SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 337 - Sep/17/24

Sep/17/24 10:09:28 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before my colleague rises to speak, I wanted to respond to a question of privilege raised by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle yesterday. Our spot to intervene was reserved by the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, who identified that we would like to reply. I want to say that the matter of privilege follows from a House order made in June to ensure that the documents related to SDTC be compiled and provided to the RCMP to ensure that they have access to all information on this issue. Canadians deserve to know how their tax dollars are spent and, specifically, how those dollars were awarded to SDTC. As I said at the time, New Democrats believe that this is broader than just the SDTC issue. For decades, Liberals and Conservatives have appointed friends to positions of power to be rewarded with taxpayers' dollars. We saw that yesterday at testimony, where both Liberals and Conservatives competed in a challenge over who was more corrupt versus the other. That happened just yesterday, if we want to watch the tapes. It was actually at the industry committee. This is just the latest example. For that reason, we supported the motion in June to order these documents for clarity. In fact, New Democrats have been calling for more information to be released through reform of our system internally. This has yet to be done by either the Liberals or the Conservatives. It is actually borne through legislation of Crown copyright that goes back to 1909 and has yet to be reformed. As outlined by the Conservative House leader, responses to this order have been inconsistent. While we appreciate the unusual nature of this order, the House indeed ordered the documents. As such, it is up to the House to decide whether it is satisfied by the nature of the response. I would be remiss if I did not point out that there is an element of hypocrisy again in this, as the Conservatives were not consistent on this issue when they were in government. In fact, I have sat in this chamber many times when they did not do what they are now requesting. As such, we want to make sure the documents are actually released and are provided to all of Parliament. More importantly, New Democrats support that process because it only sheds light on the hypocrisy of the Conservatives now requesting what they often have denied in their past practices in this chamber.

423 words

Context: House Hansard - 337 - Sep/17/24

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Sep/17/24 10:40:40 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, with respect to affordability, his party brought in the GST. Later, under Stephen Harper, it brought in the HST, bribing other provinces to the tune of $6 billion in historic deficits and borrowing. Maybe my colleague can explain how the HST helps seniors with affordability, because it is a tax that was put on consumers instead of the businesses to which it gave corporate tax cut reductions. Could the party responsible for the GST and HST please explain how that has helped consumers by putting that debt on them versus the companies?

94 words

Context: House Hansard - 337 - Sep/17/24

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Sep/17/24 11:52:47 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the problems we have is the constant outsourcing of communications, studies and consultant groups instead of having those done within the house of the public service. I would like the member's comments with regard to how much outsourcing has been done. It is a significant problem, and if we did those things in-house, we would have more control and, more importantly, accountability.

68 words

Context: House Hansard - 337 - Sep/17/24

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Sep/17/24 11:55:52 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to talk about this issue with regard to the Auditor General of Canada conducting a performance audit. It is ironic that the Conservatives have brought this forward. It was the party that attacked the Auditor General and sought to defund the Auditor General under the Harper regime. I was here during the debates on that. The Conservatives not only did it behind closed doors but also did in here. We can watch the video. We can watch all the different things in the past that took place. They sought to defund the Auditor General and they did that at the expense of Parliament. That was done under Stephen Harper. The Conservatives are asking the Auditor General to do more work and more investigation after they attacked the Auditor General very publicly. On top of that, they cut the budget, defunding the Auditor General. The Conservatives now run back to the Auditor General. I wonder about that in terms of their secret plans that could come forward later on. If they ever were able to get into government again, would they defund the Auditor General even more? Using this as a motion is rather curious. It really comes at the expense of other accountability that took place, because the Conservatives defunded the Auditor General in the past and the Liberals never really restored that. It has been an attack on that house of independence for overseeing Parliament on many other issues that have consequences. The Conservatives are asking the Auditor General to do more work for their political agenda right now, and it is a political agenda with regard to their attack on ArriveCAN. I will get into what they have not talked about in this motion and what they have asked for versus the results that we can get for Canadians. There are a couple things to point out specifically on that. In the motion and in the talking points of the Conservatives, we will never hear them question or raise concerns related to personal privacy, the expenditure of resources and the effects on CBSA officers at all. They call it arrive scam. They have their slogans that they package up into a little box, but they really do not get to some of the things that are germane. When we look at GC Strategies and what it has done with the money it received, there is a very legitimate discussion to be had. How did it get so much money? How was there so little accountability? How did all this happen? At the same time, what is not discussed is why we even outsourced such an important provision that was being sought in the first place? The Harper regime cut the public service and CBSA officers. It cut frontline officers, and it cut off other types of systems in place that dealt with gun smuggling, drug smuggling and so forth. Over $100 million of cuts to our border services took place under the Harper regime. It was one of the first things it did. Then later on in Parliament, they come back and we see an outsourcing by the Liberals, because that is a convenient way to do it for an application that deals with personal privacy and border management, which is significant. I come from a border region, the busiest border in North America, where we need that commerce to run efficiently. During COVID, we had a blockade at the Ambassador Bridge. The Conservatives basically stood by and they denied all the different consequences that took place for the auto industry. They denied the consequences for the tool-and-die industry and mould-making industry. They denied the consequences of people not being able to get to their jobs. They denied the consequences of kids not going to school. They denied the consequences of people, including children, going to their health care appointments, including cancer treatments. They stood down as this illegal blockade took place to the point where we had to put Jersey barriers all along Huron Church Road. Why is that important and germane to this? They have been part of this outsourcing that took place to GC Strategies and others to deal with an application that would have helped us potentially deal with COVID. The problem was that it manifested itself into a blockade and disgruntlement. Now the Conservatives continue to have that disgruntlement with regard to their focusing solely on GC Strategies, something they probably would have employed, or a different strategy organization, themselves because they love outsourcing. The Conservatives love the fact that they cancelled and defunded our in-house capabilities when it came to creating applications and processes related to the border crossing. ArriveCAN was about that. It was an attempt to deal with COVID, the complications of the border and so forth. The Conservatives will not talk about how it really related to the exposure of personal privacy and the inefficiencies that it created for the industry and other economic issues that we had. This motion focuses on the priorities of GC Strategies and the payments of contracts and all those different things that took place. It is important to note that both the Liberals and Conservatives feel differently about how we can deal with these contracts and this information in the future. Had we done that in house, had we had the capability for the public service to do those things, we would have had more control. Let us remember that we have lessons for that, lessons created in the past with the Phoenix system, when we outsourced, again, potential in-house applications that could have been done by public servants even with regard to payment. The government turned the switch on that, despite knowing that it would cause a problem, and it has cost us billions of dollars and has been a scandal. It has caused anguish among the public service and other people who are looking to get a paycheque. That is sad because those things were totally avoidable. One of the things I want to touch on, which is important with regard to this issue and beyond it, is that we can have this on GC Strategies but I am just not convinced, whether it is the Liberals now with their friends in the GC Strategies group or whether it is in the past or later on with the Conservatives and their friends getting these contracts and these types of things, that we have really learned anything that systemically will change what is taking place. That is what we really need, because, if not, we will be spending another day in the House of Commons talking about another strategy, or another scandal or another type of problem related to a practice that functionally we have not changed. One of the things I do want to talk about is the accountability of government information and contracting that could be different, and which is different in other industrialized nations, and we are not even dealing with it. That is Crown copyright. Crown copyright in our country is done differently than in any other place. Crown copyright is the availability to the public of documents, studies and information that is done in house. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives have opposed reforming Crown copyright from the early 1900s. Our law has been in place since 1926, and it is different from that in the United States, the U.K and everybody else across the board. Why is it important? Because if it were done in house, if it were done by the public servants and if it were done by taxpayers, the New Democrats believe that information, those studies and those accountability documents that are being sought after now would be public information. Under the best circumstances, when we contract those information pieces and we get them done, they are very helpful for businesses, academics and a number of different things for our economy and accountability. We would not have to spend time in the House of Commons debating that because it would already be available. That is what the United States does. That is what the Americans have done since the 1800s. However, in Canada, we have a system in place right now that is protected by sensitive so-called information by the government, where people cannot see when the Liberals or Conservatives do those types of studies from by public servants. Why? Because some of that information that the Conservatives and Liberals have done over the past have been polls, research opinions and other types of information to guide their principles and other things. That should have been paid by their political parties but taxpayers have paid for it. If people cannot get their head around why they would, as taxpayers, pay for all those different things and never get access to them, it is because of the power interests that have taken place here. That needs to be changed significantly. If we did this materially and if we did these studies that GC Strategies did, that would be automatically available to the public. Today's discussion to get the documents, to get the contracts that have been through a committee, and it is on the Auditor General now to actually deal with these issues, all would be readily available anyway. How much money does it cost the taxpayers to run Parliamentary committees, run discussion in the chamber, make the Auditor General do something after the Auditor General's budget has been cut in the past and then try to get a document back into our system, to talk about that accountability and complain about it? The Conservatives will use arrive scam and then the Liberals will try to defend it and all those different things, but the solution is right in front of us. Had we actually done that with in-house and Crown copyright, which every other industrialized nation actually has in a different fashion than Canada, it would not even have been a fight. It would have been automatically available. Why is it okay, and I cannot believe the motion does not even talk about this, that we can allow a continuation of a whole bunch of companies, this one being GC Strategies, which appears to be done in somebody's basement, to get millions and millions of dollars on the whim, with the least accountability, and then we do not get that information to the Canadian public? Coming from a border region, I would have been interested, as I am sure our chamber of commerce and others would have, with any real application like this ArriveCAN app, in having the data and information they used to create an application, which was unnecessary and has huge flaws. That is almost beside the point in many respects. We saw that on a regular basis at the border. However, why are we even fighting to get that, when the solution has been in front of us? The reason is because of the continuation of control of public information and the control of the civil servants. There is disenfranchisement of the public, because people cannot get the information on a free and regular basis from GC Strategies, which should have been available from the start. The reason is that it is better to continue with that issue right now. The Conservatives do not put that in the motion here because they are hoping they can get over on that side and get the same access to the public purse strings and public money to do whatever they want on these accountability issues. Then later on it will be up to the opposition or others to expose that. Over the years, I have seen that so many times, especially under the Harper administration. There have been so many different issues with regard to accountability that have never been answered. Sadly, I am looking at the situation back in the time when I sat closer over there, and I sat a couple seats across from the now Prime Minister. They supported Stephen Harper on confidence votes without a single concession from Stephen Harper. Over 100 times, the Liberals agreed with the Conservatives and did not get a single thing for Canadians. That is important, because this motion, which we are going to agree to because it is an improved situation, still would not change the fundamental problem that we have, which is the outsourcing of that accountability and on top of that, ensuring that businesses, the public and others have access to the information before we have to fight for it in the House of Commons. I know the Conservatives do not want to hear that, and that is okay. I can tell members that it is not the norm in other democracies. In fact, the United States fixed part of the problem by not outsourcing some of the material, the studies and so forth, and by setting up its information-sharing system. It goes back to 1895. I know the Conservatives do not want to hear this, but their predecessors, in many respects, actually agreed with me. In Canada, there were attempts in 1981, in 1993 and so forth to try to make some of these changes, but the 1980s seems like a long time ago. People forget that today's Conservatives used to be called the Progressive Conservatives. Then they were taken over by the Canadian Alliance party. An hon. member: Hear, hear! Mr. Brian Masse: Madam Speaker, I just heard a “hear, hear”. If we look behind the veil, we see exactly what I have said. I remember those days. I remember Peter MacKay and David Orchard. I remember all those behind-the-curtain deals that took place as Erin O'Toole and others were running out the door. The Conservatives want everybody to forget about those things, but it is interesting that when I talk about those things here I get heckled with a “hear, hear”. They are happy about those days, because those days are still here. A takeover took place, and that is why they dropped the “Progressive”, I suppose. I do not know. At any rate, it is interesting. This is important, because the motion does not get to the fact that there is still a responsibility thrust upon the Auditor General. It would be interesting to see what the Conservatives would have put in there. They could have put in there that they would reinstate the cuts they made to the Auditor General's office. That would have been helpful. It would have been really good if they said the money they took out of the Auditor General's office under Harper, and was voted on, including by the now leader of the official opposition, who was there at the cabinet table when they decided they were going to attack and defund the Auditor General's office, could specifically be used to go after this issue. They could have done that, which would have been really helpful, because we know the Auditor General is taxed, in many respects, with regard to what has taken place on the Liberal side. As I conclude, I want to focus on this. If we want a real and responsible solution, we will simply make sure our public service is funded properly, that it can do the research and that the research is then open to the public, businesses, employers and so forth so it performs well for our economy with respect to Crown copyright renewal and reform. However, we do not have this. Instead, what we have is a systematic problem of outsourcing continually, not having control and spending lots of money. However, it has gone to the government side in the past, whether Liberal or Conservative. It does not matter whether it is blue, red or whatever; governments will find a way to pass that public money on to their friends. That has been the consistency of what is happening here. It is time to end that consistency with respect to Ottawa and pass it on properly back to the taxpayers to ensure they are not involved in this boondoggle or any other in the future.

2715 words

Context: House Hansard - 337 - Sep/17/24

Mr. Brian Masse

Sep/17/24 12:17:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it was interesting as we all toured throughout Canada for a full year on copyright. I appreciate the member's interventions. It is a highly complicated and tough issue that still resurfaces. He made a good point that there can be innovation on the border. To bring it back to what is really important, that is what the ArriveCAN application was to do: to make things flow better and so forth. ArriveCAN was a problematic application. I want to focus also on making sure we have boots on the ground with regard to the CBSA officers. We are short right now, because of COVID, by over 2,000 to 3,000 officers at the border. Even with an application like ArriveCAN, or a new one, and there has been some advancement on a number of different things, if we don't the right equipment and enough officers then it is a huge problem. A good example we hear about is auto theft. They actually moved the equipment from Windsor to Montreal because they could not, or would not, fix the equipment in Montreal. We have to fund the border properly. We still need boots on the ground, so to speak.

202 words

Context: House Hansard - 337 - Sep/17/24

Mr. Brian Masse

Sep/17/24 12:19:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I remember. I got here when there was the Canadian Alliance party and the Conservative Party. Actually, Joe Clark used to sit close to me. Later on, we saw the Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance party emerge, which had “CCRAP” as its acronym, as we know. That disappeared shortly thereafter, and there were other machinations that took place. I was here. I have a lot of respect for Joe Clark. He was screamed at by the Alliance party at that time. I remember those things very clearly. People can watch the video. He used to have his green folder and would ask the questions. I was really impressed by his stature. To quickly respond to my colleague's question, if we had in-house accountability with documents about Crown copyright reform, we would not even have to try to do motions like this and so forth because they would be available to the public and a part of the process. We would not need procedures here to do it.

172 words

Context: House Hansard - 337 - Sep/17/24

Mr. Brian Masse

Sep/17/24 12:22:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have no idea what that has to do with the motion the Conservatives put forth, but that is not surprising from the member and from the way the members opposite are behaving. I am glad to have the floor. If I had unanimous consent, I could go on longer, because I have, right here, the Harper government's record in scandals. I have the last 10 years of Stephen Harper scandals. I have the Conservative collection of Harper government scandals as well. I have lots here to go on. I want to go specifically to the motion. Here is the Auditor General's office, to cut 60 jobs, a reduced number of audits, thanks to the Conservative government, thanks to Stephen Harper, thanks to their agenda, which they never told the public when they went to the polls. They never told the public they were going to raise retirement from 65 to 67. They never told the public they were going to cut $100 million from border services. They never told my community they were going to close the veterans office and the recruiting office, which they did. They never said any of those things. I would love to have the floor to talk about those things more.

211 words

Context: House Hansard - 337 - Sep/17/24

Mr. Brian Masse

Sep/17/24 12:24:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is exactly it, because if not, we are going to be back here again on a different motion and a different type of scandal and a different problem. That is fixable. That is what we want to do as New Democrats, to fix that systemic problem: Crown copyright reform and also not outsourcing sensitive information that includes our personal and private information and sharing that. That information even goes outside the country through an application done in somebody's basement by somebody known to them on that side, whoever occupies that side, versus in-house with lower cost and higher accountability.

104 words

Context: House Hansard - 337 - Sep/17/24

Mr. Brian Masse

Sep/17/24 12:25:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague knows the border better than anybody else I know in this chamber, having to deal with it from an economic and social perspective, and has shown that on a regular basis. Briefly, he is absolutely correct. What is not talked about enough is the exposure of our personal information that the Conservatives and the Liberals continue to do through this outsourcing that also goes global. We have little control over that. By doing it, they reward friends and there are higher prices, less accountability and more corruption.

93 words

Context: House Hansard - 337 - Sep/17/24

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Sep/17/24 12:28:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will not sit here and be told I am a coward. I think that is unparliamentary and I would ask the member to retract it. I am actually being called a coward in the chamber, when I have fought with my constituents to get representation for Windsor West and say what I feel and they believe in the chamber. I will not be bullied by the member. I will not take it here in the chamber and I will not take it behind closed doors. I am not a coward. I have been accountable. What he is raising is not even germane to the actual motion the Conservatives have put forward. I can tell the member that I am not a coward. If he wants to test that, that is fine here in the chamber, but it is unparliamentary to call any member here in the chamber a coward.

152 words

Context: House Hansard - 337 - Sep/17/24

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Sep/17/24 3:15:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the city of Windsor is tired of being abused by the Liberal government when it comes to the border. A private American billionaire now wants to run hazardous material on the Ambassador Bridge. This is bad for the environment, bad for the economy and an unnecessary risk for public safety. The Liberals tried passing the buck to the province, but Doug Ford does not care. My community deserves answers. It deserves a government that stands up for them, not for the American billionaire who owns the bridge. Will the Liberals stop caving to the billionaires and put an end to this disaster waiting to happen?

107 words

Context: House Hansard - 337 - Sep/17/24

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Sep/17/24 3:41:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my New Democratic colleagues to remember the late Chuck Strahl, whom I served with for several years. Let me begin by extending my deepest condolences to the member for Chilliwack—Hope and also to the family and friends of Chuck Strahl. We thank them for sharing him with this place, with our Canada. We are better for it. Mr. Strahl's legacy is well known. First elected as a member of the Reform Party, Mr. Strahl was also a member of the Canadian Alliance. He was also leader of the Democratic Representative Caucus and then a cabinet minister in the Conservative government of Stephen Harper. Mr. Strahl also served as deputy speaker and chair of the committee of the whole. That is quite a record for political parties. The fact that Mr. Strahl was elected and served under all these political affiliations is a real testament to his effectiveness as a member of Parliament and as a person who made contributions in the chamber every single day. I also wish to point out that during his time as minister of Indian affairs and northern development, he helped negotiate the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement among the first nations, Canada and B.C., which outlines the nation's jurisdiction, doing something that had not been done before. It is important to note that Mr. Strahl served in various cabinet portfolios after he was diagnosed with lung cancer as a result of his exposure to asbestos many years prior. Upon announcing his diagnosis, Mr. Strahl said, “Cancer is a serious disease, but those of us diagnosed with cancer don't want to be rushed off the playing field and sidelined any too soon”, and he did that every day as he worked here. Sadly, he lost his fight with cancer last month, but he is respected in the chamber to this day by all political opponents. He was actually appointed as a Trudeau mentor in 2012 and joined the Trudeau Foundation board of directors in 2014, until stepping down in November of 2016. Let me end by quoting a cabinet colleague of his, someone I also served with, John Baird, who said Strahl was “among the most honourable, decent (and) respectable people I have ever met,” and that his “good nature” and “infectious humour” would be missed. I could not agree more. I thank the Strahl family very much for sharing Chuck with all of us for Canada.

423 words