House of Commons Hansard #384 of the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was point.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Opposition Motion—Cost of Living Relief for Canadians Members debate an NDP motion proposing permanent GST removal on essential goods, an expanded affordability rebate for all low-income adults, funded by an excess profit tax. The debate is marked by numerous points of order, including Conservative challenges to the NDP leader's eligibility and decorum, and Bloc concerns about interruptions and remarks. 3500 words, 35 minutes in 2 segments: 1 2.
Access to Parliamentary Precinct Members debate a question of privilege raised by a Conservative MP regarding a protest in the Confederation Building. The MP alleges the protest impeded members' access and work, raising security concerns and pointing to alleged NDP support. NDP members raise points of order, arguing the privilege motion is being misused for debate and is not based on facts. The Speaker manages the discussion, seeking relevance and brevity before adjourning the debate. 3600 words, 30 minutes in 2 segments: 1 2.
École polytechnique de Montréal Members commemorate the 35th anniversary of the École Polytechnique massacre, remembering the 14 women killed. They emphasize the ongoing threat of misogyny and gender-based violence, including intimate partner violence and the disproportionate impact on Indigenous women. Speakers call for action to end violence, address gun control, and combat the rise of online misogyny. 3200 words, 30 minutes.
Access to Parliamentary Precinct Members debate a Conservative question of privilege regarding a protest in the Confederation Building that allegedly impeded access and jeopardized safety. Conservative MPs shared personal accounts and alleged NDP involvement. NDP MPs argued the question was improper, the speeches repetitive, and denied involvement, calling it a spurious political attack. MPs emphasize the importance of parliamentary access and safety. 4500 words, 35 minutes.
Opposition Motion—Cost of Living Relief for CanadiansBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Monday, December 9, at the expiry of time provided for oral questions.
Access to Parliamentary PrecinctPrivilegeGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
I will go back to the hearing of the privilege question. As I have said to all folks who have spoken, members should try to bring new, relevant information forward and try to be as concise as possible.
The hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets.
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Mr. Speaker, it is new information because it is about my experience this past Tuesday, which is new and additional information. This is in spite of the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, who chooses to take his orders from the Liberals. He wants to shut down the evidence that his party was complicit in preventing members of Parliament, who have their offices in the Confederation Building, from doing their work.
As I was saying, I had scheduled meetings that day, including a very important meeting with Israel's ambassador to Canada. I would think members of Parliament would be concerned when a member of Parliament cannot have a meeting with the representative of another government because of an illegal protest that breached my ability to do my job. Now—
Access to Parliamentary PrecinctPrivilegeGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
I am seeing another point of order.
The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Speaker, again, Conservatives were unconcerned with a three-week occupation that did just that; it disrupted everybody—
Access to Parliamentary PrecinctPrivilegeGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
We are getting back into debate; I just want to make sure there is a point of order.
The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would implore you to follow the judgments made in the past, including in 2012, which allow you to determine that you have heard enough on the question of privilege and to allow those speeches if, in the end, you indeed decide that there is a prima facie question of privilege over the next few days.
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Mr. Speaker, it does not surprise me that the member for New Westminster—Burnaby is trying to prevent a question of privilege with regard to a meeting with the ambassador of Israel to Canada about the conflict in the Middle East. It does not surprise me that the NDP would be supportive in helping to organize the prevention of a member of Parliament from doing their duties with a protest that happened out of—
Access to Parliamentary PrecinctPrivilegeGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
The member for New Westminster—Burnaby is rising on a point of order.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Speaker, a question of privilege, very clearly, has to be on the facts. There is wild speculation and a whole bunch of frivolity being brought in by the Conservatives. It is not a bona fide response to a question of privilege. I would ask you again to cut off the member.
Certainly the member will have more scope during a speech if and when there is a ruling, but currently this is not permissible and does not correspond with our procedural bible.
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a few words and facts on the record concerning the privilege motion put forward by the member for Thornhill.
Access to Parliamentary PrecinctPrivilegeGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
I want to try to finish up with the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets, then I will go to the member for Kildonan—St. Paul. Another member is standing up as well.
As I said, please keep it to new information and be as quick as possible because we really have heard a lot on the issue already.
The hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets has the floor.
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Mr. Speaker, the NDP member suggested that my intervention and how I was prevented from doing my job are frivolous. It is a point—
Access to Parliamentary PrecinctPrivilegeGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
I am in the chair.
The hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul has the floor.
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Mr. Speaker, I have a few more facts that have not been discussed regarding the privilege debate, and I will be brief. I am the—
Access to Parliamentary PrecinctPrivilegeGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
When someone stands on a point of order, they have the right to be heard.
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
And I suffer, and you take away my right to speak to the point of privilege as a result?
Access to Parliamentary PrecinctPrivilegeGovernment Orders
Access to Parliamentary PrecinctPrivilegeGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
I am not removing your responsibility here.
Points of order are coming up. The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby is standing on a point of order, and the hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul is now standing on a point of order.
I understand that the hon. member is not finished, but I am also asking him to get to the point rather than taking on an attack. The attacks are happening from both sides, and it is not helpful to the debate we are having in the chamber right now.
I will allow the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets to finish up if he wants to get to the point he is trying to make.
Access to Parliamentary PrecinctPrivilegeGovernment Orders
December 6th, 2024 / 1:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Mr. Speaker, if I am not interrupted again, I can conclude my privilege intervention on how I was prevented from doing my duties as a member of Parliament by the illegal protest that happened.
When an ambassador from a foreign country cannot come into the building because of concerns for their safety, that is a major issue in the administration of our democratic duties and my ability to do my job. The fact is that the protesters were allowed to simply walk into the building with such ease, prevent business and target specifically, from media reports, anyone coming in to do business with members of Parliament. In fact, preventing members of Parliament from getting into their own offices is a breach of our privilege.
I would ask you to consider all the experiences of members of Parliament who were subjected to the breach in the Confederation Building on Tuesday morning. I would also ask that you consider the NDP's role in preventing members of Parliament from doing their duties.