Kevin Lamoureux
Winnipeg North, Manitoba · Liberal · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, when we take a look at this particular legislation, or any other piece of legislation or budgetary measures that the government has brought in since the last election, when Canadians elected a new Prime Minister and a new government, we will find that listening to Canadians is the top priority.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want the member to recognize the degree to which the Conservative Party always wants to talk down the economy. It brings me to yesterday, when we found out that the Prime Minister went to the G7 and that 13 new deals were signed off, with countries such as Japan, Italy, Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands and Portugal, fi…”
“Mr. Speaker, since the last election, just over a year ago, when Canadians voted for our current Prime Minister and a new government, we have been listening to the people of Canada. Members will see that listening in every aspect of our legislative agenda and our budgetary measures.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on my friend's comment that we live in the real world. The real world is looking pretty good in terms of where Canada has been since the last federal election. We have a Prime Minister who has been out and about, attracting literally billions of dollars in commitments of investment.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciated to a certain degree the member's comments when he made reference to the issue of the process. However, I would ask him to realize that, over the years, things have changed considerably. We saw time allocation used during Stephen Harper's government a record number of times.”
“Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling a petition from a number of individuals. Actually, over 1,000 people have signed the petition. The petitioners are looking for a sense, from both the provincial Government of Manitoba and Ottawa, of working together to try to come up with a solution to deal with Manitoba's unique situation related to our wo…”
The complete record
Every one of 3,647 lines we hold for Kevin Lamoureux, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 18 of 73.
“Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the comments the member has put on the record with regard to Bill S-3, because it is a very important piece of legislation from a consumer awareness perspective. A member from the Conservative Party highlighted an issue, which I believe was in a CBC report, where an investigation was done and there were some grocery chains with questionable behaviour. Hopefully, we understand and appreciate just how valuable this legislation is when it comes to trade and commerce. Whether it is from a consumer point of view or in terms of broader trade, the tools that are used for weights and measurements are critically important. This is why it is important that we modernize the act. I wonder if the member can provide his thoughts on the importance of the modernization aspect.”
“Let us recognize that if we want to build a strong and healthy country, we have to be able to invest in people and invest in the country. The question—”
“Mr. Speaker, where I agree with the leader of the Conservative Party is that we should look at the contrast. There is a great, big difference. On the one hand, we have a Prime Minister , elected one year ago today, and a government that recognize that in order to grow the economy and to protect our security into the future, we need to invest in Canada. We need to invest in our infrastructure and in our people. From day one, those are the types of actions we have witnessed in the fall budget. We saw it detailed in the spring update that was tabled only an hour ago, full of good news. The Conservative Party has nothing new to add, and that is unfortunate. I think the bar should be set higher for the official opposition, quite frankly.”
“Why will the Conservative Party not recognize it for what it is, a wonderful opportunity to take a step forward in an industry that we need to support? At the very least—”
“Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely silly for the Conservatives to try to portray that this has something to do with insiders. Seriously, we need to take a look at the actions of the government over the last year. What we have witnessed is a clear indication to what degree this Prime Minister and this government are driving to expand Canada's economy. We are talking about an industry, the space industry, and many others that would benefit by the passage of this legislation. The only thing the Conservatives want to look at is any form of character assassination, denying the opportunity for these good-quality jobs and developing and promoting an industry that could contribute billions more and provide thousands more jobs.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives really need to focus on the principle of the legislation. This particular legislation would support an industry that is critical for economic growth and security for Canada. It would have an impact on industries, whether the space industry, our aerospace industry, post-secondary facilities or many other indirect industries. There is great potential for growth. The Conservatives should support the principle and recognize that Canada needs a launch site for satellites. Magellan Aerospace, in Winnipeg, employs hundreds of people work. Magellan has a satellite orbiting the earth today. Does the member recognize the value of the legislation and that it may ultimately pass?”
“Could the member comment on why it is so important that we do move full steam ahead with this industry? It means so much to our nation in many different ways.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would join others in recognizing Mr. Marc Garneau for being an outstanding true Canadian. In fact, it would be nice to have his name associated with Canada's first launch pad. Quite frankly, I look at the legislation as a very important stepping stone for our nation. We talk about building Canada strong for all, and we talk about security, having a launch pad and being able to support industries. The province of Quebec has a dynamic aerospace industry, as Winnipeg does and the province of Ontario does. We have our Canadian Forces. All these industries would benefit immensely. There are tens of thousands of potential jobs on the horizon and contributions to Canada's GDP. The legislation is a very important aspect of the government's agenda.”
“Mr. Speaker, Nova Scotia is a big beneficiary. Indeed, all of Canada is, because expanding our space industry also impacts the Canadian Forces, in particular the aerospace industry, something I have talked a great deal about. Our aerospace industry provides thousands of jobs. I am thinking of the provinces of Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba, all of which have aerospace industry. In fact, Magellan Aerospace in Winnipeg produces satellites. It would be nice to be able to have satellites launched in Nova Scotia. It is a national benefit. This legislation is an important step. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, the legislation speaks for itself in the sense that we recognize the potential to build Canada strong for all by looking at how the space industry, our aerospace industry, our military industrial industries and post-secondary facilities would all, in one way or another, be directly impacted. We have an opportunity here to potentially generate thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in additional GDP contributions over the coming years. What we need is the framework within this legislation. Is the member committed to seeing the principle of the legislation pass through?”
“Mr. Speaker, the government and the Prime Minister have established a fairly ambitious goal. Hopefully, sometime in 2028, we will actually be able to launch something from Canada, which would be a first. Part of that is ensuring that we get this legislation in place. I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts on why this legislation would do a lot of what we have been talking about: securing Canada's future and creating good-quality jobs into the future.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments my colleague has put on the record this afternoon. I really want to amplify that Quebec, Manitoba and Ontario have very strong and healthy aerospace industries. In many ways, Quebec leads space development, and the aerospace industry in particular, and there would be, through the passage of this legislation, the opportunity to expand those critical industries. I wonder if my colleague could provide his perspective, because I know he is very opinionated on the aerospace industry in Quebec, on how that industry would benefit through this legislation.”
“Mr. Speaker, recognizing that now is the time, the government is focused on building Canada strong for all of us in different ways. When we think of securing our future and of the economic potential, the thousands of jobs and the contributions to the GDP, it is not just about the space industry but also involves our aerospace industries and post‑secondary facilities, with both direct and indirect jobs. We are talking about tens of thousands of lives. All of us get impacted by it. The legislation is a critical step in moving forward. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on why it is important that, as a House, we deal with this issue at this time so we can create—”
“Mr. Speaker, I am a bit more encouraged now than I was when the Conservative critic stood up, because the current Conservative seems to be open to the idea that it is a good thing for Canada to have a launch pad. At the end of the day, if we could see the legislation go through the process, it would be a positive step forward. The government has a very ambitious goal. We would like to see something launched as early as 2028. That is doable, but we require the legislation. I am curious to know whether the member opposite agrees that we should try to get something sooner so that we are in a better position—”
“Mr. Speaker, let me use the word “excitement.” There is a great deal of excitement when we have an industry that has so much potential and we bring forward legislation that would have a profoundly positive impact, not only on one industry, but on multiple industries. It has just been pointed out how post-secondary facilities themselves would benefit from this. Canadians as a whole, in terms of the overall growth, would generate contributions to the GDP and improve our conditions. We are talking about thousands of good jobs, plus so many—”
“Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member starts off giving out misinformation. He makes a mockery of the 2%, saying that we have not hit the 2%. Here is a wake-up call for the member opposite: He does not have to believe everything the Conservative back room tells him. We actually hit the 2% months ago. If you get the back room to tell you a bit, what you will find is that we got 2%, the new Prime Minister —”
“Mr. Speaker, I wish I had thought of making the direct link to that in my comments. At the end of the day, and I have said this in the past, Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba have very strong, healthy aerospace industries. One of the reasons is because of postgraduate educational facilities that have so much to contribute. We have some of the smartest intellectual individuals and hard workers who make up our communities, whether in Waterloo, Winnipeg or Montreal and the surrounding areas. There is so much that can be contributed to aerospace and the space agency. That is one of the reasons why it is so important that we get this legislation off the ground.”
“Madam Speaker, the legislation establishes a very solid framework that would enable us to move forward on this file, which I think is absolutely critical. I articulated in my speech why it is so critical that we move forward. Nothing prevents further dialogue from taking place at committee stage. At such a point in time, any amendments would strengthen the legislation and address some of the concerns, I am sure that the government would be, at the very least, open to that. Ultimately, we just want to see the legislation get through the process because we have a very ambitious goal in terms of 2028. It would be nice to see something launched.”
“Madam Speaker, what I would recognize is that Canada is the only G7 country that the member makes reference to that currently does not have its own space launch capabilities. Now we have a Prime Minister who has motivated the government as a whole to recognize the opportunity for us to enter this area. As opposed to being completely fixated on why we should not bring forward the legislation, I would suggest to the Conservative Party that its fixation should be on how we could improve the legislation, recognize that the principle of having the legislation before us today is a very good thing and allow for the legislation to go through a process where the member and the Conservatives would have more input on how it could come back at third reading.”
“Yes, there is no doubt there are going to be questions about the legislation. It is the first of its kind that this government is bringing forward. However, let us not delay, indefinitely, legislation that can actually be a good point forward in developing and getting these types of jobs generated and providing that sense of security to Canadians. A significant percentage of our economy, close to 15% to 20%, goes through satellites. We need to be in the game. What the Prime Minister of Canada , this cabinet and this Liberal caucus are bringing forward would enable Canada to be in the game in a very tangible way. I would hope that all members would support the principle of this legislation.”
“We are using all forms of reaching out, while looking for other countries and wealth generators to invest in Canada. As a government over the last year, we have been exceptionally successful at doing that. However, there are other things that we could be doing. Bill C-28 is one of those other things that we could be advancing to build a stronger and healthier economy, to look at some specific industries, to complement our Canadian Forces, to build our space industry, and to complement and see the growth of our aerospace industry. All three of those would benefit with this legislation passing. My ask to members, in particular within the Conservative Party, is to reflect on the answer that I was provided earlier by the Conservative Party. We should look at it as an opportunity.”
“I was provided with a comment with regard to the U.K. The commercial space launch sector in the U.K. was really launched back in 2018. Today, it is now worth $35 billion and employs 50,000 people. I would suggest that Canada is well-positioned to really grow in that industry. We talk about difficult and challenging times, in good part because of what I classify as the three Ts: Trump, tariffs and trade. I can tell colleagues that we need to be doing what the Prime Minister has been talking about and acting on, in terms of looking for ways to become more independent from an economic point of view. This is an area where we can do that. We have been doing a lot in terms of looking for export opportunities and trade opportunities.”
“(1140) Speaking about Manitoba, there was a time in Manitoba's history when rockets were being launched at significant heights in Churchill, maybe not into orbit, but we were testing rockets in and around the community of Churchill. We have a government, a Prime Minister who says we want to look at ways to build that stronger and healthier economy for all. Well, Churchill could play a role in this, in some form or another into the future. I know the member for Churchill is a very strong and powerful advocate for the community of Churchill, in particular the port of Churchill. There are opportunities to be had by members of Parliament in virtually all regions of the country when we talk about the expansion and the level of expertise, the jobs and the potential that is there. It was interesting.”
“Just over 7,000 Canadians expressed an interest in joining the Canadian Forces. Think of the potential that our military has as we look at expanding the space industry. When we talk about the security of Canadians and the direct and indirect benefits, the Canadian Forces plays an absolutely critical role. That is what this legislation would do. It would further enhance those opportunities. I suspect it is only a question of time before we see more people wanting to explore the space option, the rocket options. We do develop rockets here in Canada. When I toured Magellan Aerospace, they talked about the rocket components to some of their missiles. I suspect it would only take some significant modifications for us to expand upon rocket development here in Canada.”
“We need to think of the commitment the Prime Minister made in the last election, that 2% of our total GDP would go to the Canadian Forces, and we did that. It did not take us a full year. It was literally a number of months that had passed by when we were able to say that we had hit that 2% target. We invested in our military, in both personnel and hardware, from long-overdue pay increases to dealing with the development of equipment that we want to ensure those who serve in the forces are better positioned to utilize on whatever front because of the needs of the Government of Canada. It was just in the last couple of weeks that a record number of Canadians applied to get into the Canadian Forces. I believe the highest number of Canadians applied in over 30 years.”
“There is a very powerful and strong economic argument as to why we should be getting behind this legislation, but there is also another aspect of the legislation that is really important for us to recognize. When we talk about security and independence, we need to think of what we have vested in with respect to our military and the important and vital role that the military would play, both directly and indirectly, in this industry that we would be giving a boost to by bringing forward this legislation in anticipation that it will pass. What does making Canada secure mean? It means making us less reliant on other nations to do the work that is so important, that Canadians recognize and wanted the government to do in the last federal election one year ago. I referred to the military and how that would complement the legislation.”
“When I think of the first-class workers and the good-quality middle-class jobs, I think how Magellan and Winnipeg will benefit because of this legislation. The nice thing is that it is not just Winnipeg. When we think in terms of the Canadian space industry, it is estimated that it could be worth as much as $40 billion, because of this legislation, in the years ahead. (1135) Today, the space industry directly employs in excess of 10,000 Canadians. In terms of the contribution to Canada's GDP, it is already in the billions of dollars. If we think strictly of the space industry and beyond and complement that with our aerospace industry, we are talking about a lot of good-quality jobs.”
“Contrary to the Bloc member, I will not say negative things about the aerospace industry in Quebec. However, Manitoba, Quebec and Ontario have aerospace industries that provide thousands of jobs. In Manitoba directly, it is probably just under 10,000, or right around that mark, and I think it has great potential. I highlighted Magellan Aerospace, which I had the opportunity to tour with ministers, most recently the Minister of Industry . It is an outstanding tour of a first-class, world-class aerospace industry that has developed, and continues to develop, satellites. Magellan has manufactured a satellite that is actually orbiting Earth today. There are hundreds of people who work for Magellan in the city of Winnipeg.”
“However, whether we have a majority or not, I can assure members across the way that, as much as possible, when we see good legislation, we will say, let us get behind it, get it into a committee situation, have that dialogue and see where we can collaborate and whether there are ways in which we can improve the legislation. By all means, let us be open to that, whether it is government legislation or private members' legislation. I think the Prime Minister has been very clear on that particular point. Having said that, which was a little off-topic but I'll get right back to it, let us talk about the industries that could be positively impacted by legislation of this nature. I made reference to an industry that is so important to the province of Manitoba, as it is for Quebec.”
“Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I will get to answering some of the member's questions. The nice thing is that, in listening to the Conservative member's speech, many of the questions he posed could actually be answered in great detail at the committee stage. I look forward to the legislation hitting the committee stage, where those answers will be provided. He might not like the content of the answer, but the government does want to facilitate communication that allows for the passage of this legislation. As I said, it is an ambitious goal that we have, to try to get things in place as early as 2028. I would suggest that we should be thinking about the industries affected. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I was just reminded by one of my friends across the way that we have a majority.”
“Bill C-28 is something that should make all of us, in principle, feel good and want to see it happen. Why not? That is actually not a bad question to pose: Why not? (1130) This morning, I had the opportunity to ask the front person for the Conservative Party on this whole debate a very straightforward question, not once but twice: Do they support the principle? Should Canada's space industry have a launch pad here in Canada? That is the essence of what we are talking about today: the ability to launch, via rocket, things such as satellites into space. I was surprised and disappointed, but I think they will come around. They just need a little persuading. The Conservatives will come around to supporting the idea that Canada should have the ability to launch its own satellites. An hon. member: Answer my questions. Hon.”
“Ultimately, in listening to the response to my question, I felt relatively optimistic that there is going to be collaboration coming from the Bloc. Collaboration is an important thing. We want to see collaboration. It is one of the ways we can improve legislation. One of the things that this Prime Minister and government have done very clearly is show that if there are ways in which we can improve something, we are open to doing it. A very good example of this occurred yesterday. Yesterday, we swore in three new members to the House of Commons, which gave us a majority government. The first action we had on the floor of the House of Commons was the passing of a private member's bill from the opposition that dealt with crime. That is collaboration. We want to see that collaboration with respect to Bill C-28 .”
“I would love for us to be able to achieve that goal. Part of being able to do that is recognizing the value of the legislation. I am encouraged by the Conservative, or rather, by the Bloc party's comments in regard to it. An hon. member: Conservative Bloc? Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: That was more of a Freudian slip. Madam Speaker, I was referring to the Bloc's position when I posed the question of how its members saw the legislation proceeding. The principle of the legislation is sound. How can someone oppose the principle of what the Government of Canada is trying to do by presenting the legislation? To that end, the Bloc's position was that it could see the legislation going to committee, having some dialogue and having stakeholders come to the table and talk about the legislation and where it might be improved upon and so forth.”
“When we take a look at what has taken place over the last year, we see a government that has taken many different initiatives to do exactly what we said we would do in the last election. Building Canada strong for all Canadians is the priority of this government. The legislation we are dealing with today speaks to that point, I would ultimately argue. I would encourage members to take a look at what is before us and how this legislation would enable an industry in Canada that has done exceptionally well. This legislation speaks volumes in looking at how we can go beyond the type of markets we have and how we can complement what we have today. As I pointed out, we could actually be sending, via rocket, satellites into orbit as early as 2028. This is a significant and ambitious goal set by the Prime Minister and government.”
“Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to be able to rise today to speak on significant legislation. Bill C-28 is legislation that I believe should inspire people to think big in terms of the opportunities that are there to build a stronger and healthier country for all. It is a wonderful anniversary piece of legislation, and I do not know if it was actually planned that way. It is great to be having this debate today. It was just one year ago that Canadians elected a new Prime Minister, and that Prime Minister and this government have made it very clear what we want to be able to do. We talk about building Canada strong and building a sense of security for Canadians.”
“Madam Speaker, it is estimated that with the passage of the legislation, we could see something actually taking place in Canada as early as 2028. It is an ambitious goal, but it can be achieved. The legislation, in itself, plays a critical role in hitting that particular goal. I am wondering if the member from the Bloc could give an indication of how they see the legislation going through the House.”
“Madam Speaker, one of the aspects I want to highlight with regard to the legislation is the impact it would have on the industry as a whole after we see the legislation pass, go to committee and increase the amount of dialogue. There are industries, such as our aerospace industry. Quebec has a very healthy, growing and vibrant aerospace industry, and so does the province of Manitoba. I made reference to Magellan and the fine work it does. We are talking about good, quality jobs. By having legislation of this nature, we would be establishing a framework. My question for the member is, would he not agree that establishing a framework, so that we can do what we are doing with the legislation, will be good for our aerospace industry in particular?”
“Madam Speaker, I believe the member needs to expand his thinking. Just on that particular point, Magellan Aerospace in Winnipeg manufactures satellites and actually has satellites that are circling the earth today. We have an industry that is alive and has thousands of people employed. Having the ability to launch our own is good for Canada. It is good for the industry. The Conservative Party should come out very clearly to say that it supports the industry and wants to see a launch pad. I would ask this of the member who represents the Conservative Party on this file: Will the Conservative Party today commit its support for Canada having a launch pad?”
“Madam Speaker, no one could accuse the Conservatives of being visionary. At the end of the day, this is substantive legislation in an area Canada needs to go into. We have a Prime Minister and a government that are focused on building and expanding our economy and ensuring that we get the type of security that is necessary, and then we have the Conservatives. I am not too sure exactly what it is they are hoping to achieve. I do have hope, and the question I have for the member is, does the Conservative Party of Canada support the principle of Canada having a launch site?”
“Madam Speaker, a year ago today, Canadians elected a new Prime Minister , and that Prime Minister talked about the importance of securing Canada and making Canada a stronger, healthier country. I think it is significant that today we are going into an area in which Canada has not been before, which has the potential to create thousands of jobs. It would put us with other G7 countries, recognizing that the ability to launch is necessary. I appreciate the legislation. I am wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts in terms of, when the Prime Minister talks about making Canada more secure, building jobs and creating opportunities, how the legislation plays into the agenda of the Prime Minister and the government.”
“Is the member trying to tell me the Conservatives would say the government still gets to have a majority of the committee members? I think the Conservatives would do the exact same thing. Stephen Harper would do exactly what he did when he got a majority government, when he had a majority of the members in the House of Commons, and that is to have a majority in the standing committees. Does the member not see the hypocrisy?”
“Mr. Speaker, Stephen Harper had a minority government, and then he had a majority of the seats in the House. When he got the majority of the seats in the House, he was given a majority of seats in the standing committees. In a minority situation, it is a minority number of seats in the standing committees. When a government makes up a majority on the floor of the House of Commons, it gets a majority in the standing committees. That is a long-established principle and parliamentary tradition, not only here in Canada but in the entire Commonwealth. Now the Conservatives want to change the rules. I pose this question to the member. Let us say a government wins 172 seats on an election night, and then one member crosses the floor, so it has 171 seats.”
“In terms of this whole sense of co-operation, from the very beginning the Prime Minister and this government have indicated that we want to see collaboration. After all, remember, we have the majority government today, with 174 members. For our first action, we actually passed a Conservative private member's bill. Is that —”
“Mr. Speaker, there is a lot there. Let me provide a quick commentary. First of all, when it comes to the Canada-U.S. deal, I can tell the member what we will not do is what one of the Conservative MPs did. He visited with the vice-president, then he came back and said Canada was just having an "anti-American hissy fit". Canada, the Prime Minister and this government will focus on getting the best deal we can for Canada. That is the bottom line. In regards to this whole conspiracy aspect, it is a very simple, straightforward process. If a party gets a majority of the seats in the House of Commons, it gets a majority of the seats in the standing committees. That is the way it has been historically. That is the way it is administered in the Commonwealth.”
“Mr. Speaker, can the member honestly say that if the party had 172 seats, and then a Liberal walked across the floor, that the Conservatives would not want to make any changes? They would not want to adhere to parliamentary tradition and allow the government to have a majority on a committee, even if they did not have a majority on the floor? That is just silly.”
“Mr. Speaker, since Canadian Confederation, we have had majority governments and we have had minority governments. In terms of the motion that we are debating, all we are debating is whether, if a party has a majority of the seats on the floor of the House of Commons, it gets a majority of the positions, the votes, on a standing committee. For majority governments throughout our history, even if we go back into the Commonwealth, that is a basic principle. There are opposition tools. I understand the tools. I was in opposition for 20-plus years when we combine my entire parliamentary experience. Opposition still has the ability to hold the government accountable. Why are the Conservatives so fearful? Are they concerned that they do not have the ability as other Conservative parties have in the past?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member would know that, since the last federal election, we have had a Prime Minister and a government that have talked a great deal about the issue of collaboration and working to elevate good ideas into good public policy, and today is a good example of that. Today, yes, we got an official majority. Three members were sworn in. We got to 174 members, but the first action taken today was actually the passage of a Conservative private member's bill. It is good legislation. It fit into the crime agenda that this Prime Minister and this government have been talking about. Does he not see that collaboration can, in fact, be effective even in majorities?”
“Mr. Speaker, I will take a bit of leeway to recognize that April is Sikh Heritage Month in Canada and to say that on Parliament Hill today are the organizers of the largest Nagar Kirtan outside India. I just want to acknowledge the fact that they are here and to thank them for the fine work they do. The question I have for my colleague is in regard to the principle that if a party has a majority of the seats on the floor of the House of Commons, it should have the majority in the standing committees. It is in our rules. It is the parliamentary practice and procedures, and a part of our heritage. In fact, it is so for the British Commonwealth. Could the member provide his thoughts on just how important that is?”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the comments my colleague and friend has put on the record, highlighting the recognition that it is about the chamber, the number of members of Parliament. Parliamentary tradition and history have shown that it has been very successful, not only here in Canada but also in the Commonwealth, that if a party has a majority of seats on the floor of the House of Commons, it gets a majority of seats in the standing committees. That is something that has been there for generations, and there is no reason to change it. Would the member not agree?”
“To try to say there is a Conservative and Bloc alliance, and everything they do in committees is absolutely wonderful and delightful and in the best interest of Canadians, is balderdash. Does the member really believe that we should be going against parliamentary tradition because—”