Charlie Angus

[Points of Order, December 9th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I notice that I am allowed a short intervention. The issue speaks to our lack of faith. Every member should be treated fairly, and they are not. We have learned very quickly that, if the Conservatives create enough chaos, the Speaker bends to that. When New Democrats raise points of order, they are shut down. We are told to sit down. In fact, one of the only times I remember the Speaker standing up on a point was when my colleague was wearing a brooch, yet we have seen outrageous insults and attacks, and that is considered okay.

Everything is based on precedent. If the Speaker bends to toxicity, then New Democrats will fight back because we have the smallest number and the fewest questions. If the Speaker does not allow proper fairness and continues to bend to the Conservatives and their toxic behaviour, then there will be push-back, and it undermines the House.

[Privilege, December 6th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, we saw the pattern. The member for Miramichi—Grand Lake just repeated it. He accused New Democrats of threatening and attacking people when we had nothing to do with this.

I ask you, Speaker, to ask him to withdraw that comment because it was a false comment. We had nothing to do with this. He came in here—

[Privilege, December 6th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that this had nothing to do with her worry about her children. This was a spurious attack on New Democrats. We had nothing to do with the protest. They do not like the protest. They are using this filibuster to attack us.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to reject this totally. This is not a credible question of privilege because it is being targeted against MPs who were not in the building, who were not in the city and who had nothing to do with it. We are being targeted by the Conservatives because they are trying to draw us into a fight that we had nothing to do with. That is not privilege. That is an abuse of my rights as a parliamentarian. I am asking you to shut this down.

[Privilege, December 6th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I hope you will allow me to at least speak. New Democrats are being drawn into this when we had nothing to do with the protest. This is a spurious political attack—

[Privilege, December 6th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, now we are being accused of supporting intimidation when we just had a Conservative tell us that he would be punching people in the mouth as he walked out.

Mr. Speaker, you are allowing this to descend—

[Privilege, December 6th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, we know that the protesters called themselves Jews Against Genocide.

I find it very concerning that members are attempting to claim that, because someone who is of a Jewish faith was in a building where there was a protest by people who call themselves Jews Against Genocide, there is somehow an anti-Semitic threat. This is really taking us down a dark path.

You, Mr. Speaker, have the obligation to hear whether it is credible.

[Privilege, December 6th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, it is an important thing that is being introduced here. It is a new element. If someone did not read the warnings that were being given, it does not mean their rights were impeded, and so that is a false claim, as we all received regular updates on what was happening that day. Again, if the Conservatives are attempting to bring in side issues to continue a filibuster, they cannot bring in falsehoods about rights they claim were impeded if they did not bother to read the messages from PPS.

[Privilege, December 6th, 2024]

On the question, Mr. Speaker, this is new because saying the PPS failed this member is a false claim when we received the app warning. So—

[Privilege, December 6th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to raise questions about the judgment of my colleague, but that day we all received a special advisory. Maybe if the Conservatives do not read a special advisory, it does not mean their privilege—

[Privilege, December 6th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on my colleague who just pointed out that when we are bringing these points forward, they have to be clear and concise. They cannot be used to stretch out as a filibuster. Everyone's personal experience, and what happened to their aunt when they were visiting them, and that they feel that their rights were impeded, is not relevant to the question at hand.

We have heard about the protest. We know a protest happened. Was it undemocratic or was it democratic? Was it the right of citizens or was it not the right of citizens? It is a fairly simple question. Whether people liked the demonstration and whether they felt personally hurt because there was a demonstration are irrelevant to the question of privilege. Otherwise, we are descending into filibuster.