Brian Masse

[Business of Supply, June 6th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, a good example of how this type of situation would escape the current process the government has decided on is an interesting point the member has talked about before. Annette Verschuren is a good example of receiving all kinds of money from several different projects, and even from SDTC, but what about the managers who got bonuses to give money to projects that were not even recommended for acceptance? Why are we not getting the money back from those people? They got the bonuses through corruption and malfeasance, and at the expense of the workers whom I have been trying to raise as the real victims in the situation.

[Business of Supply, June 6th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, one of the travesties with this situation has been the workers who have been involved. The government funded the agency 100% from public taxpayer federal money, but then it gave the workers no protection, no union and no protection under laws for whistle-blowing. We have had people come forward. They have lost their jobs. They face sexism. They face racism. They face attacks because they come from French Canada. Some have had their names dragged through the mud consistently on this.

My question is about the justice for these workers who came forward, because none of this would have happened. Three investigations have culminated in this.

Will the Conservatives agree to stronger whistle-blower protection and also move some of the workers who are paid 100% federally under the umbrella system, where they get unionization and representation, so they and their families can have the sanctity of telling the truth, when necessary, to protect all Canadians?

[Business of Supply, June 4th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I was here when the member for Carleton was actually on the front bench with Stephen Harper, and I remember their cutting the veterans office in my riding.

It is interesting that one of the things that the Conservatives like to run away from, but is a real fact and truth, is that they were the ones who brought in the GST to this country, which is a consumer tax on citizens. Later on, the member for Carleton also championed and brought in the HST. To bring the HST in, we actually had to borrow money during a deficit, which we are still paying for to this day. Second, the former Conservative government had to provide $6 billion in payoffs to provinces to bring in a new tax for Canadians, including on groceries. How can the Conservatives continue to say that they are supportive of the passing-on of costs to consumers without taking full responsibility themselves?

The Conservatives never did a single thing when competition issues came forth with the bread scandal, letting the CEOs and companies off while Canadians were actually being charged high prices, gouged, for the basic staple of bread. The Conservatives were complicit in working against Canadian consumers. They never did a single thing about that.

The Conservatives have also been opposed to new Competition Act issues that we are finally bringing into place. How can they continue to do that to Canadians?

[Business of Supply, June 4th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the bread-pricing scandal was really an eye-opener, when $6 billion were stolen from Canadians. The Competition Bureau and our powerless laws need to be updated.

At committee, we had the CEOs of all the major grocery stores on the very same day as workers received pandemic pay or hero pay. That type of collusion still exists.

[Business of Supply, June 4th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, one of the most interesting things that took place yesterday on the Hill is that the NDP leader appeared at committee on Competition Act legislation he has tabled that would create greater accountability against corporate greed. He was attacked by the Conservatives, without asking him good questions, and on top of that, the Liberals seemed indifferent to it.

I would ask the member if he could explain the Liberals' position with regard to increasing accountability on the Competition Act and ensuring that Canadians are not going to be gouged because of systemic problems that have been put in place and have been supported by successive Conservative governments and Liberal governments that have left Canada isolated when it comes to protecting consumers.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 3rd, 2024]

With regard to budget 2023 and the government’s action to crack down on junk fees: (a) what are the details of all consultations and meetings with regulatory agencies, provinces and territories on this subject, including the (i) date of the consultation, (ii) agency or officials consulted, (iii) outcomes of the consultation; (b) what indicators and targets does the government use to measure progress on cutting junk fees; and (c) what efforts have been done by the government to (i) set new NSF fee caps, (ii) enhance low-cost accounts, (iii) expand eligibility for no-cost accounts?

[Electoral Participation Act, May 31st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, for those who are watching, you are one of the longest-serving members in the chamber here, so it is good to see you in this role.

To my colleague, the NDP has proposed a change to stop the extra week that would allow this pension issue to rear its head and really distract from some good, necessary electoral reforms. There may be some other potential amendments that would help increase voting; voting numbers have not been as robust as what we would want.

The Liberals cannot get out of their own way. They continue to be the only party that wants to have this pension benefit thing exist. Would my colleague be supporting the NDP amendment to get rid of this entire pension debate, as well as other amendments to increase participation in democracy?

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, in Ontario, the Conservative government under Doug Ford scrapped the cap-and-trade system we had. It cost billions of dollars to get out of the agreement that had been made and that was functioning very strongly. Now we have a carbon tax, rather than that system. Ironically, cap and trade was developed more to tax businesses and the real polluters, versus what we are now stuck with.

What does my colleague think about Doug Ford's putting us in the situation where it cost us billions of dollars to get out of cap and trade, and now putting us in the current situation?

[Privilege, May 28th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives had a Speaker, who is still in the House, who used his office for a video during a nomination meeting in an electoral process and was fined an unprecedented $500. I believe the Conservatives were part of the committee for that, and now they want something different from what was done in the past. That is what this really boils down to.

How can the Conservatives continue to propagate the stance they have when their own former Speaker paid a $500 fine because he used his parliamentary office for a video during an electoral process to support a candidate who is now here? How can they continue this charade?

[Privilege, May 28th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry the member is disappointed with me and my party, but that is okay. We can have that disagreement.

However, it is important to note that while the Speaker may not have done himself any favours, at the same time he has been consistent with the practices done before.

I remember that the Conservatives mailed into my riding. They used to use their mailing privileges called “franking”. Monte Solberg mailed into my riding, saying I was not supporting the RCMP on the day they were burying three RCMP officers in Edmonton. That led to a point of privilege that actually passed and is in the system right now. It stopped the mailings that the Conservatives were doing. I was supposed to get reparations for that, but that never took place because there was no agreement about what those reparations would be. However, we won.

How can we trust the Conservatives' sincerity in this debate when their practices are not consistent with that?