Mr. Speaker, I just want to underscore the point my colleague just raised. Is it the government's position that when we have a foreign head of state visiting, the government does zero security vetting for who will be in the same room as that head of state? Is that the message we are sending to our allies, so that when they come here, they will not know who is going to be in the gallery? What kind of a message does that send to Canada's partners and allies around the world?
That is the point that we are raising, Mr. Speaker. It is all well and good for you to come in and accept your share of the responsibility, but there is only one entity in the chamber that has the resources and the mandate to keep people safe. As my colleague just pointed out, when President Zelenskyy comes here on the invitation of the Prime Minister, when the entire itinerary is planned by the PMO, the government of Canada has an obligation to him personally to secure his safety. It has a responsibility to the people of Ukraine to ensure the safety of their president. The Prime Minister has a responsibility to all Canadians to uphold the dignity of Canada as a country and as a trusted partner and ally. In all three of those areas, the Prime Minister failed to take that basic level of responsibility. That is the point we are underscoring. There was a Nazi in the chamber. There is only one entity, one group that could have done anything about it, who could have flagged that.
As I mentioned, the director of the Parliamentary Protective Service reports up to the Government of Canada for operational matters. That is in the mandate of the Parliamentary Protective Service. The director of the Parliamentary Protective Service must be a member of the RCMP. That is in the enabling legislation. That was all done for a reason. I was in the chair when that legislation was passed, and it was precisely because the House of Commons itself did not have the capability to do full security vettings and background checks on individuals. That was the reason we did that, to make available to the House of Commons the resources of federal institutions like the RCMP and CSIS.
That is why we do not accept the attempt to collectivize blame for this. Opposition parties do not have access to CSIS reports. We do not have access to the RCMP's vast capabilities to do background checks and vetting. In this case it would have taken a simple Google search to find a blog post written by that individual saying that he served in an SS division, in a Nazi division, during World War II.
Again, all of those resources are available to the government. The mandate, the responsibility, lies with the government. The entire reporting structure of the Parliamentary Protective Service here flows up to the government. That is why we still have many questions, and this issue does not end with your statement or your apology.