Liberal House Speaker Greg Fergus is on the hotseat this week after Conservative MP Rachel Thomas raised a point of privilege pointing to a “significant discrepancy” in the publishing of House records. “Mr. Speaker, I stated that the chair is acting in a disgraceful manner. I withdraw,” said Thomas, in reference to the altered transcripts. The words, “I withdraw,” were apparently struck from the Hansard record. The Hansard record is Canada’s historic documentation of all House of Commons proceedings more than a century old. In 2018, University of Toronto students were approved to digitize the record. It appears the transcript published in the “blues,” which the federal government describes as a preliminary, unedited parliamentary record (referred to as “blues” because it was once printed on blue paper) and audio versions were different than that in the official Hansard record.Thomas presented the hard copy of the blues to the Commons. “This is very serious,” wrote Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, who was also removed from the Commons this week for referring to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau a “wacko,” on social media Friday. “If the Liberal speaker had the transcripts altered to cover his bad ruling, it would be an unprecedented and Orwellian breach of trust.” .Thomas, who also took issue with the speaker’s “partisan decision to eject Thomas” from the parliamentary session and how she was “publicly portrayed” the day before, said there was an “omission of two words” from the Hansard record. Referring to an exchange between herself and Fergus when the speaker told her she must “withdraw her remarks” over the chair acting in a “disgraceful manner,” Thomas said she stated, “I withdraw” in response. However, those “two very important documented words” were struck from the original record, yet they exist in the blues record. Further, the Hansard record shows another MP confirmed, “She withdrew it.” “These words are significant,” said Thomas, because they were in response to the speaker’s request for her to withdraw her remarks. Her response was “proper and textbook” she said, adding “therefore, it ought to have been accepted.”“And yet, I was kicked out of this place as if I hadn’t withdrawn those words.”“The two words that were edited out of the Hansard essentially rewrote history, making the actions and procedure followed by the speaker appear proper, and mine, improper. .Fergus denies hearing the withdrawal, according to the National Post. He also has no intention to resign over the matter. The speaker told Thomas to “please share all the information” she would “like to have the speakership to evaluate.”The records of “extreme importance” will be analyzed thoroughly, he said. . According to the House of Commons website, an MP “verifies his or her own intervention and may suggest corrections to errors and minor alterations to the transcription.”However, they “may not make material changes in the meaning of what was said in the House.”“It is a long-standing practice of the House that editors of the Debates may exercise judgement 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. Editors must ensure that the Debates are a faithful reflection of what was said; any changes made, whether by Members or editors, are for the sole purpose of improving the readability of the text, given the difference between the spoken and written word.”
Liberal House Speaker Greg Fergus is on the hotseat this week after Conservative MP Rachel Thomas raised a point of privilege pointing to a “significant discrepancy” in the publishing of House records. “Mr. Speaker, I stated that the chair is acting in a disgraceful manner. I withdraw,” said Thomas, in reference to the altered transcripts. The words, “I withdraw,” were apparently struck from the Hansard record. The Hansard record is Canada’s historic documentation of all House of Commons proceedings more than a century old. In 2018, University of Toronto students were approved to digitize the record. It appears the transcript published in the “blues,” which the federal government describes as a preliminary, unedited parliamentary record (referred to as “blues” because it was once printed on blue paper) and audio versions were different than that in the official Hansard record.Thomas presented the hard copy of the blues to the Commons. “This is very serious,” wrote Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, who was also removed from the Commons this week for referring to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau a “wacko,” on social media Friday. “If the Liberal speaker had the transcripts altered to cover his bad ruling, it would be an unprecedented and Orwellian breach of trust.” .Thomas, who also took issue with the speaker’s “partisan decision to eject Thomas” from the parliamentary session and how she was “publicly portrayed” the day before, said there was an “omission of two words” from the Hansard record. Referring to an exchange between herself and Fergus when the speaker told her she must “withdraw her remarks” over the chair acting in a “disgraceful manner,” Thomas said she stated, “I withdraw” in response. However, those “two very important documented words” were struck from the original record, yet they exist in the blues record. Further, the Hansard record shows another MP confirmed, “She withdrew it.” “These words are significant,” said Thomas, because they were in response to the speaker’s request for her to withdraw her remarks. Her response was “proper and textbook” she said, adding “therefore, it ought to have been accepted.”“And yet, I was kicked out of this place as if I hadn’t withdrawn those words.”“The two words that were edited out of the Hansard essentially rewrote history, making the actions and procedure followed by the speaker appear proper, and mine, improper. .Fergus denies hearing the withdrawal, according to the National Post. He also has no intention to resign over the matter. The speaker told Thomas to “please share all the information” she would “like to have the speakership to evaluate.”The records of “extreme importance” will be analyzed thoroughly, he said. . According to the House of Commons website, an MP “verifies his or her own intervention and may suggest corrections to errors and minor alterations to the transcription.”However, they “may not make material changes in the meaning of what was said in the House.”“It is a long-standing practice of the House that editors of the Debates may exercise judgement 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. Editors must ensure that the Debates are a faithful reflection of what was said; any changes made, whether by Members or editors, are for the sole purpose of improving the readability of the text, given the difference between the spoken and written word.”
