The House is on summer break, scheduled to return Sept. 15

House of Commons Hansard #14 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was strategies.

Topics

line drawing of robot

This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Albanian Heritage Month Act First reading of Bill C-209. The bill designates November every year as Albanian Heritage Month across Canada to celebrate the contributions and heritage of Albanian Canadians. 100 words.

Opposition Motion—GC Strategies Inc. Members debate the Auditor General's report finding GC Strategies was paid over $64 million with insufficient proof of work, particularly for the ArriveCAN app. A Conservative motion calls for the government to recover taxpayers' money within 100 days and impose a lifetime contracting ban on the company and its founders. The Liberal government acknowledges the findings, states it is taking action, including legal proceedings, and notes the AG made no new recommendations. Other parties support accountability and recovery but express skepticism about the timeline and government effectiveness. 57400 words, 7 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.

Statements by Members

Question Period

The Conservatives focus heavily on the ArriveCAN scandal, citing the Auditor General's report and $64 million paid with no evidence of work. They criticize ministers being promoted despite this and demand the money back. They also raise concerns about economic issues like inflation and the lack of a federal budget, government censorship laws, and foreign ship contracts.
The Liberals address the Air India crash and heavily focus on government procurement integrity, detailing actions against GC Strategies like legal action and barring future contracts. They emphasize accelerating economic growth, removing interprovincial trade barriers through the "one Canadian economy" act, fighting US tariffs, and supporting Canadians via tax cuts and social programs. They also mention national security and public safety.
The Bloc criticizes the Bill C-5 gag order and its impact on Quebec's jurisdiction. They accuse Quebec Liberals of stealing $814 million from Quebeckers on the carbon tax. They also condemn G7 invitations to human rights abusers.
The NDP criticize deepening military integration with the US on missile defence and condemn Bill C-5 for violating obligations and removing protections.

Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates (A), 2025-26 Members debate the government's main estimates, questioning the President of the Treasury Board on planned spending. Topics include the national debt, deficit, consultant spending (particularly on ArriveCAN), public service growth, housing initiatives, national defence, indigenous services, and social programs. The Minister highlights priority investments and efforts to manage spending, often referring to the estimates document. 13800 words, 2 hours.

Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Opposition Motion—GC Strategies Inc.Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, I see it as absolutely on topic, because we are talking about the way the Conservative Party today is litigating its argument on the opposition day, and it is suggesting things that the government should do that do not follow judicial process. I make the natural step to say I have seen over the last two or three years a slipping of that foundational principle by Conservative members of Parliament in understanding the rule of law in this country and how parliamentarians ought to be making sure that we follow it.

Now, my hon. colleague from Calgary Centre, for whom I have great respect and who does tremendous work on behalf of his constituents, talks about the Conservative position. Mr. Poilievre has pictures standing with the truckers saying, “We think this is great”. There were members of Parliament from the Conservative Party who absolutely were supporting it. Instead of saying that they understood people might be frustrated with the government's position, but respectfully, they had to follow the advice and the authority of legal authorities and police in this country, the Conservatives said, “No, no, let us go out and actually actively promote it”.

That is why small-c conservatives in Kings—Hants and across this country were abandoning the Conservative Party and coming to the Liberal Party. We won. We are on this side. We formed government, so at the end of the day, my message to the Conservative Party and my colleagues on that side is that they ought to listen to some of the small-c conservative base, the progressive conservative tradition, and actually make sure that they do not go towards some of the politics that we are seeing elsewhere in the world, which I think are farther and farther right.

We have to maintain the tradition of law and order in this country. The Conservative Party used to stand for that. Sadly, I am not seeing much of it anymore on that side. This is ultimately an opposition day motion around procurement. The government, again, as I have made abundantly clear to my colleagues in this House, is taking the steps that the Auditor General has recommended to a T. We are going through with a legal process to be able to recover the money, what is available and what will be available in that process through GC Strategies and its affiliates.

The government has taken the advice of the independent organization that determines bans on federal contracts. Again, it is seven years. Could it be higher? Certainly it could, and I think members on this side would agree, but again, it is not for the government to say, because there is an independent process on that.

The idea that the Liberal government and the elected officials on this side had anything to do with this is a fallacy. The idea that the government is not taking action to recover the money is a fallacy. The idea that this government does not take this issue seriously and is not actively taking the steps that have been put forth before this House, and before many parliamentary committees, is absolute fallacy. It is not true.

Again, for the integrity of this House, members of Parliament need to make sure that they are cognizant of this when they raise these issues. When we blur these lines, this is where the level of mistrust and hate is fomented, because someone sits at home and listens to Conservative members stand up in this House and talk about Liberal government corruption. It is not true, and that is the problem.

Opposition Motion—GC Strategies Inc.Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Opposition Motion—GC Strategies Inc.Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, of course they are going to heckle from the other side, but they are playing into a dangerous game. They should say that they take notice and are upset about the way the procurement process happened and that they want the government to take more action, but to suggest in any way that the elected officials of this government were involved in this is an absolute problem.

Opposition Motion—GC Strategies Inc.Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Opposition Motion—GC Strategies Inc.Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

This is the problem, Mr. Speaker. They do not like the truth. The truth hurts with regard to what happened three years ago in relation to not following law and order. There are some members on that side, by the way, who come from the public sector prosecution office; they come from law enforcement. That party should absolutely be about those principles. but the Conservatives are falling into this trap.

Again, they could hold the government to account once the allegations were found by the Auditor General about what the political representation was doing, but they should not blur the lines. It is dangerous rhetoric in this country. It is not helpful, and it actually does not even reflect the true reality of what the government is doing to resolve the situation.

I do want to take my time. I want to take the opportunity. This is about procurement. We have a secretary of state now, explicitly for defence procurement. While we are talking about procurement and defence, it is important to recognize what the Prime Minister and this government announced this week, which is a commitment to get to 2% of GDP defence spending, as per NATO guidelines, by the end of this fiscal year, and I think that this is extremely important. I would hope that all members of this House agree that this is good public policy.

We heard that the Bloc, for example, during debate earlier this week, actually supported this concept. The Conservatives have talked about this for a long time. I would like to see a little more enthusiasm from their benches about the fact that this is good public policy because, to be honest, consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments did not take this question seriously enough. Our Prime Minister is taking this question seriously. This government is taking this question seriously.

Here is the thing that is often forgotten. The Conservative Party, when it was leaving office in 2015, had defence spending below 1% of GDP. The Conservative opposition members stand up in this House, and I give them credit because they should be raising issues of the Canadian Armed Forces, as it is important across the board, but they forget that they did not leave the cupboard very full when they left government, did they? Every single year since 2015, the Liberal government has increased defence spending on an actual GDP percentage basis, and now we are going to be able to get to 2%. We should be celebrating that. There may have to be more investment. NATO is now looking at a target of perhaps 3.5% of GDP. This is important, but we do have to get procurement right.

There are lessons to be learned, whether it is with this opposition day motion, about government efficiency and the way government operates and procures. It has to be faster, and it has to be more agile. We have to be able to get results with the way the government is spending. Those things are important. This government is also committed to balancing the operational budget within three years.

We hear the Conservatives stand up and rail on about fiscal discipline. I believe in the importance of that. I am glad that they are raising this and that there is an accountability function. However, what they forget is that they just ran on a platform to have well over $120 billion of deficit spending. Pardon me when I sit here in this House and listen to the Conservatives' narrative talking about government spending and not recognizing that.

Whether it is the Canadian Armed Forces, additional investment in housing or building the major projects that have to get done and catalyzing private investment, we are in a moment when, particularly on the capital side of government investment, we have to continue to invest to drive our economy forward, to reduce our reliance on the United States and to find other trade markets and other economic opportunities. That level of nuance in the debate is never actually highlighted from the opposition benches, and that is what is, in my mind, so frustrating moving forward.

Again, the Secretary of State for Defence Procurement has a really important job, which is to make sure that the investments the government is putting forward result in material difference on the ground. I have a number of Canadian Armed Forces bases in my riding, 14 Wing Greenwood being one that I would certainly like to recognize. I thank the honourable members of the Canadian air force and the Canadian Armed Forces who are located there. They do tremendous work.

We have to be able to scale up. I had the opportunity to talk to the local base commander and the mayor from the municipality of Kings county this week, very briefly, about the way we can work on partnerships to build more housing for the Canadian Armed Forces, but also more housing for the general community in Greenwood and in Kingston. That is extremely important. It matters for the broader community, and it matters for CAF members. The investment that the government is making and committing to this week is going to help support those types of concepts. We also have to make sure that we increase pay to our Canadian Armed Forces members to protect retention and ensure a very strong force moving forward. This is something that all members of Parliament, regardless of partisan affiliation, should be willing to support. It is a crucial moment for the country.

I think I have recognized in my speech that the issues being raised by the opposition are serious and that they require some level of due diligence, which has happened over the course of the entire year, but we have big, major issues before the country that we have to tackle. It is a bit surprising to me that the opposition has used today's opposition motion when the government is in court with GC Strategies, when the government does have a process to try to recoup money from GC Strategies and when there are processes and recommendations being followed from the Auditor General. I listened to many hours of Conservative debate, and none of that is being recognized.

We have major national projects to build in this country. We have a one Canadian economy bill and defence spending. Those are the issues that Canadians want us to be focused on. I would invite the Conservatives to join us on the real issues that matter before us here today.

Opposition Motion—GC Strategies Inc.Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Kings—Hants for an entertaining 20 minutes. I give him points for providing more fiction per minute than even the member for Winnipeg North, but he did it without yelling and screaming.

I could spend 20 minutes on detailing some of these things, but I want to bring to light a few of them before I ask the member a question. One is that the member brought up the difference between the public sector and the government, but we actually heard testimony that the minister of public safety at the time, Marco Mendicino, did interfere with the case after it came to light.

We hear the member saying that it is before the courts, but earlier today one of his colleagues, another parliamentary secretary, stood and said that it is not before the courts, because they have to discuss this with their lawyers first.

Why did the government continue to grant contracts to GC Strategies for a full two years after the corruption came to light?

Opposition Motion—GC Strategies Inc.Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, while I respect my colleague from Edmonton West and I am glad he enjoyed the remarks today, I wish he did not feel as though they were all fiction. Again, that plays into a narrative that I do not think is particularly helpful on that side of the way.

What is very clear is that the government has a legal process to recover the money that the Conservatives are saying needs to be recovered, and this side of the House agrees. There has been a process all the way through. The member made the assertion that Liberal ministers were involved in that, which is problematic. This was an issue at the core of the federal public service with the way in which procurement was handled. It happened under the Harper government, which the member was part of, and it happened over the last number of years. It should never have happened. We agree with that.

As soon as the allegation came to light, the government took actions for recourse and a reset to make sure the issues were addressed, as per the recommendations of the Auditor General. That is the key element that people need to take away from this.

Opposition Motion—GC Strategies Inc.Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's comments regarding the Conservative agenda. The election was on April 28. Not once did I hear, at the thousands of doors that I knocked on, anyone raise this issue. However, I heard continuously, every day, about the issue of the Canadian economy, Donald Trump, tariffs and trade. People wanted to see that issue dealt with. Our Prime Minister actually made very strong statements in regard to it, and we are focused on the issue. This is a priority issue that is coming out of the election.

Can the member point out or emphasize the contrast between the Prime Minister of Canada and what we are focused on, compared to Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives, which is really highlighted by today's—

Opposition Motion—GC Strategies Inc.Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister.

Opposition Motion—GC Strategies Inc.Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Winnipeg North really got to the essence of what I was talking about.

The issue around procurement and improving processes is an important one, but the opposition day motion today blurs the lines in terms of the way the Conservatives have litigated this argument, which does not show any level of nuance. It does not recognize that the government has taken steps.

I think that if the member for Winnipeg North, and many members of Parliament, went back and surveyed constituents right now, the issue would be around the Canada-U.S. relationship. It is around Canada's economy. It is about how we build one Canadian economy and get major projects built. That is the focus of this government. This government is working quickly to make the changes that Canadians want to see. The Prime Minister has shown tremendous leadership. We have an opportunity to continue that on the G7 stage next week.

We are going to continue to stay focused on the things Canadians care about.

Opposition Motion—GC Strategies Inc.Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Jacob Mantle Conservative York—Durham, ON

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the parliamentary secretary's speech. The issue I want to raise here is his characterization of the Auditor General's lack of any further recommendations. I heard the parliamentary secretary say that, as well as other Liberal members. They seem to be suggesting that because there are no further recommendations, everything is fine. I think that is a non sequitur. It does not follow that because the Auditor General did not make any further recommendations, everything is fine. In fact, the complete opposite is the case. If members had listened to the Auditor General's press conference, she said that an audit is supposed to find only a few errors. In fact, she said that in all of the contracts she looked at, there were errors. She could not make recommendations here because there were errors everywhere.

If we want to build things in this country, we have to get procurement right. If the government is doing all these things to go after GC Strategies, will it do just one more thing, which is agree with the House and pass our motion?

Opposition Motion—GC Strategies Inc.Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member picked up on a few things. Yes, the government agrees that this was an absolute abuse of the procurement process and that the federal civil servants who were responsible for this did not do their due diligence on behalf of the country.

When this became abundantly clear to this government, per the Auditor General's reports, we worked on every single recommendation. We had representatives from GC Strategies, who were admonished before the bar of this House. There have been parliamentary committees. At every single turn, this government, when it became clear that this was a problem, sought to address it. There is a process under way to legally claim the money that ought to be returned to taxpayers.

The Conservatives are choosing to burn a day on this, instead of talking about other major issues. Procurement does have to be addressed. We are working on that across the board, and that is why we are going to be able to stay focused on the big things in the days ahead.

Opposition Motion—GC Strategies Inc.Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke a lot about the mandate that the Canadian people have given his government. One of the things the Prime Minister ran on was the idea of “elbows up”, fighting back against Donald Trump and the illegal tariffs that he has put on Canada. However, we have now learned that they are texting, they are buddies and they are sending messages back and forth. They are agreeing on some ridiculous Golden Dome that will cost Canadians $61 billion. That does not appear to me to be something that Canadians did in fact vote for. It does not appear to be very “elbows up”, either.

I wonder if the member could talk about the fact that what Canadians voted for is definitely not what they are getting with the Prime Minister and the government.

Opposition Motion—GC Strategies Inc.Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member suggesting that the Prime Minister of this country should not be engaging with the President of the United States? Obviously we take issue with the illegal and unjustified tariffs that have been put on Canadian industry. The Canadian people just elected the Prime Minister. It was a referendum on which party and which leader is best to handle the nuance and the difficulty of this situation on the continental relationship. I find it absolutely unbelievable that the member for Edmonton Strathcona would suggest that the Prime Minister should not be engaging with the U.S. President on the pathway forward.

We are going to be there to protect Canadian jobs and Canadian sectors, and our Prime Minister is going to engage to make sure we can find—

Opposition Motion—GC Strategies Inc.Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater

The hon. chief government whip.

Opposition Motion—GC Strategies Inc.Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to what the parliamentary secretary was talking about earlier, specifically how Conservatives like to take issues like this and try to suggest that there are corrupt politicians at the heart of it. It significantly takes away from the seriousness of the issue.

What I find most alarming is that I have watched Conservatives do this for three years straight, if not longer, thinking that that would be the success for Pierre Poilievre, but it led to nothing. It did not produce the result that the Conservatives wanted, yet they come right back into this House and start up with the exact same games that they left off with in December, as though they have learned nothing.

Opposition Motion—GC Strategies Inc.Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, the chief government whip is correct to highlight that fact. As I said throughout my entire remarks, this was a serious issue, a breach of the way in which the federal public service handled procurement. This was a problematic issue. However, the problem is that when we hear the Conservatives speak, they make it sound as though the elected officials who were in these ministerial portfolios were actively involved. That is a complete fallacy. It is untrue. It is dangerous. When the allegations were raised to the political level through the Auditor General's report, the government took action.

However, this is the stuff that we see clipped on X and on social media. There is no context. Gaslighting is an issue that we hear a lot about on this side, but the Conservatives are the best at it. It is not helpful to democratic processes here in this House.

Opposition Motion—GC Strategies Inc.Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Bloc

Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC

Mr. Speaker, during the 2025 election campaign, the Bloc Québécois proposed reducing spending on the public service and external consultants by $21 million over five years. The Liberal government is also proposing to cut spending on outside consultants, which is a good thing.

However, what we do not understand is that the main estimates provide for an 8% increase in spending, while the supplementary estimates (A) still provide for $9.3 billion in new spending.

Is the government also proposing to cut revenues without introducing a new budget?

Opposition Motion—GC Strategies Inc.Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, the 8% increase in government spending is due to the measures proposed in the motion that we studied and that the hon. member voted in favour of. This motion includes a tax cut, a GST rebate for first-time homebuyers and spending related to the removal of the carbon tax.

We will be tabling a budget in the fall, and it will show the effectiveness of government spending.

Opposition Motion—GC Strategies Inc.Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Ned Kuruc Conservative Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to split my time with the member for St. Albert—Sturgeon River.

In Hamilton, when someone is hired, if they do not do a job, they do not get paid. It is that simple. It is how we were raised, with fairness, accountability and respect for honest, hard-working people. If they do the job, they earn their pay.

Here in Ottawa, the Liberals paid $64 million to GC Strategies, a two-man company that was run in a basement that did not even do the work. It subcontracted everything, and the Auditor General said that in many cases, there was no proof that any work was done at all, just invoices, excuses and a total lack of accountability. No one would get away with that in Hamilton, not a chance, so why should Liberal insiders?

Prime Minister Trudeau and his government were warned, not once but repeatedly, by internal reports and concerned civil servants. Public servants testified they had the power to recover the money. Instead, what did they do? They kept signing contracts. They kept the gravy train running for their friends. These are the same civil servants the member on the other side just blamed.

This is the same GC strategies that is now under RCMP investigation, a company cloaked in secrecy with deep ties to Liberal insiders. It is the same GC strategies whose founder had his house raided by the police. Still, 31 different government departments handed it over $64 million. What was it for?

The Auditor General reviewed a sample of the contracts. What did she find? In nearly half the cases, departments paid GC Strategies without checking if the work was done. In over 80% of the contracts, they could not even prove they got a fair deal. In 46% of the contracts, they did not even prove they received the work before paying the bill.

If someone tried handing out public money with no receipts, no oversight and no proof of work in Hamilton, they would not just be shown the door; they would be dragged into court facing fraud charges, and the community would be demanding answers. Here in Ottawa, they get a handshake, a renewed contract and another cheque with seven figures on it. It is not just negligence; it is institutionalized corruption. The rules are different for Liberal insiders, and Canadians are paying the price.

In my riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, families are doing everything right. They are working overtime and pinching every dollar just trying to stay afloat. Food prices are up, rent is sky high and mortgages are crushing families. Every extra dollar counts. While Hamiltonians are cutting back, the Liberals are writing blank cheques to their buddies. That is not just bad government; it is broken government. It is upside down.

This is not an isolated issue, and it is certainly not a paperwork mistake. It is a pattern. The Prime Minister has built a government where insiders get rich and Canadians get left behind. Remember what he said, that he would spend less, but this year's spending bill is 8% bigger than Trudeau's last one. That is over a half a trillion dollars with no budget and no plan. It is just more money for consultants, to the tune of $26 billion. That is $1,400 from every Canadian household. Where will the money go? It will not go to building homes and hospitals or to defence spending. It will go into padded contracts for Liberal insiders, padded invoices for middlemen and padded bonuses at CMHC, with millions paid and nothing delivered.

Hamilton gets none of that benefit but all of the bill, so when the Liberals tell Canadians to tighten their belts, pay their carbon tax and wait for help, it is an insult. They are not governing; they are cashing in. It is no wonder Canadians are frustrated. They see a government that pushes work and rewards waste. They see a government that lets friends walk away with millions while working people get squeezed.

During the election, I met a woman named Alexa while I was out door knocking in Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. Alexa is a single mother of three young boys and works overtime as a public service worker. She is doing everything right, showing up, working hard and raising her family, but she told me how hard it is becoming just to put food on the table. Living paycheque to paycheque, Alexa said she has had to make impossible choices among rent, groceries and gas. The dream of raising her kids in a good neighbourhood and providing a decent life feels more out of reach every passing month.

We talked about the skyrocketing cost of living, and now a decade of Liberal waste and mismanagement has made things worse. That day, I made a promise, and not just to Alexa, but to every family like hers across Hamilton and across the country. I promised that I would come to Ottawa to fight to make life more affordable, to put money back in their pockets and to stand up to the insiders and the waste so that families like Alexa's are not left behind.

That is who this is about. It is about Alexa. It is about the people doing everything right and getting nothing back. When they see the government hand out $64 million to a company that did not even do the work while they are scraping together dollars for their kids' lunches, it is not just frustrating; it is infuriating. Enough is enough.

Today, the Conservatives are demanding two things. First, we should get taxpayers' money back, $64 million, recovered within 100 days. If Hamilton families have to live on a budget, the government should also. Second, we should ban GC Strategies and its founders from ever getting another federal contract. This includes all of their shell companies, subsidiaries and spinoffs. They cashed in on Canadians; they should not get a second chance.

Let me be clear. This is not about politics. It is about trust. It is about fairness. It is about respecting the people who sent us here to represent them. Right now, that trust is broken. We have a government that paid a company to do work it did not do, a company that is now under RCMP investigation and a company that has been exposed by the Auditor General, and the Liberals want to move on like nothing has happened. We will not let that happen, not on our watch, not in this House. I came to Ottawa to represent Hamilton, and in Hamilton we hold people accountable. We do not tolerate waste, we do not reward failure and we do not let people get rich by ripping off taxpayers.

This motion is simple. It gives the government a clear chance to show Canadians that it is serious about cleaning up the mess: no more talk, no more spin, just action. It should recover the money, ban the contractors and stand up for taxpayers.

If Hamiltonians cannot skip the bill when they do not get service, neither should Liberal insiders. When someone cuts corners, they do not get a raise; they get the door. When government insiders get caught abusing public trust, they should not get a slap on the wrist; they should be banned for life.

Let me remind the House that we have seen this before, with the sponsorship scandal, the WE scandal and the McKinsey contracts. It is always the same. It is about Liberal-connected firms and Liberal insiders, while regular Canadians pay the price. It is the same movie over and over, and Canadians are tired of it. This time we are drawing the line.

To every hard-working Canadian out there, the nurses pulling overtime, the truck drivers paying high fuel costs and the steelworkers putting in double shifts, I want them to know that someone is finally fighting for their dollar. We are here to say we have seen enough waste, enough favours and enough payouts. Let us get taxpayers' money back.

Every member of the House has a choice. They can stand up with Canadians or stand up with consultants; stand up for accountability or stand up for corruption. It is time for action now.

Opposition Motion—GC Strategies Inc.Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, one would think the member opposite was not even listening to the previous speech. He referenced Liberal insiders and friends on several occasions. If we want to talk about misinformation, Mr. Firth received contracts when Stephen Harper was the prime minister.

The member tries to give a false impression that there is some sort of direct link to Liberal insiders receiving money, when in fact it is just not true. Members opposite should know that, but that does not feed into the gaslighting my friend made reference to. He wants to give the false impression that there was something the Government of Canada did wrong or that politicians did wrong.

Does the member have any sense of guilt for trying to advance misinformation and gaslighting—

Opposition Motion—GC Strategies Inc.Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater

The hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

Opposition Motion—GC Strategies Inc.Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Conservative

Ned Kuruc Conservative Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON

Mr. Speaker, do I have any sense of guilt? Hon. members on that side of the House blame Pierre, blame the convoy and blame the Conservatives. They blame everybody but themselves. If they want to say it is a new government, why not start by getting the $64 million back? That is all we are asking for, to get the $64 million back.

Opposition Motion—GC Strategies Inc.Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB

Mr. Speaker, we have heard government members say again and again today that they are not responsible. It is true the Liberal government is not a responsible government, but the buck ultimately stops with ministers in the government. It is called ministerial responsibility. Instead, the Liberals, even though they have been in office for 10 years and millions went out the door to GC Strategies under their watch, throw the public service under the bus and then wash their hands clean.

I would be interested in what the member has to say to that.

Opposition Motion—GC Strategies Inc.Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Ned Kuruc Conservative Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON

It is simple, Mr. Speaker. On this side of the House, we want to get to the bottom of things. We want this scandal investigated from start to finish, and we are simply asking whether the Liberals will get the $64 million of taxpayer money back.