TranslatePolitics.ca

Recent debates

8 latest topics

06-18 Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 57 statements 06-18 Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 19 statements 06-18 Arab Heritage Month Act 5 statements 06-18 The Economy 15 statements 06-18 Government Priorities 2 statements 06-18 Government Priorities 2 statements 06-18 Housing 12 statements 06-18 The Environment 2 statements

Government Orders

Privilege

2026-06-02 Sitting 127 Showing 1–2 of 2

A debate where a Conservative raised a question of privilege. The Liberal response spent time proposing to skip ahead the clock to discuss a different topic.

Official Hansard ↗

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 5:15 p.m.

“I don't want the Speaker to judge whether someone lied. That's not the Speaker's job. I want the House to move on.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the question of privilege raised on June 1 by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, respecting statements made in the House by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry. I submit that in the matter before the House, at no time did the parliamentary secretary mislead the House. The matter of the dispute is clearly a difference of opinion between the parliamentary secretary and the member opposite. This amounts to a dispute as to the facts and not an attempt by the hon. member to deliberately mislead the House. In such matters that involve interpretations of perspectives, Speakers have consistently stated that it is not their role to pass judgment on such matters. In addition to the fact that the claims related to the disputed facts are not grounds for prima facie findings of privilege, there are two long-standing practices of the House when it comes to statements where there is a disagreement between members. The first is that the members are to be taken at their word. The second is that many disputes relating to matters raised in the House amount to a dispute as to the facts. I submit that these are both central to the matter at hand. As to the practice of taking members at their word, on December 6, 2011, the Speaker ruled on a member's involvement in inviting individuals to the gallery that were the cause of a disturbance. In this case, the Speaker referenced a ruling by Speaker Milliken from November 5, 2009: Remembering the time-honoured tradition in this place that members are taken at their word and so in keeping with the precedents...the Chair is prepared to consider this particular aspect of the matter to be closed. The second matter relating to issues raised in this place concerning alleged misleading statements more often than not are deemed a dispute as to the facts. On February 27, 2020, the Speaker ruled: ...nor is there any evidence to suggest that there was an attempt to deliberately mislead the House. For these reasons, the Chair cannot find that there is a prima facie question of privilege in this case. Regarding this ruling, the Speaker ruled, on October 19, 2023: In keeping with this well-established practice, the current complaint does not lead me to believe that I have a basis to depart from past Speakers' decisions. Judging the accuracy of a response is not something that previous Speakers have attempted to do, nor is it something I will do today. Moreover, on February 8, 2005, Speaker Milliken ruled on a matter respecting a response to a question, “Any dispute regarding the accuracy...of this response is a matter of debate. It is not something upon which the Speaker is permitted to pass judgment.” I would, finally, point to the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk's remarks on this matter on June 1, as to the fact that this is not a question of fact but rather a question of interpretation of opinion. He stated, “The definition that economists generally accept....” By using this phraseology, the member himself is clearly stating that the matter is not a universally accepted fact. Accordingly, the dispute as to a definition is a matter of opinion. Therefore, the members are entitled to their own opinions. This is the nature of debates in this place. This is the conclusion Speaker Jerome reached on a matter before the House on June 4, 1975. In that case, he ruled, “The third point on which there is agreement is that a dispute as to the facts, a dispute as to opinions and a dispute as to conclusions to be drawn from an allegation of fact is a matter of debate and not a question of privilege.” I submit to the House that this is precisely the case with the matter raised on June 1 and therefore should not constitute a question of privilege.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 5:20 p.m.

“I want everyone to agree to move the clock forward so we can start a different agenda item.”

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates