SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 333

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 17, 2024 11:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 333 - Jun/17/24
The Speaker
  • Jun/17/24 3:58:59 p.m.
  • Watch
I am ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on June 6, by the member for Winnipeg Centre, concerning editorial changes to the Debates of June 4. In raising this matter, the member asserted that a substantive change was inappropriately made at page 24440 of the Debates of June 4, 2024. According to the member, that day's Debates do not accurately reflect the content of the speech given by the member for Saskatoon West during the consideration at report stage of Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments. She explained that the member for Saskatoon West had stated that a certain individual “was likely to reoffend because of his racial background.” However, the Debates read that the same individual “was likely to reoffend regardless of his racial background.” She stated that replacing the word “because” with the word “regardless” significantly altered the meaning of the member's intervention. In making this point, the member referenced a recent ruling in which the Chair indicated that revisions should not alter the substance and meaning of what members say in the House. On June 6, 2024, the member for Saskatoon West rose on a point of order to apologize for misspeaking during the debate. He said that he had realized his mistake immediately after his speech and therefore requested the change when the blues came out. The House leader of the official opposition subsequently intervened on this matter, outlining the purpose of the blues and the role of editors in producing the Debates. Given the apologies offered by the member for Saskatoon West and his admission that he had misspoken, thereby properly correcting the record to reflect the intention of his remarks, the House leader suggested that the matter be considered closed. The Chair is hesitant to deal with concerns about the editing of the Debates. The work of the editors is based on a standard of professional excellence and performed independently from political pressures. However, when members complain about the accuracy of the Debates, the Chair also has a duty to assess whether the record accurately reflects the proceedings of the House. If not, the Chair can ask that the Debates be modified. Regarding the editing process, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 1229, states the following: 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 On October 29, 2009, in a ruling on a similar matter, which can be found at page 6356 of the Debates, Speaker Milliken said: As all members know, the Debates are not a verbatim ad literatum transcription of what is said in this House. When producing the Debates, House of Commons editors routinely edit interventions for clarity and clean up our grammatical and syntactical lapses. They also of course consider corrections and minor alterations to the blues submitted by the member to which words are attributed. Any editorial changes, either suggested by a member or made by the editors themselves, must remain faithful to the original meaning of the statement as a whole, as spoken on the floor of the House. Editors are also expected to exercise judgment in assessing any potential change. The final word on the change does not rest with the member requesting it, but with the editors. Just recently, on May 30, the Chair ruled on a complaint about the editing process for the Debates of April 30. In that ruling, which can be found at page 24087 of the Debates, the following is stated with respect to the independence of Parliamentary Publications, “The editors of the Parliamentary Publications team craft a record that, in their judgment, best corresponds to the proceedings, without political interference and in a completely non-partisan manner.” Exercising due diligence, the Chair assessed the facts of the present situation by inquiring with Parliamentary Publications. The question editors faced when preparing the Debates on June 4 was whether substituting “regardless” for “because” would distort the meaning of the intervention or clarify it. That day, even before the member for Saskatoon West requested a change, editors had already begun to investigate the issue and analyze the overall context of his intervention. They had found through their fact-checking that the member was paraphrasing an assessment made by the Parole Board that did not seem to align with the term used. Furthermore, the member's use of the word seemed illogical in the context of the rest of his speech. The request from the member for Saskatoon West to modify the blues ostensibly confirmed their suspicion as to his apparent intention. The editors concluded he had misspoken and it was on that basis that the editorial change was made. In retrospect, the editors might have handled the situation differently as they always have the option to leave an intervention as is, even if it is incoherent. However, their ultimate objective is for the transcript to make sense. Members should not be surprised to learn that editors occasionally make changes and replace words to ensure that members' interventions remain coherent for the reader, while attempting to ensure they accurately reflect what was said. This is not unusual. These changes are made by editors on their own initiative, but also at the request of members from all parties. Accordingly, editors must have the latitude to navigate perilous interpretation exercises, though they do not have free rein, as they must be equally careful not to change the meaning of what is said. Admittedly, some situations are more complex than others and, indeed, the present case has caused some degree of controversy. The member for Saskatoon West undoubtedly used the word “because” in his intervention. He admitted the mistake himself and apologized for having misspoken. His initial use of the word is now on the record. The Chair is, nonetheless, satisfied with the explanations provided by Parliamentary Publications and the reasoning behind the replacement of the disputed word. While the decision does appear to change the meaning of the intervention, their motivation was clearly to make the text more coherent. I hope members can accept that the editors have a challenging job and that the correction was made in good faith. As a result, the Chair concludes that this matter does not constitute a question of privilege and, therefore, considers the matter closed. I thank all members for their attention.
1135 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 333 - Jun/17/24
Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)
  • Jun/17/24 4:07:14 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege. I have a concern. As you were giving us the ruling today, we noticed on Twitter that the ruling was already published. The idea that members of this House should get that ruling before anyone else is quite clear and the fact that Twitter got the ruling before the member for Winnipeg Centre or any of the members of this House is inappropriate.
73 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border