Matthew Green

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 19th, 2024]

With regard to the implementation and enforcement of the Canada Labour Code’s Workplace Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations, broken down by year and by individual department, agency, Crown corporation, including Canada Post, and federally regulated business: (a) how many notices of occurrence have been reported, and what is the breakdown of the notices by gender, ethnicity, and age; (b) how many assurances of compliance have been reported; (c) what is the number and individual value of fines that have been issued by Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) for failure to comply with the Workplace Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations; and (d) what are the criteria used by ESDC to determine when to issue a fine for non-compliance?

[Privilege, November 8th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I rise with a bit of confusion. Perhaps the member has a different collective agreement than the rest of us, but did he just state that he gets overtime? If so, how do the rest of us apply for it?

[Labour, November 8th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, with the return of Donald Trump and his reckless administration, Canadian industries and workers are at serious risk of being squeezed out. Now more than ever, we need to fight to protect Canadians and their jobs. Canadians need assurances that their jobs, wages and labour rights will not be sacrificed in any renegotiation.

Will the Liberals do the right thing and reach out to labour leaders on both sides of the border to stand up to Trump and defend the interests of Canadian workers?

[Committees of the House, November 7th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member for Waterloo entered this place, while inappropriately dressed, just to heckle me. If they want to come in and participate in the debate—

[Committees of the House, November 7th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, we are in a filibuster, yet the hon. member, who takes up probably 80% of his caucus's airtime, is engaging in the filibuster. I have heard the member for Waterloo talk about how women in the Liberal caucus cannot be heard. I have a question on principle.

Will the hon. member finally sit down and let other members of the Liberal backbench finally have a chance to engage and speak, so that women in his caucus can be heard?

[Committees of the House, November 7th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, despite all the partisanship in the House, I enjoy being able to find common ground, which is why I particularly enjoyed the comments of my comrade, the member for Calgary Nose Hill, who talked about rent-seeking. The member would know that rent-seeking is the practice of manipulating public policy or economic conditions to produce profit, and we know that comes at the cost of consumers.

I would invite my comrade from Calgary Nose Hill, with great socialist rhetoric, to please further expand on why rent-seeking in a crony capitalist economy only impacts and further harms consumers.

[Labour, November 4th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, this morning, the B.C. Maritime Employers Association imposed a bad-faith lockout on over 700 ILWU Local 514 workers at B.C. ports. This blatant attempt to manipulate the Liberal government into undermining workers' rights is an outrageous assault on free collective bargaining.

Will the Liberal minister categorically reject any intervention that would force these port workers to give up their collective bargaining rights, or will he bow to the employer?

[Committees of the House, October 30th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the only thing more exaggerated than the hon. member for Winnipeg North is the Liberal national housing strategy itself. The Liberals made an announcement of $75 billion that was supposed to go out, of which $12 billion was already spent and $37 billion went nowhere. We know, in this moment, that they like to pretend Canadians have never had it so good, but I know Winnipeg is a lot like Hamilton. Winter is coming. It is going to be very cold in Winnipeg, and there are going to be people on the streets dying.

Will this member finally stand up and just admit that laissez-faire economics, leaving it to the market and dishing money out to private developers, is a failed policy and that this government has a responsibility to do what it did some 50 years ago, which was to be bold and build purpose-built, non-market social housing? Yes or no?

[Committees of the House, October 30th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member, who has done a phenomenal job on this file, as has the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. The Liberals like to pretend that if only there were someone in power who could do something about this. They want to pretend that laissez-faire economics, leaving it to the market, is somehow going to solve this crisis.

However, there was a time in this country when the victory homes project built a million homes for people, for affordability, for soldiers who came back. After World War II, there was a bold initiative to build a million homes, and we are talking about the 1950s and 1960s,

They still have them in Hamilton. In fact, in the neighbourhood where I grew up, that is what we had there. There was a victory homes project that became the CMHC. Somewhere along the line, the CMHC just became this insurance backstop for REITs and big developers.

Could the hon. member speak a little about how, not only is it possible for the federal government to build a million non-market housing units, but it already happened some 50 to 60 years ago, and it needs to happen now?

[Privilege, October 28th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I would say that there are probably a few people in the House who are further away in their politics than myself and the member. However, we do share common ground when it comes to demanding transparency and accountability from this government.

I find it highly suspicious that the member's colleagues would like to rewrite history and pretend that somehow, while we were at committee, I was not holding this government to account. I would like the hon. member to stand up and do the honourable thing and just perhaps reconfirm that, at every instance along the way, the NDP voted for the demand of documents. In fact, I am not sure there has ever been a motion in a committee that I have been at where I have not supported a demand for documents. So, just for the welfare of many of the backbenchers who do not know the file and who are learning it for the first time, could the member please just clarify the facts of the matter?