Rules of Debate / Miscellaneous

March 16, 1995

Debates, pp. 10618-9

On March 15, 1995, Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition) rose on a question of privilege relating to the Hansard (Debates) version of a reply given by Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment) to a question asked during Oral Questions on March 14, 1995.^[1] The question concerned a report on the environmental threat posed by the Irving Whale (an oil-laden barge that sank off the Magdalen Islands in 1970). In her reply , the Deputy Prime Minister had made remarks criticizing the handling of the report by Mr. Bouchard during his tenure as Minister of the Environment. Mr. Bouchard claimed that he was no longer minister when the report was completed and that the Deputy Prime Minister had altered the blues of Hansard removing the words critical of Mr. Bouchard. He requested that the remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister be corrected, that the record show he was not the minister responsible for the report, and that a public apology be made by the Deputy Prime Minister. After comments from the Deputy Prime Minister, the Speaker asked for time to review the blues.^[2]

On March 16, 1995, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He ruled that there was no prima facie case of privilege related to the matter, but rather that it was a disagreement as to the facts. He stated, however, that Hansard did contain several anomalies. He ordered House officials to print a corrigendum in Hansard to reflect faithfully the original spoken words of the Deputy Prime Minister and asked the Clerk of the House to ensure that the editors of the Debates strictly adhere to the long-established criteria regarding acceptable changes suggested by members to the blues.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: My colleagues, yesterday, March 15, the honourable Leader of the Opposition rose on a question of privilege relating to an exchange that had occurred March 14 during Question Period between him and the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment. Having heard from both parties, the Chair undertook to review the situation and the records of the original exchange and to return to the House. I am now ready to rule on the matter.

I have carefully reviewed the comments from both honourable members. I thank them for their interventions. With regard to the basic differences of opinion that exist between them I must conclude this is a dispute as to facts or interpretation of facts. As such, it is a matter of debate and does not constitute a prima facie case of privilege.

However, on careful review of the records of the original exchange, the Chair has found some troubling anomalies. As I see it, it is these anomalies to which the honourable Leader of the Opposition takes exception and it is here that the Chair must take action to grant him redress.

Let me review the sequence of events that leads me to this conclusion. The original exchange on March 14 took place in French. It was taped and transcribed; the transcription was edited; the edited transcript was, as usual, distributed to the intervenors for review. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister reviewed the transcript as usual and submitted, as is its right, two suggested changes to the blues. However, in the view of the Chair, these suggested changes ought not to have been accepted nor printed as the official record for they constitute a substantive difference to the original spoken words of the honourable member. To further complicate matters, these changes appear in the French Hansard but are not reflected in the English version that is, instead, a literal translation of the original spoken word.

Therefore, to correct these anomalies, I have instructed my officials to print a corrigendum in today’s Hansard so that both the French and the English version of the March 14 exchange will faithfully reflect the original spoken words of the honourable Deputy Prime Minister.

I have asked the Clerk of the House to ensure that the editors of Hansard adhere strictly to the long-established criteria in determining what changes are accepted when members submit suggestions for changes when they return their blues.

I trust this remedial action will close this matter.

P0701-e

35-1

1995-03-16