Peter Julian

[Privilege, December 16th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations among the parties and if you seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move that, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, the member for Vancouver Kingsway be permitted to speak a second time to this subamendment.

[Points of Order, December 16th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I certainly hope that we will be able to respond to this very important document at this time. We have a responsibility to be transparent with all Canadians. It is important that we discuss this document that was tabled in the House.

As such, I am going to try again. I move that notwithstanding any Standing Order, special order or usual practice of the House, immediately following the adoption of this motion, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings to permit one member from each recognized opposition party and a member of the Green Party to make a statement of up to 20 minutes, followed by a period of up to 10 minutes for questions and comments related to the fall economic statement.

[Points of Order, December 16th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, this is a fundamental tenet of parliamentary democracy, transparency and accountability. We have just had the tabling of the document. Therefore, if you seek it, anyone respecting democracy should support the following motion. I move that, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, immediately following the adoption of this motion, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings to permit one member from each recognized opposition party and a member of the Green Party to make a statement of up to 20 minutes, followed by a period of up to 10 minutes for questions and comments related to the fall economic statement.

[Points of Order, December 16th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, this has been a chaotic day, but the reality is that this is an order of the House that cannot be countermanded by the government. Our expectation is that the finance minister will be in the House to present the fall economic statement. That is what New Democrats are prepared for. That is what we want to comment on and want to criticize. That is why we are here. This cannot be countermanded by the government itself. Parliament must be respected, and, Mr. Speaker, you must uphold the motion that was adopted unanimously by the House.

[Housing, December 13th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budgetary Officer revealed yesterday that over two million Canadians do not have access to adequate or affordable housing. This is no surprise. Average rents now in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia for a one-bedroom are over $2,500 a month. It is staggering. Liberals have simply been too weak to take on the corporate greed that is fuelling housing prices and Conservatives, of course, will just make their corporate landlord buddies and developer buddies richer.

When will the government take on the corporate greed that is fuelling housing prices, so that all Canadians can have a roof over their head?

[Gurdev Singh Gill, December 13th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to reflect on the remarkable life and work of Dr. Gurdev Singh Gill. His passing was a devastating loss and my thoughts are with his wife Jasinder, his daughter Jasmine, his son Sanjy and their families.

Dr. Gill immigrated to Canada in 1949 and soon after graduated from the UBC medical program. He became the first Canadian of South Asian origin to practise medicine and was awarded the Order of B.C. He has been described as a pioneer and a role model who showed both adults and children that with passion and determination, they could achieve anything.

His advocacy for aspiring Indo-Canadian medical professionals and his efforts to improve health care access for immigrants set him apart. Dr. Gill also had a lasting impact in Punjab, India. He founded the Indo-Canadian Friendship Society of B.C., improving clean drinking water, sanitation and infrastructure for over 100,000 people in India. His legacy reminds us of the power we all have to improve the lives of those around us.

Rest in peace, Dr. Gill.

[Privilege, December 12th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, there was contempt. The member knows that there was contempt. The contempt that was shown by the Harper government is very clear to Canadians. The contempt of the Harper government was adjudicated here in the House. The member knows full well that there was contempt. He knows full well the long litany of Harper scandals, how deplorable the Harper government was to veterans and seniors, how bad that government was, how abysmally bad, and the scandals of billions of dollars, far beyond SDTC.

The NDP has gotten to the bottom of every one of the Liberal scandals. We were not able to get to the bottom of Conservative scandals because, each and every time, showing complete contempt for democratic processes, for any sort of transparency at all, the Harper government shut it down.

To clarify, because this member knows full well and he needs to come clean with Canadians, the Harper government was found in contempt by the Parliament and he has to admit it.

Will he admit the contempt charge that was adjudicated and resolved here on the floor of the House of Commons?

[Privilege, December 12th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the member was knowingly misleading the House. He said that there was no contempt—

[Committees of the House, December 12th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, on this important motion governing the gold diggers clause, which has disrespected so many of Canada's veterans and their spouses, we would ask for a recorded vote.

[Privilege, December 12th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP also reserves the right to intervene, but I am rising to respond to what was a frivolous question of privilege raised by the Conservative member for Thornhill a few days ago.

I wanted to start by referencing the fact that, when we look at prima facie cases of privilege on obstruction, in every case that has been adjudicated by the House, the question of privilege was raised the same day or the subsequent day. I am thinking of the member for Milton in 2017, the member for Toronto—Danforth in 2015, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley in 2015, the member for Acadie—Bathurst in 2014, the member for Winnipeg Centre in 2012, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in 2011 and the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord in 2004.

In the case of the frivolous question of privilege from the member for Thornhill, she waited four days before she rose in the House. She rose in the House to obstruct the member for Burnaby South, who was speaking on the NDP opposition day.

The reality is that this type of weaponizing of a question of privilege is yet another example of how Conservatives are disregarding the Standing Orders we have that clearly govern our activities. The member for Thornhill added to the frivolous question of privilege by raising a whole range of false allegations that have subsequently been repudiated by the member for Edmonton Strathcona, the member for Winnipeg Centre and the member for Hamilton Centre. Given this fact, I think it is very clear that this was a weaponizing of a question of privilege and, yet again, a frivolous question of privilege from the member for Thornhill. She has certainly done this before.

I wanted to raise two citations from our procedural bible, which is what governs our activities in the House. First, I will reference Speaker Milliken's decision from November 5, 2009. At that time, Speaker Milliken had occasion to rule on a strikingly similar incident and referenced a number of other incidents where there were false allegations of a member having knowledge of or being complicit in a disturbance in the galleries. In all of those cases, Speaker Milliken promptly ruled that it was not a question of privilege. This is another example of that. In the case of the member for Thornhill, the fact that she sat on it for four days very clearly shows that it was not a question of privilege that is bona fide.

The member for South Shore—St. Margarets rose to say that he had to postpone a meeting, and that was his justification in this hour-long weaponization of a question of privilege, which was solely designed to block the member for Burnaby South from speaking on the NDP opposition day. I wanted to reference, again, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which states the following:

In order to find a prima facie breach of privilege, the Speaker must be satisfied that there is evidence to support the Member’s claim that he or she has been impeded in the performance of his or her parliamentary functions and that the matter is directly related to a proceeding in Parliament.

The fact that a stakeholder postponed a meeting is not directly related to proceedings in Parliament.

I contrast that, of course, with how the Conservatives acted when we had the takeover of downtown Ottawa, with 600 businesses closed, seniors not being able to get access to groceries and people with disabilities not being able to access their medications. It was a complete calamity. We saw businesses that flew a pride flag being vandalized, with windows broken. The Happy Goat Coffee Company on Elgin Street, for example, was vandalized by convoy extremists. Despite the fact that we had to move through every day with the obstruction, intimidation, insults and jeers that were thrown at members of Parliament, at no point did Conservatives want to entertain any sort of question of privilege there.

That is a case where there were severe restrictions on parliamentary activity. The case of the member for Thornhill is simply ludicrous. The fact is that sat on it for four days, and she is trying to weaponize a question of privilege. This should be treated as what it very clearly is. After she threw false allegations, she did not respond in any material, factual way in terms of what actually transpired.

We have heard from the member for Winnipeg Centre, the member for Edmonton Strathcona and the member for Hamilton Centre. Each member has repudiated the false allegations that were made that day.

This weaponizing of a question of privilege, raised days after the fact, was solely intended to block the member for Burnaby South from speaking with respect to the NDP's opposition day. This touched on GST relief and making the relief permanent with respect to essential goods, including home heating, cellphone bills and Internet bills, all of which are family essentials. Conservatives opposed this; however, instead of speaking against it in the House, which would have been the honest and honourable thing to do, Conservatives created obstruction that day. They obstructed the member for Burnaby South's ability to intervene, and they raised a series of speeches, none of which touched on the question of privilege in any meaningful way.

I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this was a frivolous question of privilege. It should not have been entertained in the first place. The false allegations have been completely repudiated. What that would leave you with, Mr. Speaker, is a rejection of the member for Thornhill's raising of a frivolous matter yet again, which she has done to try to weaponize a question of privilege.

I would implore my Conservative colleagues to start respecting the orders and procedures that govern us, as well as the values and traditions that govern us in this place, and to stop making a mockery of the House of Commons.