“I don't want the minister to get in trouble. I'll make her answer sound like it was maybe okay. Maybe the person asking the question just heard it wrong.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the question of privilege raised on June 2 by the member for Vancouver East, respecting the response from the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship during committee of the whole deliberations on Thursday, May 28. The member alleges that the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship deliberately misled members in response to her question concerning the process of study permit applications for Palestinian students. I submit three arguments for consideration. First, the minister provided the most accurate information she had at the time and, therefore, did not in any way attempt to mislead the committee of the whole. Second, there is a long-standing practice in this House to take members at their word. Finally, the process in which the member for Vancouver East has raised the question of privilege does not follow the conventions of this place. On the substantive question at hand, the minister did not mislead the committee in her response. During the committee of the whole deliberations, the member for Vancouver East asked a question concerning whether the minister would take the same approach as other countries in approving study visas. In her response, which is on the parliamentary record, the minister noted the application process that exists and stated that she directed officials to deal with these matters on an accelerated basis. The member for Vancouver East has brought into question what is not captured in Hansard and not clearly audible in the video recording of the proceedings. She has alleged that the minister stated that the application decision would be completed in the next 10 days. While the inaudible answer does not form part of Hansard, upon review of the audio, the minister can be heard stating that the interviews would be completed in the next 10 days. This is an important distinction from what the member has alleged and demonstrates that the minister did not mislead the committee. A long-standing practice of this place is to take members at their word, as noted by the Speaker in his ruling of April 29, 2015: “as your Speaker, I must take all members at their word. To do otherwise, to take it upon myself to assess the truthfulness or accuracy of Members' statements is not a role which has been conferred on me, nor that the House has indicated that it would somehow wish the Chair to assume, with all of its implications.” The member for Vancouver East has brought forward these allegations based on conversations with stakeholders, which, she states, “suggests that officials are not proceeding in accordance with” a certain time frame for applications. Page 58 of the fourth edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice notes, “The Speaker has also stated that statements made outside the House or documents published elsewhere must not be used to cast doubt on members’ statements in the House.” The matter at hand is a dispute as to the facts. This is based on both a mischaracterization of the minister's response and the member's meetings with external stakeholders. On June 19, 2025, the Speaker ruled, on a matter that constituted dispute as to the facts, that “If every disagreement is to be raised as a question of privilege, the House would spend its time doing little else. There are many opportunities in our debates for members to challenge each other on the facts of a particular case, and that is the correct way of dealing with such disagreements.” I would add that the format of the committee of the whole does not always allow for exhaustive responses. As the time for answers in committee of the whole is to be proportional to the time to ask the question, members can appreciate that the circumstances of each matter raised cannot be adequately addressed in the time provided. Members have several ways to obtain detailed information on a particular matter before bringing forward an allegation of a member misleading the House. I submit that the way the question of privilege was raised did not conform with the practices of this House. The Speaker ruled on a similar matter on June 19, 2025, which outlined the process for dealing with questions of privilege in committee of the whole. This process is not being followed in the matter raised by the member for Vancouver East. Let us review the facts at hand. On May 28, the House resolved into committee of the whole to hear the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship on the 2026‑27 main estimates for her department. The member for Vancouver East asked a series of questions to the minister regarding her portfolio. At no point during the deliberation did the member raise concerns that she had been misled or that her privilege had been breached. The Speaker has ruled on a similar situation that occurred on June 10, 2025, during consideration of the main estimates in a committee of the whole. The following day, the member for Mirabel alleged that the Minister of Finance misled the House in response to the member's question on the consumer carbon rebate scheme. On this matter, on June 19, 2025, the Speaker ruled: When the House resolves itself into a committee of the whole, it is, for all intents and purposes, functioning as a committee to consider a matter the House has referred to it. In this regard, the practice for raising questions of privilege emanating from a committee of the whole is the same as that of a standing, special or legislative committee...The Chair recognizes that there may sometimes be challenges with the committee of the whole format, in particular during the consideration of estimates. They, however, do not exempt members of their obligation to raise their concerns there first. Section 3.99 of the fourth edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice sets out the requirements for raising a question of privilege in the committee of the whole. This process entails: The Speaker will entertain a question of privilege in regard to a matter that occurred in a committee of the whole only if the matter has been dealt with first in the committee of the whole and reported accordingly to the House. Moreover, section 19.18 of the fourth edition states: Although questions of privilege in a committee of the whole are infrequent, the practice is identical to that for any standing, legislative or special committee. If a member rises on a question of privilege which is relevant to the proceedings in a committee of the whole, the Chair will hear the question of privilege.... If the matter raised by the member touches on privilege and relates to events in the committee of the whole, the Chair will entertain a motion that the events be reported to the House.... The Speaker will hear a question of privilege in regard to a matter that occurred in a committee of the whole only if the matter has been dealt with first in the committee of the whole and reported accordingly to the House. I submit that the process was not followed in this case. I submit that the inaudible comments made by the minister were mis-characterized and that the minister did not in any way mislead the committee in her response to the question from the member for Vancouver East. Therefore, there are no facts to satisfy the requirement that the minister misled the House and did so deliberately. The facts suggest that the minister stated accurately and truthfully that she directed her officials to accelerate the student visa process, which has been corroborated by her remarks in committee and in recent media coverage. Moreover, the well‑established practice of the House is to take members at their word when considering the matter of what was on the parliamentary record and what one can hear in the audio recording of the proceedings of May 28. Finally, the member for Vancouver East did not satisfy the requirements of the process for raising a question of privilege in a committee of the whole. In conclusion, I submit that there are no facts before the House to support a finding of a prima facie question of privilege in the matter raised by the member for Vancouver East.
View on ourcommons.ca ↗
