Mr. Speaker, this is not my first rodeo, so to speak, in this place, so it is great to have this slot with all the members here. I know my Conservative colleagues in particular enjoy when I get up for debate. They will be champing at the bit to ask questions afterward. I am not our hon. colleague from Winnipeg North, so they have a fresh opportunity to engage with this side, although we do love our hon. colleague from Winnipeg North.
It is a pleasure to join this opposition day debate. Any member who knows me in this House knows that I enjoy the opportunity to litigate the text of motions and the ideas that the opposition puts forward in this place, and I intend to do that this afternoon, even if it is after question period and Statements by Members. I have had the opportunity to review the principal elements of this motion, and I look forward to speaking to those points and to some ancillary points that will be important for all members to think about in the days ahead regarding the way this government is advancing its agenda.
I want to start, from the hop, by talking about the fact that we are in week three of Parliament and this government is moving on significant issues of importance, including having one Canadian economy, defence spending up to 2% of our NATO target, working to make sure big projects get done and engagement on the international stage with the G7. This Parliament and this government are working, and I look forward to my opposition colleagues joining the efforts of what this government is trying to get accomplished. It is clear from public opinion and clear from the election results on April 28 that Canadians like what they are seeing from this Prime Minister, his government and the leadership regarding what we are trying to get accomplished with this new government, moving forward.
The Conservative motion speaks to a company called GC Strategies. This was a two-person firm, an IT contractor. Canadians who have been watching the debate and the way that members have engaged may not recognize that the government, from day one of the Auditor General's report, has wanted to work to implement the what is in the reports.
There was an absolute failure of procurement at the civil service level. It is important to separate those two things, because when we hear the way Conservative members in this place raise this issue, and we agree that it is an important issue to be raised, we hear the suggestion in their language that Liberal ministers themselves were involved in this. No, this was a failure of procurement at the civil service level.
I know there are some new members to this House, particularly on the other side. It is important to separate our Westminster tradition into the elected element of government versus the civil servants who do the work on behalf of government. Yes, there is ministerial accountability, and the ministers of the former Liberal government have engaged and worked to move forward, but at the end of the day, there is a separation. I would caution Conservative colleagues, when they stand in this place, to separate the difference, because they make clips of these things and send them home to their constituents, and Canadians who are not watching closely would be led to believe from the comments of the members on the opposite side that ministers themselves were absolutely involved with what we on the government side suggest was a failure of procurement.
That is a difference. That is about our level of engagement. It is a responsibility of every parliamentarian in this House to show a level of nuance, not to clip things, send them home and suggest that Liberal members or ministers are corrupt. That is dangerous language. That is not the way we should move forward.
After we go to members' statements, I look forward to continuing to litigate this argument because it is important. I look forward to talking about the ways the government is addressing the concerns the opposition is raising and how we will have a process to get the money back for taxpayers.