Public Safety Committee on Nov. 7th, 2024

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 129 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format.

I'd like to remind participants to please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. All comments should be addressed through the chair.

Members, please raise your hand if you wish to speak, whether participating in person or via Zoom. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted on September 19, 2024, the committee is resuming its study of Russian interference and disinformation campaigns in Canada.

I would like to welcome our witnesses.

As an individual, we have David Pugliese, a journalist from the Ottawa Citizen.

From the Canadian Association of Journalists, we have president Brent Jolly.

I would now like to invite both of you to make opening statements of up to five minutes.

We'll start with Mr. Pugliese,

Mr. Pugliese, take it away.

[David Pugliese, Journalist, Ottawa Citizen, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair, for granting me the opportunity to speak to you.

I had no intention of appearing before this committee, but when my reputation and profession were attacked, I felt compelled to offer some truth and balance to your discussion.

On October 24, 2024, former Conservative cabinet minister Chris Alexander came before this committee and accused me of being a traitor to my country. Hiding behind a cloak of parliamentary privilege, he falsely claimed that I had been recruited as a Russian spy in the 1980s and suggested that I am still working as a Russian agent. His preposterous claims were based on several pieces of paper he told you had been examined by experts around the world. Astonishingly, not one MP on the committee raised a single critical question about these explosive allegations involving a veteran Canadian journalist with a 40-year track record. It is the height of irony that a committee studying disinformation would in fact propagate it.

The records presented to you by Mr. Alexander are replete with factual errors and falsehoods. The records claim I was a permanent resident of Ottawa when the Russians supposedly decided to examine my background. I was not even living in Ottawa at the time cited in the record tabled by Mr. Alexander. Mr. Alexander testified that the files show I was working at my first job at the Ottawa Citizen throughout the 1980s. That is also false.

Although Mr. Alexander claimed there are actual studies authenticating his assertions, nothing was provided to this committee, and no one asked for them.

Mr. Alexander's fabricated claims are not only outlandish, but dangerous to my family. There are now calls that I be executed or tortured and that my family be deported.

In short, this committee effectively played host to a character assassination without authenticating any of the allegations. In my line of work, no credible journalist in this country would ever publish such wild, damaging allegations based on flimsy assertions.

If Mr. Alexander's documents are real, at best, this suggests the Russians looked at my background, which was a common occurrence for journalists, academics and politicians during the Cold War. How many other Canadians are on this list?

Mr. Alexander, in his presentation to the committee, suggested that my journalism helps the Russians and divides Canadians, yet nothing is further from the truth. Over the last four decades, I've exposed financial wrongdoing at National Defence, sexual assault in the Canadian Armed Forces and bungled military procurements that put our troops at risk. My award-winning articles have helped countless Canadian veterans and military personnel, and I've pushed for accountability, transparency and truthfulness. However, I know that when journalists like me expose the wrongdoing of governments and institutions, it can be uncomfortable for decision-makers.

As we learned in the aftermath of this committee, the claim that I was a Russian asset has been circulated for several years by Canadian Forces leaders. That doesn't come as a surprise to me. Military public affairs officers have acknowledged that during my time at the Ottawa Citizen, there have been no fewer than three attempts by senior DND officials to convince my employer to remove me from the defence beat.

In 2013, the National Post reported that I was put under military police investigation after a senior official in the defence minister's office falsely claimed I published classified information. After a two-month investigation, military police concluded that the data I had published was actually taken from a U.S. Navy press release.

Once again, there are ridiculous claims being made by those who are uncomfortable with fact-based journalism, and my journalism in particular. The job of a journalist is to hold the powerful to account, and I will continue doing so. In my view, Canada appears to be entering a dangerous new era. Labelling people who don't follow the approved government narrative as an enemy of this country is slanderous and irresponsible.

Surely, a parliamentary committee should embrace higher standards when it comes to protecting the reputations of its citizens. While these allegations were made about me personally, there is little doubt that this was an attack on credible journalism at a time when we need it the most.

Journalism is a core pillar of our democracy, protecting public interest. I am a proud Canadian.

I am proud of my journalism career, and I intend to keep holding governments to account.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Thank you for your remarks, Mr. Pugliese.

I now invite Mr. Jolly to make an opening statement of up to five minutes.

[Brent Jolly, President, Canadian Association of Journalists]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you, all, for agreeing to hear me today and for the opportunity to address the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

While I wholeheartedly endorse the study this committee is undertaking to look into Russian disinformation and interference campaigns in Canada, that's not exclusively the reason I am here today.

I'm joining you here today as the president of the Canadian Association of Journalists, which is an organization that has existed since 1978—so, more than 45 years—to represent the interests of journalists, to undertake advocacy and to support the public's right to know.

I'm here because of the allegations that were levied against Mr. Pugliese in the October 24 meeting by Mr. Alexander. As David has noted, Mr. Alexander declared, under the guise of parliamentary privilege, I might add, that David has been a paid agent of the KGB since the 1980s. It is absolutely astonishing to me that no member of this committee posed questions about or challenged these patently absurd claims when they were tabled.

On the evening of October 24, the Canadian Association of Journalists issued a public statement to our more than 22,000 Twitter followers, and we also represent the interests of more than 1,000 journalists across the country. The CAJ statement read:

The CAJ wholeheartedly denounces the ridiculous accusations made against @davidpugliese today.

It's a sad irony these comments were made in a meeting examining disinformation campaigns. These claims are dangerous & designed to undermine the credibility of journalists. Period.

I'm happy to be here today sitting shoulder to shoulder with David to call out these accusations and allegations that are nothing more, in my view, than a McCarthyesque smear job. For over 40 years, David has built a reputation as a reporter who has exposed untold levels of corruption in Canada. He has won multiple awards, not just from the Canadian Association of Journalists but also from the National Newspaper Awards, where I also sit as a governor, and for his coverage on issues as diverse as defence issues and looking into and investigating the government and security agencies that are attempting to stifle free speech and legitimate protests.

The function of journalists is to make sure that taxpayers know how public dollars are being spent. Frankly, our Constitution upholds the role that journalists play in serving our democracy. However, Mr. Pugliese has been tarnished unnecessarily and is guilty of nothing more than being a journalist. He is a habitual thorn in the side of those in power, but that's just him doing his job.

The accusations you have heard from Mr. Alexander in this committee are dumbfounding and dangerous. They are, regrettably, becoming the new normal. Weaponized disinformation campaigns put journalists in the veritable crosshairs. Rather than question, for example, the accuracy of facts reported in a story, domestic and transnational interests now attack a journalist's credibility. That's because if you can't refute the truth, then the next best action is to attack the messenger.

These kinds of attacks are isolating and psychologically taxing. In a time when newsrooms have thinner and thinner resources or, worse, when you're a freelancer who doesn't have an affiliation to a newsroom, these kinds of statements and ridiculous allegations send a collective chill across the free expression landscape. I think our foreign adversaries, including Russia, will cheer in collective celebration when we begin to suspect each other.

Disinformation attacks the very foundations of our democracy and the individuals who serve in it, and that includes journalists. I hope that members of this committee will carefully reflect on how this close-to-home example of a disinformation campaign can strike.

Disinformation changes lives and damages reputations, all in the stroke of a pen. It's for that reason that I hope the mindless maligning of Mr. Pugliese will not go unnoticed in the final draft of this committee's report. We'll be watching, and we look forward to reading it in the near future.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Thank you very much for your remarks.

We will now start our rounds of questions. Each member will have six minutes.

Mr. Shipley, you're up first.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and a sincere thank you to both witnesses for being here today. It's an honour and a pleasure to have you both here. I always believe that in any situation, everybody has the right to come and defend themselves and speak the truth, so thank you both.

I'm going to speak a bit before I get into a few questions. You brought up some very good points. I have been an MP for five years now, and I have sat on a few committees. Mainly I've been on public safety, but I've also sat on other ones. Witnesses come in to our meetings all the time, and they give us their sides of the stories, or the information they believe in.

This has put us in quite an interesting position, and it is always going to make me think, going forward, what's real and what's not real. It's very interesting—and please don't take this glibly—in a study about disinformation that this has taken place. I have obviously spent some time reflecting on that. I find that a little ironic.

Mr. Pugliese, before we get into some questions, if there's any good that can come from this—obviously, you've been through a tough time—it is that maybe our eyes will be a bit more open to disinformation, and that will be part of our study and our remarks going forward.

I do have some questions, though, and I'll start with Mr. Pugliese.

Obviously, this has been a very tough time for you. I listened to your words very intently. You did mention that this has had some effect on you and your family, and I want to say that my feelings go out to you and your family.

How have these allegations affected you and your family?

[David Pugliese]

I'm not going to get into too much of that, if that's okay. I mean, we have increased security around the house, so there has been a component of that just to protect the kids. As far as direct impact goes, there is that.

There has been a lot of support that I've received and, ironically, now my email inbox is full of tips from Canadian Forces personnel about wrongdoing that they want me to investigate, so I guess I've got my work cut out for many months to come.

However, I would prefer not to get into some of the security aspects, please.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

I respect that. I wasn't looking for what you've done as much as I was looking for maybe how much it had affected your family. What I'm trying to do here is draw a picture. Our words are important, and the words that witnesses say are important. I was just trying to draw a picture of how much this has affected you and your family but not get into specifics as to security around your family. I understand that.

Mr. Pugliese, here's another question. Since we are studying Russian disinformation, do you have any thoughts on how the government can address Russia's use of disinformation and information manipulation? Obviously, you're living through it right now. Maybe you can give us your opinion on that.

[David Pugliese]

I think these committees have to be very careful about looking at the evidence that's being presented.

In December 2023, I covered a Senate fisheries committee meeting, and I watched a so-called disinformation expert who works for the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, which Mr. Alexander works for, and this individual made a link between the Russians and Vladimir Putin and Ryan Reynolds, the Canadian actor. Putin and the Russians have put out disinformation about the Canadian seal hunt. Ryan Reynolds is an animal activist, and he has put out a documentary about the Canadian seal hunt, which wasn't complimentary. I watched this committee as this disinformation expert linked Ryan Reynolds and Putin together.

I came away from that.... Words, as a committee member has mentioned, are very important. If Ryan Reynolds can be linked to the Russians and Russian disinformation, then no Canadian will be safe from any such smears.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you for that.

Mr. Jolly, I would like to ask you a question.

You mentioned your organization was started in 1978, which was more than 45 years ago. Have you ever seen a case like this in journalism? How has your association reacted to it, or what have you done to prevent the disinformation side of it going forward for your journalists?

[Brent Jolly]

This is quite different in its own right, the fact that it was declared, that it was asserted by a former cabinet minister in a standing committee of a democratically operated organization. I think this is something that really takes the cake.

However, I think we also need to be really aware of the challenges that journalists are facing out in the field every day in covering protests and injunction zones. We've seen photojournalists who are having their access restricted when they're trying to go out and cover wildfires in B.C. or in Alberta. These are all part and parcel.... This is part of the shrinking press freedom environment that we're seeing. I think what Mr. Pugliese has experienced is certainly part and parcel of it, but it does give me a sense of exasperation, the degree to which these accusations were made, again, within the context of a committee. I think it was a really bad look.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Thank you. The time is up.

Now we'll go to Ms. O'Connell for six minutes, please.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you both for being here today. I want to start out with my perspective. I think, Mr. Jolly, you said in your opening statement that it was dumbfounding and dangerous, and I don't disagree. What's important to know, however, is that we don't see in advance what a witness might say. In fact, speaking for myself, as the testimony was happening, Mr. Alexander was referring to documents. I know that we were turning to each other and saying, “What documents?” Then, when we looked, I noticed that, on the committee day, we had received them at around 12:30, I believe—I can clarify that. On a given sitting day, I'm sure you can appreciate that I had not, and I think a number of our colleagues had not.... In that testimony, Mr. Alexander kept referring to “Stuart”, and I remember thinking that I needed to look at these documents.

I'm not downplaying anything, but I want you to know that I think we were equally confused and did not understand the connection. Mr. Bezan asked specific questions that then named you and that were eventually.... When I got home and was able to go through and read all of the documents, I saw that. This is not to make an excuse. It's just to outline the timeline from our perspective because I, too, was very confused about what was actually being alleged. From my perspective—and I can't speak for all colleagues—we had not seen it in advance.

I agree with the testimony of both of you with regard to a study on Russian disinformation. Our intention on this committee is certainly not to allow or purport the continuation of it. I just want to acknowledge that—again, not to dismiss the very real concerns but to paint a little bit of a picture of some of that same dumbfounding confusion that we were experiencing in real time. I certainly was experiencing it in real time, trying to get my eyes on those documents as we were also preparing questions while witnesses were sitting there.

Other colleagues can certainly speak to their experiences. However, just on that, you've mentioned, Mr. Pugliese, the extreme concern, the dangerous situation for your family and the increased security. I'm deeply sorry that you are experiencing that. That was one of my questions, but I want to ask another question.

In Mr. Alexander's opening remarks, he said, “Previous efforts to expose this journalist's long-running covert ties to Moscow have resulted in attempts to intimidate current and former Canadian parliamentarians, including my former colleague James Bezan as well as Canadian Army officials.” Are you aware of any of those efforts? Again, this testimony.... I've served on a committee with Mr. Bezan, on the national defence committee. I have never heard these accusations. Do you have any idea where that is coming from or why this was presented that day?

[David Pugliese]

Madam Chair, when I heard that, I thought we were entering into a territory of unhinged testimony. I couldn't believe it. I don't know Mr. Bezan. He has used information from my articles and raised it in the House of Commons to hold the government to account, which is fine.

In 2018, I wrote an article, in fact, supporting Mr. Bezan when a senior Canadian Forces public affairs officer by the name of Colonel Jay Janzen was dictating to Mr. Bezan on social media what he should, as a parliamentarian, ask. I did an article quoting Mr. Bezan, that this isn't a proper, that parliamentarians shouldn't be told what they can be asking in Parliament. When I heard that, I was just flabbergasted. It's crazy.

I don't want to get into too many details about where I live now, but I don't live in Ottawa. I live 5,000 miles away.

I've never intimidated Mr. Bezan or any Canadian Forces officer. I don't know what that is about.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you. I didn't understand, and like I said, most of the testimony referred to the journalist as “Stuart”, and it wasn't until later that we were even putting those pieces together.

Just for the record, have you ever published a story where the Kremlin was your source?

I'm sorry, but I want the opportunity on the record.

[David Pugliese]

Madam Chair, no, I have never published a story where the Kremlin was my source. I have done one interview with the spokesman from the Russian embassy who was given the boot from Canada, and that was published.

Most of my sources are Canadian Forces records that I acquire through the access to information law, Canadian Forces statements and Canadian Forces personnel who usually come to me for help because they're getting, for want of a better word, jerked around by the chain of command. If you follow most of my stories, you'll see those are stories that I do a lot of.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Thank you, Mr. Pugliese.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you.

Again, in fairness, I wasn't saying it to promote that.

[David Pugliese]

Sure.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

I wanted you to have the opportunity on the record to address that.

[David Pugliese]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Thank you, Ms. O'Connell.

Thank you, Mr. Pugliese.

It's over to Ms. Michaud for six minutes, please.

Go ahead.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Pugliese, like Ms. O'Connell, I understand that you are confused by the fact that, when this happened on October 24, no committee member seemed to stand up for you or question Mr. Alexander's comments. I was trying to understand what was going on, and I may not have understood the seriousness of the allegations. I also didn't have access to the documents.

However, on our end, we were dealing with a former minister who now works for a credible organization, so he's a fairly credible individual who presented allegations and seemed to have proof. In short, it was something new. I even wondered, at the time it happened, if it was something already known that I didn't know about. I didn't know you.

So the situation is a bit unique.

I'm glad the committee is giving you the opportunity to tell your side of the story and set the record straight, because the accusations that have been levelled at you are indeed quite serious.

The Global News network seems to have been looking at this in consultation with experts. According to them, the documents that were presented by Mr. Alexander seem legitimate. However, that doesn't suggest that you would be a Russian spy or that you would work for Russia, but perhaps the KGB would simply have an eye on you, as it had an eye on a number of people a few years ago, likely journalists or persons of interest in Canada.

So when we see the analysis of these people, it doesn't show that he did anything, but perhaps the KGB had an interest in that person.

Could you tell us why you think the KGB would have been interested in you?

[David Pugliese]

First of all, when Global took a look at the documents, their experts pointed out they don't show anything. They don't show that I received any money or anything of the sort that Mr. Alexander claimed. What the Soviets did during the 1980s was look at all kinds of individuals: journalists, politicians, as I mentioned, academics.

I found it interesting that whoever wrote those documents up was not aware of me, because on a lot of the dates where I was supposed to be in Ottawa, I wasn't. They described me as a “leftist activist”. Well, throughout the 1980s I was working for military publications. I was a correspondent for a Washington publication called the Armed Forces Journal, which is produced for the U.S. Army. We were writing stories about how to nuke the Soviets off the face of the earth, how to get more weapons, the need for NATO expansion, that type of thing. That wouldn't appear to me as someone who's a leftist activist.

These documents, I don't know where they came from. Maybe you should ask Mr. Alexander. He said they came from Ukraine. He didn't give specifics. Why would the Soviets look at me? If they did, I think that would just be standard operating procedure for most journalists during the Cold War, for most academics and for most politicians.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you.

As my colleagues have mentioned before me, it's quite ironic that these allegations are being made during a study on Russian disinformation in Canada.

What do you think Mr. Alexander has to gain by pointing a finger at you in this way and presenting so-called evidence? Why do you think he targeted you?