Speech (House debate)

{
    "time": "2024-05-30 10:20:00",
    "attribution": {
        "en": "The Speaker",
        "fr": "Le Pr\u00e9sident"
    },
    "content": {
        "en": "<p data-HoCid=\"8432467\" data-originallang=\"en\"> It is the normal tradition of the House that the Speaker finishes their ruling before points of order are raised. I will entertain them at the end of the ruling, which will happen in a couple of minutes.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"8432468\" data-originallang=\"en\">While the Debates are published under the authority of the Chair, the House should know that the Chair plays no part in editing the Debates. 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.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"8432469\" data-originallang=\"en\">The editors may make changes to the records of the House proceedings, whether or not those changes are proposed by members, in accordance with their own guidelines and long-standing practices. Moreover, it is understood that the revisions should not alter the substance and the meaning of the members' statements in the House.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"8432470\" data-originallang=\"en\">The Chair learned that, on April 30, two versions of the blues had been prepared. The words \u201cI withdraw\u201d were indeed in the first version and were attributed to the member for <a data-HoCid=\"278459\" href=\"/politicians/rachael-harder/\" title=\"Rachael Thomas\">Lethbridge</a>. During the revision process, the editors listened carefully to the audio recording of the sitting but could not be certain that those specific words had been said or that the statement should be attributed to the member for <a data-HoCid=\"278459\" href=\"/politicians/rachael-harder/\" title=\"Rachael Thomas\">Lethbridge</a>. The word \u201cwithdraw\u201d was clearly audible, but what preceded was not.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"8432471\" data-originallang=\"en\">Given the context of the exchange between the Chair and the member, the words she said immediately prior and the process of naming the member that subsequently began, the audio in question could plausibly be interpreted as either \u201cI withdraw\u201d or \u201cI do not withdraw\u201d.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"8432472\" data-originallang=\"en\">In addition, the particularly high level of ambient noise substantially complicated the editors\u2019 task. Faced with this uncertainty, the editors removed the words, and a second version of the blues was produced, which was provided to the member. No comments or revisions were communicated to the Parliamentary Publications department in connection with this intervention prior to the publication of Hansard by the member for <a data-HoCid=\"278459\" href=\"/politicians/rachael-harder/\" title=\"Rachael Thomas\">Lethbridge</a> or her staff, or any other member or their staff.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"8432473\" data-originallang=\"en\">Finally, the words are not included in the published version of the Debates. While investigating this matter, the Chair also learned that the staff responsible for Debates had provided these explanations to the member in the afternoon of May 1, even before she raised her question of privilege. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"8432474\" data-originallang=\"fr\">As the member for Lethbridge later pointed out on May 9, it is true that on the morning of May 1, a member of my staff received a question from a journalist about the difference between the blues and the Debates. On the other hand, it should be noted that the answer offered was very general and was provided even before the question of privilege was raised in the House.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"8432475\" data-originallang=\"en\"> The Chair recognizes that the member for <a data-HoCid=\"278459\" href=\"/politicians/rachael-harder/\" title=\"Rachael Thomas\">Lethbridge</a> states that she said \u201cI withdraw\u201d. The Chair has no reason to doubt her word, nor that of the chief opposition whip, who confirmed that others heard those words. I hope she will accept that, because she began by repeating her comments, and because the noise level was so high, the Chair did not hear her say that day that she was withdrawing her words. My decision to name her seemed justified, based on the information I had at the time. If the member had begun by withdrawing her words, events surely would have unfolded differently. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"8432476\" data-originallang=\"en\">I want to emphasize this point. When the Chair asks a member to withdraw offensive remarks and apologize, out of respect for the Chair and the rules of the House, the Chair expects members to comply, with no hesitation, period. An invitation to withdraw words that are deemed unacceptable is not an invitation to repeat those very words. In the event of refusal to comply, a member risks being named and asked to withdraw from the House or having the Chair decide not to recognize them until they do.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"8432477\" data-originallang=\"fr\">Members sometimes disagree with the Chair\u2019s decisions, but it is important for all members to accept them once they are made. Disregarding the rules is one thing; disregarding the authority of the Chair when one is called to order is another.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"8432478\" data-originallang=\"fr\">As the member for <a data-HoCid=\"278709\" href=\"/politicians/peter-julian/\" title=\"Peter Julian\">New Westminster\u2014Burnaby</a> stated in his point of order on May 1, 2024, criticizing such decisions in the House amounts to challenging the Chair, which is contrary to our practices. On the other hand, while it is true that the Chair exercises control over decorum during proceedings and generally does not comment on statements made outside, attacks on the Speaker or the deputy speakers outside of the House can have a corrosive effect on our proceedings. It certainly does not help the House function smoothly.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"8432479\" data-originallang=\"en\">In conclusion, the Chair is of the opinion that the final version of the debates was prepared in accordance with the standards applied by the debates' editors and that their decision, as well as the Chair's decision to name the member, was justifiable based on the information available on April 30. Consequently, I cannot find a prima facie question of privilege. The member for <a data-HoCid=\"278459\" href=\"/politicians/rachael-harder/\" title=\"Rachael Thomas\">Lethbridge</a> has clearly indicated what her words were, and that is now also part of the record.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"8432480\" data-originallang=\"fr\">I thank members for their attention.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"8432481\" data-originallang=\"fr\">The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill on a point of order.</p>",
        "fr": "<p data-HoCid=\"8432467\" data-originallang=\"en\"> \u00c0 la Chambre, la tradition veut que la pr\u00e9sidence termine la lecture de sa d\u00e9cision avant de permettre les rappels au R\u00e8glement. Je les entendrai apr\u00e8s la d\u00e9cision, soit dans quelques minutes.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"8432468\" data-originallang=\"en\"> M\u00eame si les D\u00e9bats sont publi\u00e9s sous son autorit\u00e9, la pr\u00e9sidence tient \u00e0 assurer \u00e0 la Chambre qu'elle ne joue aucun r\u00f4le dans l'\u00e9dition des D\u00e9bats. Les \u00e9diteurs de l'\u00e9quipe des Publications parlementaires pr\u00e9parent un compte rendu qui, selon leur jugement, correspond le plus fid\u00e8lement possible aux d\u00e9lib\u00e9rations, sans ing\u00e9rence politique et de mani\u00e8re enti\u00e8rement non partisane.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"8432469\" data-originallang=\"en\">Les \u00e9diteurs peuvent apporter des changements au texte des comptes rendus de la Chambre, que les modifications aient \u00e9t\u00e9 propos\u00e9es par les d\u00e9put\u00e9s ou non, selon leurs propres lignes directrices et leurs pratiques longuement \u00e9tablies. Il semble par ailleurs acquis que la r\u00e9vision ne devrait pas modifier la substance ni le sens des interventions faites par les d\u00e9put\u00e9s en Chambre.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"8432470\" data-originallang=\"en\">La pr\u00e9sidence a appris que le 30 avril dernier deux versions des bleus avaient \u00e9t\u00e9 pr\u00e9par\u00e9es. Les mots \u00ab je retire mes paroles \u00bb se trouvaient bel et bien dans la premi\u00e8re version des bleus et avaient \u00e9t\u00e9 associ\u00e9s \u00e0 la d\u00e9put\u00e9e de <a data-HoCid=\"278459\" href=\"/politicians/rachael-harder/\" title=\"Rachael Thomas\">Lethbridge</a>. Cependant, en r\u00e9\u00e9coutant attentivement l'enregistrement audio de la s\u00e9ance, les \u00e9diteurs n'ont pas pu d\u00e9terminer avec exactitude que ces mots pr\u00e9cis avaient \u00e9t\u00e9 prononc\u00e9s ni que l'intervention devait \u00eatre attribu\u00e9e \u00e0 la d\u00e9put\u00e9e. Le mot \u00ab retire \u00bb \u00e9tait clairement audible, mais ce qui le pr\u00e9c\u00e9dait ne l'\u00e9tait pas.<a data-HoCid=\"278459\" href=\"/politicians/rachael-harder/\" title=\"Rachael Thomas\"></a></p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"8432471\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Compte tenu du contexte de l'\u00e9change entre la pr\u00e9sidence et la d\u00e9put\u00e9e, des mots qu'elle avait prononc\u00e9s imm\u00e9diatement avant et du fait que le processus visant \u00e0 d\u00e9signer la d\u00e9put\u00e9e par son nom s'est ensuite amorc\u00e9, l'extrait laissait croire qu'autant les mots \u00ab je retire mes paroles \u00bb que les mots \u00ab je ne retire pas mes paroles \u00bb avaient pu \u00eatre prononc\u00e9s.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"8432472\" data-originallang=\"en\">Le bruit ambiant particuli\u00e8rement \u00e9lev\u00e9 a d'ailleurs compliqu\u00e9 consid\u00e9rablement la t\u00e2che des \u00e9diteurs. Devant cette incertitude, ces mots ont par cons\u00e9quent \u00e9t\u00e9 retir\u00e9s par les \u00e9diteurs, une deuxi\u00e8me version des bleus a \u00e9t\u00e9 produite, puis transmise \u00e0 la d\u00e9put\u00e9e. Aucun commentaire ou r\u00e9vision n'a \u00e9t\u00e9 communiqu\u00e9 au service des Publications parlementaires en lien avec cette intervention avant la publication du hansard, ni par la d\u00e9put\u00e9e de <a data-HoCid=\"278459\" href=\"/politicians/rachael-harder/\" title=\"Rachael Thomas\">Lethbridge</a> ou son personnel, ni par un autre d\u00e9put\u00e9 ou son personnel. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"8432473\" data-originallang=\"en\">Finalement, les mots ne se sont pas retrouv\u00e9s dans la version publi\u00e9e des D\u00e9bats. En enqu\u00eatant sur cette affaire, la pr\u00e9sidence a aussi appris que le personnel responsable des D\u00e9bats avait fourni ces explications \u00e0 la d\u00e9put\u00e9e l'apr\u00e8s-midi du 1<sup>er</sup> mai, avant m\u00eame qu'elle ne soul\u00e8ve sa question de privil\u00e8ge.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"8432474\" data-originallang=\"fr\">Comme la d\u00e9put\u00e9e de Lethbridge l'a ensuite indiqu\u00e9 le 9 mai, il est vrai qu'un membre de mon personnel a re\u00e7u le matin du 1<sup>er</sup> mai une question d'une journaliste au sujet de la diff\u00e9rence entre les bleus et les D\u00e9bats. En revanche, il faut pr\u00e9ciser que la r\u00e9ponse offerte \u00e9tait tr\u00e8s g\u00e9n\u00e9rale et a \u00e9t\u00e9 fournie avant m\u00eame que la question de privil\u00e8ge ne soit soulev\u00e9e \u00e0 la Chambre.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"8432475\" data-originallang=\"en\">La pr\u00e9sidence reconna\u00eet que la d\u00e9put\u00e9e de <a data-HoCid=\"278459\" href=\"/politicians/rachael-harder/\" title=\"Rachael Thomas\">Lethbridge</a> affirme avoir dit les mots \u00ab je retire mes paroles \u00bb. La pr\u00e9sidence n'a aucune raison de remettre en cause sa parole, ni celle de la whip en chef de l'opposition, qui a confirm\u00e9 que d'autres ont entendu ces m\u00eames paroles. J'esp\u00e8re qu'elle pourra accepter que, comme elle avait commenc\u00e9 son intervention en r\u00e9p\u00e9tant ses propos et, compte tenu du niveau sonore \u00e9lev\u00e9, la pr\u00e9sidence n'a pas entendu la d\u00e9put\u00e9e dire qu'elle retirait ses paroles ce jour-l\u00e0. Ma d\u00e9cision de la d\u00e9signer par son nom me semblait justifi\u00e9e selon les informations dont je disposais \u00e0 ce moment-l\u00e0. Si la d\u00e9put\u00e9e avait commenc\u00e9 son intervention en retirant ses propos, la suite des \u00e9v\u00e9nements aurait sans doute \u00e9t\u00e9 diff\u00e9rente.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"8432476\" data-originallang=\"en\">Je tiens \u00e0 mettre l'accent sur ce point. Lorsque la pr\u00e9sidence demande \u00e0 un d\u00e9put\u00e9 de retirer des propos offensants et de pr\u00e9senter ses excuses, par respect pour la pr\u00e9sidence et pour les r\u00e8gles de la Chambre, elle s'attend \u00e0 ce que les d\u00e9put\u00e9s se conforment sans h\u00e9sitation, point \u00e0 la ligne. Une invitation \u00e0 retirer des propos jug\u00e9s inacceptables n'est pas une invitation \u00e0 r\u00e9p\u00e9ter ces m\u00eames propos. En cas de refus, on risque de se faire d\u00e9signer par son nom et d'\u00eatre pri\u00e9 de quitter la Chambre, ou encore de ne pas se faire accorder la parole par la pr\u00e9sidence tant qu'on n'aura pas obtemp\u00e9r\u00e9.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"8432477\" data-originallang=\"fr\"> Les d\u00e9put\u00e9s sont parfois en d\u00e9saccord avec les d\u00e9cisions de la pr\u00e9sidence, mais il est important que tous les respectent une fois qu'elles sont rendues. Le non-respect des r\u00e8gles est une chose; le non-respect de l'autorit\u00e9 de la pr\u00e9sidence lorsqu'on est rappel\u00e9 \u00e0 l'ordre en est une autre.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"8432478\" data-originallang=\"fr\">Comme l'a soulign\u00e9 le d\u00e9put\u00e9 de <a data-HoCid=\"278709\" href=\"/politicians/peter-julian/\" title=\"Peter Julian\">New Westminster\u2014Burnaby</a> dans son rappel au R\u00e8glement du 1<sup>er</sup> mai 2024, critiquer de telles d\u00e9cisions \u00e0 la Chambre revient \u00e0 d\u00e9fier la pr\u00e9sidence et n'est pas conforme \u00e0 nos pratiques. Par ailleurs, il est vrai que la pr\u00e9sidence exerce un contr\u00f4le sur le d\u00e9corum pendant les d\u00e9lib\u00e9rations et ne commente g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement pas les d\u00e9clarations faites \u00e0 l'ext\u00e9rieur. Les attaques contre le Pr\u00e9sident ou les vice-pr\u00e9sidents \u00e0 l'ext\u00e9rieur de la Chambre peuvent avoir un effet corrosif sur les d\u00e9lib\u00e9rations. Chose certaine, cela ne contribue certainement pas au bon fonctionnement de la Chambre.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"8432479\" data-originallang=\"en\">En conclusion, la pr\u00e9sidence est d'avis que la version finale des d\u00e9bats a \u00e9t\u00e9 pr\u00e9par\u00e9e conform\u00e9ment aux normes appliqu\u00e9es par les r\u00e9dacteurs en chef des d\u00e9bats et que leur d\u00e9cision, ainsi que la d\u00e9cision du Pr\u00e9sident de nommer le d\u00e9put\u00e9, \u00e9tait justifiable en fonction de l'information disponible le 30 avril. Par cons\u00e9quent, je ne peux conclure qu'il y a mati\u00e8re \u00e0 question de privil\u00e8ge. La d\u00e9put\u00e9e de <a data-HoCid=\"278459\" href=\"/politicians/rachael-harder/\" title=\"Rachael Thomas\">Lethbridge</a> a clairement indiqu\u00e9 quels \u00e9taient ses propos et cela fait maintenant \u00e9galement partie du compte rendu.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"8432480\" data-originallang=\"fr\"> Je remercie les d\u00e9put\u00e9s de leur attention.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"8432481\" data-originallang=\"fr\">L'honorable d\u00e9put\u00e9e de Calgary Nose Hill souhaite invoquer le R\u00e8glement.</p>"
    },
    "url": "/debates/2024/5/30/the-speaker-4/",
    "politician_url": "/politicians/greg-fergus/",
    "politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/4424/",
    "procedural": false,
    "source_id": "p8432467",
    "h1": {
        "en": "Routine Proceedings",
        "fr": "Affaires courantes"
    },
    "h2": {
        "en": "Privilege",
        "fr": "Privil\u00e8ge"
    },
    "h3": {
        "en": "Alleged Unjustified Naming of a Member\u2014Speaker's Ruling",
        "fr": "L'all\u00e9gation de d\u00e9signation indue d'une d\u00e9put\u00e9e \u2014 D\u00e9cision de la pr\u00e9sidence"
    },
    "document_url": "/debates/2024/5/30/",
    "related": {
        "document_speeches_url": "/speeches/?document=%2Fdebates%2F2024%2F5%2F30%2F"
    }
}