Mr. Speaker, I also would like to take a moment to share some of my thoughts on the matter of privilege which was raised on Friday morning by the Conservative Party deputy leader, the member for Thornhill. As the Conservative deputy whip said at the time, “a personal first-hand account is very much part of the information that the Speaker must [have]” to make a decision on the matter, and I would like the opportunity to be able to respond.
It is up to the Speaker to determine whether the action amounted to a violation of privilege of the individual member. I want to make it very clear that, from my perspective, for my part, I did not experience any violation of my privilege as a member of Parliament. I was able to access my office without problem, using the entrance. I was able to have my scheduled meetings in my office without any interruption, and my staff were also able to access their office.
I will say that the meeting I had that day had nothing to do with what was happening in the foyer. I was able, with my staff, to get to my office. My guest was able to access my office and we were able to have our meeting. Then my guest was actually able to leave as well.
I want to challenge some of what was said by the member for Thornhill and her Conservative colleagues as they made extreme and misleading allegations that impugned me and my colleagues. She suggested that the action was “aided by New Democrat MPs”, that it was “NDP-organized” and that NDP MPs were “part of this protest, in an effort to impede and obstruct the work of fellow parliamentarians”. Frankly, that is just completely false. I had no knowledge of the protest action; I learned about it from the PPS email that was sent to all members.
I did stop to listen to the protesters on my way in and out of the building, which is where my colleagues and I were photographed listening. This is part of our job. I am not from Israel. I am not from Palestine. I am not Jewish. I am not Muslim. I am not Arab. I require the perspectives of other people to inform the decisions I make as a member of Parliament. Frankly, for me, being in the Confederation Building and seeing people standing up against a genocide happening against children was a moment I will remember for a very long time.
It is part of our job to listen. It is part of our job to understand what is being said by Canadians. I understand that the protest action was organized by a coalition called Jews Say No To Genocide. Something that I have noted that none of the Conservatives have raised is that the issue the protesters, many of whom were Jewish Canadian, were speaking out against is a genocide that has been identified as happening in Gaza and in which Canada has complicity, particularly in arms transfers to Israel.
The protesters were saying, “not in our name”. It is well known that New Democrats are deeply upset with the Canadian government's position and Canada's complicity in the genocide. However, whether or not a parliamentarian agrees with the argument, or whether they are uncomfortable or comfortable with the argument, is irrelevant to the question of privilege. For my part, I believe it is important to hear from Canadians, given the tens of thousands of people who have been killed, especially children, with Canadians' tacit support.
This is why I stopped to give a few minutes of my time to the group. However, to suggest that NDP MPs organized or were part of the protest is entirely false. For my part, I saw a peaceful and very short sit-in. I heard singing. I heard a rabbi speaking to the group about peace. I heard peaceful calls for Canada to end its complicity in a genocide. I believe that the protest action was over within an hour.
It was very, very different from some of the protests on Parliament Hill that have lasted for weeks and weeks, the same protests in which white supremacy symbols were shown and the same protests that my racialized staff had to cross to get to my office. However, that does not have to do with the current question of privilege.
The member for Thornhill stated, “It is not only my privilege that is breached, but it is everybody who has an office in the Confederation Building and those who try to access the parliamentary precinct.” I disagree. As I mentioned earlier, I had a meeting in my office in the Confederation Building for an unrelated issue, and I got in and out of the building with great ease, as did my guest and my staff. My parliamentary work was unobstructed.
For my part, PPS staff were helpful in ensuring that my colleagues and I got to work without a problem. I would like to take a moment to thank them for the work they do and for their professionalism.
I do want to give additional information for you to consider, Mr. Speaker, in response to the speeches made by Conservative members on Friday. First, the term “occupation” was used. It was not an occupation by any means; it was a peaceful and very short sit-in. I want to give some new information on the context of the action, as the Conservatives' choice of words is really very misleading.
Peaceful sit-ins are a common feature of peace movements and civil rights movements. From the Woolworth's lunch counter protests during the civil rights era to women's suffrage movements and peace movements, peaceful sit-ins are a standard tactic of non-violent protest.
In July, 400 people with Jewish Voice for Peace held a sit-in in the atrium of the United States Congress to protest the United States' support for the genocide in Gaza. There was a similar sit-in protest last year at the Alberta legislature, without incident, again protesting Canada's complicity in the horror in Gaza. At the legislature in Texas, there have been a number of peaceful sit-ins over recent years on issues ranging from sanctuary cities to human rights. Other provincial and state legislatures have also had sit-in protests on a range of social justice issues. All of these people have been continuing the non-violent tradition of temporarily taking up public space to protest injustice, and Canadians certainly have the right to protest.
The issue, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, is not the merits of the protest at the Confederation Building and what it is called, but whether it infringed on the individual member's privilege. To this I would say again that the second access to the building was open, and I personally had no challenges or issues whatsoever accessing my office. A protest's making members uncomfortable is not the same as impeding their work.
The member for Battlefords—Lloydminster said she felt unsafe, but feeling unsafe is not the same as being unsafe. What I saw was a peaceful protest with singing, with chanting in Hebrew, and with seniors and young people united together. I do not quite understand how a person could see this group, which included a rabbi and elders, and feel unsafe.
One might feel uncomfortable maybe, because it should make any person question their thinking about a genocide. We should all feel uncomfortable about our country's complicity in the killing and maiming of children in Gaza, but we should not feel unsafe. It is a case where MPs could have taken a minute to listen to protesters' concerns and hear these Canadians out.
Finally, we want to address a comment by the MP for Thornhill that I find especially troubling: “This is also a continuation of the very tactics that we have seen on our streets from unhinged mobs that think that their petty grievances allow them to target Jewish neighbourhoods, firebomb Jewish schools, obstruct synagogues and wreak havoc on our Canadian values, while abiding and abetting groups that are designated as terrorists in this country.”
There is no question that incidents of anti-Semitism have increased in Canada, and this must be condemned by every member of Parliament in the House. Like all Canadians, Jewish Canadians deserve the right to feel safe in their communities, but the protest was led by Jewish Canadians who are advocating for peace, for human rights and for Canada to uphold its obligations under international law. To suggest that these Jewish Canadians are responsible for anti-Semitic attacks is, in my view, deeply offensive. To suggest that the protesters are part of an “unhinged” mob with “petty grievances” is offensive.
The member for Thornhill can disagree with the protesters, but to insult these people who are protesting the killing of children, the maiming of children and the starving of children is wrong. To suggest that these Jewish protesters who called for peace are aiding terrorism is offensive, and I would ask the member to consider withdrawing the comments.
The protest that happened last Tuesday was a peaceful sit-in. As parliamentarians, we have an obligation to listen to Canadians. As parliamentarians and legislators, we should be doing everything we can to amplify their voices. I would like that to be considered as part of the deliberations.