Debates of June 17th, 2024

Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission Act (David and Joyce Milgaard's Law)

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2 to 20.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #826

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated.

I therefore declare Motions Nos. 2 to 20 defeated.

Iran

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent for the following motion:

That the House:

(a) condemn the death sentence of Iranian musician and vocal critic of the Iranian regime, Toomaj Salehi;

(b) urge the Government of Canada to impose targeted sanctions on the thirty-one judges, prosecutors, and investigators of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Courts included on the "TOOMAJ" list, who are responsible for sham trials, torture, and the inhumane treatment of Iranian protesters and political dissidents;

(c) condemn gender apartheid, violations of civil liberties, killings, intimidation, and acts of violence initiated by the Islamic Republic against the people of Iran; and

(d) reiterate its unconditional support for Iranians advocating for human rights and democracy as part of the Women, Life, Freedom movement.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-40, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to repeal a regulation (miscarriage of justice reviews), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission Act (David and Joyce Milgaard's Law)

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, for the Minister of Justice]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #827

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I declare the motion carried.

Record of the Proceedings of the House—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on June 6, by the member for Winnipeg Centre, concerning editorial changes to the Debates of June 4.

In raising this matter, the member asserted that a substantive change was inappropriately made at page 24440 of the Debates of June 4, 2024. According to the member, that day's Debates do not accurately reflect the content of the speech given by the member for Saskatoon West during the consideration at report stage of Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments. She explained that the member for Saskatoon West had stated that a certain individual “was likely to reoffend because of his racial background.”

However, the Debates read that the same individual “was likely to reoffend regardless of his racial background.”

She stated that replacing the word “because” with the word “regardless” significantly altered the meaning of the member's intervention. In making this point, the member referenced a recent ruling in which the Chair indicated that revisions should not alter the substance and meaning of what members say in the House.

On June 6, 2024, the member for Saskatoon West rose on a point of order to apologize for misspeaking during the debate. He said that he had realized his mistake immediately after his speech and therefore requested the change when the blues came out.

The House leader of the official opposition subsequently intervened on this matter, outlining the purpose of the blues and the role of editors in producing the Debates. Given the apologies offered by the member for Saskatoon West and his admission that he had misspoken, thereby properly correcting the record to reflect the intention of his remarks, the House leader suggested that the matter be considered closed.

The Chair is hesitant to deal with concerns about the editing of the Debates. The work of the editors is based on a standard of professional excellence and performed independently from political pressures. However, when members complain about the accuracy of the Debates, the Chair also has a duty to assess whether the record accurately reflects the proceedings of the House. If not, the Chair can ask that the Debates be modified.

Regarding the editing process, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 1229, states the following:

It is a long-standing practice of the House that editors of the Debates may exercise judgment 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

On October 29, 2009, in a ruling on a similar matter, which can be found at page 6356 of the Debates, Speaker Milliken said:

As all members know, the Debates are not a verbatim ad literatum transcription of what is said in this House. When producing the Debates, House of Commons editors routinely edit interventions for clarity and clean up our grammatical and syntactical lapses. They also of course consider corrections and minor alterations to the blues submitted by the member to which words are attributed.

Any editorial changes, either suggested by a member or made by the editors themselves, must remain faithful to the original meaning of the statement as a whole, as spoken on the floor of the House. Editors are also expected to exercise judgment in assessing any potential change. The final word on the change does not rest with the member requesting it, but with the editors.

Just recently, on May 30, the Chair ruled on a complaint about the editing process for the Debates of April 30. In that ruling, which can be found at page 24087 of the Debates, the following is stated with respect to the independence of Parliamentary Publications, “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.”

Exercising due diligence, the Chair assessed the facts of the present situation by inquiring with Parliamentary Publications. The question editors faced when preparing the Debates on June 4 was whether substituting “regardless” for “because” would distort the meaning of the intervention or clarify it. That day, even before the member for Saskatoon West requested a change, editors had already begun to investigate the issue and analyze the overall context of his intervention. They had found through their fact-checking that the member was paraphrasing an assessment made by the Parole Board that did not seem to align with the term used.

Furthermore, the member's use of the word seemed illogical in the context of the rest of his speech. The request from the member for Saskatoon West to modify the blues ostensibly confirmed their suspicion as to his apparent intention. The editors concluded he had misspoken and it was on that basis that the editorial change was made. In retrospect, the editors might have handled the situation differently as they always have the option to leave an intervention as is, even if it is incoherent. However, their ultimate objective is for the transcript to make sense.

Members should not be surprised to learn that editors occasionally make changes and replace words to ensure that members' interventions remain coherent for the reader, while attempting to ensure they accurately reflect what was said. This is not unusual. These changes are made by editors on their own initiative, but also at the request of members from all parties. Accordingly, editors must have the latitude to navigate perilous interpretation exercises, though they do not have free rein, as they must be equally careful not to change the meaning of what is said.

Admittedly, some situations are more complex than others and, indeed, the present case has caused some degree of controversy. The member for Saskatoon West undoubtedly used the word “because” in his intervention. He admitted the mistake himself and apologized for having misspoken. His initial use of the word is now on the record.

The Chair is, nonetheless, satisfied with the explanations provided by Parliamentary Publications and the reasoning behind the replacement of the disputed word. While the decision does appear to change the meaning of the intervention, their motivation was clearly to make the text more coherent.

I hope members can accept that the editors have a challenging job and that the correction was made in good faith. As a result, the Chair concludes that this matter does not constitute a question of privilege and, therefore, considers the matter closed.

I thank all members for their attention.

Alleged Premature Release of Speaker's Ruling on Social Media

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege. I have a concern. As you were giving us the ruling today, we noticed on Twitter that the ruling was already published. The idea that members of this House should get that ruling before anyone else is quite clear and the fact that Twitter got the ruling before the member for Winnipeg Centre or any of the members of this House is inappropriate.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I thank the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

Before I recognize the member for Salaberry—Suroît, who may be rising on the same point of order, I would like to clarify the following.

I would note that the member is right. We do not normally publish the ruling before it is given in the House. After the ruling is given, we distribute it by email to members, as well as note on social media that a ruling has been given.

Given that the hon. member has raised this issue quite appropriately, we will look at this and come back to the hon. member.

The hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to follow up on my colleague's point of order, this is not the first time we have seen one of your rulings posted on social media before you delivered it orally from your chair.

If you do some checking, it is important that you and your team look into this to avoid repeating what the member just pointed out to you.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I thank the hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît. The table and I believe this is the first time that a Speaker's ruling has been published in the media before it was delivered in the House of Commons.

We are going to check to make sure it does not happen again.

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre on a point of order.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my point of order is about parliamentary behaviour. We cannot use such words as “shit” or “fuck” in this place, but we can say such things as “because of [somebody's] racial background”. We can perpetrate racism in the House, and it is treated less seriously than swearing is. It is deeply troubling for me that we do not find it terribly troubling when one's racial background is blamed for criminality. That seems quite unparliamentary to me.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am going to invite the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre to take the opportunity to look more carefully at the ruling. The door is always open to speak to the hon. member and to speak to any member who has any concerns about the language that is used or that is acceptable in the House.

Government Response to Petitions

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to nine petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

While I am on my feet, I move:

That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #828

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I declare the motion carried.

Bill C‑65—Time Allocation Motion

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-65, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill; and

That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.