O'Brien and Bosc and the Bow-Wows

Monday's proceedings in the Bow-Wow Parliament led off with a point of privilege:

MR. KIRBY: I rise today at the earliest possible occasion to raise a point of privilege before this House. This is an important matter and, as such, I have already contacted you regarding the point.

O’Brien and Bosc note that rights and privileges of members of the House include freedom from obstruction, interference, intimidation, and molestation. Regarding the subject of obstruction, interference, and intimidation, O’Brien and Bosc say the following about examples of obstruction, interference, and intimidation:

It is impossible to codify all incidents which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation and as such constitute prima facie cases of privilege. However, some matters found to be prima facie include the damaging of a Member’s reputation, the usurpation of the title of Member of Parliament, the intimidation of Members and their staff and of witnesses before committees, and the provision of misleading information." Misleading a minister or a member has also been considered a form of obstruction, and is thus a prima facie breach of privilege.

Mr. Speaker, during last Tuesday’s session of this hon. House, I asked the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador a number of questions regarding Bill 47, the Appointments to Boards, Councils and Tribunals Amendment Act. I asked the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador who he consulted on Bill 47 and how he carried out those consultations. The minister’s response to my question was something to the effect of: If you had been paying attention during discussions of the bill, you would know I discussed this. I contend that despite his claim, the minister indeed did not discuss who he consulted on Bill 47 and how he carried out those consultations. In light of that, I advised the minister at the time that I would review Hansard to ensure that he did indeed provide this information; however, Mr. Speaker, at this point no copies of Hansard are available for that evening.

...

MR. SPEAKER: Before commenting on the substance of the point of privilege being raised, I would want to comment on the reference to the earliest possible time. The Speaker advised the House that yes, Hansard is an accurate recording of the House proceedings, but the evening sessions are not always available immediately after the session is over. Sometimes they tend to not be available until after the session has adjourned....


...

With respect to the point of privilege raised by the Member for the District of St. John’s North, the Speaker had indicated before we took a brief recess that the printed Hansard is not available until some time after the evening sittings. Staff and officials are working diligently to try to conclude that process before the end of the business day today.

This (among many other reasons) is why it makes absolutely no sense for the transcription of evening sittings of the Bow-Wow Parliament to wait weeks, and sometimes months after the session is over, to be prepared.

Yes, the Hansard office works hard. But if they can produce the blooze of the daylight-hours talky-stuff by the end of day, they can transcribe the evening sittings on Fridays or any of the other 300 or so days of the year that the House doesn't sit.

Is there any other Westminster Parliament, that (a) produces a Hansard at all, yet (b) delays the production of some portion of it by months at a time?