Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Feb. 13th, 2024

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Could Mr. Janse explain to us once again, in greater detail, why reputational risk isn't assessed and to what extent inviting a person posing such a risk could make our government vulnerable?

[Eric Janse]

To this day, assessing reputational risk isn't part of our mandate when we organize events such as an address to Parliament. The protocol team and the Sergeant-at-Arms's team are more concerned with physical rather than reputational risk.

If we were ever mandated to do this kind of verification, we'd have to evaluate how much time and resources that would require. Our understanding has always been that it was incumbent on the party or group submitting these lists to us to do these background checks beforehand.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Okay. I've learned a lot about procedure thanks to you. We're here to find out what really happened, too. For the record, I'd like to do a little recap, and you can tell me if I have it right.

So, the Speaker of the House of Commons invited a person who obtained Canadian citizenship in the 1950s. The Speaker submitted his guest list to you, and you then forwarded it to security for verification and analysis, as per established protocol. And yet nothing could have led us to believe that this man's presence in the gallery could have posed a threat to our government. Your mandate didn't extend any further than that. The lists aren't released.

The event then unfolded, and what was meant to happen, happened. We recognized the presence in the gallery of a person posing a reputational risk.

Could we somehow use this opportunity to improve the security protocol so that, in the future, on top of the usual security checks, it also includes a reputational risk assessment, in the interest of protecting our government?

[Eric Janse]

As was already mentioned, one thing we could do is a reputational risk assessment of a guest when it is known ahead of time that one of the participants will draw attention to their presence in the gallery.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

With that, I will say thank you so much for your time.

You've had a lot of exchanges. Obviously, there's a desire to receive information so that this committee can do its work. If there are insights or information that you can provide, the committee would appreciate it. Please do so through the clerk.

Also, as you had exchanges in questions and answers, if something comes to mind that makes you wish you had added some information, it would be a great opportunity for you to provide our committee with that information. If you provide it to the clerk, we'll make sure it gets circulated. I'm sure you'll be thinking about this for days to come, and something might come to light where you think, “Maybe I'll share this.” We would appreciate that information.

Mrs. Romanado is next.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Janse mentioned that he had circulated his opening remarks to the interpreters. If there is any way that we can get a copy, that would be great.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Yes. In future, we would love to receive them as well when the interpreters do. However, yes, we'll make sure that we get a copy of those notes through the clerk and circulate them.

I wish you all a great day. Thank you for your time and attention.

We will be starting our next panel in the next two minutes, at 12:35, with the House leader, Steven MacKinnon.

Thank you so much. Have a good day.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We return to the second hour of procedure and House affairs meeting number 106.

We have with us the Honourable Steven MacKinnon, leader of the government in the House of Commons.

Minister MacKinnon, you will have up to 10 minutes for your opening comments. Please feel free to not use all of those 10 minutes, but if you would like to, you have 10 minutes. At 10 minutes, you will hear a beep, and I will respectfully cut you off. Hopefully, we don't get to that.

We're really grateful that you so quickly turned around your invitation to come. We know that's not easy to do, but it does mean a lot to all the members at the procedure and House affairs committee. Thank you.

Welcome.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would also like to thank all of my parliamentary colleagues for their invitation.

I'm here today to talk about what happened in Parliament in September, when the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, made his address.

It was a historic day for us all. His speech was an opportunity for us to reaffirm our unwavering support for Ukraine. Let's be clear: Back then, Ukraine was fighting for sovereignty in the face of Russia's illegal incursion into its territory, and it is still doing so now. Ukraine's war against Putin's Russia is a turning point for us. If Ukraine falls, we will all suffer. So we all have the duty, as Canadian parliamentarians, to set partisanship aside, do what's right and show a united front in supporting the Ukrainian people.

Unfortunately, President Zelenskyy's speech was tainted by a shameful incident that aggrieved a great many Canadians, especially those of Jewish and eastern European origin. A man was invited to sit in the gallery and was recognized by the Speaker as a hero. He was applauded by each and every member in the House, on all sides. It really is a horrible moment for our Parliament and for every member of the House. We weren't aware of this man's past in the Second World War. Still, we were called to pay tribute to him, in the presence of President Zelenskyy.

Chair, your committee is examining how this unfortunate incident happened. Let me review the chronology of what occurred in the days that followed President Zelenskyy's address.

The address in the House chamber occurred on a Friday. Over the weekend, details about the individual's involvement in the Second World War emerged. On the Sunday evening, Speaker Rota issued a statement he wrote. I quote:

On Friday, September 22, in my remarks following the address of the President of Ukraine, I recognized an individual in the gallery.

I have subsequently become aware of more information which causes me to regret my decision to do so.

I wish to make clear that no one, including fellow parliamentarians and the Ukraine delegation, was aware of my intention or of my remarks before I delivered them.

This initiative was entirely my own, the individual in question being from my riding and having been brought to my attention.

I particularly want to extend my deepest apologies to Jewish communities in Canada and around the world.

I accept full responsibility for my actions.

That was the explanation from the Speaker. It was concise, and he made it clear that he alone was behind the decision to invite the individual to the House.

The next morning, on Monday, the Speaker rose in the chamber and delivered a similar statement to members of Parliament. He said:

I wish to apologize to the House. I am deeply sorry that I have offended many with my gesture and remarks.

Notwithstanding his clear statement and his apology, there were questions raised by the opposition over whether the government was involved in the invitation to the House. The Speaker intervened in the proceedings and said clearly:

I just want to make it clear that it was my decision and my decision alone. This was a constituent who wanted to be here, and I recognized him. It was my decision, and I apologize profusely. I cannot tell members how regretful it is, which may not be good enough for some of you, and for that I apologize.

Chair, as you will recall, despite Speaker's Rota's explanation and apology, members expressed significant concerns about his actions in this regard. The next day, on Tuesday, September 26, he rose in the House to announce his resignation as Speaker. He reiterated his profound regret for his error. He said that it had caused pain to individuals and communities, including the Jewish community in Canada and around the world. Speaker Rota said:

I accept full responsibility for my actions.

Again, his words were clear and definitive.

Several months later, his explanation had not changed. In a letter he wrote to this committee on January 30, he wrote:

I reiterate that the decision to invite the person was mine, as was the decision to recognize him in my remarks.

In short, it's important to underscore the facts surrounding what happened in September.

The former Speaker clearly said that he alone was responsible for having invited this person to the House and to have decided to pay tribute to him in his speech. It was on his own initiative, and no other parliamentarians were involved.

The government played no role in this matter. Indeed, it was not aware that this person was going to be introduced in the House.

The former Speaker invited his own guests for the speech. He and his office chose them.

When the government learned about this horrible incident that had occurred in the House, the Prime Minister acknowledged just how painful the incident had been for Canadians and for communities affected by the Holocaust. The Prime Minister made a public statement about it outside of the House and also discussed it with members in the House. He noted that the Speaker, Mr.Rota, had sent the invitation, had underscored the presence of this individual in the House and had assumed full responsibility for it. The Prime Minister said that no members of the House of Commons had been aware of this person's background.

The Prime Minister put it as follows:

… on behalf of everyone in the House, I would like to present unreserved apologies for what took place on Friday and for the position that President Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian delegation were put in. For all of us who were present to have unknowingly recognized this individual was a terrible mistake and a violation of the memory of those who suffered grievously at the hands of the Nazi regime.

There is another point, Madam Chair, about which I would like to offer some brief remarks.

I'm here to work co-operatively, of course, with all of my colleagues to discuss what occurred in the House last September. However, I expect some of the committee members might plan to ask questions about another separate event that also occurred during that week.

When President Zelenskyy visited Canada, there was a community event in Toronto for him, with over 1,000 people invited. Hundreds of Canadians were invited upon the recommendation of community groups. The name of the individual we are discussing in these proceedings was submitted by the Ukrainian Canadian Congress. Ultimately, the person did not attend the event. It is important to emphasize that these two events—the evening gathering in Toronto and the address on the floor of the House in Ottawa—were two entirely separate events.

The final point to remember, Madam Chair, is that after this unfortunate incident occurred, our government left no doubt about where Canada stands in its unwavering support for Ukraine. The Prime Minister said that our country stands alongside Ukraine in its fight against Vladimir Putin's brutality, lies and violence. He paid tribute to the sacrifices of Ukrainians as they fight for heir democracy, freedom, their language and culture, and for peace.

The Prime Minister also publicly anticipated that this incident would be politicized and turned into false propaganda by Russia to weaken Ukraine. Not surprisingly, Putin himself continued with those efforts in recent days in an interview in Russia with far-right American conservative pundit Tucker Carlson. However, the facts speak otherwise. Canadians won't be fooled by this irresponsible and mischievous propaganda. Canada and Ukraine are allies. Our resolve to support Ukraine at this crucial time is no less strong now than it was then.

These are the facts of what happened last September. The Speaker at the time made a mistake, for which he was solely responsible. He accepted that responsibility and stepped down. However, we cannot and will not allow this to define our relationship with Ukraine. The people of Ukraine are our friends. At this time of peril in their history, they need our friendship. We will not let them down.

I would be happy to take your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you for those comments, and thank you for providing a minute and a half back to me.

We will enter into six-minute rounds through the chair. We are calling on colleagues to have respectful dialogue. I will obviously provide some leniency. If there are people speaking over people, I will do what I do and remind you that we don't do that.

Six minutes will go to Mr. Cooper, followed by six minutes to Mr. Gerretsen.

I am now giving the floor to Ms. Gaudreau and then Ms. Mathyssen, for six minutes.

Go ahead, Mr. Cooper.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Minister MacKinnon, when the former SS soldier was invited to and recognized in Parliament during the address by President Zelenskyy, you were the chief government whip. You are now the government House leader. We have since learned that three days before the address of the President of Ukraine, Justin Trudeau sent an invitation to this very same SS soldier to his exclusive reception in Toronto with none other than the president of Ukraine, President Zelenskyy.

Therefore, on behalf of Justin Trudeau's government, will you apologize for what ought to be a significant embarrassment on the part of the government—inviting an SS soldier to this exclusive reception?

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Go ahead, Mr. Gerretsen.

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

Madam Chair, we're clearly talking about the incident that occurred in the House of Commons and the impacts of it. That's what the study is about. I understand there might be some questions that stray just partially outside of the line, but now we're into a line of questioning that has absolutely nothing to do with our study.

Is the entire line of questioning going to be outside the scope of what we're studying? If so, why don't we do a separate study on the issue that Mr. Cooper is referring to?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

What I will say is that I think we all know the purpose of the procedure and House affairs committee here. We also know, based on comments that were provided, that there is leniency as to how questions can unfold and where they can go.

I think that when some doors for lines of questioning are open, there will be a grey area. I think the minister is capable of answering such concerns and questions, and if he's not, your point is noted, Mr. Gerretsen.

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

I have another point of order when you're done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I would really appreciate if we could get to the end of this meeting, so I am going to say, with some leniency, that the comment and concern could be permissible.

Mr. Gerretsen, go ahead.

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

That's fair, but again, on a point of order, we're here to ask witnesses—as we did very respectfully in the first panel—for information in order to provide content for our report. Mr. Cooper is not only entertaining discussion outside of the scope of the work; he's literally asking the witness now for something that has nothing to do with the actual report. He's asking him to apologize for something that has nothing to do with the report.

I just want to understand whether we're going to be spending the next hour in this manner or if we're going to actually be trying to contribute to the report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I hope Mr. Cooper will now want to respond.

Go ahead, Mr. Cooper.

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

Madam Chair, it absolutely is pertinent. This is a Prime Minister who claimed he knew nothing about this individual. We now learn that he sent an invitation to the very same SS soldier three days before the address of the President of Ukraine.

I asked the government House leader a very simple question—whether he would apologize on behalf of the government. I hope the answer would be “yes”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

There's good news: As members of this committee, we get to ask questions. We do not get to predetermine what the answers are, but I'm sure the minister looks forward to answering it.

I am going to ask that we remember why we are here. Given why we are here, I would like us to continue having a respectful exchange. I would like us to come to the conclusion of this meeting as quickly as possible so that I can start looking forward to Thursday's meeting.

With that, I'm going to restart the clock. You're not starting from the top, but your time of one minute for your question remains.

I'm going to give the floor to Minister MacKinnon.

I'm confident there will be no more interruptions. I'm also confident that Minister MacKinnon will be brief in his response so that Mr. Cooper can continue with his line of questioning.

Minister MacKinnon, go ahead.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

What I said in my remarks was that the Prime Minister offered his apology outside of the House upon learning of the error that had been made by the Speaker. He spoke to our visitors, I think, through the forum that was offered to him.

Indeed, we've acknowledged that this was a terribly embarrassing incident for Canada. I think that stands for itself.

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

The Prime Minister acknowledged the invitation to this former SS soldier only after he had been caught and after it was reported by the media several months after the fact. Why did the Prime Minister hide this fact from Canadians?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

I'm not sure I accept the premise of the question that he hid anything.

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

The premise of the question is very simple. There's a list of invitees of the Prime Minister. That comes from his office. It included this former SS soldier. He has said that he knew nothing about this individual; he had no knowledge or involvement, nothing whatsoever. Now we have learned through the media that in fact his office, three days before, had sent an invitation to this individual.

Again, why did the Prime Minister withhold from Canadians this material fact about his office's involvement with this former SS soldier?