Mike Lake

[Privilege, October 7th, 2024]

On that point, Madam Speaker, can you please clarify the language that you are deeming unparliamentary? I think it is critical right now that we get some clarity. The members on the other end who brought this up caused disruption—

[Privilege, October 7th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, we need to have some clarity on the language that is allowed or not allowed in the House. The hon. Liberal member—

[Privilege, October 7th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I am not sure we have quorum.

And the count having been taken:

[Committees of the House, October 3rd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I have mentioned this a couple of times. The number one thing we can do for vulnerable Canadians, whatever the vulnerability might be, is to fix the budget and to fix our spending problem in this country. Ultimately, the most vulnerable always pay the price. They pay the price in the present because their incomes do not go up with inflation. They pay the price in the future because future governments cannot afford to fund new innovative programs; they do not have the budget to do it.

We need to get on top of the budget and Canada's fiscal crisis exactly for the most vulnerable—

[Committees of the House, October 3rd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, the NDP has brought up the Harper record multiple times today. The Harper government increased health transfers by 6% every single year we were in government. With Jim Flaherty as finance minister, we introduced the registered disability savings plan; Ready, Willing and Able; and Employment Works. We launched a Canadian autism partnership and funded Special Olympics. We got the Abilities Centre built in Whitby, and we introduced the working income tax benefit. I could go on.

Jim Flaherty and the Conservative government were seen as champions for the disability community, notwithstanding what NDP members might be saying today.

[Committees of the House, October 3rd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, when we introduced an amendment to deal with clawbacks, they voted against it. On the other topic, what I said was that we want the same thing. We want to help people. However, I also talked about outcomes; I hope he did not miss that part. The reality is that the outcomes we are achieving are not what our country wants right now.

In fact, we are achieving the worst outcomes for vulnerable people in the entire developed world. Life is becoming harder and harder for Canadians with disabilities. I do not have time to read the quote right now, but if members want to check, they can look into what Inclusion Canada had to say. It is at the point where it is easier for Canadians to choose death through medical assistance in dying than it is for Canadians living with disabilities to live. That is shameful. We need to get to a place where that situation does not exist.

[Committees of the House, October 3rd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, it has been very interesting to listen to the debate today. Obviously, folks are passionate about this issue on all sides. As I reflect on this, I think about the university presentations I get a chance to do. I do a lot of presentations talking about, basically, how we define normal. I share stories of my son's life with autism and video clips that we have had a chance to make over the years, where he is being included in musical theatre in school, working in the school library and those kinds of things.

It is interesting; some of the universities I visit are not in the most Conservative places in the country. I can think of some in the GTA where I am not sure how many Conservatives there would be among 500 students. There are probably more today than there have been in the past. Once in a while, they comment on how they do not automatically think of the Conservative Party when they think about those issues. They ask me to explain that a little bit. I explain it by saying that, in this place, we are human beings before our party affiliation, regardless of our party. We all want the best for people with disabilities.

Based on some of the words we hear today, some people would like folks to believe that one party or another party does not care. The reality is that we all care about creating the best opportunities and the best Canada for people with disabilities. Sometimes, we just have different thoughts on how to get there.

I look at the timeline on the bill. It is important, given the tenor of the debate today, to highlight that, first of all, this idea came up in the 2020 throne speech first. It then came to the House, I think, as Bill C-35 in 2021. Of course, the priority for the government of the day, at that point in time, was an election in the summer of 2021. Everything was shut down while we spent $600,000 or $700,000 on the election, or whatever amount of money it was. It was hundreds of thousands of dollars, millions of dollars with all of our parties. It was $600 million, not thousands.

Obviously, it was money that could have been spent on other things. We fought that election, and then the government brought back the legislation as Bill C-22. It went through over the course of time. It was not a high priority. It took two and a half years to get it passed. It is really important to point out that, when it did pass, it passed unanimously in the House of Commons.

There is nobody in the House, regardless of what some members want people to believe, who did not support Bill C-22, who did not support the Canada disability benefit. This is a really important fact. On our side, we were concerned about a significant lack of clarity. We have said this over and over again.

There was less information in this piece of legislation than in almost any piece of legislation I have seen, with more left up to the future regulatory process in terms of what that would look like. In this debate today, we are seeing the consequences of that lack of clarity.

Another thing that is really clear right now is that what the Liberals were promising, the expectation that they were creating, was dramatically higher than the reality that came to be when the Canada disability benefit was delivered. I suspect that this is largely because of the issue of priorities. This is the highest-spending government in the history of our country by far, with double the amount of spending of any other government. The amount of debt we have run up is unparalleled. I think the bottom line is that the Liberals are running out of money; even for the things that they say are important, they do not have the money to fund it.

It is also really important to note that, as we are having the debate, we have a situation where the NDP is criticizing the government relentlessly, day in and day out, about everything. Again, everybody in the House is on the same side in terms of the importance of getting things right for Canadians living with disability and the operation of that, in a sense, in terms of the way that it winds up being in the House.

It is not just the Canada disability benefit. It is everything else. I think it would be right for Canadians listening in on this debate to ask this: If this is so important to the NDP, how in the world did they not negotiate what they wanted in their deal with the Liberals?

This has been one of the longest-serving minority Parliaments since the twenties or thirties, maybe in the history of the country. The NDP vote with the Liberals, to support the Liberals, every single day in the House. They endorse the Liberals with their positions and their votes. At any point in time, the NDP could have said that something is the line in the sand. They could have used their leverage to get whatever they want out of the Liberal Party. On this issue, obviously, it was not a priority at the negotiating table for the NDP. We just have to take that context into consideration as Canadians listen to this debate.

One thing I would like to focus on is outcomes. We talk a lot about dollar amounts, with big dollar amounts for some programs. The Liberal defence today has involved talking about how much money the program costs. However, we have to take a look at outcomes.

I think about the outcomes that I want for my son Jaden, who is now 28, Canadians like my son, and people around the world like my son. He was 10 when I was first elected; he will turn 29 in November. He was two and a half years old when he was diagnosed in 1998. We want timely diagnoses for things that can be diagnosed. Obviously, in the disability world, it is not all about diagnosis. We want early help for people when they need it in those early years. We want to make sure that we have an education system that includes people to the maximum. Obviously, this is mostly in the provincial jurisdiction. We want to make sure we have proper housing, employment opportunities, skills development and those kinds of things.

Of course, as parents, we often think about what happens when we are gone. One thing I consider when I think about Jaden and people like him across the country is that we want to make sure we have good programs now. We want to make sure that Jaden and other Canadians who are vulnerable have the supports they need right now. We are also concerned about the future. We want to make sure that the same supports, or better supports, are there for our loved ones when we are gone.

Right now, I am very concerned about the level of government spending overall, at the dramatic record-setting levels of spending we have seen from the Liberal-NDP government, which has recently been supported by the Bloc. When Jaden was diagnosed in 1998, provinces across the country were having difficulty funding diagnosis and early help for people with autism. One reason they were having trouble was that the Liberal government had initiated a 32% cut in 1995. This was a generation after the massive deficits run up by the Trudeau government in the seventies and eighties. It was a real cut, not the fake type of cut that members often allude to, in transfers to the provinces for health, social services and education. I think it was in the $35-billion range overall. This was just gone because of a fiscal situation brought on by the massive debt and deficit run up in the seventies and eighties. I feel as though we are going down that road right now.

I think the people who are most hurt by the inflationary policies of the government in the current circumstances are the most vulnerable people in Canada, including Canadians with disabilities. They are living on fixed incomes. Those populations will be the ones hurt down the road when the real crisis hits because of the fiscal situation the government has created.

I look forward to questions. I hope we can come up with some ideas in this place about how we could actually create better outcomes for Canadians living with disabilities.

[Committees of the House, October 3rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe misleading the House is against the rules of the House. The hon. member can look at every single budget from the Conservative years—

[Committees of the House, October 3rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the subject of Jim Flaherty will probably come up over the next three hours. I want to make sure we are clear on a couple of things because the hon. NDP member did not know who he was, and the Liberal member mocked him and his legacy a little in the House. Of course, Minister Flaherty passed away in 2014. He had a son with a developmental disability and was very public about it.

The CBC said, “although Flaherty's legacy may be measured by his effectiveness at keeping the books balanced during one of history's most calamitous economic periods, he was also passionate about improving quality of life for disabled Canadians.” André Picard, of the Globe and Mail, wrote, “Disability community ‘has lost a true champion’ in Jim Flaherty”.

As we are having the conversation about this important issue, which affects many of us and many of our families, I am just going to make this comment. I am not even going to ask a question. I hope that we can all show some respect in this place and understand that we all want the best for Canadians living with disabilities.

[Committees of the House, October 3rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, we heard both NDP members of Parliament reference Conservative approaches to disability. I would point out that during our time in government, our finance minister, Jim Flaherty, known as a champion for the disability community, introduced measures to help Canadians with disabilities in every single budget, including ready, willing and able; the RDSP; the employment works program; and the Canadian autism partnership working group. In this Parliament, the only party fighting against the extension of MAID for people whose sole issue is disability is the Conservative Party.

I want to point out one thing. She said that the Conservative government decreased health care payments. We hear that all the time. The fact is that our Conservative government increased transfers for health care by 6% every single year.

Why does the member and her party continue to spread the falsehood?