Mike Lake
Leduc—Wetaskiwin, Alberta · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, a year ago this week, the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences released a report commissioned by the Liberal government that identified significant gaps in diagnosis, coordination and access to supports for Canadians with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, or FASD.”
“Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to hear the hon. member, in response to a question from our side, very clearly distance himself from the 10 years of government that he was a part of. Here are some facts on those 10 years.”
“Mr. Speaker, there was another speech made today, probably a little more watched than this one, from our leader, in Calgary, talking about national unity.”
“While Liberals debate terminology to describe the economic crisis, today's consequences are the result of a decade of deliberate Liberal choices, such as the choice to take on mountains of debt early on; the choice to use the cover of a global pandemic to undertake a massive, permanent expansion in inflationary spending; and the choice to…”
“Mr. Speaker, in 2015, the last year of the Harper government, Canada's national debt was $616 million. Today, under the Liberals, it is an astonishing $1.4 trillion, and Canada is the only G20 country in recession. In 2015, Canada had a balanced budget and the richest middle class in the world.”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the hon. parliamentary secretary's speech. At one point she did ask what we would cut. Let me be very clear, because she also referenced my home province of Alberta in kind of a flippant way.”
The complete record
Every one of 107 lines we hold for Mike Lake, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 3.
“However, the Liberal government killed that pipeline. It would have meant billions of dollars coming in annually to the Canadian government. It would have had a huge impact on the economy. Instead of that economic supercharge, which we would have had from that pipeline, the Liberals exacted crushing economic policies that had, by the way, no environmental benefit, while they doubled Canada's debt. We know who did benefit from those Liberal policies. Obviously, it was anybody who had invested in some of the environmental schemes that they had come up with. I would say the current Prime Minister definitely benefited from many of those Liberal policies. As well, the governments, or the people, of Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela benefited. Maybe it was not the people.”
“Today, we are in a situation, not unlike where we were before, where we are now paying more in interest than we are paying in the Canada health transfers. It is insane, quite frankly, that we would be paying more in interest than we are in the Canada health transfers, and that is entirely because of decisions undertaken by this Liberal government. (1330) I will point to one of those decisions, and it is very topical this week. One of those specific decisions was the decision to kill the northern gateway pipeline a decade ago. The Liberal government, when it first came in, made a decision on the northern gateway pipeline, which had been approved, and it was going through its last stages before it would be operational. That pipeline would have shipped 525,000 barrels of oil a day to Asian markets.”
“It wound up running into a situation, or not “running into” because it was not externally driven, but internally, the government wound up creating a situation where we had an energy crisis, a housing crisis, an economic crisis broadly and an interest-rate crisis. To be fair to the Mulroney government of the late eighties and early nineties, it ran a balanced budget, if we were to take interest payments out of the equation. However, the interest on the Trudeau-era debt wound up being the highest deficits in Canadian history, made up exclusively of Trudeau-era interest payments. Today, we find ourselves in a situation where we have had another decade of Liberal government and another decade of continuous deficits running up that debt.”
“The New York Times reported that, for every person in the world who was in the 30th percentile of best off, the 40th percentile of best off or the 50th percentile of best off, of every country in the world, Canadians were the richest. Canadians were the best off, compared to every single country in the world in 2015. Then, we had a change in government. We had a balanced budget in 2015, and now we have rattled off 10 straight years of ever-increasing deficit budgets. The last Liberal member who got up to speak talked about the interest payments paid by a Conservative government in the late eighties and early nineties. What that Liberal member did not point out was that the interest was run up during 14 out of 15 straight Trudeau government deficits, or 14 deficits in 15 years under the Pierre Trudeau government.”
“The Liberals just do this again and again, and then they come to the House for question period, and when we ask them questions about this strategy of taking $1,000 and giving back $800 over and over again to people, they wag their fingers at us, as if to say, “Shame on Conservatives for wanting to take away that $800.” What the Liberals do not say is that we are advocating for them to not take the $1,000, every single time this process happens, over and over again. Of course, this adds up. It adds up to the tune of, this year, $78 billion. This year, we are seeing that our government debt now is more than twice what it was when we were in power. Back in 2015, when Conservatives were in power, we had a balanced budget. We had the richest middle class in the world. In fact, it was not us who said that.”
“Watching what is happening in the House is kind of like watching a Liberal minister go to someone's house, maybe a member's house or some other Canadian voter's house. They take $1,000 from that voter and put together a little parade with a little marching band, party hats, kazoos and whatever the case might be, and then they walk next door with video cameras all fully operating to capture every moment while they hand over $800 to the neighbour. That is out of the $1,000 that they collected from the person in the first place. They give the neighbours $800 and then they broadcast this and post it on social media. The $200 goes into a pot to pay consultants and new public servants. We have added over 100,000 public servants over the last decade.”
“Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to get up on behalf of the hard-working constituents of Leduc—Wetaskiwin to weigh in on debates, particularly debates about fiscal issues. When listening to the debate today, and ultimately after listening to the debate over the last 10 years, it seems that there is an increasing number of Liberals who are standing up to praise their own government, to pat their own government on the back, about ever-increasing, new amounts of spending. That seems to be increasing exponentially as this government gets longer in the tooth. When I say “this government”, I mean the 10-year Liberal government, because I cannot see that anything has changed since the last election. If anything, the spending is getting higher and less responsible.”
“In the 1990s, after similar ratings pressure, the Liberal government of the day was forced to cut 32% from the federal health and social transfers over just two years. Is the member not concerned about the same thing happening today?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is pretty safe to say the hon. member cannot count on my support for this budget. Right now in Canada, the debt is more than the budget, so the amount of debt we owe is more than the entire budget of the federal government. Every dollar spent is a dollar borrowed from Canadians and future Canadians. According to Fitch Ratings, right after the budget was announced, “Canada's...proposed budget, announced in Parliament on Nov. 4, underscores the erosion of the federal government’s finances”. It continued, “persistent fiscal expansion and a rising debt burden have weakened its credit profile and could increase rating pressure over the medium term.” This has happened before, with crushing impacts on the social programs Canadians care about and benefit from.”
“If I talk about Albertans' expertise in drilling and energy, which is probably the most dedicated to being as clean as we can be in terms of energy production, and if I talk about harnessing that expertise to work with countries that have energy resources that are not being used to their economic benefit, I think I can win my constituents over on those conversations. Edmonton is a centre for AI through AMII, the Alberta Machine Intelligence Institute. If we talk about harnessing that expertise and putting it to work, working in partnership with people around the world who have the expertise though maybe not quite the same resources, that is a conversation that is really easy to have with my constituents if we just speak in the language that those constituents are using. I will just close by again thanking the hon.”
“I have had lots of conversations about the terminology with people who work in the sector, but if I talk to my constituents in my incredible riding of Leduc—Wetaskiwin and use the language that the international development world uses, they do not really know what I am talking about. However, I noticed that the first part of the motion talks about reciprocal economic benefit, about harnessing Canadian innovators and small business and about Canadian economic strengths around clean energy, agriculture, digital tech and education. If I talk to my constituents about harnessing Alberta expertise in agriculture so we can deal with the food crisis around the world, it is easy to get them on board.”
“When we consider the challenging budget situation we have right now, there are a few reasons why it is hard to get Canadians to bring up, at their doorsteps, international development. I think number one is addressed in the bill; I think there is a feeling that there is no accountability for the money being spent. I think there is a feeling that the money being spent is not effective. As well, I think there is a feeling that the money is going into the pockets of folks who are not spending it the way it is supposed to be spent, and there is a lack of transparency around it. I think the motion seeks to deal with some of those things. I also think that sometimes the language that gets used is sort of inner circle language or echo chamber language that Canadians have a hard time understanding. I will not get into the terminology.”
“Birthing kits were, for pennies, saving people's lives, women's lives and the lives of kids, and having a huge impact around the world. I do not often stand here in support of a Liberal member's motion or bill, but one of the reasons I am standing here in support of this particular one is that it is designed to bring us together and to find some common ground. One of the key things from Muskoka at the time was that the organizations that came together ahead of time to work with the government and the Prime Minister's Office were really focused on finding the things that 95% of Canadians probably could support at that time. They set aside some things that may have been more wedge issues, to really focus on something that brought people together. That had an enormous impact. However, we are in a different time than we were in then.”
“In those birthing kits might be something like a plastic sheet to lay on a dirt floor so a mom can give birth on the sheet instead of on a dirt floor, or an X-acto knife, a box cutter-type knife, to cut the umbilical cord. Again, it would probably take pennies to produce those, and someone would not have to chew the umbilical cord to break it when a baby is born. I am not allowed to use props, but if I were, I would hold up a little bottle like an eye drop bottle for people with contact lenses, which holds a clean saline-type solution that could be put on the end of the umbilical cord to keep a baby alive. In the absence of that, oftentimes folks in some parts of the world would put mud on the end of the umbilical cord as a way to seal it off. Members can imagine the impact that would have.”
“In the area of moms dying in and around childbirth, in 2000, the number of moms dying every year in and around childbirth around the world, again from completely preventable causes, was 500,000. By 2015, in large part due to the efforts of all countries, but organized through the Muskoka initiative led by Canada, we went from 500,000 moms dying every year to under 300,000 moms dying. There are over 200,000 more mothers living every single year in part because Canada marshalled support from the international community to support the Muskoka initiative. (1115) With respect to these types of impacts, I have seen the birthing kits that organizations use and that they handed out on the ground; organizations like World Vision, Plan International, Save the Children, CARE and UNICEF have been a big part of that.”
“It is important with these types of initiatives, when we are talking about accountability and transparency, to focus on the outcomes. When we look at the outcomes, we can look at the two millennium development goals, or MDGs, which were set out in 2000 with a timeline to finish them by 2015: MDG 4 and MDG 5 around saving the lives of kids and saving the lives of mothers. In 2000, nine million kids were dying every year from things that nobody in North America would die from, like diarrhea, things that were completely preventable. We were way behind on our targets, but By 2015, in large part because of efforts that Canadians led, we went from nine million kids under five dying to under six million kids under five dying every year from completely preventable causes. The momentum really picked up after the Muskoka initiative.”
“On the accountability side, one thing that was hard-wired in was that when G8 countries came to Canada and made a promise on the Muskoka initiative, they were expected to keep that promise. Second to that, on the transparency piece, was working with the international community. In fact, Prime Minister Harper co-chaired a group that was focused on making sure that we knew where the money was going, that there was some transparency around where the money was being spent and that the money was being spent to accomplish the goals that it set out. I remember talking to the CEO of one of the international development organizations in Canada who said the Muskoka initiative was probably one of two G7 or G8 initiatives that had a meaningful impact. Probably the most powerful two were the Make Poverty History campaign and the Muskoka initiative.”
“On the language around accountability and effectiveness, I think back to what got me interested in international development in the first place, which was the Muskoka initiative back in 2010, when the Harper government of the day was hosting the G8 and had the opportunity to have a signature initiative. Stakeholders like Save the Children, UNICEF, CARE, World Vision and others came together and had the idea of tackling two particular targets that were behind: the target to save the lives of kids under five, and the target to save the lives of mothers in and around childbirth. Of course, those were things that all Canadians could support when they really understood what was going on. One thing that was hard-wired into the Muskoka initiative was the steps around accountability and transparency.”
“Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to discuss this important motion from the member for York South—Weston—Etobicoke . I will start by commending the member. We get one shot to move a motion or a private member's bill if we are lucky to be drawn early enough to have it debated in the House. It can be tempting to put something forth that is partisan and that makes it difficult for other parties to support, but as I read this motion, I think the member used his opportunity to move something that can bring the House together. I thank him for that. There are some particular things I would like to note. As I mentioned, the language is drawn to find consensus in the House.”
“The next month, the Liberal government was forced to make the most vicious cuts to health care and social programs in Canadian history. We are on that same path. What does the hon. member suggest we do about it?”
“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member led off his comments by quoting a former PBO, somehow in defence of the government, saying, “Our economy is weak”. If the Liberals have a confidence problem, just about the worst advice that I can imagine is to spend their way out of it. They call it investment, but it is really just spending. Here is what happened in February 1994 according to a Reuters summary: The...Liberal government brings down what it considers to be a tough budget.... It nonetheless still has spending rising slightly, and immediate public and market reaction is it did not go nearly far enough.... January 1995—A biting editorial in the Wall Street Journal headlined “Bankrupt Canada” calls Canada “an honorary member of the Third World”....”
“It called itself a new government, yet although the current Prime Minister promised he would get spending under control, the deficit in the most recent budget is infinitely higher and is substantially higher than what he promised in the election just six short months ago. I am hoping that the hon. member across the way, the hon. parliamentary secretary, will stand up and explain to Canadians his concern for the future of all the valuable social programs here in Canada.”
“In 1994, the Liberal government put forward a budget that did not go nearly far enough, and the ratings agencies and other financial experts were highly critical of that budget, to the point where, in the subsequent budget in 1995, the Liberal government of the day, the Chrétien-Martin government, had to cut 32% over two years from the health transfer and the social transfer; it was one transfer to the provinces back then that went to health, social services and education. We can imagine the ripple effect this had across the country. We are going through a time like that now. We have just come out of Trudeau the second. We have come out of 10 straight deficits in 10 years under Justin Trudeau's government. The current government came in and said it would be different.”
“A lot of Liberals on the other side like to point to the deficits of the Mulroney era, but I think it is very instructive in this conversation that the deficits of the Mulroney era were entirely interest on Trudeau's debt, the debt that Pierre Trudeau had run up over 14 out of 15 years. It was a crushing amount, and the interest costs alone created some of the biggest deficits in Canadian history.”
“After the budget, just recently, Fitch Ratings came out with a statement: “Canada’s...proposed budget, announced in Parliament on Nov. 4, underscores the erosion of the federal government’s finances.” It went on to say, “persistent fiscal expansion and a rising debt burden have weakened its credit profile and could increase rating pressure over the medium term.” This has happened before, under a Liberal government. A generation earlier, under Trudeau the first, Liberal governments ran deficits in 14 out of 15 straight years. Fast-forward to the Mulroney era.”
“Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of chatting about family, I will say that I was elected almost 20 years ago. My kids were 10 and six years old at the time I was elected. It has been a long time. A couple of weeks ago, my son celebrated his 30th birthday. I have talked about Jaden a lot in this place. My daughter, in a couple of weeks, is getting married. Time flies. There is a little bit of applause for our families back home. What caused me to get involved in politics was a concern for Canada's economic or fiscal situation back then. Of course in the mid-2000s, there was the sponsorship scandal we were facing, but if we go back a little in time, there is a history lesson that I think is really important, which happened under a Liberal government.”
“Mr. Speaker, ratings are always great until the day they are not. Here is a quick review of the early nineties from Reuters. In February 1994, it said, “The...Liberal government brings down what it considers to be a tough budget.... It nonetheless still has spending rising slightly, and immediate public and market reaction is it did not go nearly far enough.” In January 1995, it said, “A biting editorial in the Wall Street Journal headlined ‘Bankrupt Canada’ calls Canada ‘an honorary member of the Third World.’” The next month, the Liberal government was forced to make the most vicious cuts to health care and social programs in Canadian history. Who over there is willing to take a stand to avoid a repeat?”
“Mr. Speaker, speaking of experts, according to Fitch Ratings just yesterday, “Canada's...proposed budget, announced in Parliament on Nov. 4, underscores the erosion of the federal government's finances...[and] persistent fiscal expansion and a rising debt burden have weakened its credit profile and could increase rating pressure over the medium term.” This has happened before, with crushing impacts on Canadians. In the nineties, after similar rating pressure, the Liberal government of the day was forced to cut 32% from federal health and social transfers over just two years. Does anyone over there understand the gravity of this situation?”
“Whether building playgrounds and spray parks in their local communities or eradicating polio worldwide, these friends and neighbours stand shoulder to shoulder, roll up their sleeves and just do the work. Today, we are closer than ever to ending polio once and for all. Working together, we will win. Along the way, every one of us will be individually better for having taken part in the fight.”
“Mr. Speaker, for decades in Canada, Conservative and Liberal governments alike have been steadfast leaders in the global fight to end polio. Partners include Global Citizen, Results and the Canadian Partnership for Women and Children's Health, but the undisputed leader in this mission is Rotary International, where there is no bigger champion than Canada's own Jennifer Jones, who became its first woman international president just a few years ago. Rotary's vision statement says, “Together, we see a world where people unite and take action to create lasting change—across the globe, in our communities, and in ourselves.” Canadian Rotarians and Rotaractors live this out every single day.”
“Mr. Speaker, in 2015, The New York Times reported that Canada had the richest middle class in the world. Just a decade later, our country is in an economic tailspin. What happened in 2015 was that the Liberal government took power, and many of its current ministers, including the finance minister , were elected. Here is where we are today: During an epic housing crisis, 99% of CMHC executives got bonuses, averaging $43,000. How is that okay? How is it that Canada, under their watch, went from the richest middle class in the world to a country where many middle-class Canadians cannot afford housing?”
“Mr. Speaker, let us remember that Santa Claus is not spending taxpayer dollars. Every single dollar the Liberal government brags about spending comes from the pockets of hard-working Canadians, in the form of higher taxes and inflation. While Canadians line up at food banks in record numbers, their own money is being used by the Liberal government to hand out hundreds of millions of dollars in executive bonuses. Here is a case in point: Last year, 100% of Via Rail executives got bonuses, averaging $110,000. This is incomprehensible and irresponsible. Instead of trying to provoke a costly election with another costly Liberal budget, why not have an affordable budget for an affordable life, for all Canadians?”
“I also want to salute the incomparable Mary Davis, CEO of Special Olympics International, soon retiring after 47 years of tireless leadership in the organization. As Special Olympics Canada prepares for the 2026 Canada Summer Games in Medicine Hat, I know colleagues from all sides of this House will join me in recognizing its invaluable contribution to our country.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to honour one of the most incredible organizations in the history of sport. While others will no doubt pay tribute to our beloved Blue Jays this afternoon, I am here to celebrate the many Special Olympics athletes joining us in Ottawa today. For six decades, the Special Olympics has changed the lives of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities worldwide, including the over 40,000 Canadian athletes who participate today. One of those athletes is my own son Jaden, who radiates pure joy whenever he has a bowling ball in his hands. Another athlete is Damion, a multi-sport Special Olympian and athlete ambassador I met this morning. Damion is carrying the torch in a way that would make the legendary Joey Moss proud.”
“Each of these recipients is proof that change is possible when compassion is matched with concrete action. Together, let us continue striving for a Canada that understands and supports mental health and substance use health with the same urgency as physical health, a Canada that meets our awesome potential for everyone.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health, or CAMIMH, and to highlight the importance of Mental Illness Awareness Week, which is taking place October 5 to October 11. CAMIMH has spent the last 25 years ensuring mental health and substance use health remain national priorities, advocating for awareness, reducing stigma and demanding life-changing care. Later this evening in Ottawa, CAMIMH will announce the 2025 Champions of Mental Health Awards, celebrating seven remarkable individuals and organizations making a lasting difference in communities across our country through their efforts. I want to extend my warmest congratulations to this year's honourees for their leadership and commitment to advancing mental health and substance use health.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will note that the Liberal members seem incapable of using the words “pipeline” or “oil” in the House of Commons. Let me keep this simple: It is a fact that the emissions reporting requirement on Saudi oil being sold in Canada is less stringent than for Canadian oil being sold in Canada. Who in the Liberal government wants to stand now to defend this incomprehensible policy?”
“Mr. Speaker, this week, Canada hosted the G7, and one of the people on the Prime Minister 's invitation list was the crown prince of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia currently has a sweetheart deal with Canada, shipping over two billion dollars' worth of Saudi oil a year to our Canadian east coast. Alberta oil, shipped to the same place, would face extremely onerous reporting requirements on upstream and downstream emissions, yet no such requirements exist for Saudi oil. Why?”
“Mr. Speaker, just one last time, I want to hear an answer to this question. Does either minister believe that oil coming from Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Ecuador or Colombia should be subject to the same rigorous emission standards as oil coming from Alberta, Saskatchewan or Newfoundland and Labrador? Please answer the question.”
“Mr. Speaker, the top producing countries for oil in the world are the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Russia. Russia is number three, just ahead of Canada. Do either of the ministers, or anybody in the government, realize that when we refuse to sell Canadian oil and gas to the world, countries are forced to buy that oil from Russia? Therefore, the Canadian government's energy policy is a pro-Russia energy policy. Does that seem reasonable to either minister?”
“Mr. Speaker, in addition to the oil coming from Nigeria and Saudi Arabia, we brought in 403 million dollars' worth of oil from Colombia and 202 million dollars' worth of oil from Ecuador. None of that oil was subject to the same rigorous reporting on upstream and downstream emissions as oil coming from Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Does the Minister of International Trade see that as fair?”
“Mr. Speaker, that 2.5 billion dollars' worth of oil coming from Nigeria and $2.1 billion coming from Saudi Arabia, $4.6 billion, is not subject to the same rigorous reporting on upstream and downstream emissions as oil coming from Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Does the minister think that is fair?”
“Mr. Speaker, according to the Canadian Energy Regulator, in 2023, Canada imported 19.5 billion dollars' worth of crude oil. This included 2.5 billion dollars' worth of oil imported into Canada from Nigeria. How important would that $2.5 billion of revenue be to the Canadian government's efforts to fund things like health care and education in Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, in August 2017, the National Energy Board issued a decision. It said, “the NEB will consider upstream and downstream greenhouse gas emissions...in determining whether these projects are in the public interest.” That effectively killed energy east or any east-west pipeline. Does the minister agree that upstream and downstream GHG emissions should be considered before oil and gas projects are allowed in Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, tonight the Liberals have talked a lot about equalization. The minister said, “We are increasing fiscal equalization by nearly $970 million.” I have spent about seven hours this week so far in committee of the whole, and I am wondering whether Liberal ministers or members are allowed to use the word “oil” in these debates.”
“Is the $2.5 billion of oil imported into Canada from Nigeria and the $2.1 billion from Saudi Arabia subject to the same rigorous reporting on upstream and downstream emissions as oil coming from Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador?”
“Mr. Speaker, my home province will be listening very closely to the conversation that we are having tonight. The National Energy Board, in its decision on Energy East, said that the NEB “will consider...upstream and downstream GHG emissions” in determining whether these projects are “in the public interest.” This is effectively the government policy right now. According to the Canada Energy Regulator, the former National Energy Board, in 2023, Canada imported 19.5 billion dollars' worth of crude oil. This included 2.5 billion dollars' worth of oil imported into Canada from Nigeria, and 2.1 billion dollars' worth from Saudi Arabia.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that he would take Quebec, as it imports 365,000 barrels a day, all of it coming from abroad, so we have an opportunity to displace there. Does the minister suggest we should use pipelines or rail to displace that oil going to Quebec, which her own boss says we need to displace?”
“Mr. Speaker, one of the minister's cabinet colleagues has strongly expressed a contrary opinion, saying, “Maybe as much as half of oil reserves, proven reserves, need to stay in the ground if we are going to get where we are.” Does the minister agree with her cabinet colleague?”
“Mr. Speaker, the quote was, “we should be using it all the time ourselves because we are going to use what I call conventional oil and gas for the rest of my life and beyond.” Does the minister agree with those statements?”