Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 9th, 2024

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

I'll do a quick point of order on Mr. Gerretsen's.

So that there are no issues with my conduct here, the minutes of what happens are public, and they're published, so I'm not disclosing anything. Look at the minutes.

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

Part of the meeting was in camera—

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

The motion that was passed is in the minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Gentlemen, what's going on here today?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Good question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Let's stay focused. We have company joining us at PROC. People love coming to procedure and House affairs. We love it when guests come, as you can tell, so we're going to stay focused on the scope of the study.

Mr. Duncan has a minute and 10 seconds left.

Please complete your round, Mr. Duncan.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

I was not able to raise information about Mr. Hunka and their relationship with and knowledge of Mr. Hunka through the protocol office, the PCO and PMO in the first round. Now, when I'm about to ask my second question, a point of order is called again.

I'm going to ask the question of Ms. Kennedy. There was international embarrassment with the Prime Minister's visit to India after not properly vetting a guest list. A terrorist was brought along by the Prime Minister on that diplomatic visit. It was a disaster for that entire trip in many ways.

What lessons were learned and incorporated into this visit? Yet again, guest lists that were provided by the PMO and PCO were not properly vetted, and it created international embarrassment. What was done by the PCO and the Prime Minister's Office between that India incident and this one to try to avoid this happening?

Mr. Carrière, if you want to address that as well, I'll be happy with that. What new steps have been taken since that 2017 incident with the guest list? What have you tried to rectify since?

[Christine Kennedy]

Thank you for the question, Madam Chair.

With regard to the address in Parliament, the PCO was not aware that this individual was going to be invited to the address to Parliament, nor that he was going to be recognized there. We had no visibility on that.

I would also add that, given the need to respect the role of parliamentarians and the operations of the House of Commons, there was no other role for the Privy Council Office in this situation.

[Sébastien Carrière]

I have no information on 2017. I was not in protocol or on the India desk.

What I do know is that there are steps that could be taken to avoid another incident like this, here in the House of Commons, with the Speaker's office. My understanding is that the procedure has been reviewed. I'm pretty certain that the committee can find new recommendations to make sure that it doesn't happen again, because that's the incident that made the news, not the Toronto event.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

It is. The commentary that's coming from the member is also very inappropriate.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

That was six minutes and six seconds, so I'll take that minute off Mr. Duncan's next round.

We're going over to Monsieur Lauzon for five minutes, please.

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

I want to thank the witnesses for joining us today. I would also like to thank them for their service to our country.

Mr. Carrière and Ms. Kennedy, in your opening remarks, you provided information on protocol and on your respective roles. You also talked about drawing up guest lists. However, you piqued my interest when you spoke about your ability to act.

I'm in solution mode. I would like you to elaborate on this topic so that the committee can make recommendations.

First, Mr. Carrière, can you describe your ability to manage your workload in general and, in particular, when an event of this nature happens?

Could improving your ability to act factor into a recommendation from this committee? I'm thinking, for example, of your physical or staffing capacity, or in terms of logistics, information technology, research, collaboration with other jurisdictions or access to information.

[Sébastien Carrière]

I want to thank the member for the question.

For official visits in particular, we sometimes need extra help at peak times.

The office of protocol isn't mandated to check guest lists. When we receive a list from a client, such as the Prime Minister's Office, Rideau Hall or the office of any of our three ministers, we assume that this work has already been done.

When it comes to the ability to act, every public service manager will say that they would like to have more resources. However, if we were to look at the possibility of checking lists...

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

You have a point of order, Mrs. Wagantall.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

This question is a question that has no relation to the scope of the study, because these things don't deal with these lists. Why is the member allowed to ask a question about—respectfully—things that the witnesses probably need within their departments but that in no way impact the scope of the study?

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

Madam Chair, I have a point of order.

My question specifically seeks to find solutions in order to make recommendations for improving services, from the guest lists to the management method. I have addressed every facet of the issue, including the logistics of these events. The question is particularly relevant to the current study.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

No, it's not. I asked the same one and the chair's ruling was sustained.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Were you finished answering the question, or do you want to continue?

[Sébastien Carrière]

I'll finish by saying that, in our office and in any other government office, we need to increase our ability to act without incurring excessive costs. Artificial intelligence may be an avenue worth exploring. People say that it's the solution of the future. I don't think that an artificial intelligence tool could do our protocol work. However, it might be used to check lists faster than a human being could. That's my only answer right now.

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

Ms. Kennedy, can you tell us a bit more about everything to do with managing events such as this one?

[Christine Kennedy]

The foreign and defence policy secretariat is incredibly lean, which means that we very much have to focus on the mandate that we are given—support to the Prime Minister's international engagements—and that very much focuses on policy and substantive support. We do rely heavily on other entities to do appropriate processes so that we can stay very much focused on the issues at hand.

Given that my time is almost up, I would just mention that we very much welcome the outcome of this committee. We're very happy to work with all of the stakeholders involved to ensure that this does not happen again.

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

Thank you.

We spoke about many things, including security and criminal records. You clearly summed up the risk posed by this type of event on the international stage. We would also like to thank you for sharing your experience with the Prime Minister.

That said, we have heard very little about risk management when it comes to the country's image. As a committee, what recommendations could we make for a risk management protocol that would uphold Canada's image?

My question is for Mr. Carrière.

[Sébastien Carrière]

Thank you for the question.

Again, I want to go back to my earlier point about the level of risk. One guest out of 1,000 at a given event carries a level of risk. Having a person recognized by the Speaker of the House constitutes a risk, as does inviting a foreign head of state to address Parliament.

In my opinion, our method for checking a person's non‑criminal background should directly relate to the significance or level of attention to give to that person.