House of Commons Hansard #362 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was privacy.

Topics

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member can explain to the House, if this accelerator fund was such a failure, why it was that the members for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Simcoe North, Fundy Royal and others asked for funds for their communities from it. If they believed that it was a failure, does that mean that they knowingly asked for money from a program that they knew was a failure?

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

October 30th, 2024 / 5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC

Mr. Speaker, we know that we are in a housing crisis right now and this is under the nine years of the current Liberal government. It was actually the Housing Minister himself who said that the particular fund does not actually build any homes. This is why Conservatives keep bringing forth suggestions for ways to build homes and ways for Canadians to get into housing, in particular for new homeowners. That was one of the recommendations.

The announcement was made yesterday by the official opposition leader to axe the federal tax on new homes built that are under $1 million. This would prompt new homebuilding and would prompt people to get into homes and really help with the affordability and the housing crisis that we are having here in Canada.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:05 p.m.

Bloc

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are going to need to tell us their plan.

The former Conservative leader said that he had a plan, a contract for Quebeckers. I would like my colleague to explain the plan to us. We are studying a committee report on the financialization of housing. In October 2023, the Conservatives did not exactly agree with some of the measures. A year later, while this long-standing crisis still rages on, they come up with a new measure: a GST exemption for new housing.

I would like my colleague to explain why the Conservatives did not think of that a year ago and why they are thinking of it now. It feels improvised. I would like her to explain, in depth if possible, what came out of the work and thought processes of the Conservative Party.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC

Mr. Speaker, we are continually putting out recommendations, suggestions and announcements with respect to a whole number of ways that we can fix so much that the government has broken. Whether we are looking now at a housing crisis, at crime or at record numbers of people going to the food banks, we are continually making suggestions and recommendations on an ongoing basis. The announcement that came yesterday is another example of that.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to stand up on behalf of British Columbians and, in fact, all Canadians, when tackling the important issue of housing. Right before I came into this chamber, as I prepared my notes for this speech, one of the interns in my office said the Liberal government's approach to housing sort of reminded them of a famous quote by former United States President Ronald Reagan: “I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.”

There is no other scenario in Canada where this quote makes total sense. We have a government that put forward nearly $100 billion and its record is that housing costs have doubled, rent has doubled and the ability for a young person to save up for a home, let alone afford rent, has gone beyond their reach. If we have ever seen a government mismanage a portfolio so badly, it is indeed the Liberal government's approach to housing.

Where I live in British Columbia, many Canadians mourn the fact that they will never have the opportunity to own a home. In fact, they feel helpless. The Canada they once knew is not the Canada of today, primarily because of how the government has attempted to tackle housing.

For example, in the Fraser Valley right now, the average cost of a townhouse is $750,000. A down payment for a townhouse, modestly, would be about $55,000 to cover the down payment, maybe some of the legal costs and real estate fees. If we took a very fortunate young Canadian who was making a salary of about $85,000, in British Columbia, that would give them take-home pay of about $5,300 a month and change.

However, let us look at what the cost of living is today. If someone is commuting to work and their gas bill is $100 a week, they are spending $400 on gas every single month. They have to pay ICBC insurance. That is about $125 if they are a good driver. For a phone bill and Internet bill, they are looking at about $160. For gas and hydro for a home, they are looking at about $120. For a single person, they are looking at around $750 a month for food; $150 a month for clothing, toiletries and maybe some basic household items; $500 for a car payment and maybe some miscellaneous costs; and $2,500 for the average rent.

Now, this is a modest understanding of what the average, young single person in Canada is facing. I did not even talk about the cost of student loans or other debt that they might be paying off on a monthly basis. If we tabulate all those numbers, on that salary of $5,300 and change, they are going to be left with about $650 at the end of the month to save up for a home. At that rate, it is going to take them about seven years and a month to save up for a down payment. That is actually a pretty accurate scenario. It is similar to what my wife and I had to do to get into our first home in that price range.

If we look at what youth are facing today, the unemployment rate for young Canadians between the ages of 15 and 24 is 13.5%. The Canadian Income Survey outlines that in 2022, the average income for a Canadian worker was only $55,000. The average young Canadian today is facing a whole host of impediments to get to where they thought they would be in life today. That is one of the biggest issues facing our country.

The NDP and the Liberals often say the Conservatives are going to cause extremism. No, it is the NDP-Liberal government that has taken away hope from an entire generation, who are going to push to the far left and the far right because of its disastrous policies and what it has done. I have lived under an NDP government in British Columbia for seven years and nine years under the Prime Minister.

Every night in Canada, there are about 25,000 to 35,000 Canadians who cannot afford a home or cannot access social housing. Unfortunately, that number is even higher for indigenous Canadians. About 30% of the Canadians who are homeless come from one of our first nations. That is not acceptable. About 22% of shelters are aimed at young homeless people in Canada, while 20% of the people experiencing homelessness are between the ages of 13 and 24.

Let us tie that to our unemployment rate. We have a hard scenario for young people in our country right now. I would be remiss if I did not outline that since the NDP-Liberal government came into power nine years ago, the budget at Indigenous Services Canada has increased 181%. I shared that with one of the chiefs in my riding recently and he said that if we took even a portion of that money and gave it directly to first nations to address childhood poverty and housing on reserve, we would be in a much better position than the increase of bureaucrats in Ottawa who are not accountable to the taxpayers of Canada and are not accountable to the indigenous people who rely on their services.

We could have done so much better to help indigenous people who face some of the biggest challenges for housing in this country, along with young Canadians. That brings me to the announcement that the hon. leader of the Conservative Party has made and that is a simple tax cut that will save the average purchaser of a new home between $40,000 and $50,000. That is not an insignificant amount of money. It will make a big difference in the time it takes to save up for a mortgage and to, indeed, afford a mortgage if one is successful in purchasing a home.

Of all the countries in the developed world, Canada has some of the highest occupancy rates. It is because we have not done enough to spur new homebuilding construction in Canada.

In fact, TD Economics just came out with a report on productivity in September of this year. They said that the biggest impediment to Canada's economy is our ability to build homes and fill the jobs in building construction for new homes in Canada. That report also stated that we have to create incentives and maintain incentives that will push people back into the industry to meet the very real challenges we face, no matter what area of the country we are in today.

Throughout this debate so far, Liberal and NDP members have been challenging Canadians on the money that was given to municipalities to speed up building permits. In fact, my community received $26.5 million under the accelerator fund, I believe it is called. Unfortunately, in that very time since they received $26 million, they put out a proposal to double the DCC and to levy a new tax on home builders of $7,500 per unit to fund our infrastructure deficit as it relates to parks and recreation. Young Canadians cannot afford those costs. The City of Abbotsford should not be putting its inability to approve new home builds onto the backs of young Canadians who are just trying to get by and have some hope of home ownership once again.

There are so many big challenges facing our country but the number one thing that I hear at the doorsteps, which people in my riding want me working on, is to restore the dream of home ownership. The Conservative Party is on the right path. Our proposals relate to densification, to incentivizing construction, to building more homes that Canadians need and that they can afford.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:15 p.m.

NDP

Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, will the Conservatives support the NDP amendment that was tabled today and get this rent price-fixing investigated in committee? His colleagues at HUMA are currently shielding the ultra-wealthy corporate landlords from testifying.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC

Mr. Speaker, no.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:15 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

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

Mr. Speaker, I think people are concerned about the mistakes that the leader of the Conservative Party is making. We could talk about his announcement on housing from yesterday or the security clearance. One that really affects me and I think would upset a lot of Canadians is a more recent decision. When I think of Canada's diversity, I always think of how we have been enriched as a society, through, for example, Diwali, which we are going to be celebrating over the coming days. It is a part of our Canadian heritage in terms of who we are as a nation and as a people. Whether truth over misinformation or light over darkness, the member knows it well, as he is very familiar with Diwali.

The leader of the Conservative Party has made the determination that he does not want Conservatives to participate in Diwali. Can he explain why?

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC

Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear that many of my Conservative colleagues and I are blessed to go to Diwali celebrations all across Canada. The statement made by the member opposite is misdirected. Conservatives celebrate Diwali, and I celebrate that part of Canadian heritage with thousands of my constituents, who use the opportunity to ensure that light conquers darkness.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:15 p.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, my question has to do with two articles that were published two weeks ago in The Economist, which severely criticized the government and the Prime Minister on the housing file.

As we often say here, housing prices have skyrocketed over the past nine years. They have increased by 66%. Aside from Australia, Canada is one of the only countries in the OECD with this problem. Obviously, there are several factors that explain this, but according to the two articles in The Economist, the number one factor was ambitious targets for increasing the population through immigration without a plan to also develop housing and social services. That may explain the government's recent about-face.

I would like to ask my colleague what immigration levels the Conservative Party thinks are acceptable.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC

Mr. Speaker, I do not have an exact number on immigration at hand, but as the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, I believe that immigration should be tied to Canada's ability to integrate newcomers. It should be tied to our ability to have hospitals that can serve our population and schools that can serve our population. Immigration needs to be done in a responsible way. What is so scary is that the NDP-Liberal government has destroyed the Canadian consensus on immigration due to its mismanagement.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

Lianne Rood Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned that he has young people in his community, as I do in my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, who think the dream of home ownership is out of their reach. We heard our leader this week make an announcement about taking the GST off new home builds. In my constituency, there are a lot of new home developments, but some of them are on hold because people cannot afford to buy those homes right now.

What we have seen from the NDP-Liberal government is programs, such as the one members were talking about earlier, the housing accelerator fund, through which not a single house has been built. There are numerous developers in my riding that are trying to build houses, but unfortunately young people cannot afford them.

I am wondering if my colleague would like to make some comments on the common-sense Conservative plan to get homes built.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC

Mr. Speaker, there are some key things the Conservative Party must do to see more homes built in Canada. First and foremost, we must do what economist Mike Moffatt said is the single-biggest thing we can do for middle-class homes, which is to incentivize more construction through the elimination of the GST on homes under a million dollars. Second, we must ensure there is densification around transit stations across Canada. Third, we need to incentivize municipalities in this country to build more in order to receive more infrastructure dollars from the federal government.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:20 p.m.

Bloc

Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like you to know that I will be sharing my time.

First of all, I would like to thank my NDP colleague for initiating a debate on this report. Had he not, I would have done so myself, because this report on the financialization of housing is one of the most important and widely supported reports produced by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, even though it has drafted a number of very important reports.

We produced this 67-page document after hearing from many witnesses. Although its recommendations were quite strong, the government's response was quite weak. The report concerns the financialization of housing. However, considering the crucial importance of this issue, I have been somewhat saddened to see that, from the start of the debate, all sides have focused on asking what the Conservatives are going to do or what the Liberal government is going to do.

To place the report in context, I am going to read a few passages from it. First of all, what led us to study this question? The report was tabled in October 2023. Here is what it says:

On 8 September 2022, the Office of the Federal Housing Advocate released a series of reports on the financialization of housing in Canada. Each of these reports focused on an issue or group of people impacted by the financialization of housing, including: seniors, racialized people, those living in multi-family rental housing and tenants more broadly, as well as an examination of the international landscape. They also included a variety of recommendations for Canadian governments at all levels.

This was no small feat. The report defines financialization of housing. That is what our committee's report is about, and that is what we should be focusing on today. Here is what the report says:

Martine August, author of one of the Office of the Federal Housing Advocate's reports on financialization of housing and Associate Professor, University of Waterloo, described “financialization of housing” as “the growing dominance of financial actors in the housing sector, which is transforming the primary function of housing from a place to live into a financial asset and tool for investor profits.” The Federal Housing Advocate clarified that

[i]t's not new that these buildings are privately owned. What is new is that they are now increasingly owned by large institutional investors and financial firms whose focus is making maximum returns for shareholders.

That is truly what this is about and it is having an impact on people and renters, even though the right to housing is a fundamental right.

The committee heard from the Federal Housing Advocate about her perspective on how financialization of housing has expanded and shaped the country's housing system in the last decades. She noted that

regulatory changes enabled the creation of real estate investment trusts and allowed pension funds to invest in financial markets and instruments.

The report also addresses the impacts of financialization:

Houle told the committee that 20% to 30% of Canada's purpose-built rental housing is owned by institutional investors. She discussed the harm she sees being caused by financialized housing, that it is “contributing to housing unaffordability and it's worsening housing conditions. It is leading to evictions and displacement.” She explained that the trend toward financialization “is violating people's right to adequate housing in Canada,” as defined under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, signed by Canada in 1976, and enshrined in the National Housing Strategy Act.

These troubling reports led to witnesses being called to committee. They came to tell us that, basically, the Liberal government's national housing strategy is not working. Over $80 billion has been invested in affordable housing, but we will not get anywhere as long as everything is determined solely on the principle of supply and demand. This is evident when we look at how the market works: When we act on the supply side, that reduces demand. This is partly true, but we must act on the real demand.

In the current housing crisis, the real demand is for social housing, non-market housing. We must ensure that these housing units meet the affordability criteria, which means that people must not spend more than 30% of their income on housing. We are not talking about the average income per capita per city. We also need to ensure that we are building sustainable housing.

My esteemed colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, who is the housing critic, has toured Quebec extensively. He has travelled across 15 regions. Many recommendations were made, including increasing the supply of non‑market social housing to 20% and taking meaningful action to counter financialization so that housing is no longer subject to speculation. That is what we are talking about.

In its concluding statement in response to the committee's eight recommendations, the federal government said, “The Government of Canada acknowledges the potential impact of the financialization of housing on access to affordable housing and recognizes that there is more work to be done”. That is weak and rather sad.

There is a fundamental issue that we need to address. The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities has done just that. I think that we need to take all of this into account when we talk about the housing crisis and the effects of the financialization of housing. Safe, affordable, decent quality housing is a fundamental right.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings on the motion at this time. Accordingly, the debate on the motion will be rescheduled for another sitting.

The House resumed from October 29 consideration of the motion, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

Jamil Jivani Conservative Durham, ON

Madam Speaker, as I stand in the House today to discuss the corrupt Liberal $400-million green slush fund, the former Liberal minister Mr. Navdeep Bains is literally across the street before the public accounts committee. He is continuing what has been a long-standing pattern of ducking, dodging and diving to avoid any accountability and avoid answering any questions about the Sustainable Development Technology Canada scandal, the $400-million Liberal green slush fund. He is avoiding questions from my Conservative colleagues. It is not hard to see why when we dig into the rot that has occurred at SDTC.

As I begin my comments today, I would like to recap some of the background, because a lot of Canadians may not be aware of just how horrible the SDTC scandal really is. SDTC started in 2001, and for years operated without any cloud of concern, but with the Liberal government in charge, it became a $400-million slush fund for Liberal elite insiders.

The Auditor General conducted an investigation and found that SDTC gave $58 million to 10 ineligible projects that could not demonstrate environmental benefit or the development of green technology. There was another $58 million to projects without ensuring that carbon contribution agreement terms were met. A whopping, staggering $334 million went to over 186 projects in which board members held a conflict of interest. Now, as I stand here, the former Liberal minister who was supposed to be overseeing this and making sure the SDTC ran properly is across the street denying any knowledge or awareness of the 186 projects with conflicts of interest.

The reason the public is able to know what went on is that a whistle-blower came forward from SDTC and testified that “the current government is more interested in protecting themselves and protecting the situation from being a public nightmare. They would rather protect wrongdoers and financial mismanagement than have to deal with a situation like [this]”.

Certainly, everything from the Liberal government since the whistle-blower's testimony seems to be backing up the assertion that there is a cover-up in place, that the Liberal government will go to any extent possible to avoid having a real, transparent conversation about the corruption that occurred at SDTC. Conservatives are asking for basic accountability and for documents to be released and turned over so the relevant law enforcement authorities can make their own decisions about what to do with all of the evidence. However, currently all of the evidence is being withheld because the Liberals refuse to comply.

A question that I think is natural to ask is this: What do my constituents think about this? Liberals have gone to great lengths to downplay the issue as if it were not a matter of broad public interest in our country. I have, thankfully, had the chance to speak with residents of Durham about the scandal. It is pretty clear why my constituents are upset, because $400 million is a lot of taxpayer money to waste, to dish out to Liberal elite insiders in a corruption scandal when there are very serious problems in this country that would benefit from taxpayers' keeping more of their money and not giving it to the Liberal Party so it can then send it out the window.

Let us put into perspective what $400 million means in real economic terms for the average Canadian. First, if we do the math, 400 million bucks works out to about $9,700 per person in this country. That is an enormous amount of money for the average Canadian. It would make getting through life the rest of this year a lot easier. However, Canadians were not able to keep that tax money for themselves. No, they were overtaxed so Liberals could take their money and then give it out to their friends. It is no surprise that Canadians are frustrated and upset.

What else could be done with $400 million? We are in the middle of a housing crisis in this country. I am a renter who dreams of owning a home one day. As a millennial, I am part of an entire generation of Canadians that is now looking at a housing market that looks increasingly unlikely for us to ever participate in.

There was a time in this country when that could be taken for granted. People would do everything they are asked to do: finish school, work hard, get a job, pay their taxes. Then home ownership would be a realistic, attainable goal. That is not now the case. What would $400 million mean in those terms? In my community of Durham, $400 million could buy over 440 homes.

That is again putting into perspective the value of the taxpayer dollars that the Liberals took from the public and dished out to their elite insider friends. In a housing crisis, that is completely inexcusable, yet a generation of Canadians continues to have a government turn its back on them at a time when home ownership is a distant dream for many.

What else could $400,000 do for the Canadian people? If Canadians were able to keep that money, based on the average amount of groceries that a family of four buys, according to “Canada's Food Price Report 2023”, $400 million is the equivalent of over 24,000 families buying groceries for a year. Again I will put this into perspective. Two million Canadians are lining up at food banks right now. People going to grocery stores are increasingly feeling the strain of not being able to purchase the things they used to be able to afford just a couple of years ago.

Every time I go to the grocery store, I notice people who put produce or meat into their cart and then second-guess whether they should put it back on the shelf, because they are not sure they can afford what they are used to feeding their family. At a time like this, $400 million of taxpayer money being wasted is infuriating because people are making real compromises on what they purchase from the grocery store every day. The money amounts to over 24,000 families' grocery bills for an entire year.

What else could be done with $400 million? Many people in this country are struggling right now with car ownership because the Liberal government is increasing a carbon tax that makes it harder to pay for fuel and to make use of a vehicle to go to work, go to school, get around and take kids to soccer practice, hockey practice, piano lessons or whatever. The cost of car ownership has gone up under the government.

What could taxpayers do with a car if they could keep the $400 million? That is the equivalent of 24,000 Canadians being able to pay for gas, parking, insurance and car maintenance for an entire year. That is what $400 million would mean to taxpayers if they were allowed to keep that money; instead, it was taken from them to be dished out to Liberal elite insiders as part of a $400-million green slush fund.

What else could be done with $400 million? One of the things I hear a lot from moms and dads in my community is that there is an increasing number of kids who need more services and support. We have, Lord knows, in my province of Ontario, an epically failing Ministry of Education that puts an increasing number of children in a position where the day-to-day supports offered by schools just are not enough to help kids get over the adversity and challenges they are facing. I recently heard from a mom and dad who were concerned about not being able to afford speech therapy for their kids. The $400 million would provide one hour a week of speech therapy in an entire year in the greater Toronto area for over 48,000 children.

When we put this in terms of what the money means for the average taxpayer, taking the money away from people has real consequences. When they hear what was being done with the money, it is no wonder they are frustrated by the current government and the status quo in this country.

The last one is an important one, and I say this as a cancer survivor and someone who has great admiration and appreciation for health care workers in this country. I say this because the government constantly points fingers, as if Liberals were the only people who care about health care in Canada. If they care so much about health care, where is their apology to the Canadian public for spending $400 million of taxpayer money on Liberal elite insiders, which would have been the equivalent of over 60,000 people being able to stay at a hospital?

According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, $400 million would cover over 60,000 hospital stays in the health care system we have right now. The $400 million of taxpayer money being wasted is incredibly concerning for someone who looks at the numbers, knows all of these problems are stacking up across Canada and then hears what is being done with their tax money. Of course taxpayers are frustrated; that is just an inevitability. I am just putting what is a real Liberal scandal in clear economic terms.

I would like to touch on why some of the residents of my community of Durham are also frustrated with what is happening with respect to the SDTC scandal, which is that they are big believers in making real, genuine investments in technology. Many of my constituents in Durham either work at or have family members who work at the Darlington nuclear facility. It is an incredible facility in Durham region that powers our local economy and generates a tremendous amount of energy for our community.

There have been tremendous technology investments at the Darlington nuclear facility, including medical isotopes, which are now used to help with cancer treatments. There is also the development of small modular nuclear reactors, which will make low-carbon-emitting energy more accessible to rural and remote communities. This technology is being exported across the world. These are incredible innovations and they are happening in my backyard in Durham.

My constituents know that technology investments are actually very important. The Liberal government claimed that was what was happening with the SDTC, that the $400 million was going to go to technology investments like the kinds of investments that we know could happen with that money in Durham. However, that is not what happened.

In fact, we have an industry that employs 89,000 Canadians and adds $17 billion to our GDP each year, but none of the $400 million was used to support our technology developments. None of it was used to support the nuclear industry. In fact, the money was dished out to Liberal elite insiders who, I recap, were engaged in over 186 conflicts of interest, with $58 million going to 10 ineligible projects that could not demonstrate environmental benefit or the development of green technology.

I can assure members that the Darlington nuclear facility could have used some of that money to continue the great work that is being done there. It is developing green technology and does have very clear, measurable environmental benefits. Again, people in Durham understand that technology investments matter, but that is not what we are getting from the Liberal government. Instead we are getting a cover-up of a scheme that took the money away from projects that could have benefited from it and gave it to Liberal insiders.

I would like to continue by also addressing some concerns related to the police. We have heard from Liberals ad nauseam over the last few weeks that they are somehow doing the will of the police by opposing a basic request for accountability. On that, I would like to say that I believe that this is part of a broader trend with the Liberal government of, frankly, not respecting or trusting police officers.

Just recently, police associations across Canada, including the Toronto Police Association and the Vancouver Police Association, have come out and criticized the Prime Minister and his Liberal policies for increasing crime in our country. There has been a 116% increase in handgun crime under the current government. Police associations have rung the alarm and are openly asking the Liberal government to listen to what their members have to say. They are on the ground and are seeing the consequences of Liberal policies every day.

What are they being told? The Prime Minister and the Liberal member for Pickering—Uxbridge have stood here in the House of Commons and accuse the police associations of somehow mimicking talking points from gun lobbyists. It is absurd. It is disrespectful to law enforcement in this country; however, it is more than just that.

The Minister of Justice has before him, right now on his desk, a report that makes a series of recommendations about the criminal justice system. One of those recommendations is cutting police budgets. Yes, it is a recommendation that would take away 25% of the grant dollars from public safety, the Attorney General and the Solicitor General that police organizations are currently able to apply for. They would no longer be eligible for that money.

If the Liberals were as supportive of the police as they claim to be, they would have just come out and said this recommendation is absurd, that they trust the police and that they think the police do a good job and are an important institution in our communities. The Liberals should have said they do not want to even entertain that recommendation, but that is not what we heard from the Liberal Minister of Justice. In fact, what we got from him is a celebration of that report. He called it “history-making” and “an important milestone”.

This recommendation is absurd at face value. The more we look at it, the more we cannot even believe the Liberals would celebrate these kinds of policies. However, what we are asking them to do is turn over documents to the police and trust them to make their own decision about what to do with them. That is what basic accountability means. That is all we are asking for. We are not directing the police on what to do. We trust their judgment to make a decision. The Liberals do not share that trust in law enforcement, and this goes to a long track record of anti-police bias.

When we have a government that has this view of law enforcement, has an antagonistic relationship with police unions and has a Minister of Justice who is celebrating policy recommendations that will lead to the cutting of police budgets, it is no wonder the Liberals do not have the confidence to let the police decide. They should turn over the documents and let the police decide what they want to do with them. This is basic common sense.

I will return to what is happening across the street right now. Former Liberal minister Navdeep Bains, one of the people who were supposed to oversee SDTC and prevent a stacking up of conflicts of interest and the misallocation of funds, is continuing what we have been seeing for months and months, which is that the government does not want to answer questions, does not want to submit to any form of accountability and barely even wants to acknowledge there was wrongdoing. This has been a pattern that we continue to see, literally happening right now across the street, of thinking the Liberals can misuse $400 million of Canadian taxpayer funds and not even have to answer questions on a potential investigation. They vilify a whistle-blower who dares to speak up about what is going on, a whistle-blower who pointed out and called it right that the government would not want to hold itself accountable and would do everything it possibly could to downplay this and avoid answering any questions. For the Liberals, the PR side of this is a bigger problem than the taxpayer accountability side.

This entire debate we are having right now about the $400-million Liberal green slush fund really comes back to taxpayer accountability. The government is not entitled to everyone's money, no matter how much it likes to raise taxes and oppose our attempts to lower taxes. The Liberals can play those games all they want, but the reality is they are not entitled to people's money.

They introduce policies, and policies should be based on some mechanism of trust with the taxpayer so that every time we pay taxes, that money is used for a good purpose that benefits our communities, our families and our country. However, what we are seeing is a betrayal of that trust at a time when we have very serious problems that deserve attention and that could be benefited by taxpayers' having more of their own money in their pockets. Instead, we are seeing people get overtaxed, and the spending that comes from that overtaxation is being done in a way that is entirely reckless. Now there is a chance to have some accountability in that process for the Liberals, but on this side of the street, they are trying to downplay the problem, holding Parliament up and refusing to release the documents, and on the other side of the street, they continue to not answer any questions we have at committee.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

5:50 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

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

Madam Speaker, it is a bit much to hear the member be disrespectful to the RCMP. I will quote a letter from the RCMP about the games or tactics the Conservative Party is using: “There is significant risk that the Motion could be interpreted as a circumvention of normal investigative processes and Charter protections.” That is from the commissioner of the RCMP, and the Conservatives say, “Who cares?” They have their political agenda at hand and completely disregard what the RCMP is saying.

The member says this is all about political Liberals lining the pockets of Liberals. However, the chairperson was an adviser to Brian Mulroney, a Progressive Conservative; Stephen Harper, a far-right Conservative; and Jim Flaherty, another Conservative. She donates thousands of dollars to the Conservative Party, yet the member calls her a Liberal. The Conservative Party makes absolutely no sense on this issue. It feeds into the incompetence of the leader when he puts the interests of the Conservative Party ahead of the interests of Canadians.

Will the member opposite encourage his leader to do the right thing, be respectful, listen to Canadians, put Canadians' interests ahead of the Conservative Party and the leader's interests, and get a security clearance so he is better able to deal with the issue of foreign interference? Will the member give his leader the advice to get a security clearance?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

5:50 p.m.

Conservative

Jamil Jivani Conservative Durham, ON

Madam Speaker, I have not been here for very long; I think it is fair to say I am a rookie, but I have been here long enough to know how the Liberals play the game. I knew these questions were coming. It is a no-brainer.

This is from an October 12 National Post interview with Commissioner Mike Duheme of the RCMP:

When asked what the RCMP was investigating specifically, Duheme said police were exploring a range of theories.

“Could there be a possibility of corruption?...Breach of Trust? Is there anything fraud, any favouritism?

“It was brought to our attention and we felt, as an organization, OK, let’s look into it, and if charges are warranted, charges are warranted. If they’re not warranted, we’ll explain why we’re not charging,” he said.

Those are the words of the RCMP commissioner. All I am saying is let us make sure he has all the documents he could possibly need so he can use his judgment and discretion as the chief of police to make the most informed decision possible. What is wrong with that?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

5:50 p.m.

Bloc

Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC

Madam Speaker, I have a simple question. We have been dealing with this question of privilege for over two weeks, and we all hope that, as a result, the government will hand over the documents. However, if the government does not do so, what is the Conservatives' plan? Do they intend to raise another question of privilege?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

5:50 p.m.

Conservative

Jamil Jivani Conservative Durham, ON

Madam Speaker, my plan is to hold the Liberal government accountable. That is exactly why I am standing here in the House of Commons right now. My constituents know, like Canadians all across our country, that the government is mismanaging its money and misleading our country. Every Canadian, from all walks of life, can see that the quality of life in Canada is in decline, and we are holding the government accountable for how it is using $400 million of taxpayer money.

The Liberals should produce the documents and should answer questions. Their former Liberal minister should not be across the street right now ducking, dodging and diving. He should be answering questions that were prepared to provide the public with answers.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

5:50 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke quite rightly about the waste of $400 million and said this money would have been much better put into our health care system. I agree with him. He also called on the Liberals to apologize for that waste of money.

I was in this House when the Conservatives were last in power. They wasted $2 billion on the Phoenix pay scandal, something we are still paying for today. In the spirit of calling for an apology from the Liberals for wasting money that could have gone to health care, would the member apologize for the Conservatives wasting $2 billion? That also could have and should have gone to health care.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

5:55 p.m.

Conservative

Jamil Jivani Conservative Durham, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am aware that members of the NDP and the Liberals see Stephen Harper in their dreams and nightmares, but I am focused on what is happening today. We are pressuring the Liberal government to be accountable to the public for the corrupt $400-million green slush fund. Despite all the efforts to draw us away from that topic, distract us and have us debate things that happened probably before I was old enough to vote, sorry, I am not getting into all that right now.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

5:55 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Muys Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON

Madam Speaker, I liked my friend and colleague from Durham's reference to what is going on across the street in contrast to the many ways that this $400 million could have been better spent for Canadians. He broke that down in many important ways and drew many examples.

What is the member hearing from his constituents, who we know work so hard for the tax dollars they send here, about the money being wasted in this way? It could have been spent on so many better things. He touched on taxpayer accountability, so maybe he can elaborate a bit more on that.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

5:55 p.m.

Conservative

Jamil Jivani Conservative Durham, ON

Madam Speaker, the reality is that the public, the Canadian people, is aware that they are being overtaxed. There are expenses they would like to pay but cannot afford because the Liberal government is taking too much money out of their pockets and away from their families. It is a natural question to ask, “What are all the things I could do if I just had more of the money I work for?” That is the question Canadians are asking themselves when they look at this $400-million green slush fund.

When we look at hospital stays, car payments, groceries and homes, there are a whole host of things that have become very expensive for a lot of people and burdens on our public systems. People are frustrated by what that has done to our quality of life. Taxpayers have an expectation that when they see a deduction from their paycheques or an extra 13% added onto everything they buy, they are going to see some benefit from the money being taken away from them. When that money is being taken and misused, with Liberals dishing it out to elite Liberal insiders, like George Costanza and Jerry Seinfeld trading a rye bread out the window, of course people are going to be frustrated.

That is what the Canadian taxpayer feels right now. That is why we are focusing on this issue. We are speaking for the people of our country and speaking for our constituents.