Evidence of meeting #34 for Health in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was study.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Thank you.
I'm going to relay my decision now. As chair of this committee, I have considered the motion, moved by Dr. Strauss, concerning an alleged breach of privilege arising from testimony provided before this committee and the statements subsequently made in the House of Commons. As—
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Riding Mountain, MB
Chair, on a point of order, can you read that actual question of privilege? Are you going to read the whole—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Okay. Here we go.
Thank you, Mr. Mazier.
Honourable members, I will read the question of privilege regarding the minister's involvement with Infoway. This is from Dr. Strauss, not from me:
Mr. Chair, I'd like to raise a question of privilege on a related matter. Yesterday, during question period, the Minister of Health was asked about the dismissal of Michael Green, the former CEO of Canada Health Infoway. The minister stated, “I spoke to the board of directors, and they took the necessary steps.” The minister told the House of Commons that she personally intervened with Infoway's board and that Mr. Green's firing was the result of that intervention.
On Tuesday, May 5, 2026, this committee heard directly from Dr. Peter Vaughan, the chair of Canada Health Infoway's board of directors. Dr. Vaughan was asked whether the current federal health minister had ever personally raised concerns with him or the board about the $300 million spent on PrescribeIT. Dr. Vaughan's answer was clear. He said no. In fact, he stated, “The answer is no.”
These statements cannot both be true. Either the Minister of Health told the House of Commons yesterday that she spoke to the board when she had not, or the chair of Canada Health Infoway told this committee on Tuesday that the minister had never raised concerns when she had.
The House of Commons and its committees depend entirely on receiving truthful information from ministers and witnesses. When contradictory statements are made to the House and to a committee within days of each other, members of Parliament cannot do their job, and Canadians cannot get the truth.
I will draw the committee's attention to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, chapter 3, which confirms that the “provision of deliberately misleading information to the House” by a minister has frequently been raised as a matter of privilege. It also sets out a three-part test. The statement must have been misleading, the person must have known it was incorrect, and they must have intended to mislead.
These two statements—the minister's claim that she had spoken to the board and the chair's testimony that she had not—cannot both be true. At least one of them was knowingly false. I therefore move that this committee report to the House that the testimony of Dr. Peter Vaughan before the Standing Committee on Health on Tuesday and the statements of the Minister of Health in the House of Commons yesterday are directly contradictory, that Parliament has been misled, and that this matter constitutes a breach of privilege.
Thank you, Chair.
Do you want me to start from the beginning now?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Okay. Now for my decision.
As chair of the committee, I have considered the motion, moved by Dr. Strauss, concerning an alleged breach of privilege arising from testimony provided before this committee and statements subsequently made in the House of Commons.
As members know, matters relating to privilege and contempt are serious. Deliberately misleading the House or one of its committees may constitute contempt; however, in order to reach such a conclusion, there must be clear evidence that misleading information was provided intentionally. In this case, I'm not in a position to determine that any member or witness deliberately misled the committee or the House.
There appear to be different accounts or interpretations of the facts, but the threshold for finding a prima facie question of privilege or contempt is a high one. In addition, the alleged contradiction, which involves statements made in the House of Commons, falls within the jurisdiction of the House itself and, ultimately, of the Speaker rather than the committee.
Accordingly, I find that the motion, as prescribed, does not constitute a matter of privilege arising from the proceedings of this committee; therefore, the motion is inadmissible.
Mr. Mazier and Dr. Strauss, if you want to challenge, you are welcome to challenge.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Riding Mountain, MB
Sure. Can I state my case for why I want to challenge you?
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
You only have either to challenge the chair.... And if you challenge the chair, there's no debate, and I would have to go directly to the vote.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
The chair is challenged. It is a non-debatable motion, so I will ask the clerk to take the vote on whether the ruling of the chair should be sustained.
The vote is for the chair to be sustained, to remain in his position.
There's one thing I want to be clear. If the members want the chair to be sustained, they should say yes. If they do not want the chair to be sustained, then the vote should be no.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)
The chair is sustained.
We have Sonia and then Mr. Mazier.
Conservative
Matt Strauss Conservative Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON
On a point of order, when the meeting was suspended, I had just moved my privilege motion. I had the floor at that point, and I believe I would retain the floor.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
There was no one on the speaking list. Your privilege motion was brought forward, and there was no one on this list. Now the list is called, and we have Ms. Sidhu and then Mr. Mazier.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Riding Mountain, MB
On a point of order, he wasn't done speaking, so he still had the floor.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
He had the floor, but he brought the motion of privilege, so then he lost that spot. The privilege motion is.... I said I did not entertain that.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
I have a point of order. They can challenge the chair or they don't challenge the chair. You've made a ruling with respect to Dr. Strauss's motion. You've made a ruling with respect to who's on the list. They can put up their hands all they want. It's not a point of order, what they're doing.
It's time to move on with the debate, and Ms. Sidhu has the floor.
Conservative
Burton Bailey Conservative Red Deer, AB
Thank you, Chair, for recognizing me. I am following your rule about putting my hand up, unlike colleagues.
I would suggest to you that when we came into this meeting, Ms. Sidhu did not have her hand up.
I was sitting here watching everyone. You asked her if she wanted her hand up, and she indicated she didn't. Then we put our hands up. I don't know how she can be first up, when we had our hands up.
Thank you for hearing me, Chair.
An hon. member
You clearly don't know the rules. I am not the chair, but the point of order is to clarify the rules. You clearly don't know what a point of order is.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Please. There will be no more discussion. I, as chair, have a speaking list. I have Ms. Sidhu and then Mr. Mazier.
Ms. Sidhu, you have the floor.
Liberal
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to give some clarification. I raised my hand three times. Maybe Mr. Bailey didn't see that. I was raising my hand.
I just want to say that—