SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House leader of the New Democratic Party Member of the Board of Internal Economy

Peter Julian

  • Member of Parliament
  • House leader of the New Democratic Party Member of the Board of Internal Economy
  • NDP
  • New Westminster—Burnaby
  • British Columbia
  • Voting Attendance: 63%
  • Expenses Last Quarter: $138,331.47

  • Government Page
Context: House Hansard - 321 - May/30/24
Mr. Peter Julian
  • May/30/24 10:04:04 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I was not referring to the member, but I withdraw the comment about his question of privilege. I am not even going to dignify that with a response. I will come back to the member of Parliament for West Nova. What we have here is a sense that the Conservatives are applying a different set of criteria than they were in the other case I had raised in the House. Members will recall that my immediate concern was whether the Liberal Party had actually been provided the authorization and consent for the posting of that partisan post, and it had not. We immediately demanded that the Liberal Party of Canada apologize for doing something that I felt was disrespectful to you, Mr. Speaker, and disrespectful to Parliament. The Liberal Party posted without your authorization and consent. We now have the exact same situation. I believe the member for West Nova. He is an honourable man, as you are, Mr. Speaker. He says the post, with him in his Speaker's robes, was posted without his authorization and consent. He is obviously owed an apology by the riding association, and I hope he will share that formal apology. If it was the Conservative Party that posted it, it should be the Conservative Party apologizing. If it was the riding association posting it without Conservative Party approval, then it should be the riding association fully apologizing. It was not only disrespectful to the member for West Nova, but it was also disrespectful to the speakership and to the House of Commons. These cases are exactly the same. It is exactly the same situation. The difference, of course, is how it was proposed on the floor of the House of Commons. This afternoon, the member for London—Fanshawe rose and said there is a picture of the Deputy Speaker in his Speaker's robes for financing and—
318 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 311 - May/8/24
Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)
  • May/8/24 5:19:49 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, the precedent in the House was established by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle when he was Speaker. It is very clear that for a member of Parliament to viciously attack the Speaker of the House of Commons is a serious transgression of our rules and the precedent that has been set. I certainly want to review the blues from what was just presented. I find the comments, quite frankly, outrageous, and they are not in keeping with the rules of the House of Commons. In the past, when there has been that serious of a transgression, it has been incumbent on the member of Parliament to rise in the House and apologize to the Speaker. That has certainly been the process we have undergone in the past when there have been these kinds of transgressions. Certainly, the members who have been cited could help their situation, because of course they have the option of deleting the social media posts and of apologizing in the House. Of course, the Chair has the ability to ask for those apologies, and I would ask the Speaker to consider that as he is looking at what has been clear precedent set in the House in the past: that one cannot attack or insult the Speaker of the House of Commons, elected by all members of Parliament.
226 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border