their initial goal to raise the price of energy resources or to sell more energy resources? Surely you know something that we should know.

[Raphaël Glucksmann]

As part of our research, I read a Russian editorial on Gazprom which said that money was not the sole motive.

So the goal isn’t simply to increase the price, consumption and exports of energy resources, it’s to make other countries dependent on them. That’s what’s at stake. The goal is geopolitical, ideological and political. It’s not just a business issue. That’s what we discovered.

On multiple occasions, moreover, they were willing to sacrifice their interests to make other countries more dependent on their resources, even if it meant losing money.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Currently, with the war in Ukraine, Russians are losing much more than money. They are losing their young people. Do you think it’s for the same purpose?

[Raphaël Glucksmann]

From the beginning, Vladimir Putin’s regime has seen itself at war with the West, not with Ukraine, Georgia, Syria, or Chechnya. From the outset, the designated enemy has been the West. To that end, he is prepared to suffer many losses.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

We can see that this has a very strong impact in Europe. Here in Canada, we see it mostly in energy prices, but it has less of a physical impact on us. If this gets out of hand, do you think Canada could be attacked on its northern border, since there are so many resources in the North?

[Raphaël Glucksmann]

For the moment, the threat of a real military war is limited for a very simple reason: the Ukrainian resistance was a big surprise for the Russians, as it was for the Americans. If there was one point of agreement among the various security services, it was that Ukraine would fall quickly in case of an invasion. The divine surprise of the Ukrainian people’s resistance is truly protecting us in Europe, and you as well, for now. It is Ukrainians who are dying. They are dying to defend Ukraine, obviously, but beyond that, they are dying to defend all liberal democracies.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Surely you've heard that the Chinese interfered in Canada's most recent election.

Do you have a message for Canadian lawmakers? Should we see this as a big concern for the future and expect more interference in the upcoming election?

[Raphaël Glucksmann]

As legislators, our main mission is to ensure that the democracies we've inherited are passed on in the same safe conditions as we received them. We must therefore constantly adapt our legislation to protect our democracies against interference. Interference comes in various forms, and these forms change with the times.

Therefore, it's extremely important that you do your work. That's why your committee is a good thing for Canadian democracy, I imagine.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Do you believe that, as Canadian lawmakers, we have a duty to speak out loudly against Chinese interference and to be very transparent about what happened in the last two elections?

[Raphaël Glucksmann]

There is no democracy without transparency. That said, far be it from me to recommend how you should go about defending your own democracy.