SoVote

Jun/6/24 10:27:21 a.m.
Watch

How about if we speak off-line about this to see what would be most appropriate? It sounds like it may be something that would fall more into the privilege range, and there is a different process for that if we are looking at a specific Standing Order to try to make a case. I understand the importance of what the hon. member is trying to bring forward, but I think the tool that is being used is not the correct one. I would suggest that we have a little chat, and then maybe come back to this after. The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

105 words

Context: House Hansard - 326 - Jun/6/24

Ms. Leah Gazan

Jun/6/24 10:28:06 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, are you suggesting that this be a question of privilege and not a point of order? I want to make sure, out of respect to you, that I understand you correctly.

33 words

Context: House Hansard - 326 - Jun/6/24

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/6/24 11:20:19 a.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Saskatoon West has apologized. I would ask the member for Winnipeg Centre to speak to the Clerk to find out if that is more a question of privilege. It seems to me that it is more of a point of debate at this point in trying to expand on the point of order that the hon. member just brought forward again. I am not sure if it is a question of privilege as opposed to a point of order. It seems to be debate. The hon. member for Saskatoon West did apologize. The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

102 words

Context: House Hansard - 326 - Jun/6/24

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Jun/6/24 12:56:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I took the advice of the Deputy Speaker this morning, and approximately one hour ago, I wrote to the Speaker to provide notice of a matter of privilege regarding the troubling statements made in the House on Tuesday evening by the member for Saskatoon West. As outlined in my letter, and as I had started to say this morning, there are two issues at play. First, there is an issue of appropriateness of the member's comments. They were troubling. They were hurtful. What is more, they were made during a debate about systemic racism. However, the member has apologized, so I am going to keep the comments to the second matter, which is still unresolved. That matter has to do with what was said in the chamber and what is now recorded in the official record. The House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on page 1227: The Debates are published under the authority of the Speaker of the House. They are compiled using the audio recording of the proceedings as well as information provided by Parliamentary Publications staff stationed on the floor of the House. It is imperative that members have confidence in what is recorded in the Hansard. The member for Saskatoon West very clearly said that an indigenous Canadian was “more likely to reoffend” because of his “racial background”. He has admitted that and has apologized. I will read into the record what appeared in the blues and what was heard at the time: “ Myles Sanderson, had a history of violent offences and had been recently released on parole, despite the prediction by the parole board that he was likely to reoffend because of his racial background.” As the member noted in his apology, and at his request, Hansard represents the same speech differently. It reads, “Myles Sanderson, had a history of violent offences and had been recently released on parole, despite the prediction by the parole board that he was likely to reoffend regardless of his racial background.” Changing the record from “because of his racial background” to “regardless of his racial background” might seem like a small change, but it fundamentally alters the meaning of what was said. The former linked criminality to one's race; the latter does the opposite. Likening criminality to one's race is rooted in racist tropes often used in regard to indigenous individuals. It is highly disturbing and racist. It is of paramount importance that the Hansard be an accurate record of what happens in this place, and it is important that the rules around editing the blues be respected, as stated on 1228 and 1229 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice: 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. In his apology, the member noted that he had requested that the Hansard be changed in a way that I believe is inappropriate and is outside the scope of what should be allowed. The meaning of the member's words was very clear, yet the official record has now been altered. Just last month, the member for Lethbridge raised a question of privilege regarding the Hansard's being modified without her being informed. In raising the matter, the member cited Bosc and Gagnon as well as Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada in arguing that such changes to the blues could be considered falsifying papers belonging to the House. I will not repeat those citations right now, but they remain relevant. The Speaker considered the matter, and stated on May 30 that, “it is understood that the revisions should not alter the substance and the meaning of the members' statements in the House.” The substance and the meaning of the member for Saskatoon West's statement in the House were, without a doubt, altered. I would also note that, from time to time, members seek unanimous consent of the House to correct the record. Such a remedy not only ensures that it is the decision of the whole House rather than an editorial decision as to what is entered into the record, but also ensures that there is an official record of the change being requested and being granted. Taking responsibility does not entitle the member to whitewash what actually happened. I would ask that the member reflect upon this, and I would ask that the official record actually reflect what occurred, what we all heard and what the member has admitted to having said, rather than being rewritten to avoid accountability and responsibility.

822 words