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.