Debates of Oct. 27th, 2025

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am a proud colleague of the hon. member for Calgary Crowfoot. He serves his constituents incredibly well, including two retired people in the northwest of Calgary, and I am grateful for his service and hard work.

The list of Liberal transgressions and corruption is taller than I am. I am not particularly tall in stature, but it is longer than my leg, longer than height that I possess of five feet, six inches, and it is longer than the The Iliad. We could talk for a long time about Liberal corruption. Conservatives are perpetually elected to restore trust in government and provide transparency and integrity. That is what we will do when we win the next election.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate this motion. I will say from the outset that I support the motion and the amendment. I have some history with these matters: I chaired the ethics committee and spent time off and on that committee over the last three Parliaments.

It is a core function of committee to review legislation. Earlier in debate, the member for Winnipeg North made a weird comment suggesting that there is a matter of hypocrisy with Conservatives who supported the Federal Accountability Act in the 41st Parliament who are now concerned about its shortcomings. It is a core function of Parliament and of committees to review laws. This law was up for review, no matter what the circumstances, so I am going to point that out from the outset. There is nothing inconsistent about Conservatives wanting to review a law that is up for review and bring the lens of current problems that have been identified throughout the years to its study. I support the motion and the work the committee is undertaking now.

As my friend from Calgary Heritage talked about in his speech, there were many cases of the Conflict of Interest Act being breeched by the Liberal government in the 42nd Parliament and the 43rd Parliament. All the way through, it breeched the act. We had the former Prime Minister's acceptance of a vacation, which has been spoken of, and SNC-Lavalin. That episode is a particularly troubling one in that we had interference in the prosecution of a corrupt business being influenced by the former prime minister and the then clerk of the privy council. It was shameful.

The penchant of the Liberal government for trying to get around or ignoring the rules is troubling. We had Bill Morneau and the episode of his forgotten villa in France. The ethics commissioner of the day remarked on loopholes that needed to be repaired in the act, and the government failed to bring forward changes to the law then. That was some time ago. It was 2017, I think.

Later, in the 43rd Parliament, we again saw Bill Morneau in a conflict of interest scandal. He would have it now that he left as finance minister because he could not stand the fiscal imprudence he was being forced to undertake on behalf of the former prime minister, forgetting that he actually resigned in disgrace over his role in the WE Charity scandal.

It is against this backdrop that we have today's motion, which I hope that parliamentarians of all political stripes will support, both the concurrence motion for the report delivered by the ethics committee chair and the amendment moved today.

We have to evolve and make sure that our laws evolve to meet the challenges of the present and the future as best we can. We have had a lot of talk about the Prime Minister's blind trust. I remember a former prime minister and opposition leader Joe Clark, who, under the prime ministership of Paul Martin, called it “a Venetian blind trust” because the concern was that someone could see through and know what assets are there. A blind trust does not work as a protection against conflicts of interest if the subject knows what is in the trust.

That takes us to the current Prime Minister, who has, as has been pointed out by other members today, the potential of carried interest, bonuses and perhaps options. There is the prospect of the Prime Minister's financial interest's being tied up in companies that he knows or can presume are in his blind trust because they are not liquid. It is not a matter of selling everything and having a manager manage funds that one would have no idea of in terms of what is there. That is not the case presently with the Prime Minister, or certainly does not appear to be the case, and that is why there is the need for the study and to hear from specific witnesses at the ethics committee.

We did not really get off to a good start with the Prime Minister. There has been a lot of talk about how he delayed disclosing his financial interests until absolutely required under the act, having already become Prime Minister. It actually goes back quite a bit further than even before he became the leader of the Liberal Party.

He was named economic adviser to the leader of the Liberal Party; the Liberals did not say “to the prime minister”. A few people noticed right away. They wondered why the Liberals were trying to split hairs between “the prime minister” and “the leader of the Liberal Party”, who were, of course, the same person. Justin Trudeau was the leader of the Liberal Party, and he was the prime minister. The legal hair they were trying to split was that, at the time, the now Prime Minister, as the then adviser, would have been required to comply with the Conflict of Interest Act if he were an adviser to the prime minister. If he were adviser to the leader of the Liberal Party, the Liberals would avoid this disclosure.

This goes back many months, before the Prime Minister became a leadership candidate, but it is material to the debate because one of the things that happened early on, when the Prime Minister had the advisory role, was that the Liberals made a government decision to increase the mortgage insurance ceiling limit on insured mortgages. This created a business opportunity of course for mortgage insurers. One is a Crown corporation, and there are two private ones. One of them is called Sagen, and guess who owns and controls Sagen? It is none other than Brookfield. We saw this happen, and we saw a share price bump immediately after the announcement with Sagen.

Canadians are left to wonder. What are the disclosures? What are the relationships? Was the Prime Minister a part of the decision? Would he have had to recuse if he had actually been listed as the prime minister's adviser rather than as the Liberal leader's adviser? This is not to say that the Prime Minister has acted in his own interest at the expense of the country's interest. The point is the appearance. Canadians want to know and to ensure that the appearance of a conflict does not exist. This is very important to Canadians.

The member for Winnipeg North, in his comments to the previous speaker, talked about all the other business that could be conducted today, and he accused the opposition of a filibuster. His own party was filibustering Bill C-4 at committee last week. As for the bill that we would have been debating, the Liberals had the entire last Parliament to pass it. They failed to manage their legislative calendar then, so I think one could hardly say that it was a burning priority of the government.

We have to at some point debate some of the committee motions. It is important that each member be given the opportunity to weigh in on this with their vote. Yes, today is the day. We are going to have an ethics concurrence report debate and have this important amendment so the ethics committee can call the witnesses that Canadians need to hear from at that parliamentary committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is really important to recognize that there are many different opportunities to have the type of debate the Bloc and Conservatives, working together, want to have today, at a significant cost.

We could be talking about the importance of bail reform for Canadians. We could be talking about border security for Canadians. We could be talking about the citizenship bill, which a superior court has mandated we have to pass by November 20. This is let alone that we have the budget on November 4.

Why is the Conservative Party consistently putting party interests ahead of the interests of Canadians, the people we serve?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the member is not implying that having an ethical government is not in the interests of the Liberal Party. I think that is what I just heard him say, that by having this debate about the Conflict of Interest Act, we are acting only in the interests of the Conservative Party. I would hope that all parties want a regime where the appearance of conflict of interest does not happen.

The member said there are many opportunities for these kinds of debates, and he is right. Today is that opportunity. If the Liberals wanted to get Bill C-3 passed more quickly, they should have managed their calendar better in both this Parliament and the last Parliament.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we did a lot of work during the previous Parliament on the issue of Chinese foreign interference. We debated that a lot.

Today, we heard from a witness, an investigative journalist, who came to tell us about Brookfield's various ties to China back when the Prime Minister was the head of that firm.

Does my colleague find that troubling?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yes I do. I did not see and have not read the testimony from committee, but what the member is reporting to the House is troubling indeed and material to the debate we are having.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of noise coming from the other side of the chamber about whether this debate on ethics is ethical and whether it is blockading the priorities of Canadians being discussed in this place. I think my colleague has answered that question very well. I wonder if he would like to comment on whether it was ethical for the Liberal government to prorogue Parliament and have the least number of sitting days this year since the 1930s, if I understand the math correctly, in order to put the priorities of the Liberal Party and its political health first instead of the needs of Canadians.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, over the years, I have become quite used to this. This is typical and happens over and over again. The Liberal government fails to pass laws. The Liberals table laws, fail to move them, delay and dither, waste time, prorogue in this case, and then blame the opposition that they cannot get their agenda through the House.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is beyond me. I have put many challenges to the members opposite, but never have they taken me up on the issue of their filibusters, their waste of time or the disgrace in which they often handle the affairs of this chamber. Not one has actually taken me up on the debate.

Let me put this challenge to the member. Will he come to Winnipeg, or I can to his riding, to any university where the two of us can have a debate on how destructive the Conservative Party is? He can provide the counter-argument. I would welcome that debate. Of course, he might say yes here, but I assure members that like every other Conservative, he will not follow up because he knows they are wrong on this issue.

Will he take the challenge?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are plenty of volunteers, it would seem, for that debate. Maybe it will happen someday.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Brandon—Souris.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member for Winnipeg North inviting my colleagues to join us in friendly Manitoba. I look forward to that debate taking place on a university campus. Maybe they will come out to Brandon, to my constituency. It would be good to get a few Winnipeg Liberals outside the Perimeter Highway every once in a while to understand the needs of rural Manitobans. I would be glad to take the member back to my alumni university and have him listen to some of the constituents out there, who I am proud to represent, and the challenges they find not just with the Liberal Party's conduct overall, but also particularly with respect to ethics.

It is in fact shocking that the entire argument from the Liberals today about this report and the subsequent amendment coming from the ethics committee is that they want to talk about the fact that this is not a priority for Canadians. I am shocked. I heard a lot about the Liberal ethical challenges on the doorsteps of Brandon—Souris during the last campaign. I am surprised the member for Winnipeg North did not. Perhaps I need to do some doorknocking in his constituency as well, just to remind them of the exact record of the Liberal government.

I would like to note, before I get started, that I plan to split my time with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. I understand the members opposite will be very excited to hear from him, particularly given the new situation and the agreement we just came to.

We talk about a lack of accountability and credibility. I asked the member for Winnipeg North this question earlier. I am still struck by the fact that his only response to me, perhaps suggesting the Liberals have a credibility issue on these topics, is to go back and talk about things that happened 20 years ago. Maybe he is accurate on that, maybe he is not, but that is the big comeback, that the bar is set at a certain level so it is fine if we are just as low. That is not really much reassurance for Canadians who have a deep concern about the significant ethical failings of the Liberal government over the last nine and a half or 10 years. Many of those members are still in the front two or three benches advising the Prime Minister on policy issues, but that he should somehow not be held to a standard, that we should somehow not be improving things in this country is a bit baffling. That is the only argument the Liberals have. I digress, but here we are.

We moved this amendment. I think it is pretty reasonable. The third report is coming from the Standing Committee on Ethics. We are asking for some witnesses to come to have a discussion to better address the concerns posed by the unprecedented extent of the Prime Minister's corporate and shareholding interests “provided that, for the purposes of this order...the following be ordered to appear as witnesses”. I do not think it is really that unreasonable, nor do I think most Canadians would think it is really all that unreasonable, for the Prime Minister's successor, as well as a number of his current staff, to come to explain exactly how this blind trust works and what exactly the implications are for his finances when he makes decisions.

It is not that these people coming to committee would be holding up the work of government. That is a convenient excuse for the Liberals, who have dithered away, as my colleague from Calgary said, the first weeks of this Parliament. We passed Bill C-5 because we agree it is finally time for the Liberals to get something built in this country after 10 years of getting nothing done. Tax cuts are always a good thing, so we voted in favour of that too.

The Liberals looked around like they did not know what to do for the rest of the session, as there was no other legislation ready to go. What were they doing when they prorogued for months at a time to run around and find a new leader to salvage the sinking ship of their political party? They did not think of coming up with any new ideas, other than two Conservative platform ideas, to put into legislation.

We came back here in September, and it is the same story. We have been talking about crime for eight years and the fact the Liberals' bail system has destroyed community safety across the country. It took them another month and a half to get a bill together. Where were they all summer? Now they are going to tell us that we are holding up that debate and holding up getting those bills passed.

Bill C-222 from the member for Oxford has been on the books for a month. The government could have passed it already. The bill could be over in the other place. It might have even received royal assent by now if the Liberals were actually serious about getting something done with respect to crime. It is baffling to the vast majority of Canadians, and certainly the ones I represent, that the Liberals' whole argument is “Oh my gosh, the Conservatives are really holding stuff up.” No, there was legislation on the books regarding these issues, and the Liberals did not pass it. In fact they did not prioritize it, and they voted against a motion that would have expedited the passage of it.

Now we want to talk about ethics, because there is potentially the most conflicted Prime Minister in Canadian history sitting in office. Maybe he is and maybe he is not. We would like to have a discussion about it, and the Liberals are going to tell Canadians that it is a waste of time. I do not know. I guess we will go to the doors sooner rather than later and have that discussion with Canadian voters, and I am curious to hear. I am not sure that the feedback is going to be quite what the Liberals think it is going to be, despite their set talking point.

I am not sure whether the individuals listed in the proposed amendment to the motion have already texted the Liberal MPs, saying they do not want to come to the committee and asking them to say whatever they can to make their appearance not happen, or whether this is just standard operating procedure for the Liberals.

I pointed out in a question earlier that the members opposite stood up for years, debate after debate, and defended Justin Trudeau, saying there was nothing to see on the WE scandal, that he had done nothing wrong. They were shelling out contracts to WE. They hired the prime minister's family members so they could make some money. The Liberals said there was nothing to see, until of course it all came to light that the Liberals had actually done something wrong, and then they were pretty quiet about it.

Then we got into the Aga Khan's island, and there was nothing to see here; the prime minister was a wonderful guy with nice hair, and there was nothing wrong. That was until it came out that he actually should not have accepted a vacation worth several hundreds of thousand of dollars, on a private island, from a family friend who wanted stuff from the government. Then the Liberals were pretty quiet about it.

Then we got into SNC-Lavalin and the government's actually interfering in the prosecution of a private corporation in this country, full of Liberal insiders and friends. There was nothing to see here; the prime minister had done absolutely nothing wrong, but the Liberals fired two of their colleagues over it. Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott got turfed; they bit the dust for Liberal defence mechanisms to defend the prime minister and his office. Then of course it came out that the Liberals had breached ethical activity in those instances.

We want to know this: Is this now the Liberals' falling into the same old habits of defending the Prime Minister, obfuscating the picture and trying to hide as much as possible, or does the new Prime Minister, the member for Nepean, actually have nothing to hide? Canadians deserve clarity on that, and it is not an unreasonable ask for Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois, or anybody else in this country, to be making.

The Liberals can continue to stand up and say this is a total waste of time, but it will reflect poorly on them in the future, just as their defence of their actions in the WE scandal, in the SNC-Lavalin scandal, in the Aga Khan island cover-up, in the green slush fund cover-up and in all of the Liberal cover-ups has reflected badly on them in the days that have followed since they said, “nothing to see here”.

It is a very simple ask from Conservatives. In fact the proposed amended motion actually sets out timelines. If we need to plan the government House business for the Liberals, we have set out the timelines for when this can be done, in the proposed amended motion, so they can plan their legislative agenda accordingly, because, Lord knows, they have not done it yet. There has not been anything from the Liberals. It took them all year to announce a November 4 budget, three-quarters of the way through a fiscal year, so we have set out the timeline for them.

Let us get this through, get the witnesses called to committee and then get on with solving the rest of the Liberal challenges that are facing Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is going to be the next speaker. I look forward to his indicating very clearly that he is going to come visit the beautiful city of Winnipeg. We will make some arrangements at either the University of Winnipeg or the University of Manitoba, maybe get a first-year political studies class or something of that nature, and let us talk about the last six months. I really do look forward to it, I must say.

It is truly amazing. A new member comes in and is giving the Tory lines that come from the back room. The biggest Tory line out there is to assassinate the character of the Prime Minister whenever they get the opportunity, and that is what we have witnessed all afternoon.

The Bloc is working in co-operation with the Conservatives. Yes, they have a majority on the standing committee that deals with ethics, and if it were up to them, that is all they would talk about, because their priority is not Canadians; it is their own political, partisan Conservative interests. The Conservatives have demonstrated that time and time—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I have to give time to the member to respond.

The hon. member for Brandon—Souris.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty rich hearing the member for Winnipeg North talk about backroom lines when he has been coming forward for 10 years straight, no matter which prime minister is in the chair, to defend the government on ethical standards, saying the Liberals have done nothing wrong until it is proven. I did not say anything negative about the current Prime Minister at all. I said he may be in a conflict; he may not be. Let us shine the light of ethical review on that.

By the way, as you talked about putting partisan political interests first, what about when Canada is in a trade crisis and crime crisis and you prorogue Parliament to knife your leader in the back, go find a new one and call an election just to save the sinking ship of your political party instead of putting the needs of Canadians first?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Just as a reminder, comments, even said in a rhetorical sense, should be addressed to the Chair.

The hon. member for Montcalm.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for me, engaging in politics is a noble pursuit. A key pillar of my work in politics is to make politics more ethical.

Does my colleague realize that the other side of the House is setting a trap and trying to reopen the debate by playing petty partisan politics?

Right now, I want to bring the debate back to ethics. Does my colleague agree that the Conflict of Interest Act should be expanded to include the appearance of a conflict of interest?

If one day, in the distant or not-so-distant future, he were to form government, would he be a strong advocate of legislation governing the appearance of a conflict of interest?

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, just to address my Bloc colleague's preamble, I think his intention of wanting to highlight ethics and bring it to a greater forefront in the ongoing discussion in this country is a very admirable goal. I want to commend him on that being part of his commitment to his constituents, and indeed to all Quebeckers and Canadians, when he came to this place.

This is certainly something worth reviewing. I know that our opposition parties are working very closely together as members of the ethics committee. That is important, because as officially recognized parties in this place, we need to work together to hold the government to account. That includes on matters related to ethics.

I certainly think this is worth reviewing by colleagues, and I commend him for bringing it forward.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will make this quick. There is an old proverb saying that a wicked man flees when no one is pursuing him, but the righteous are bold as a lion. Basically, that means if someone has done nothing wrong, what is the reason for holding up this motion? If there is nothing to hide, why are they running? Let us just deal with it.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for a great reminder of an old proverb that should guide all of our work in this place, regardless of which side of the aisle people sit on. It is the exact message of my speech and indeed of our entire party and the opposition parties. If the Prime Minister has nothing to fear, he has nothing to hide.

Let us see whether witnesses will come clean at committee and see if this fund through Brookfield, this blind trust, is actually being managed appropriately without the Prime Minister's decisions and the decisions he and his cabinet are making benefiting him in any way.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not normally plan my date schedule on the floor of the House of Commons, but since the member for Winnipeg North is so eager, this seems the right time to invite all members to join us in Winnipeg during the November break week. I will fly to Winnipeg. Wednesday, November 12 would probably be a good day. It is the day after Remembrance Day, so it is not going to conflict with anything, but students will still be in their classrooms. I will rely on the member to make some of the logistical arrangements on the ground himself, since I am providing the courtesy of flying to his hometown. This will be a great debate in front of students and other members of Parliament, I am sure.

I have been visiting a number of university campuses precisely to ask this question to students: Are they better off or worse off than their parents generation? I know many students I talk to are telling me they are worse off as a result of the failing economic policies of the government. We can talk about economics. We can talk about foreign policy. We can talk about House procedure. I am happy to debate that member anywhere, on anything, anytime, and I think the students of Winnipeg will benefit from that greatly. This will be Wednesday, November 12 in Winnipeg, but it will be the responsibility of the member for Winnipeg North to arrange some of the logistical details and to pick me up at the airport.

On to the subject of this debate, which will maybe be a bit of a prelude to that grand event coming up in a few weeks, we are talking about the Prime Minister’s conflicts of interest. The Prime Minister we have in office at present is the most conflicted prime minister in this country's history. He will have to, or is supposed to, recuse himself from decisions related to more than 100 different companies he has an interest in. This conflict of interest screen will be administered, conveniently, by his chief of staff, as well the Clerk of the Privy Council. The process of a blind trust is that somebody else is making decisions about what is done going forward with those investments, but of course, a person cannot necessarily unknow what they had that was put into that conflict in the first place.

For those watching at home, this is how a conflict of interest screen works. I buy a Dunkin’ Donuts, and then I put it in a blind trust. In my job as a minister, or a prime minister, a decision comes forward with a potential subsidy for Dunkin’ Donuts. It is in a blind trust, but I still know I used to invest in that. This is the problem for the whole architecture of this, frankly. If the Prime Minister made all of these investments, continues to hold the investments, knows he has them, yet is involved in decisions that would materially benefit him, even though he cannot control further decisions made with those companies, that still raises some major questions.

It is important to analyze the Prime Minister's own words and his own philosophy as it relates to relationships between corporations and government. I would encourage Canadians to read his book Value(s) because I think it is quite revealing about the Prime Minister’s approach to things. It is revealing in that he very much believes in this kind of stakeholder capitalist, elite capitalist model of decision-making, which is not free markets, but rather, it is elite business leaders and elite politicians getting together to make decisions, to pick winners and losers, to decide what is going to go forward and what is not going to go forward.

We see the Prime Minister leaning into this elite capitalism, elite corporatism philosophy with some of the proposals he has put forward, which is, on the one hand, more government involvement and control in the market, and, on the other hand, simultaneously, government abridging processes for favoured companies. With Bill C-5, the government did not choose to reform the assessment process. Instead, it said it is going to create an opportunity to fully abridge that process for certain favoured companies or favoured projects.

What we see developing with the Prime Minister is the implementation of his elite corporatist agenda. It is the idea that large businesses and politicians at the elite level come together to say what they like and do not like and what they think should and should not happen, and then they provide a red carpet for favoured projects or subsidies for favoured projects or approaches, leaving in place all the existing roadblocks for other kinds of businesses and those who are not as well connected or part of the elite corporate circle involved in making these decisions.

To a lot of people, the language used in the Prime Minister's book Values, such as elite corporatism or stakeholder capitalism, whatever one calls it, sounds nice in a sense because the implication is that people will be coming together and discussing the common good. However, in practice, what it ends up being is a small circle of elite and powerful people coming together and theorizing about what the common good is, while doing a lot of things that are particularly in their own interest.

In opposition to that approach, the Conservatives believe in genuinely free markets and open and transparent democratic decision-making where, yes, we deliberate about the common good, but where all of society, a much broader range of individuals, is able to participate in discussions and decisions about the common good and where economic activity is driven by creative competition in which all businesses can take part, not in which there are a small number of favoured elites.

There is an elite corporatist philosophy coming from the Prime Minister, and it is combined with a personal reality in which he is personally invested in or connected to many of the companies that could play a consequential role in benefiting from the corporate-government relationship the Prime Minister has advocated for. This is a big problem, and I think we are going to see the implications of it going forward from a Prime Minister who believes in elite corporatist decision-making and who is connected to and invested in many of the corporations that could well benefit from that process.

If we want to talk about what is aligned with our values and what is going to advance the common good, I note we have a jobs crisis right now in this country, and we are seeing more decisions that lead companies to move jobs out of the country. These are companies like Stellantis, which received significant government subsidies and chose to move jobs out of the country.

We sadly have a Prime Minister who led by example. Brookfield's corporate headquarters was moved out of the country while he was running the show. We have a well-connected Prime Minister coming from that world, and he paved the way to moving jobs out of this country. It goes to show that elite corporatist decision-making very often does not align with the interests of workers and Canadian families, and that the kind of model he advocates in his book is not one that aligns with anything many Canadians would like to see.

I will sit down and invite the member for Winnipeg North to respond.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I will definitely work with the member to get something set up at one of the two universities in Winnipeg. I very much appreciate it and look forward to it. I will pick the member up at the airport so we can get to the right venue.

As for the question I have for him, what about Bill C-3, the budget, the border control bill and bail legislation? Does the Conservative Party see all of these things as important issues that need—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I would like a very brief response by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned some important issues. Of course, if the Liberals were serious about getting real bail reform through this House, they would have supported our motion, which advanced the jail not bail legislation of the hon. member for Oxford. Sadly, they do not support real bail reform, which is why they did not support our efforts to move it forward. They are the ones obstructing the work that needs to happen.