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.

Peter Julian

$568,566.00