Rules of Debate / Miscellaneous

December 9, 1986

Debates, pp. 1904-5

On November 6, 1986, during discussion on a point of order raised by the Hon. Allan McKinnon (Victoria) respecting petitions, Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council) quoted comments of Members who had presented petitions earlier that day.

Later in the discussion, Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis) drew to the attention of the Chair the longstanding practice in the House that a Member who has not debated a motion or resolution could not get a copy of the preliminary transcript, which is better known as the "blues." He also pointed out that it was his belief that a Member could not be in possession of the "blues" of another Member's speech until they had been released. He asked the Speaker to rule on this matter.

In reply to Mr. Prud'homme's comments, Mr. Lewis stated that with the benefit of television one could easily recall a particular moment on the television screen and then transcribe what was said. In reserving his ruling on the matter, the Speaker noted the traditional practice with respect to the "blues" and suggested that it was a matter which might necessitate further discussion because of the implications of electronic recording.^[1]

On December 9, 1986, the Speaker returned to the House on this matter.  The text of his ruling is reproduced in extenso below.

Decision of the Chair

Mr. Speaker: On November 6, during a discussion on a point of order relating to petitions, the honourable Member for Saint-Denis drew to the attention of the Chair that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council was apparently quoting from the "blues". The honourable Member for Saint-Denis reminded the House of the long established practice that the "blues" are not to be quoted in debate and that the only official report, the House of Commons Debates or Hansard, can be quoted.

The Parliamentary Secretary pointed out that thanks to television and modern technology, we can now play back a speech or comment, have it transcribed and use it in debate later on the same day.

The Chair is pleased to inform the honourable Member for Saint-Denis that our customary practice was observed by Hansard; the "blues" of the honourable Member for Windsor—Walkerville (Mr. Howard McCurdy) or the honourable Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Cyril Keeper) were not provided by Hansard to the Parliamentary Secretary or to any other Member. In fact, as we can read at page 1149 of Hansard of November 6, during the discussion in the House, the Parliamentary Secretary did not say that he was quoting from the "blues."

In reviewing this matter, the most recent statement by the Speaker on the use of the "blues" in debate that can be found dates back to December 2, 1976, and that is just before the advent of television in the House of Commons. Speaker Jerome reaffirmed the practice that "blues" should not be quoted in debate.^[2] The logic for not using the "blues" in debate is obvious. The "blues" are the reporters' notes and often are edited to become the official report. It would not be reasonable to admit into debate galley proofs that tomorrow may indeed be different in their final form. As your Speaker, I feel bound by this practice and will continue to remind honourable Members to refrain from quoting from anything but the official report of the House.

This ruling, however, leaves the House in a difficult position: it is possible for Members to obtain electronically what was said the same day and to use quotes from the electronic medium in debate without identifying them as part of the official report. The dilemma for the House is the following: is the Chair enforcing a practice that has become technologically outdated? By enforcing an outdated practice is the Chair encouraging Members to do indirectly what they are not supposed to do directly? Furthermore, the average Canadian citizen with a video recorder, receiving the House of Commons television signal, can obtain for himself or herself an instant play-back of what was said and by whom. While Hansard remains the official record of what was said, the 24-hour delay in its publication no longer satisfies the demand for information by a growingly impatient and technologically literate population.

Consequently, the Chair firmly believes that while maintaining the rule against the use of the "blues", it is however time for the Standing Committee on Procedures and Elections to review the question of the "blues", their distribution and the relationship between the official Hansard and what has come to be known as the electronic Hansard. My predecessors have often requested such a review and, while tempted to do so, I have decided that I ought not to dictate to the House on this question for it is a very important one and I look forward with anticipation to some early direction from the Standing Committee and the House on this matter.

I want to thank honourable Members for their comments, and especially the honourable Member for Saint-Denis, because this is a very important question. I also hope that the Chair's invitation to have this very important question considered in committee will meet with the approval of the Members of this House.

F0712-e

33-2

1986-12-09