Matthew Green

[Committees of the House, December 9th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I recognize the hon. member as the former mayor of Huntsville. His party's leader has gone on the record calling mayors incompetent and saying that they are the major roadblock for housing.

Could the hon. member please rise and share whether he agrees that small-town mayors like himself are the problem and that their incompetence led to this housing crisis?

[Business of Supply, December 9th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, last week, the leader of the Conservative Party actually told on himself. He stood up and he called a picket line a rally for striking workers, and yet he cosplays as though he is a working-class hero.

My question to him is quite simple. Is the leader of the official opposition still adamant about turning back our labour laws and making Canada a right-to-work nation, or will he stand with New Democrats and force the Liberals to end the section 107 ministerial directions that undermine charter rights and privileges for unions and workers?

[Privilege, December 9th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to provide additional information to you, as Speaker, on the deliberate matter of privilege that was raised on Friday morning by the Conservative deputy leader, the member for Thornhill.

As the Conservative deputy whip said at the time, “a personal first-hand account is very much part of the information that the Speaker must hear.” Given that I was named by the member for Thornhill, it is only right that I be given the opportunity to respond. The member for Thornhill made a number of wildly misleading accusations of increasing seriousness and severity. She began by saying that the protesters at the Confederation Building lobby on Tuesday morning were organized and supported by me. The accusations grew into talk about NDP-organized protesters.

Her colleague, the member for South Shore—St. Margarets, spoke of NDP complicity and said that the “illegal protest” was assisted by me. In the member for Thornhill's intervention, she stated, in her third paragraph, “The demonstration started around 8:45 a.m. The protesters said they would allow MPs with offices in the building to pass through the crowd”.

I think it important to provide my own account, given that, on personal attacks being made or members' motives being maligned, the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, chapter 13, states:

Remarks which question a Member’s integrity, honesty or character are not in order....

The proceedings of the House are based on a long-standing tradition of respect for the integrity of all Members. Thus, the use of offensive, provocative or threatening language in the House is strictly forbidden. Personal attacks [or] insults...are not in order.

I should share with you that, like all members on the Hill, at 8:45 a.m., I received a situation advisory update on my cellphone, which is customary. That identified a peaceful sit-in at the Confederation Building. That day, in fact, that entire week, we had our constituency assistants from across the country here in Ottawa for training. That is why my staff were with me on that particular day.

A press conference will bear out that I had the role of introducing our Speaker at a press conference shortly after this advisory was sent. At 8:45 a.m., while attending to my responsibilities at the Wellington Building, I did come across an action that was happening, with people in front of the Confederation Building who were demanding for an arms embargo and an end to the Israeli genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

Mr. Speaker, you may know this, and some members may know this, but I would doubt that many Conservatives would know this. As was witnessed last week, the leader of the Conservative Party called a picket line a rally for striking workers. As Canada's only labour party, we have a long-held tradition of not crossing picket lines. We view this action in the lobby of Confederation to be very much in keeping with a picket line.

While the member for Thornhill was correct that this was an action of maybe a hundred, and the member said that it was perhaps 130, people, led by many Jews against genocide, to suggest that this was somehow an NDP-organized action does not just denigrate the spirit of our parliamentary privileges but also takes away the agency of the tens of thousands of progressive Jews against genocide, and the agency of those who took it upon themselves, as referenced by the member for Thornhill, to be present in the lobby. They would allow people to pass, provided that they heard the message.

I rise on this question of privilege because the hypocrisy coming out of the Conservative caucus would be laughable if it were not so offensive. The actions here between January 22 and February 23, 2022, known as the convoy, shut down this entire precinct's operations, not for 45 minutes, as this action did, but for an entire month.

As is tradition with New Democrats attending picket lines, I went inside the Confederation Building. I stood in the corridor of the doorway so as to not cross what I considered an action demanding MPs to hear the voices of the 100-plus progressive Jews against genocide. I would like to report to the House what I did hear. I heard a call for a motion passed sometime back in March on an opposition day for a full embargo, calls for an end to the genocide and a beautiful expression of Judaism with the blowing of the shofar, the recitation of the Torah and the singing of songs in the Jewish tradition that go back to time immemorial in solidarity with basic notions of justice and peace.

Evidence will show that, through a video that was posted, when I arrived, I was confronted by a PPS officer at the door. I immediately identified myself as a member of Parliament. Despite the wildly inaccurate accusations by the member for Thornhill, I actually stated in that video exchange, which you can certainly take into your consideration, that I was there to bear witness. I was there to observe what was happening with those citizens, Jewish people of conscience who want to end the genocide and are calling for the arms embargo. I also witnessed a highly organized liaison process between PPS and the organizers. PPS, I think, given the sheer number of people, accorded itself in a very professional way to negotiate the protesters' peaceful removal and retreat from the Confederation Building, which did happen and was also recorded on video. Their own organizers said that they were slowly going to leave and that they were going to retreat.

It should be noted that, in comparison, if this is what we are doing here today, photos from the convoy include the former Speaker, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle; the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster; the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan; and the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood. In fact, the leader of the official opposition was in a photo with the member for Miramichi—Grand Lake and convoy supporters. This week, we will finally be tabling the final report on the Emergencies Act review, but it was the OPP that compiled a report on February 6, 2022, more than a week after the Conservative-supported convoy demonstrators first arrived in the national capital region, that became evidence to the public inquiry on the Emergencies Act.

The vexatious comments made by the member for Thornhill are trying to impugn the NDP for standing up and bearing witness to what was otherwise a very brief and beautiful act of what, perhaps, could be called civil disobedience there in the lobby, which will be borne out by whatever processes take place. However, a very quickly negotiated retreat happened well before most people would be coming and going from the building. I can say that I quite readily watched PPS escort many MPs in and out of that particular building.

As we can see, the accusations that we somehow organized this protest to intentionally disrupt or obstruct Conservative members from participating in Parliament are completely fabricated and misleading.

However, the Conservatives did not stop there. They could not help themselves from linking this protest to “mobs [that] target Jewish neighbourhoods, firebomb Jewish schools, obstruct synagogues and wreak havoc”. This is a shameful way to characterize Jewish people of this country in their civil disobedience to genocide. To characterize Jewish people in this way, in my estimation, is a form of anti-Semitism, and it is a disgusting allegation to make. To liken a group of Jewish protesters to anti-Semitic mobs is beneath contempt. Linking members of Parliament, by extension, to such disgusting acts itself can be considered a form of a prime facie breach of our privilege.

Those are my remarks. I am glad that I had an opportunity to finally put that on the record and clear the air on this particular matter.

[Business of Supply, December 5th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. leader of the Conservative Party would be laughable if his hypocrisy were not so ridiculous.

He stood up right now and, in his opening remarks, exposed himself. This man has never been to a picket line. He called it a rally for striking workers. The leader fought aggressively against card-check legislation. He was one of the loudest supporters of the anti-union bill, Bill C-377. Also, he is proudly one of the loudest proponents of the U.S. right-to-work legislation.

My question is simple. Despite all of his cosplay, we have seen he cannot even put on a high-vis vest. Has this member ever, once in his life, visited a picket line?

[Committees of the House, December 5th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, speaking about Conservative creep is very timely, because we are in a scenario right now in the House where there are many people within the Conservative caucus who spend a lot of time internationally trying to undermine women's rights not just here in Canada but in fact around the world. They have a hidden agenda. When they were talking about procedural shenanigans in the House, what they failed to mention was that for the last two months we have not had the ability in the House to deliver for Canadians and to debate actual legislation. Instead, we have been listening to Conservative shenanigans.

Can the hon. member please expand on how, over the last two months, we had an opportunity and we lost the opportunity? What things would she like to speak about now?

[Committees of the House, December 5th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her fine speech. It was very powerful.

The hon. member always rises to bring nuance and a fighting spirit for women, for feminist issues. One member spoke of procedure. I share his disappointment, but my disappointment is in the two months that have been lost in the House to procedural shenanigans from the Conservatives, who have shut down really valuable opportunities for us to debate issues such as this. As such, out of procedural fairness, when we had the opportunity to present this, I was surprised that the Bloc voted against it. Had we not been allowed to continue this debate, one of its strongest and most powerful feminist voices would not have had the opportunity to rise and present on this speech.

We are in this debate; while they voted against it, we are still here speaking. What is before us is the threat that we saw down in the States, with project 2025, as well as all this religious fanatic extremism around women's reproductive autonomy. Given that, can the hon. member rise again and just share why this debate is important, even if the Bloc does not necessarily agree that it is important to have right now?

[Committees of the House, December 5th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, members would know, from looking down south, the pernicious ways in which policy is cooked up by fanatics, right-wing extremists, policy lapdogs for people like Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller under the auspices of project 2025. We know that those same policy extremists advise the Conservative Party of Canada on its policy.

Could the hon. member perhaps expand on why these back-channel policy extremists could potentially influence the next federal election with these pernicious far-right ideologies?

[Committees of the House, December 2nd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I do appreciate that. If they are going to keep standing up to interrupt the member, I would at least ask that they cite the point of order they are raising and apply relevance to their point of order.

[Labour, November 29th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, the government has once again allowed its Crown corporation to walk all over workers. Not only did Canada Post illegally lay off striking workers; it also cut off medical benefits for people like Marc Caron, who has cancer and now has to pay thousands of dollars for medication. This is despicable. It is intimidation and it is a violation of workers' fundamental right to strike.

What does the minister have to say to Marc Caron and the thousands of workers who have been abused by Canada Post and the Liberal government?

[International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, November 29th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, today, November 29, marks the UN International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, so I offer to the House, and all Canadians committed to justice and peace, the following reflection:

Every bombed village is my hometown,
And every dead child is my child.
Every grieving mother is my mother.
Every crying father is my father.
Every home turned to rubble
is the home I grew up in.
Every brother carrying the remains
of his brother across borders
is my brother.
Every sister waiting for a sister
who will never come home
is my sister.
Every one of these people are ours,
Just like we are theirs.
We belong to them
and they belong to us.

Stop the genocide. Long live Palestine. Long live Gaza.