Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point order regarding the accuracy of Hansard .
On April 1 the House was considering the following motion during private members' business:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should call upon the United Kingdom to return the Parthenon Marbles to Greece in order to be restored in their authentic context, as the Marbles represent a unique and integral part of world heritage and should be returned to their country of origin, before the 28th Olympiad in Athens, Greece, in 2004.
At the conclusion of the debate on the motion there was a significant exchange that was not recorded in Hansard . The absence of this exchange altered how the outcome of the motion was recorded.
This is what Hansard recorded. The Acting Speaker, which was the Assistant Deputy Chairman of the Committees of the Whole, is recorded as saying:
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker then said:
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker is then recorded as saying:
I declare the motion carried.
The member for Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, stood and said:
Madam Speaker, I seek clarification of just what is required in order to pass this motion. Would you enlighten the House?
The point of order does not make much sense because there is information that is missing. While in Hansard everything the Speaker said seemed clear, the videotape in fact tells a different story. This is what the tape recorded.
The Acting Speaker said, “Is the House ready for the question?”
Some hon. members, “Question”.
The Acting Speaker then said, “The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?”
Some hon. members said “yes”.
In Hansard no member is recorded as saying nay, yet on the tape you clearly hear the parliamentary secretary for the foreign affairs minister saying nay.
The tape continues to record information that is missing in Hansard . This is a transcript from the videotape.
The Acting Speaker said, “Carried, the motion is carried.”
The Acting Speaker again says, “I apologize, I did not hear a nay but I will start again”.
The Acting Speaker then again says, “All those in favour of the motion will please say yea”.
Some hon. members said “yea”.
The Acting Speaker then said, “All those opposed will please say nay”. The Acting Speaker says, “Okay. I did hear the nay this time”.
The Acting Speaker then says, “I declare the motion negated”.
Then she corrects herself and says, “The motion does carry”.
It now makes sense when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs rose on her point of order and sought clarification. She was clearly surprised that the motion was first negated, then carried.
The most troubling aspect of this deletion of information was that the motion carried on division yet it was recorded as carrying unanimously. As you know, Mr. Speaker, there are three ways a motion can be adopted by the House; by unanimous consent, by majority vote and on division. There are significant differences between these three.
On page 968 of Marleau and Montpetit it says:
A Member verifies his or her own intervention and may suggest corrections to errors and minor alterations to the transcription; a Member may not make material changes in the meaning of what was said in the House.
Correcting minor errors is one thing. Removing significant text is another, particularly when the result alters the outcome of how a vote is recorded.
On page 969 of Marleau and Montpetit, it explains:
When a question arises in the House as to the accuracy of the record, it is the responsibility of the Speaker to look into the matter.
I ask that you look into this and determine who authorized the editing of Hansard and also determine the reasons for the edit. As members we are responsible to our constituents and we must take responsibility for our actions.
It has been brought to my attention that the Greek community was quite upset that a government member said no to the motion, yet the official record records no division. If it were determined that the record was altered to save political face, then we would have a much more serious situation on our hands, one involving privilege.
I have no problem publicly stating my support for the motion but it appears that some hon. members do have a problem with the record recording their lack of support. Like all Canadians, Canadians of Greek origin deserve honesty and respect.