Madam Speaker, the member started her question by indicating that she had listened to the speeches, but I find that hard to believe, because if she had listened to my speech, she would realize how transparently unions already operate in this country.
The act was not meant to promote transparency. Let us be real for a minute here. These acts were meant to crush unions. That is the political ideology on that side of the House. Make no bones about it. It was used as a fundraising mechanism as well. It was not an act about transparency.
That being said, I will debate that member and any member across the floor on which government is more transparent. Our Prime Minister is the reason people in your riding can see your expenses and why they are posted online.
Let us not debate transparency. For nine years the member's government was the most opaque, hidden government in the history of Canada, and they have the audacity to stand in the House today and complain about transparency. Give me a break.