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

Oral Questions

Privilege

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

An immigration-related question of privilege was raised. The Conservatives deferred their response to a future time. Elizabeth May noted the serious nature of the issue.

Official Hansard ↗

Jenny Kwan

NDP 3:15 p.m.

“I think the minister lied to Parliament. The minister said that student visa applications from Gaza would be processed in 10 days. But advocates say that's not true. Ministers should not mislead us. Let's investigate this.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege concerning information provided to Parliament by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship during committee of the whole proceedings on Thursday, May 28, 2026. During those proceedings, I asked the minister about approximately 130 Palestinian graduate students from Gaza who have been waiting for nearly two years for decisions on their study permit applications. I noted that many face requirements that are impossible to satisfy under war conditions, including biometrics collection and prolonged security screening. I further noted that several countries, including France, Ireland, Belgium and Germany, have adopted flexible measures to facilitate the arrival of scholarship recipients from Gaza. I then asked the minister whether Canada would do the same. In response, the minister stated, “we have directed officials to accelerate the student visa processing for people in Gaza, and I can confirm that decisions will be made now, and in fact all...will be completed in the next 10 days.” While part of the minister's answer was delivered off microphone and is not fully reflected in the transcript, it is audible in the video recording of the proceedings. I heard the minister make those comments in the chamber. Given the significance of the statement, I subsequently reviewed the recording and confirmed what I heard. The minister's response was not vague. It was not aspirational. It was not framed as a hope or expectation. The minister informed Parliament that officials had been directed to accelerate processing and that decisions would be completed within 10 days. As members of Parliament, we are entitled to rely upon information provided by the ministers during parliamentary proceedings. Indeed, our ability to hold the government to account depends upon it. Following the minister's statement, I understood that decisions on these applications would be forthcoming within the time frame identified by the minister. I communicated accordingly with stakeholders and advocates who have been working tirelessly on behalf of these students. However, information subsequently received has raised serious concerns regarding the accuracy of the minister's statement to Parliament. Just today, I have learned that officials in the minister's department are saying that the minister's response regarding a completion in the next 10 days is not the case, as I have been contacted by Canadian advocates for the students who wrote me today to say, “We just met with an IRCC representative this morning and it doesn't sound like they will follow through on this.” The students' advocates told me that officials said to them that there is no 10-day timeline. This was further confirmed by advocates and university professors at a meeting that took place from noon to 1 p.m. today. Therefore, this is my earliest opportunity to raise the matter. This information shared at this meeting with four members of Parliament, including myself, from the stakeholders suggests that officials are not proceeding in accordance with the commitment communicated by the minister during committee of the whole and that the applications in question may not, in fact, be completed within the time frame of 10 days that she identified. I fully acknowledge that findings that a member deliberately misled the House may be rare and require a high threshold. The authorities establish three conditions: first, that a statement was misleading; second, that the member knew it was incorrect at the time it was made; and third, that there was an intention to mislead. There are several factors that distinguish this matter. First, the minister made a specific and verifiable representation to Parliament concerning the processing of a defined group of applications with ministry staff at her side. Second, the representation included a precise timeline: completion within 10 days. Third, the statement concerned operational actions that would necessarily have been based on the information provided to the minister by her department officials, who were sitting right in front of her. Fourth, the information that has emerged since the minister's statement calls into question whether the commitment communicated to Parliament reflected the actual status of those files. Mr. Speaker, I am not asking you to determine today whether the minister deliberately misled Parliament. Such determinations are not made lightly. Rather, I submit that the circumstances raise sufficient concern to warrant further examination by the House. Members must be able to rely on ministerial statements when carrying out their parliamentary duties. When a minister provides a specific assurance to Parliament and substantial doubt subsequently arises as to its accuracy, the House must have confidence that the matter will be examined. The privileges of members are engaged when our ability to perform our parliamentary functions is undermined by information that may be inaccurate or misleading. In this case, I relied on the minister's response in exercising my responsibilities as a parliamentarian. The House was entitled to rely upon that information. The integrity of our proceedings depends on the accuracy of the information provided by ministers when answering questions from members. Accordingly, I respectfully submit that there is a prima facie case of question of privilege. If you so find, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to move the following motion: That the matter of the statements made by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship during committee of the whole proceedings on May 28 concerning the processing of study permit applications for Palestinian students from Gaza be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for study and report.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates