Rules of Debate - Order and Decorum / Miscellaneous

February 2, 1984              

Debates p. 1015

On January 30, 1984, during discussion of a point of order concerning the tabling of correspondence by Mr. Lalonde (Minister of Finance), Miss MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) rose on a point of order concerning discrepancies between the electronic record of the debates and the printed record as it appeared in Hansard. Remarks clearly audible on the video tape did not appear in print. Miss MacDonald asked the Speaker to investigate the matter to determine the full extent of the alterations and the person or persons responsible for the changes. The Speaker reserved judgement and on February 2, 1984, after ruling on the first point of order gave his decision on that of Miss MacDonald.

Issue

In this instance, did the discrepancies between Hansard and the electronic record constitute a deliberate attempt to change the substance of what was said in the Chamber, contrary to the practices of the House?

Decision

No. The changes made by the Hansard editors were within the editorial licence granted them.

Reasons given by the Speaker

As Madam Speaker Sauvé pointed out in a similar situation, editing is not meant to change the substance or meaning of what is said but to improve the comprehension of the text. While the editorial licence granted to Hansard may have been slightly exceeded in this instance, the changes were made in good faith. Hon. Members will agree that the Chair has no editing function. The House has not yet addressed the issue as to whether or not Hansard is the authoritative version of our debates. It may be time to do so though this decision is not one for the Speaker to make.