Government Operations Committee on March 8th, 2023

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you, Chair, for your latitude. If I could ask the clerk to clarify how that vote is going to be recorded...?

[The Clerk]

That depends if you've raised a question of privilege—

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I would love to have something like that at some point in my life.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We'll let the clerk—

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I'm sorry.

At a certain point at the start of the pandemic, there were some technical errors that led to a very unpleasant incident, and I bore the brunt right across Canada. Nobody acknowledged it. It was not in this committee, but nobody wanted to acknowledge that incident was the result of a technical problem over which I had no control. It was not my responsibility. It was a technical problem. Unfortunately, I bore the brunt of it.

Right now, I am willing to recognize the facts, because I have more respect than I received at that time.

Today, however, international women's day is being used. If Ms. Lattanzio were Mr. Lattanzio and did not have a headset on, I would have had exactly the same reaction as I had today. We asked for a rule out of respect for the interpreters. It is really important that we follow that rule.

Whether it is a thumbs up or a thumbs down, I will leave that to the clerk to decide, but I would have liked it if your side had shown the same consideration to someone who was not from your party. It is honourable, but especially if it is someone from another party.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I agree with everything that was stated.

I would be just as concerned and I would be just as perturbed if it had been any other member of any other party who had been denied their ability to cast their vote and have their say, whether it's based on technical reasons or not. I think this is important.

I don't think this is something we can simply sweep under the rug. It's important. It needs to be addressed. I believe it had an impact on the course of the discussions here at committee.

Again, I understand as well.... I want to emphasize that it was unintentional. I understand that, but I think it's important. I want to emphasize that, again, whether it's one party or another, it's important for all of us to stand up and protect every MP's right to have their voice heard and have their vote count. That is the very foundation of this democracy and this process.

Like I said, during the entire meeting today, I had it in the back of my mind, because it didn't sit well with me. It didn't feel right, and it's something I felt we needed to address.

I certainly hope the Speaker clarifies it for other committees and other committee members, so that this doesn't happen again, because, again, who knows? In this instance, it was a six-to-four vote that became a five-to-four vote, but in other situations, the stakes may be much greater and much higher.

My colleague, Madame Vignola, raises some important concerns here. Again, there should never be a situation when we allow someone to have their voice cancelled and their vote disenfranchised.

From my perspective, it doesn't matter on which side of the aisle that person stands. We have to defend their right to be heard and their right for their vote to be counted. I think there needs to be some clarification on that, and it needs to be communicated by the Speaker to the House and to other committees, so that we don't have a repeat of this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you.

Mr. Johns, did you have your hand up?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Chair, my concern here is that this is about protecting workers. This is about protecting the interpreters, who have been under immense pressure. They're short-staffed because of the injuries they've incurred at committee because of members of Parliament not using the proper, authorized House of Commons equipment.

We were clearly given instructions by the Speaker to use the House of Commons equipment or we couldn't participate. That's my understanding.

I don't like to talk about what we talk about in caucus as New Democrats, but I'll share this with you. If you don't have the proper head gear, you're not participating in our caucus, because we have an obligation to protect the employees who work here.

To show up to a committee meeting and not have the proper equipment, putting staff at risk, and then assuming that your privilege and right are going to supersede the health of workers.... I actually don't support that.

I'm open to getting clarification from the Speaker, but, as parliamentarians, we have an obligation to protect those workers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mr. Johns.

I have received some clarification and some advice from up above on the procedure.

I can simply count the vote, and I choose to do so. I recognize, again, that miscommunication on how that should be done. However, someone can simply do a “yes” or “no”, so I'll simply count the vote. It does not change the process. It's six to four, as opposed to five to four.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4)

So it will now show on the record here that her vote has been counted, and that it's six to four.

Mr. Kusmierczyk is first, and then it's you, Mr. Housefather.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I'll yield to Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you.

I am so sorry that happened to you, Ms. Vignola. I was not aware.

I think each committee manages its own affairs in certain respects. As Mr. Kusmiercyk said, I hope everyone will defend the rights of colleagues from other parties when there is a lack of respect like that.

What I wanted to say to what Gord said is I agree. With respect to speaking at a committee, you clearly need to have the headset and be appropriately ready. However, for voting, I think we've all been at committees where people have done this. Even in the House, people have done this. This is a perfectly acceptable vote to indicate how you want to vote. That's always been the rule. It would be completely unfair for this one committee to have a different rule from every other committee, where I've seen on multiple occasions people vote like this.

That, I think, is the issue. It's not about whether they speak; it's the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Bear with me for two seconds, colleagues.

Go ahead, Mr. Kusmierczyk.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I just want to reiterate what my colleague, Mr. Housefather, said.

I absolutely agree with Mr. Johns that in order to be able to speak at committee, you need to have the requisite headset. That's something that was decided upon and made clear with the ruling and the communication of the Speaker in the House. We need to make sure that we're all playing on a level playing field, that we are all abiding by the same rules.

As Mr. Johns pointed out, it's as much about an equal playing field as it is about protecting the health and safety of the interpreters and the workers of the House of Commons. Lord knows they put in incredible time doing this work. We often ask them to stay hours and hours after a meeting is scheduled to continue with debates. They have families they want to go home to. They have soccer practices and hockey practices they want to drive their kids to. There are dinners they want to prepare. There are also those times when they simply want to go home to recharge rather than stay for hours and hours after a meeting is supposed to be scheduled. The least we can do is to make sure that we abide by the rules and we incorporate practices that protect their health and safety and prioritize their health and safety first and foremost. So I completely agree with Mr. Johns' sentiments.

What we're talking about here is different. This isn't about the privilege of speaking at committee or speaking in the House of Commons. This is the sacrosanct privilege of voting. It is sacrosanct. This is the very foundation of what we do here. As Madam Vignola raised, when that sacrosanct privilege is violated, not only is it injurious to the democratic process, not only is it injurious to that member of Parliament, but it's also injurious to the tens of thousands of constituents that the member represents. It's not just the member's voice that is represented in that vote. It is the voice of tens of thousands of constituents who send us to these hallowed grounds to vote on their behalf. So when that happens, it's not something that we can take lightly. It's not something that we can simply sweep under the rug and move on. It's something that I think has to be addressed and acknowledged. Steps have to be taken to make sure that it never happens again.

Again, this is the very foundation, the very reason that we are here in Ottawa on Parliament Hill, to do the bidding of the people that we represent. I want to make it clear that we're not talking about the privilege to speak. We're talking about the privilege to represent the people who voted us here, who sent us to Ottawa, to cast votes on matters of importance to them. I think that's something that's worth protecting, and we have to raise that issue whenever that is violated.

In that case, Mr. Chair, what I would do is to move a motion to adjourn the debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

This is wonderful timing because we're running out of resources and we do have to get to the other issues.

Thank you, Mr. Kusmierczyk.

We have a motion to adjourn the debate. Do we need a vote?

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I think we agree we will adjourn the debate.

(Motion agreed to)

Perhaps the sides can chat about this separately.

We will now suspend for a few seconds to go in camera, and we'll discuss very quickly the two items we have to do.

[Proceedings continue in camera]