Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the opportunity to stand and speak to some of the ways the Liberal government is wasting taxpayers' money. One such instance is the green slush fund. Although we are debating the subamendment to the amendment today, I will quickly give a bit of history. I will talk about how we got here, where the Liberals went and continue to go wrong and how they are misspending taxpayer dollars in abuses that we continue to see and hear about in the media daily.
However, before I do, I would like to remind everyone back home that there are a number of Santa Claus parades this weekend that I will be attending. I like to promote that they are happening. Tonight, in beautiful Little Britain, Ontario, there is a Santa Claus parade. There are three of them tomorrow, one around the noon hour in Millbrook, Ontario, then in Bobcaygeon in the later part of the afternoon and early evening and then in Sunderland, Ontario, with the third one of the weekend. If anyone is watching in the TV world or listening to this, and they are in those areas and want to take in beautiful Santa Claus parades, there are spectacular ones happening at night. They will not leave disappointed, I guarantee that.
As I mentioned, we are talking here about some rather unfortunate news that continues to happen. It is the continued disregard of a House order to produce documents, and the Liberals have had no qualms about paralyzing Parliament for a few months as we continue to wait for the government to accept and adhere to that order. I should remind the government that it was the democratically elected House of Commons that voted for the documents to be produced in the green slush fund scandal. I want to thank members of the industry committee, in particular, the member sitting next to me from South Shore—St. Margarets, who was one of the members leading the charge on exposing the scandal. He stayed up late at night in his office, going through countless documents to piece everything together and make the puzzle come together. That was thanks to his work, but, unfortunately, this whole thing is an absolute disaster for Canadians.
The member for South Shore—St. Margarets and I did a podcast on that, which is on my website and the member's website. In it, we go over the various steps in terms of how much corruption happened and how people appointed to this board to oversee this fund started to apply for contracts with companies in their names. However, they would kind of stand, wink-wink, nudge-nudge, either at the back of the room or outside the room while decisions for funding were being made. They would come back into the room when that was done, and the next person would leave. They would vote on money going to their companies. Holy smokes, it sounds unbelievable just to say this, does it not?
The minister knew about it; he became aware when people in his office said there might be a bit of a problem. Of course, in typical Liberal fashion, he thought, what does that matter? It is only taxpayer dollars, so why bother being accountable for that kind of thing? It is unbelievable; it really is. The fund had good intentions, but we can leave it to the Liberals to make a mess of it.
I think that is the core of discussions happening among Canadians and around kitchen tables, about how fragile the economy is right now and how the anchors of our economy, such as oil and gas, mining and lumber, have taken a massive hit. These are the traditional anchors of our economy; they produce jobs, opportunity, wealth and tax revenue to allow the government to spend on various social programs. I believe all Canadians appreciate how massively those industries have taken a hit. We have seen billions of dollars in investment leave this country to go to other markets. The United States is one country of many to which we have seen this flight happen, and many predictions are that this will accelerate over the coming months because of the policies put into effect by the government.
Most certainly, it goes around certainty within industry. As water does, capital takes the path of least resistance. Right now, there is very little certainty in the anchors of our economy in terms of starting and completing a project. There are many hurdles; in some of the fastest-growing industries, the fastest job creator in our economy is government. When the government bloats the middle and the top, things slow down. I am not talking about the service delivery people, who are doing amazing work. We all know that business likes to move fast, because trends can also take a turn very quickly.
Some people have heard that government needs to move at the speed of business, and that is the furthest thing from the truth of what is happening. It is rather unfortunate, because we now have a government that focuses on the management of the economy through grant programs, subsidies and new programs. Conservatives would say that we should level the playing field, make it a competitive environment and allow the market to take hold and make decisions. It is very tough for the government to really focus in and try to create a program that is good for everyone. There are tweaks and there are people who get left out. We often hear in our ridings about people not qualifying for certain programs or hurdles they have to get over in order to access the program. Some hurdles are too much for them, and they do not qualify; this creates problems in their life. If we can level the playing field, create a competitive environment and allow the market to take hold, those little nuances in the economy start to get filled in by the marketplace.
We can look at how uncompetitive we are in Canada. We have a few big telecom providers, a few airlines and a few grocery store chains. Yes, there are smaller ones underneath them, but they are all owned by the same company. That is a massive problem when we are talking about competition. As we all know, competition means a better price, better service and better products. In a competitive environment, operations are always pushing for those targets. If they are failing to achieve those targets, new operations start up and start to fill in those gaps that have been created by the bigger ones getting sloppy.
However, when there are barriers to competition, those small cracks do not get filled in, so we do not actually get better products and better service at better prices. We see that in the sectors I mentioned earlier. It is much better for the individual to make choices based on their needs than to have a one-size-fits-all program. We have seen time and time again that this does not work for everybody. Everybody's life is different, and people need to be able to make their own decisions. Everybody should be able to make a choice based on their circumstance.
As I said earlier, the market will provide solutions. We can look at areas in which the government has little control in the marketplace. Let us take the beer industry, for example. Pretty much all of our ridings have a brewery in them, or even many. The Speaker's has a couple. This is an area that the government has not been regulating to the point of stifling the competition, as it has done in the telecom or the airline industry. There are different kinds of breweries everywhere. There are different kinds of beers being made for every single taste. Some might not be big sellers, but it is there if people want to try. If they like it, they are able to consume it. The point is this: When we allow the market to flourish, the market will provide. When people have more choices, when they are freer to make decisions, this generally makes for a happier population altogether. When we look at where the government clamps down the most, we will see the most unhappy people. This is something that we, as Conservatives, hold to be fundamentally true.
If the government were in charge of the music industry, and this started with Confederation, I pretty much guarantee that we would still be listening to chamber music. We would have some cellist union or something upset about this or that, and there would be a bureaucracy that would not be able to move. Meanwhile, there are many different genres of music right now for everybody's taste; this keeps developing over the years and months. We always have something new, and trends go up and down; this is because we have artists with the ability to make their music and their product. Some make hits and go on to make lots of money and some still play in their garage just for fun, and there is nothing wrong with any of it.
It is all around less regulation and less red tape; this lets people who make those ideas flourish, creates a level playing field and lets the consumer decide. This is why we are talking about the accountability part and allowing that direction to take hold.
One issue I am having in my portfolio, as the critic for Crown-indigenous relations and indigenous services, is the issue around Jordan's principle. This is really starting to heat up now. Members might have seen the news the other day. APTN, the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, published a series of reports about how badly the government is doing on Jordan's principle, which is about ensuring that children are funded for care needs. Before Jordan's principle, it was usually an issue of who pays. Through court cases and other methods, the federal government is responsible for youth. The Jordan's principle measure is meant to ensure that indigenous youth get the care they require immediately and that there is no question about the cost.
According to APTN, there is a backlog about 144,000 files deep for applications to Jordan's principle. Those are usually people who are looking for certain health care costs to be covered. According to APTN, there is no deadline or path to clearing this backlog. As I just mentioned, it is a commitment to uphold the rights of indigenous children.
For those just joining, it is a principle named in honour of Jordan River Anderson, who was a young boy from Norway House Cree Nation. Jordan's principle was designed to ensure that first nations children receive the same access to public services as non-indigenous children, without delays or disruptions.
Our party's leader, the member for Carleton, has said that if a Conservative government is elected in the next federal election, we will fully fund Jordan's principle to ensure that no child, regardless of where they live or their heritage, would be denied or delayed essential services because of bureaucratic red tape. Again, the current government has failed to live up to this commitment. Some of these indigenous children face some of the most serious health and social challenges and continue to be denied the services they need to be able to thrive. Those services could be from health care, education, mental health services or basic needs such as mobility aids and medicine. These are the services promised by Jordan's principle; unfortunately, they are still being delayed or denied.
Unfortunately, as we approach the Christmas break, there are now reports surfacing about massive layoffs of educational assistants right across the country because of delays in Jordan's principle. Another one came out just this morning. This, of course, raises a number of concerns about whether the indigenous students affected will be able to return to class in January. We have talked many times in the House about the historical injustices that indigenous peoples, particularly children, have faced. Again, Jordan's principle was meant to correct all of that. Unfortunately, it has become yet another failure on the government's record.
This is the failure of the Minister of Indigenous Services to properly administer Jordan's principle. Unfortunately, we are seeing that inequality continue under the government and the harms it is creating for the most vulnerable, especially children.
It is not just a matter of dollars and cents; it is a question of moral responsibility. Canada has a duty to right the wrongs of the past, to ensure that every child, no matter where they come from or what community they belong to, can live a healthy and fulfilling life. We know that when children have access to the right services at the right time, they grow up happier and more successful. We know early intervention can change the trajectory of a child's life, preventing lifelong illnesses and struggles, and setting them on a path of success.
We, the opposition, are calling on the government to fulfill its responsibility, to fully implement Jordan's principle, to stand up for what Canada has a duty to provide, to ensure no indigenous child is denied access to the services they need. It is not just an indigenous issue; it is a Canadian issue. Every child in this country, I think we all agree, should be able to access the same opportunities, the same services, the same care, regardless of their background or where they live. Jordan's principle, as I said earlier, is a step toward making this a reality, but we need the government to do its part.
It is time for the Minister of Indigenous Services to act clearly to immediately ensure every indigenous child receives the care, support and services they need to succeed, or to step aside and let someone else do it. We on this side of the House are prepared to do that. We need to stand up for those children who have been left behind for far too long. Let us hold the government accountable. Let the House demand that it live up to the promises of Jordan's principle.
These children are the future of our country and we cannot continue to fail them. The failure to properly administer Jordan's principle and the green slush fund scandal, as I mentioned right off the top, are more than isolated incidents. In a previous speech, I went through, one by one, the various scandals the government has managed to jump itself into, and the erosion of public trust in the government and in our institutions because of the actions the government has taken. When Canadians see their hard-earned dollars squandered on waste, fraud and abuse, they start to lose faith in the ability of their government to act in their best interests.
The green slush fund raises concerns about the effectiveness of the Liberal approach: focusing more on political manoeuvring and less on actual, tangible solutions. Canadians' frustration with the government continues to grow. Time is running out for the government. Many people are calling for change, for an election. Many people want to see their country start to thrive again, to make products here at home, to create jobs, to create opportunity and wealth, all of which have been slowly fading away because of the policies of the Liberal government.
Hopefully, the government will see that it is time to put its ideas to the test and perhaps even implement some of our ideas. We have talked about how taking the tax off new homes could start to create that ability for first-time homebuyers to get into the home ownership market. We have talked about axing the tax, fixing the budget and stopping the crime. We hope to do that very soon, if given the opportunity by Canadians after the next election.
I appreciate the opportunity and I look forward to the questions ahead.