I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on June 2 by the member for Vancouver East concerning a statement made by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship during the meeting of the committee of the whole to consider the estimates on May 28. According to the member for Vancouver East, the minister said in response to a question that the processing of study permit applications from Palestinian students in Gaza would be accelerated and that decisions would be completed in the next 10 days. The member noted that this statement does not appear in the Debates, but is nonetheless clearly audible in the video recording.
The member for Vancouver East then stated that information she obtained later from departmental officials and affected stakeholders seemed to contradict that statement. She clarified that her goal was not to determine whether the minister deliberately misled the House, but rather to point out that the situation raises substantial doubt as to the accuracy of the information provided. The member argued that parliamentarians must be able to rely on ministerial statements when carrying out their parliamentary duties. She therefore submitted that the circumstances warrant further examination and concluded that she believes there is a prima facie question of privilege.
In response, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons questioned the facts presented by the member for Vancouver East. He stated that the minister did not mislead the committee but instead provided the most accurate information available at the time she made her statement. Furthermore, in his view, the member for Vancouver East relied not on facts that are in the Debates transcript but on an audio recording that is open to interpretation. He also contended that the matter is a dispute as to the facts based on information from sources outside the House. Finally, he argued that the procedure for questions of privilege arising from proceedings of a committee of the whole was not followed.
First of all, the Chair must begin by considering the fact that the statement in dispute was made during proceedings of a committee of the whole. A number of precedents, including a ruling by the Chair on June 19, 2025, have established that, despite certain constraints that may apply, questions of privilege stemming from proceedings of a committee of the whole must normally be raised in that committee before they can be brought to the Chair in the House.
Second, even if the usual procedure were to be set aside, the precedents are clear about requests that the Chair rule on facts presented in the House whose accuracy is disputed on the basis of external sources. As Speaker Lamoureux said in a decision rendered on November 16, 1971, on page 9619 of the Debates:
...the pertinent precedents tend to establish in the main that statements made outside the House, or documents published elsewhere, ought not to be used for the purpose of questioning statements made in this chamber by hon. members from either side of the House.
More recently, Speaker Regan stated the following in a ruling delivered on November 20, 2017, which appears on page 15303 of the Debates:
Members know well that in any case in which the veracity of what a member of the House has said is called into question, the Chair's role is very limited to the review of the statements made in a proceeding of Parliament. In other words, the Chair cannot comment on what transpires outside of the deliberations of the House or its committees.
Even if the Chair could address statements made in committee of the whole in the absence of a report to the House, and had the minister's statement been accurately quoted, something that the Debates do not enable us to determine in this case, there is no basis for concluding that she contradicted herself or that she intended to mislead the House. The situation, therefore, seems to be a dispute as to the facts.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, provides the following information in section 3.92:
If the question of privilege involves a disagreement between two (or more) members as to facts, the Speaker typically rules that such a dispute does not prevent members from fulfilling their parliamentary functions, nor does such a disagreement breach the collective privileges of the House.
Disagreements about the facts are common in the House, and the mere fact that a member believes a statement made by another member, minister or not, is inaccurate is not enough to establish that there are grounds to raise a question of privilege. Accordingly, the Chair cannot find that there is a prima facie question of privilege. I therefore consider the matter closed.
I thank all members for their attention.