Mr. Speaker, just before I dive into the substance of what will be, I have no doubt, of great interest to all those in this place when it comes to the SDTC scandal that has continued to paralyze this place and the Liberal government, specifically the Prime Minister's refusal to simply release the documents, there are just a couple of quick things I would like to note. One is very personal.
When I get home on the weekends, I see, in particular, my grandmas. My one grandma, she texts me. My other grandma, I just see her whether it is at church on Sunday or when I go to visit her. They often compliment me on my speeches and whatnot. Sometimes I think we wonder if anybody is actually watching these proceedings. I know both my grandmas, Linda and Nora, are, so here is a shout-out to both Grandma Linda and Grandma Nora, two fine women, and to my grandfathers who have passed on. They have an incredible legacy there. I love my grandma, and I love my grandma. This is a shout-out to them because there is a good chance they are watching. I am thankful for that latitude.
Here we are back debating the green slush fund, where we have an instance of nearly $400 million of taxpayers' money. Let me pause there because I think there is an important distinction I would like to elaborate on a little bit. We have an instance where there is this $400 million that has been misallocated, wrongly allocated to organizations, companies, etc. It has been called into question. It is close to $400 million.
What is important is not just the dollar amount. Do not get me wrong; it is a huge number. What is key in understanding this and why it is such a significant thing for us to get answers on and for us to get true clarity when it comes to what happened here is that this is $400 million not of the government's money. The government does not have money in and of itself, but rather it has money it derives from taxes. It is the money it derives from taxes that it then spends. This is often forgotten in this place.
As parliamentarians from all parties, we need to take seriously that it is not the government's money to spend, but rather it is for us to be stewards of the dollars paid in taxes by Canadians. This fundamental premise is so often forgotten. We have seen time and time again over these last nine years under the NDP-Liberals that they have forgotten where the money comes from. The result of that is an utter disregard that leads to scandals like the one we are seeing today, where we have an unbelievable amount of money, close to $400 million, being misallocated, allocated where there were conflicts of interest, etc.
I will get into the privilege side of that here in just a moment, but what is absolutely key is that the amount of money this relates to is truly astonishing.
In comparison, most Canadians who will be watching, whether it is my grandmas, as I referenced earlier, or so many others, are wondering what the deal is with this $400 million. It is said that, when economists do evaluations when it comes to the dollars in an economy, often the most easily understood dollars in terms of amounts are not the numbers and figures parliamentarians quite often throw around when an announcement has millions or billions of dollars associated with it. When it really comes down to it, an average Canadian family's biggest expense it will make is the purchase of its home.
While we have seen a doubling of house prices over the last decade under these NDP-Liberals and we have seen some real challenges in terms of Canadians being able to afford the basics, the carbon tax impact on all of these things and the inflationary effect it has had across our economy and everything related to that, the average Canadian spends less than a million dollars on a home.
We have an example where the largest purchase that the average Canadian family ever makes is one four-hundredth of the tax dollars that have been abused when it comes to this green slush fund. The scale and the impact is truly astonishing, and we can break that down further.
A common investment within most households is that of a vehicle. I know it has been called into question. I did not even know Maserati made SUVs, but that has certainly been publicized here as of late as the choice of vehicle for the leader of the fourth party. I looked at the price. For somebody who claims to be from the middle class, that is quite a claim when someone drives that type of vehicle.
We have the average vehicle. When it comes to what Canadians spend, the average between Canadians buying used vehicles and those who buy new, we have before us the average price of a vehicle equating to about $40,000. That is the average from the very expensive Maserati, like the one the leader of the fourth party drives, to Canadians who are just starting out drive, like a 16-year-old buying their first vehicle for several thousand dollars. We have an average of about $40,000.
We can think about the scale of $400 million versus $40,000. It puts it into context. The reason I am flagging this and providing that context is that it is truly astonishing, the scale of this scandal with the hard-earned dollars taxpayers earned and paid to the government through taxes. We saw money misallocated and misappropriated, and through a scandal-ridden process, we have this abuse.
I would suggest this bears repeating because of the failures that have been exposed. The former minister of industry took an organization that, under the previous Harper government and under the scandal-plagued Martin and Chrétien governments before, was operating fairly well. It had a high efficiency rate and a good return on investment, and it certainly did not have the types of scandals that we are seeing today.
We had three successive governments that, under their leadership, saw this organization do its job, which was to invest in sustainable technologies. This included times when there might be a business case with a bit higher risk, so going with partnerships in terms of private lending and whatnot. We saw a good return on taxpayers' investments, those hard-earned dollars that the government takes that could be leveraged for economic development. However, in 2018, the former minister, Navdeep Bains, fired Harper's board and installed Liberal insiders. This is where the problems began to brew.
We have seen, over the last five or six years, the result of this $400 million that has been called into question. It is truly astonishing the scale of the scandal we have before us. Now we have, I believe, week six, maybe going into week seven, of Parliament having been seized with this issue. It has been paralyzed by this scandal that has shaken the very foundations of our democratic infrastructure and is calling into question for so many Canadians whether or not they can trust the government.
I talk often about trust in this place because trust is a key element of what we do here. It is the idea of the social contract. In fact, I spoke to a class this morning, and it was a very interesting discussion. I always appreciate it. It was a grade nine class from the Prairie Christian Academy in Three Hills, Alberta. They are a great group of kids with great questions and very engaging conversation. It truly was a great opportunity to talk about how to get involved in government, citizenship and the responsibility of that. It was an incredible conversation.
One of the things that we talked about was the idea of the social contract. Although that is often a topic of conversation that happens in university philosophy classes, the reason I bring up the idea of the social contract is that there is this back-and-forth, this tension that exists. Citizens have responsibilities in order to have freedoms. There is a tension that exists. We have to be able to trust the government for it to be able to function appropriately in our country.
Where we see the social contract being called into question is that, after nine years of the Liberals, there has been an erosion of trust that has taken place. The erosion of trust that has taken place is forcing many Canadians across our country to lose trust not only in the person who is in charge, the current Prime Minister and those in the Liberal Party and the NDP who continue to prop him up, but they are losing trust in the very foundational institutions of our democracy.
Those institutions have persisted, in the case of Canada, for 157 years, with responsible government coming several decades before that and different types of administrations prior to that point in time. Our history of our democratic system dates back more than 800 years to the United Kingdom, wherein the first few sentences of the British North America Act, now known as the Constitution Act of 1867, talk about its being similar in form to that of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the Westminster system.
We are seeing this mismanagement call into question the trust that Canadians should have in their institutions. I would suggest today that of all the things that we debate, this truly is one of such significance because it is the keystone on which we continue to ensure that we have a strong and functioning democracy.
We have to be able to trust that our government works. Let me unpack that for just a moment. We need to ensure that it is not simply trust in an individual, because no government is an individual. The reality here is that we have an erosion of trust in the institution in and of itself. Whereas we used to be able to say we might not like the guy or gal in charge but we could respect the office, it has come to the point where, truly, there are so many instances of people losing trust in the institutions themselves. That is something that should seize each and every one of us as parliamentarians.
The basic premise of trust in our institutions underlies the debate we are having, and when it comes to the very basics, we have to release the documents. It is simple, just three words: Release the documents. It is not that hard.
We have Parliament, which has constitutionally unfettered access and the ability to demand documents. In fact, in the constitutional framework, which was written long before the advent of computers, we have the ability for government to demand any document that exists in Canada. Any Parliament can demand that. It is within its rights to demand any document.
Over the last nine years, we have seen something that I would like to unpack a little here. Not only is it a refusal of the government to release the documents in relation to this $400 million in taxpayers' money that has been misallocated where there were conflicts of interest, etc., but we are seeing how, in the midst of this, it is truly the continuation of a pattern. This pattern could be summed up by a phrase: It is that the Liberals, under the Prime Minister, have normalized constitutional crises. I say that, not flippantly, but with all seriousness, because, time and time again, we see how they have an utter disregard for the Constitution.
When most Canadians think of the Constitution, they think of the thing that is often on the walls of classrooms, which is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is an important aspect of our Constitution. It has Pierre Elliott Trudeau's signature at the bottom of it, although in the history of that, for those who might be watching, what was eventually adopted was certainly different from what Pierre Elliott Trudeau had envisioned, but he was certainly happy to take credit for it.
However, we have that as part of our Constitution, as well as a host of other constitutional documents, including one I referenced earlier, which is the British North America Act, or the Constitution Act 1867. We have a host of constitutional documents, dating back to the foundation of this country, which lead all the way to where we are today. There was a minor constitutional amendment just a number of years ago on the number of MPs who would represent each province in this place. We have a series of documents and, when it comes to constitutional law, it is a series of written and unwritten laws that define the Westminster system.
What we have before us shows that the government has an utter disregard for constitutional conventions and for the role of the 800-plus years of constitutional history that has built this Westminster system. The Liberals have an utter disregard for the things that have allowed us to function as a free and open democracy. It is not without its challenges, but certainly the Liberals are putting our institutions at risk with the normalizing of constitutional crises. I would highlight one that comes to mind, and I often hear from constituents about this. It is the Winnipeg lab scandal, when there were documents that Parliament demanded. It was a minority Parliament. The 2021 election, despite the Prime Minister's promise that he would not call it, but then he called it anyway, seemed to leverage much of the fear that Canadians had about the COVID pandemic, which seems to be a big part of it.
What happened during that summer was absolutely astounding. The government took Parliament, specifically the former Speaker, to court over a document request and a constitutional crisis. This was unbelievable and unacceptable. The election took place. Was that the reason the Liberals called the election? Was there something that was so revealing that it would have brought down the Prime Minister and the government and would have exposed them? I do not know, but what is very clear is that the Liberals will stop at nothing, including ripping up the Constitution, to try to cover up their scandals time and time again.
In 2020, the Liberals proposed to give themselves unlimited spending and taxation powers. Just to give some context, that would have torn up 800 years of tradition that demands responsible government, including money only being spent with the permission of the House and taxes only being levied by Parliament.
We see that we have before us an astounding series of events that have lead us to the privilege debate we are having today. The Liberals could end this immediately. They could end it. They simply have to release the documents. In doing so, they would put to rest the crises that they have brought forward, which have not only kept them from being able to accomplish their agenda, but also caused an erosion of trust in the very institution of this place.
I will conclude my remarks by referencing some of the extraordinary Canadians whom we work for. I had the opportunity to meet with constituents, including the fire chief from Hanna, Alberta, Mr. Mohl, and a couple of his colleagues. One was from Redwater and the other from Grande Prairie. They are small-town and small-city fire chiefs. It was a good conversation. They came and saw question period. What was encouraging in the midst of that was to see Canadians at work. In this case, they are small-town emergency services personnel who are ready to do the work when called upon. I compliment them. I know there is advocacy that is taking place on the Hill this week, and I wish them the best in that. I appreciate the opportunity to have met them earlier.
When it comes down to it, we need to take seriously our responsibility as parliamentarians. We need to ensure that we are responding to the call and, when it comes to the very crux of the issue here, that we restore trust in our institutions. That can start with the Liberals releasing the documents so we can get back to work.
