- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Lethbridge
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 65%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $131,565.29
- Government Page
- May/30/24 10:34:07 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I would offer to respond to that, actually.
There was no effort made to reach out to my office to clarify what I had said that day and whether or not the blues had been changed. In fact they were changed without my knowledge and then published in the Hansard record, which was signed off by your office, all without my knowing about it. It was only after the change that I, on my initiative, reached out to your office in order to seek clarification and understand the procedure better.
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 3:20:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise to add to the question of privilege I raised on May 1, concerning the removal of my words from the Hansard.
The question I submit to you today is the following: Is it appropriate for the Speaker of this place, the House of Commons, or those authorized to speak on his behalf, to comment publicly on a question of privilege that is before him for adjudication?
I would like to explain why I put forward this question. It has come to my attention that the office of the Speaker did, in fact, comment to the media regarding my question of privilege. In fact, multiple articles, including one I have here on the front page of the National Post—
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/1/24 3:54:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege today regarding a significant discrepancy between what was published in the blues and what was published in Hansard yesterday.
The question of privilege I raise also has to do with how I was treated by the Speaker of the House and how I was further portrayed publicly. The discrepancy between the blues and what was published in Hansard involves the omission of two very important, documented words, an exchange between the Speaker and me during question period yesterday.
The blues recorded the following statement by the Speaker: “If the hon. member for Lethbridge has problems with the Chair, she should challenge the Chair in a respectful way, but as the hon. member knows, challenging the Chair is against the rules of this House. I ask the hon. member to please withdraw her remarks.” I replied, rising in my place to say this: “Mr. Speaker, I stated that the Chair is acting in a disgraceful manner. I withdraw.”
In the Hansard recording, two words are missing: the words “I withdraw.” That said, it should be noted that it is reported in Hansard that at least one member did point out to the Speaker that these words were in fact spoken. It says the following: “An hon. member: She withdrew it.” In the audio recording, many other members were heard drawing attention to this fact, asking for the Speaker to do the same.
These words are significant, because they demonstrate that I complied, Mr. Speaker, with your request to withdraw. It demonstrates that my withdrawal was not conditional; rather, it was proper and textbook. Therefore, it ought to have been accepted. However, I was kicked out of this place for the remainder of the day as if I had not withdrawn those words. To put it another way, it is as if the Hansard recording of the event were accurate and true, when, in fact, we know it is not. If one checks the audio recording, one finds that it clearly picked up the two words that are also recorded in the blues.
It is worth noting that chapter 24 of Bosc and Gagnon states, “The Chamber is equipped with cameras operated from a control room, invisible from the floor of the House. The recording of the proceedings is governed by guidelines, intended to preserve the concept of the electronic Hansard, as adopted by the House.” The two words that were edited out of Hansard essentially rewrote history, making the Speaker's actions and procedure appear proper and mine improper. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I was removed from the chamber for the remainder of the day and prohibited from being able to participate in debate or vote on behalf of the constituents who sent me here. Therefore, the constituents of Lethbridge were robbed of having a presence and a voice in the House of Commons, which is their democratic right. This was especially egregious given the fact that there was a scheduled vote immediately following question period that day.
If one goes to the House of Commons site, unfortunately, the blues are no longer available. That is interesting; it makes a person curious as to why. If one attempts to access the blues today, one will get this message: “Blues are available while the House is in session until the Hansard is published.” The blues are taken down.
Luckily, though, I kept a copy of the blues that were sent to me at the end of the day yesterday, and I have them available to submit to you here, Mr. Speaker. I will just point out that, if we flip through them, on this page here, my words are kindly highlighted. Furthermore, we are fortunate to have access to the audio recording, which still exists and does not lie.
At pages 1228 to 1229, the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states:
The unedited in extenso transcriptions of the Debates, at one time produced on blue paper, continue to be known as the “blues”. Parliamentary Publications staff send to each Member who speaks in the House the transcription of the Member’s intervention. The blues are also published on the House of Commons’ internal website....
The availability of the blues on the House of Commons’ internal website permits Members and their authorized delegates to use the web page or email to submit suggested changes for Parliamentary Publications editorial staff to consider. Members may suggest corrections to errors and minor alterations to the transcription but may not make material changes to the meaning of what was said in the House.
I am going to read that part again, because it is really important: They “may not make material changes to the meaning of what was said in the House.” It is interesting, then, that the blues said one thing, but Hansard said another, and that I did not ask for those changes to be made.
The third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice goes on to say this:
It is a long-standing practice of the House that editors of the Debates may exercise judgment as to whether or not changes suggested by Members constitute the correction of an error or a minor alteration. The editors may likewise alter a sentence to render it more readable but may not go so far as to change its meaning. Editors must ensure that the Debates are a faithful reflection of what was said; any changes made, whether by Members or editors, are for the sole purpose of improving the readability of the text, given the difference between the spoken and written word.
Clearly, I did not suggest any changes to the officials with regard to Hansard. Bosc and Gagnon state that the editors can make alterations but cannot make changes that go so far as to change the meaning of what was said. In the case I have raised today, the difference in meaning without these two words, “I withdraw”, being published in Hansard is obviously very significant.
On pages 1229 to 1230, House of Commons Procedure and Practice goes on to say, “When a question arises in the House as to the accuracy of the record, it is the responsibility of the Speaker to look into the matter.”
In this case, the edit, with the deletion of two very significant words, is far more noteworthy than simply improving the readability of a sentence. I believe you will agree, Mr. Speaker.
The justification used by the Speaker to admonish and remove me from the chamber does not match the evidence presented in the blues and by the audio recording that we may also access. The Speaker's actions do, however, fit very nicely with the altered text published in Hansard.
On page 82 of Bosc and Gagnon is a list describing items to be considered contempt. On that list is “falsifying or altering any papers belonging to the House”.
At page 248, Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition, states that “the House of Commons of Canada remains prepared to entertain legitimate questions of privilege where false...or perverted reports of debates or proceedings are published.” While this passage refers to inaccurate media reports of what was published in Hansard, it is no less offensive and, in fact, perhaps more offensive that this happened right here in the House of Commons.
At pages 81 to 83, Bosc and Gagnon states:
Throughout the Commonwealth most procedural authorities hold that contempts, as opposed to privileges, cannot be enumerated or categorized. Speaker Sauvé explained in a 1980 ruling: “…while our privileges are defined, contempt of the House has no limits. When new ways are found to interfere with our proceedings, so too will the House, in appropriate cases, be able to find that a contempt of the House has occurred”....
Just as it is not possible to categorize or to delineate every incident which may fall under the definition of contempt, it is also difficult to categorize the severity of contempt. Contempts may vary greatly in their gravity; matters ranging from minor breaches of decorum to grave attacks against the authority of Parliament may be considered as contempts.
It cannot be debated or disputed that someone deliberately removed two words from the blues and that these words have great significance. This changed the meaning of the events yesterday and the way they would be interpreted, resulting in an inaccurate, negative reflection of me, which was then broadcast to my constituents and to all people across Canada. Furthermore, this inaccurate account of events resulted in my wrongful dismissal from this place by you, Mr. Speaker, robbing me of the right to represent the constituents of Lethbridge here in the House of Commons and to cast a vote on their behalf, again robbing them of their democratic right.
That leads to another aspect of privilege: improper reflections upon a member. On October 20, 1966, the member for Edmonton—Strathcona rose on a question of privilege that came out of an article in Le Droit of October 14 by Marcel Pepin. He argued that the article imputed an improper motive to him and was a gross distortion of the facts of something that occurred in the House. The Speaker ruled the matter to be a prima facie question of privilege on October 24.
In my case, it is Hansard that has recorded a gross distortion of the facts, an act that can be substantiated by the blues and the audio recordings of the procedures I referred to from yesterday, April 30.
I will give another example. On March 22, 1983, Speaker Sauvé ruled on a question of privilege relating to false and libellous accusations against the member for Lincoln that had been published in the Montreal Gazette. The Speaker felt that a reflection upon the reputation of an hon. member is a matter of great concern to all members of the House and said at that time: “It places the entire institution under a cloud, as it suggests that among the Members of the House there are some who are unworthy to sit there. An allegation of criminal or other dishonourable conduct inevitably affects the Member's ability to function effectively while the matter remains unresolved.”
The matter I am addressing today is grave in nature and calls for your utmost attention. In summary, the matter I am bringing to your attention has three components: the Speaker's ruling to expel me from the House, the improper alteration of Hansard and the inaccurate reporting as to the role that I played here in this place.
If you rule this matter to be a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion today.
1828 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
