Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 2nd, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Next is Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think Ms. Normandin’s proposal makes sense. Since most of the amendments are small, I won’t go into them in detail.

I am perplexed by this idea of limiting the national public inquiry to 70 days and having it deal only with the implications of interference by the Chinese regime. What are the Conservatives afraid of?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I'm sorry, Mr. Julian. We have a point of order.

Go ahead, Mr. Berthold.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

I don't know where Mr. Julian sees 70 days. There's nothing.... We don't talk about it in our amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you for that clarification.

Mr. Julian, we'll go back to you.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

It mentions the 2019 and 2021 federal elections, so that is in fact a 70‑day period. What's more, it is limited to the Chinese regime. At the same time, however, it says that all governments should be looked at as far as diaspora groups go. What’s not clear is whether it’s just for the election periods.

The amendment is badly drafted and does not respect the principle of a national public inquiry. That is why I am against the first part of the amendment.

From what we have as a Conservative amendment, you have to ask what the Conservatives are afraid of.

I'm going to come back to all of the allegations that have come forward about Russian involvement or interference, not just in Canada but also in other jurisdictions. We're already aware of the collusion that took place in the Donald Trump example. We're already aware of the implications in Brexit, in a report that came out following the 2019 election, which also raised concerns about financing at the United Kingdom's Conservative Party.

In Canada, I think it's important to note the concerns that have been raised in the series that was produced in Canada's National Observer, which stated “In January and February of 2022, a large number of public Telegram channels were created or repurposed under the auspices of supporting the “Freedom Convoy”...including some with tens of thousands of members. [These channels] started to feature Russian propaganda intermingled with convoy-related content.

“Eventually, part of this network of Telegram channels effectively became a repository for Russian propaganda”.

The articles that came forward in that series are very disturbing, but there are more, and I could certainly spend hours reading through the concerns that have been raised.

Now I'll reference The Canadian Press. Marie Woolf, on June 8, 2022, wrote about the study that was undertaken by the University of Calgary's School of Public Policy:

An analysis of over six million tweets and retweets—and where they originate from—has found that Canada is being targeted by Russia to influence public opinion here.

The study by the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy found that huge numbers of tweets and retweets about the war in Ukraine can be traced back to Russia and China, with even more tweets expressing pro-Russian sentiment traced to the United States.

Assistant professor Jean-Christophe Boucher said in an interview that the Russian “state apparatus” is associated with many accounts tweeting in Canada, and is influencing posts that are retweeted, liked or repeated by different accounts again and again.

The study found that “in 'the Canadian Twitter ecosystem' discussing the war, around 25 per cent of the accounts were spreading pro-Russian talking points. ... The analysis of the content of the tweets found similar pro-Russian views expressed among right-wing figures and their supporters in the U.S. and Canada.”

Professor Boucher said that “supporters of the 'Freedom Convoy' and anti-vaccine movement, some of whom may not realize they have been digesting messaging originating from Russia, were also tweeting messages in support of the invasion of Ukraine.”

We have heard testimony here at this committee. I will cite November 3, when Mr. Marcus Kolga said the following:

Russian information and influence operations are persistent and they are growing. They do not turn on and off with election cycles and have intensified during the course of the Russian invasion of Ukraine....

Russia's primary and full-time focus is to undermine and destabilize our democracy by exploiting the most polarizing issues of the day. ...These attacks affect our political environment and choices every day, not just during election periods.

The motion that I moved for a public inquiry, which seems to have support generally, is that we launch a national public inquiry into allegations of foreign interference in the 2019 and 2021 federal elections and in Canada's democratic system, including but not limited to allegations of interference in general elections by foreign governments.

This isn't something that anyone should oppose, so it's perplexing to me that the Conservatives are trying to gut the sense of concern that many Canadians are feeling about foreign interference. I believe it's disrespectful to a million and a half Canadians of Ukrainian origin who have been subjected to these campaigns that we have been talking about. These are campaigns that have been identified, as we heard earlier today, by CSIS and other agencies. Why would the Conservatives want to strip out the possibility of a national public inquiry that includes foreign interference not just from Beijing, which I agree is important, but also Russia, Iran and other players that are hostile to Canada and to Canada's democracy?

This is where the contradiction takes place. We have this amendment that strips out the whole principal clause and limits the ability of the commissioner or commissioners to do anything beyond the allegations of foreign interference by Beijing, and only in the 2019 and 2021 federal elections, which is a period, as I've mentioned, of 70 days. Then, in the same breath, the Conservatives say that the inquiry can investigate abuse of “diaspora groups by hostile foreign governments” writ large. Is it just during the 70 days? Is it for the last few years? I mean, the incomprehension of how this was drafted is unbelievable to me.

I find it disturbing that Conservatives want to play a game around something as important as a national public inquiry, but that reinforces the point I made initially: that these kinds of games and the circus that Conservatives love to engage in are not things that will give answers to Canadians. I believe Canadians from coast to coast to coast have a sincere interest in getting answers to questions and getting answers for the allegations of potential violations of the Elections Act and how serious that is. We heard from Elections Canada earlier today that if the allegations are right about Beijing's support, potentially up to half a dozen violations of the Canada Elections Act could have occurred. This is serious. These are criminal activities, criminal violations that are alleged, and obviously the national public inquiry has to go there.

With all the evidence I've just read into the record about Russia and the Putin dictatorship's attempt to have an impact on our democracy, I don't understand why the Conservatives are afraid of a public inquiry that actually examines that interference. They have these two contradictory amendments. One says, yes, go to the “diaspora groups by hostile foreign governments”—that's what the Conservatives wrote—but, oh, don't touch anything with foreign interference, aside from Beijing and aside from those very strict two 35-day election periods. It is very strange to me that they offered this amendment.

I have expressed my opposition to that amendment.

I have heard my colleagues, both Conservatives and Liberals, speak about the naming in terms of the inquiry, giving necessary powers to the inquiry and not necessarily spelling out who would be invited. I certainly would accept these as amendments. I think that would help to move us to a consensus. I do believe that we need to investigate abuse of diaspora groups, but that means the original principal clause that I moved, which is ensuring we address foreign interference by any sources in Canada's democratic systems, “including but not limited to allegations of interference in general elections by foreign governments”.

Does the inquiry have the power to order a review? Absolutely: That's a normal term of reference, and there can be provisions made for national security. I don't accept the argument that terms of reference might in some way be threatening to national security.

I also agree that having the individual or individuals heading the inquiry selected by unanimous agreement by the House leaders does make sense. We do this often, Madam Chair. We've done this for a variety of issues, most recently even in the appointment of the interim Clerk of the House of Commons.

This is something that is a regular practice. What it actually ensures is that each party has a veto, so, yes, it's true that it would mean the Conservatives might have a veto. It would also mean that the Liberals have a veto on that, and it could be somebody who is beyond reproach. I think we would find many names that we could offer—all of us—to ensure that this inquiry is done properly.

Finally, that this inquiry not stop the committee study, that's really up to the committee. I don't see the appropriateness of that. The committee can decide to continue the study or not. That depends on committee business. That's not up to any of us, Madam Chair. I don't see that as a clause that is particularly useful. It's more for cosmetic purposes.

Ultimately, what really offends me in this is that the Conservatives would seek to eliminate a proper investigation and answers to Canadians beyond that very narrow scope they want to place on this public inquiry. I am not going to vote in favour of their modifications to the first clause. I think it's disrespectful to Ukrainian Canadians and other Canadians who have been impacted by foreign interference beyond Beijing. As well, I think it circumscribes the inquiry to the point where it can't produce the answers that Canadians are looking for.

I'm surprised the Conservatives would put forward such a series of amendments, some of which contradict other amendments, at a time when we really need adults in the room working together so that, hopefully, we can produce this national public inquiry and get answers for Canadians.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

On my list, just so that we are all in the loop, is Mr. Gerretsen, followed by Monsieur Berthold, then Mr. Cooper, Madame Normandin, Mrs. Sahota and Mr. Fergus.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

You said we were very close.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I always think the end is close, but I find out sometimes it takes six or 10 hours.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I want to speak to this amendment. We're just about to move off it, but I've been captivated by the discussion so far. I want to hear what Mr. Berthold has to say, and Madame Normandin.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Monsieur Berthold.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Chair, I’m going to give my time to Mr. Cooper.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Go ahead, Mr. Cooper.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I have to say it's quite rich for Mr. Julian to be talking about his great concern about foreign interference and diaspora communities being targeted.

He cited Iran. He's absolutely right that Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world. It is a major security threat, the greatest security threat to peace and stability in the Middle East. It is a regime that has extended its tentacles into Canada.

When Mr. Julian and the NDP had an opportunity to designate the IRGC as a terrorist entity, he voted against it. He voted against designating the IRGC as a terrorist entity, the same IRGC that is raising money, recruiting and intimidating Iranians on Canadian soil. They are doing it now, and they were doing it in 2018 when Mr. Julian voted against designating the IRGC as a terrorist entity.

Now he professes to be so concerned about the Iranian regime. Well, actions speak louder than words. When Mr. Julian had a chance to stand up and vote, he voted on the side of the Iranian terrorist regime. That's what he did.

Make no mistake about it. The IRGC is the enforcer of the regime. It is the arm of the regime that has exported terrorism around the world, armed other terrorist organizations, such as Hezbollah, and has on its hands the blood of 55 Canadians and 30 permanent residents from when the IRGC took down PS752 in what an Ontario superior court judge determined to be an act of terrorism.

Mr. Julian, when he had a chance to do the right thing, to stand up for Iranian Canadians and to stop the IRGC from fundraising, recruiting and intimidating Canadians in the Iranian community, he stood against that. That's Mr. Julian's record. Now he turns around and talks about how concerned he is. What hypocrisy.

Mr. Julian talks about other actors, other states such as Russia. I said very clearly when I put forward my amendment that Russia is indeed a cause for concern. It is a real threat. Russia is a cause for grave concern in terms of its activities in Canada. That needs to be dealt with. It needs to be followed. It must not be ignored. I'm not suggesting anything else. It's serious.

We have before this committee a study in which we have a series of motions that have been passed to expand the study on foreign interference dealing with very specific allegations of interference by Beijing in the 2019 and 2021 elections. Iran, Russia and all of these hostile foreign bad actors, their activities are not new. Beijing's interference is not new.

At the same time, it's only now that Mr. Julian is advocating for a public inquiry on all aspects of foreign interference, which I would submit, muddies the waters in addressing the very specific allegations and revelations that have been reported in The Globe and Mail and on Global News, which have been lent support by the Prime Minister's response to them, which is to deflect, deny, cover up, hide and not be transparent about what he knows.

That's what we have to get to the bottom of, and that's why, in our motion, we would amend this in a way that would allow for a targeted, focused inquiry. It wouldn't preclude other hearings. It wouldn't preclude perhaps another inquiry at some later point. However, if this inquiry is going to go ahead, it needs to be timely. We need a report sooner rather than later, hopefully before the next election. For that practical purpose, it's important that it be limited and targeted to Beijing's interference activities.

Mr. Julian professes to want to get to the bottom of Beijing's interference, but what he seems to be not very interested in doing is getting to the bottom of the Prime Minister's role in Beijing's interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections. He doesn't seem interested in getting to the heart of the scandal, which is what the Prime Minister knew, what he did about it and what he failed to do about it.

The Prime Minister, based on everything we have heard, has done very little. His senior PMO officials may have turned a blind eye to CSIS's warnings, among other failures. I can appreciate why, at some level, although it's hardly commendable, the Prime Minister would like to cover this up, but it is astonishing that Mr. Julian and the NDP are prepared to join the Prime Minister in covering this up.

Yesterday evening there was an opportunity to deal with a motion that I had put forward—

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I have a point of order.

These are unbelievable untruths Mr. Cooper is putting out there. He must stick to the issue, which is the amendment.

At the same time, I would ask, through you, Madam Chair, that he stop repeating himself and speak to relevance because this is becoming a circus.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I think Mr. Cooper will note the comments because I'm sure he wants to have a productive meeting.

Mr. Cooper, with that, I will pass the floor back to you, bearing in mind that we are on the amendment.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

It's absolutely relevant to the amendment, which is that all political parties have the opportunity to have a say, and that there be consensus, a unanimous agreement among political parties, all the recognized parties, as to who heads the inquiry.

Mr. Julian, I would think, would welcome that. He, after all, professes to be concerned about Beijing's interference. He professes to be concerned about the Prime Minister's role, or potential role, and that of the PMO. He professes to want to get answers from the Prime Minister and PMO officials, yet last night, when he had an opportunity to help that process work itself out by—

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I have a point of order.

Again, I'm speaking to relevance and repetition. I think the member has experience. He is violating both rules. If he wants to pull a filibuster, he's going to have to come up with new content, and it's going to have to be relevant to the amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I'm going to encourage all members to take a breath and stay the course. Let's do this and stay focused. I know we can do it.

Mr. Cooper, go ahead on the amendment.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

I know the truth sometimes hurts, but Mr. Julian had an opportunity last night and instead he had a temper tantrum and shut down this committee, shutting down six hours of work. One can only wonder why.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I have a point of order.

Madam Chair, he is ignoring your clear direction. It's repetition. He's repeating himself yet again, and he's not speaking to the amendment.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Julian—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Cooper, you don't have the floor.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

If he has nothing more to add, he can certainly cede his place, but he is repeating himself and he is not relevant to the matter that is before this committee.