Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 11th, 2024

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I really appreciate your efforts to ensure that we understand each other well in our respective languages.

Thank you, Mr. Roszak. You've actually answered some of my questions. The topic we're discussing with the witnesses is obviously very sensitive.

As parliamentarians, how should we draft our report to convey a clear understanding of the dynamics of two foreign countries, while taking into account the sensitive nature of these historical files? We don't want to hurt anyone, but we want to find ways to make sure this doesn't happen again.

What do you think?

[Dominik Roszak]

Thank you, Madame Gaudreau. It's a very good question.

I would focus on the prevention aspect. How can we anticipate and look at the issues before they become issues? In this case, we clearly had an issue that could have been prevented simply by some quick research on the part of staff in the Speaker's office, the Prime Minister's Office or relevant ministers' offices. It seems like a simple recommendation, but I think it is the best one to offer.

Also, consult with organizations such as ours—the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and CIJA—to gain their perspectives and build that capacity to anticipate the issues before they become a problem, as in this case.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

How can we make sure our report doesn't offend anyone, given the historical context?

[Dominik Roszak]

In addressing this specifically—the historical context—I think it's important to acknowledge everything that's been expressed by the witnesses so far and to summarize what we brought as our perspectives and that we've been heard. I think that's important. I don't envy the committee's putting that into a report, because it is such a challenging topic.

However, focusing on moving forward is the key. How do we prevent these types of situations from happening? How do we improve the understanding of historical context among parliamentarians and staff, and leverage all the resources in that area available to Parliament at a moment's notice, should they wish to understand a future complex issue similar to this one?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

As I understand it, our report should focus on identifying potential solutions. One of the things I heard was that, as a preventive measure, there should be more thorough and detailed research and a robust communication system.

Do you agree with that?

[Dominik Roszak]

Certainly, although I would be interested in hearing what, specifically, that idea is.

However, in broad terms, that sounds right. If you have a specific example of what you think this would look like, I'd love to hear about that, as well.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

We've also seen that there's a difference between inviting individuals who can roam around Parliament and attend question period, and inviting individuals for the purpose of recognizing them in the House. The issue in this case is the speed of execution and the secrecy aspect, because it was a legitimate thing to do.

If there's no way to standardize the security check process to avoid situations like the one we experienced, would you agree that this would prevent us from recognizing an individual in the House?

[Dominik Roszak]

I'm not sure I understand the final point. I do understand the complexity of coordinating these resources, but I don't think it actually is that complicated from an institutional perspective. It's very simple: If there is doubt as to whether someone is an appropriate invitee or someone to be recognized, then serious thought and serious research should be put into looking into that particular individual before any kind of invitation is sent out.

Out of respect for the sensitivity for communities and in a diverse landscape like ours here in Canada, that can be a challenge, but I think that for all of us it's not just about an institutional approach. It's also about broader awareness and engagement on the parliamentary level between parliamentarians and community organizations like ours on a regular basis. That is harder to put into a process, but I think it is just as important.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Ms. Mathyssen, you have six minutes through the chair.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to build off what was just touched on, but also off part of your testimony, Mr. Roszak. You mentioned the Deschênes commission.

As part of that complicated security process, the government has indicated that it is thinking about potentially publishing that commission. It has been mentioned. Could you give us your thoughts on that, even if it's a partial opening, on the ability for other security forces to have access to that list? What do you think about that? I would love to hear your recommendations.

[Dominik Roszak]

Well, I think that in my view transparency is always a good thing. In this case, we are dealing with files that were looked at in the 1980s. I certainly think that there's no harm in opening them up to improve Parliament's and the public's understanding of those issues, but the reason I mentioned the Deschênes commission in particular is that it cannot be seen as some kind of full answer to all questions relating to this type of issue, because it was a fairly narrowly focused commission and had its limitations. I just wanted to point that out.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

It's one small piece, but it could be helpful.

[Dominik Roszak]

Of course, yes.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Just to switch gears a bit, a lot of our conversations on this study have been about processes and how we potentially change them. I wanted to shift a bit. As a larger organization, you come onto the Hill a great deal. You advocate with all parties. You throw events. You host those meetings.

This has been referenced in previous meetings as well on this study, but can you talk about and share any insights you may have on hosting events on the Hill and navigating those relationships, navigating through security and ensuring we don't make mistakes similar to those that we have made in the past?

[Dominik Roszak]

Thank you for the question.

Yes, we've had the privilege of hosting events on Parliament Hill. We have very good relationships with members of Parliament from all parties who are members of the friendship group and otherwise.

I think one of the important things is to have those relationships, and that's on us as an organization to develop those relationships, but in terms of parliamentarians and staff, it's also a two-way street, right? It's a two-way relationship. If there are questions or concerns, or if there is an interest in learning more about what we do or why we do it, we're just a phone call away.

We want to ensure that we're accessible. We certainly haven't had any challenges from our community perspective in terms of dealing with those processes. I'm happy to elaborate if you can be more specific.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Well, for example, other groups have opened it up to members of the larger community. I don't know if that's the case for the Canadian Polish Congress. I would assume that it is, but do you do your own security checks?

Would you want to see in the future having to provide more of a set guest list weeks in advance to ensure that our own parliamentary security forces would do those security checks to avoid problems with potential guests? What do you think about that in terms of the openness, and also of the openness of Parliament, because it also speaks to that?

[Dominik Roszak]

It's a fair question. I think it's incumbent upon organizations like ours to make sure that when we're submitting lists to institutions, to government and parliamentary institutions, we have done our due diligence in reviewing who is on that list. Yes, certainly there are time pressures sometimes. There are unexpected things. However, we have to really put in that effort because it's also our reputation on the line as the representative of our community.

Therefore, we take that very seriously. If there are ever people who should not be [Technical difficulty—Editor].

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Sir, your connecton froze there. You might want to repeat the last 30 seconds.

[Dominik Roszak]

I'm sorry.

In the last bit, I was saying that it's incumbent upon us an an organization to do our own due diligence in terms of researching what lists we submit to government institutions for invitations. I think that's an important responsibility because governments certainly trust stakeholder organizations, but we have a responsibility to do that research on our own, as well, to prevent situations like this from happening.

I think it can happen at both levels.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

You mentioned that sometimes organizations such as yours are limited by the resources that you have. Is there a way to sort that through large organizations versus small organizations?

[Dominik Roszak]

The reason that congresses like the Canadian Polish Congress exist is to help coordinate that engagement of our member organizations with institutions like Parliament and the Government of Canada. Certainly, at our level, at our board level, we have experienced individuals who understand the nuances and can help navigate these issues with our member organizations. Therefore, we serve as a conduit between the 1.2 million Polish Canadians and the people in the Government in Canada. Even though we're volunteers, we put a lot of effort into making sure that we're representing our community properly and avoiding embarrassment for ourselves and for parliamentarians.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

We'll now enter our second round, starting with Mr. Kmiec, who will be followed by Mrs. Atwin.

Then it will be Ms. Gaudreau followed by Ms. Mathyssen.

Mr. Kmiec, you have five minutes.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

To go back to continue the questioning I had at the beginning, I want to ask about or put something directly to you, Mr. Roszak. I'd just like the Canadian Polish Congress's view and the view of many Poles in Canada and you to comment on this.

One of the statements made publicly by many people who were defending Mr. Hunka is that there were many people who were given no choices during the war. People had very little opportunity to exercise full freedom of conscience and choose the sides they wanted to fight on. However, I'd like to comment on the Polish community. We have something that Poles call żołnierze wyklęci, the “cursed soldiers”, people who fought against the Soviet Union and who fought against the Nazis. They had no home once Poland was fully occupied by the Soviet Union, and some of them continued to fight. The last one was Józef Franczak, who was murdered in 1963. He was a man who continued to fight well after the Home Army was stood down and amnesty was declared. So, men—in this case, practically all men—who chose to continue to fight the good fight, who had fought the Nazis and fought the Soviets.... They made that difficult choice of conscience. How does the Polish community see that? How does the Polish community see those arguments when they're made in public?