Statement made on 17 November 2010 by Senator Grant Mitchell
Hon. Grant Mitchell:
Honourable senators, I rise on a question of privilege pursuant to rule 59(10). This important matter is obstructing my ability to exercise my privileges on behalf of the Canadian people in this Senate chamber and in my role as senator. I apologize to honourable senators for not giving three hours' notice. I had not been aware of this question of privilege within that three hours' notice deadline. That is why I am presenting it now, without that notice.
The question of privilege hinges upon a very significant and important discrepancy between the audiotapes that recorded the proceedings yesterday in the debate and leading up to the vote on Bill C-311, a very clear discrepancy of what is in the audio tape and what appears in the written Hansard. The two discrepancies, and there are two of them, turn the truth of what occurred, as reflected properly in the audiotape, on its head by the time it appeared in the written Hansard version of what occurred in this Senate chamber.
First, the audio version has Senator Comeau clearly calling for the question. The word "question" is absolutely distinct. Anyone who has listened to that tape, since we have discovered it, will tell you — and I am sure that you will find the same thing — clearly Senator Comeau calls "Question." On the other hand, that absolutely does not appear in the written version of Hansard.
Second, the written version of Hansard has Senator Comeau saying clearly, "no" to a subsequent call by the Speaker for the question.
Honourable senators, lo and behold, when you listen to the audiotape, Senator Comeau did not say that "no." What we have are two things that clearly had been replaced from what occurred in the audiotape to what occurred in the written Hansard record which earlier today, the Leader of the Government and Senator Comeau referred to as proof positive that what they say occurred, occurred. However, in fact, it did not. The truth is exactly the opposite from what can be derived from Hansard. It is exactly the opposite because whatever got into Hansard, for whatever reason, and for however it got in there, it did not come from the audiotape.
My concern is that, fundamental to our ability to represent and communicate with Canadians to discuss issues, is their ability, unfettered, to trust the record of this chamber. The ability to trust the record of this chamber has been grievously undermined by what occurred between audio and written versions.
Some Hon. Senators: Oh, oh.
Senator Mitchell: Honourable senators, that fundamentally erodes my privileges to conduct myself as effectively as possible as a senator. In fact, it erodes the privileges of all members of this Senate.
In light of these facts, I ask His Honour to find that there is indeed a prima facie case of breach of privilege. I would ask His Honour to compare the audiotape with the written version of Hansard that was ultimately released; and I would ask you to pursue with the Hansard administration, and others, this question: Was Hansard ever approached, in writing or verbally, by anybody on that side or elsewhere —
Some Hon. Senators: Oh, oh.
Senator Mitchell: — to change the blues to that which appeared in the blues?
Honourable senators, should His Honour —
Some Hon. Senators: Oh, oh!
Senator Mitchell: The louder they yell, the wronger they are.
Should His Honour find that there is a prima facie case of breach of privilege, I am prepared, more than happily, to move the appropriate motion to have the matter referred to our Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, where we will have an opportunity to ascertain why the record of our debates was so error-filled.
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Please click here to read the full text of this debate