Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 21st, 2024

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Okay.

There are five seconds left.

[Richard Marceau]

Two things can be true at the same time. Yes, there's Russian propaganda. Yes, Ukraine is fighting for its life. A man was also honoured in Parliament who was a member of the Waffen-SS.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Ms. Gaudreau, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As I said earlier, our committee would like to understand what happened. We want to get to the bottom of this because in no case do we want this to happen again.

I can't ignore the entire parliamentary experience of our witness. In light of what he said, I would really like to have some suggestions. I'm sure the witness has some suggestions.

Mr. Marceau, what do we need to do?

[Richard Marceau]

First, we have to assume our responsibilities. As an institution, the House of Commons must assume its responsibilities, and I include in that the members themselves, as well as the administration. When invitations are issued to people, there must be a process to check the list of people who are invited. It's essential to do so.

Second, when members invite people from their riding to a reception, for example, members must take some responsibility to ensure that the people who are invited aren't people who will harm the parliamentary institution. We have the example of Mr. Hunka and the reception I was talking about earlier, which caused a lot of embarrassment to the House of Commons.

There's a way to check someone's history on the Internet to make sure that person doesn't have a past or even a present that poses a problem, because when this kind of problem occurs, Parliament as a whole is tarnished.

As you said, after spending about nine years here, I hold this House in very high esteem. As people who believe in democracy and politics, we don't need this kind of incident.

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

Thank you very much.

I'm going to make an observation about my thinking. So far, today, we're seeing that there's no historical consensus on the issue. How do we get a handle on this? As I said earlier, I'm not a historian. How can we reconcile these two tragic stories? I'd like to hear your comments on that.

[Dr. Lubomyr Luciuk]

History, like any other discipline, has schools of thought and different opinions. You need to base yourself on evidence.

Mere membership in the Galicia Division, as Justice Deschênes concluded back in 1987, is insufficient for prosecution. Membership in the Galicia Division is not a crime, according to Justice Deschênes.

These people were screened. There's been no evidence put forward that Mr. Hunka, whom we're talking about, committed any crimes. However, my colleague has suggested this man shouldn't have been in Parliament. Why? Why not? It's because he was a member of the Galicia Division. Okay, so there's a difference of opinion there.

The fact is that we had a commission of inquiry established by the Government of Canada, which continued for nearly two years. It was a very difficult period of time, I can assure you. The Canadian Jewish Congress, B'nai Brith and the Ukrainian Canadian Congress were all represented there. They had standing before that commission, and we welcomed the results.

Thirty-seven years later, you can't say that you don't like the results. You can't say that this Canadian can't come to Parliament because I disagree with his opinions or this Canadian can't come to Parliament because I find him disagreeable.

Just going on Google or Wikipedia and searching for information is pretty fraught, I would think. I'm not sure you'd invite me.

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

I don't have much time left, Madam Chair, and I'd really like to hear the comments of the witness, Mr. Marceau.

[Richard Marceau]

Just a few days ago, I would remind you that there was talk of a monument honouring this division of the Waffen‑SS and located in a Ukrainian cemetery in Oakville. St. Volodymyr Cemetery has confirmed that this monument has been removed, in agreement with the Jewish community and the Ukrainian community. Even within the two communities, there's a realization that there's a historical problem surrounding this division.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Dr. Lubomyr Luciuk]

May I speak to that, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Please make it short.

[Dr. Lubomyr Luciuk]

A cemetery monument on private property in Oakville was removed a few days ago because it had been vandalized repeatedly by unknown individuals. The cemetery board, unfortunately, capitulated to criminal vandalism.

I'm sorry. That's not an agreement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Ms. Mathyssen.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Marceau, you talked about that vetting process in terms of who's allowed into Parliament and so on.

In the first meeting we had on this study, it was made very clear by all those involved with security, protocol and so on that this was not done. The Speaker did his own thing. It didn't go through the proper channels. Obviously, we need to determine that this needs to be corrected as a protocol, despite who was involved. You also talked about that meeting of the Palestinian friendship group and letting somebody in. I, too, was very upset that this occurred—not wanting to allow that kind of access.

My question is this. There are a lot of events on the Hill. They are held by members of Parliament. They are held by groups. They are held by organizations such as CJA itself. How do we truly do a good job of vetting when there are so many things happening? Is that solely upon the government? Is that solely upon our own security personnel? Is that to be a responsibility of the groups that are running these events as well?

How do you think that should play out?

[Richard Marceau]

No group can hold a reception here without being sponsored by a member of Parliament. Therefore, the member of Parliament who's sponsoring a reception holds part of the responsibility for who comes in. That is why, with this event you referred to, the fact that you had a Holocaust denier invited was very problematic.

With all due respect to this committee and to every member of Parliament, what I said earlier, I really meant. What you do in this place matters. What you say in this place matters.

Ms. Mathyssen, I have to say that when you stand in the House with a pendant of Palestine that erases the state of Israel, it is felt by the Jewish community—

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

Madam Chair, that is not—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I am going to pause.

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

You were very specific.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I am going to pause, once again, for the third time today.

It's a very tough conversation. It's a very difficult conversation. I provide a lot of leniency. However, it's very clear why we are here.

Mr. Marceau, respectfully, I've provided leniency within your comments. I do hear it when people say, “How is this relevant?”, but for guests, I do provide some leniency. However, the way this place works—and that's why we're trying to make it better—is that it is the member's time. The member will ask questions and guests who are invited to come answer those questions to the best of their ability. That's how it works here.

We can try to improve this institution. We are all for it. However, the member's question was what needs to be addressed. That's why we're here. That's the invitation that was received and that's the invitation we're acting upon.

Therefore, please, I ask all of you.... I know we want to finish this round in its completion, which means the Conservatives and the Liberals will get another few minutes at the end. I would like to not interrupt again.

I'm giving the floor back to Ms. Mathyssen.

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

I did ask a very specific question in terms of how we make that vetting process better in relation to your specific testimony, so I ask that you respectfully limit your comments to that vetting process.

[Richard Marceau]

I have nothing to add.

[Dr. Lubomyr Luciuk]

Perhaps I can add something to that. I think using open sources is a very difficult way of adjudicating who might be allowed into Parliament. We all know people we disagree with or who we find disagreeable. Using open sources, which are polluted with misinformation, is not a good way of keeping someone in or out. I would be very upset if.... I mean, I could see people looking me up and saying, “No, we don't want him.” Some people disagree with the opinions I've taken on a number of issues, so am I acceptable?

Again I say, could Mr. Hunka, who has never been charged with anything, come back tomorrow as one of your guests? You're suggesting that he can't. Why not? What has he done? The vetting process....

My colleague just whispered in my ear “Waffen-SS”. Read the Deschênes commission report. I think you were a teenager when I was standing in front of Deschênes. If you read the report, he addresses the issue of the Waffen-SS in Nuremberg, which did not mention the Galicia Division—not specifically, at any rate.

I think we need to understand that Parliament has to hear disagreeable opinions. It has to hear from people you may find disagreeable. That's your job. Then you make your decisions. I agree with my colleague: What is said matters, and what you decide matters, but you have to hear and you have to read.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

You have 10 seconds left.