House of Commons photo

Track Mike

Your Say

Elsewhere

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word is liberal.

Conservative MP for Leduc—Wetaskiwin (Alberta)

Won his last election, in 2025, with 75% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1 May 11th, 2021

Madam Speaker, when we were in government we laid out a seven-year plan to get back to balance and we got back to balance slowly during that time. It should be noted that during that time we could not spend enough to satisfy the Liberal members, and we see that in this very question. We laid out a plan to get to balance over 10 years. The current Liberal government has no plan to get back to balance, but an endless plan to continue to spend money. It is interesting that it criticizes our plan to get back to balance because it does not go fast enough when we have asked the Liberal government time and again what its plan is and there is no response from it.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1 May 11th, 2021

Madam Speaker, what a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak to this bill for the budget implementation act. I listened carefully to the previous speaker from the Liberal Party and wanted to say a couple of things in regard to working with him. I note, with appreciation, that back in 2017, he was the only Liberal member of Parliament who broke the whip on the Canadian autism partnership and voted in support of it in 2017, along with members from all of the opposition parties. I very much appreciate him for that.

I also appreciated the member quoting Wayne Gretzky. In my previous life before I was a member of Parliament, I worked for the Edmonton Oilers for a decade, and so I very much appreciated that speech. I loved the quote that he used. One of the things that was key to Wayne Gretzky's success was practice. His father had a reputation for building a rink in their backyard and Wayne would go out for hours on end just practising. One of the keys to practising, of course, is repeating something learned from the past, which is where I will turn my comments to now.

The member said that in regards to where we are going right now that it “might end badly.” This is of great concern to members on the Conservative side and to my constituents here in Edmonton—Wetaskiwin that this might end badly.

In regard to learning from the past, I was very interested when the Liberal member for Scarborough—Guildwood said that “in 1995, we were named as an honorary member of the third world.” I listened with interest because that was where I was planning to go with my own speech. Of course, in 1995, Canada's credit rating went down under the Chrétien and Martin Liberal government of the day. We slashed spending on things like health care, social services and education. We slashed international development spending; all of those things. Our spending was the lowest that it has been in my lifetime. I am concerned that that is where we are heading right now. I am going to talk a little bit about what got us there in 1995 and the late nineties where, as the member said, we were named as an honorary member of the third world. To find out what got us to that point, we will have to go back to the Trudeau government of 1968 and the seventies.

When Pierre Trudeau and his Liberal government came to power, there was almost no debt in Canada. There was very little debt, relative to where we are right now, and that Trudeau government decided to conduct an experiment. It decided that running perpetual deficits was a good idea. It ran deficits in 14 out of the 15 years that it was in power. Of course, when the Liberals were no longer in power, interest rates were at an all-time high. There have been some comments about interest rates in some of the speeches so far. However, interest rates were not at an all-time high the entire time the Liberals were in power. When they were making decisions to run their massive deficit experiment, interest rates were much lower.

To give context, in August of 1981, interest rates were at 20.78%, which was a disaster for Canada. That was just before the equally disastrous national energy program experiment that the Trudeau government at that time ran. In August of 1971, 10 years earlier, as the government was just in its third year of power, interest rates were at 5%. By August of 1976, interest rates had risen from 5% to 9.25%, and by August of 1981 they had gone up to 20.78%. Folks who think that interest rates are just going to remain low forever maybe need a little bit of a history lesson, maybe to go back in time and take a look at what happened in the 1970s.

There was a transition of power in 1984 to the Mulroney government and the Liberals, pre-pandemic, prior to the massive deficit spending, liked to point out that in previous decades the highest levels of debt were incurred under the Mulroney government. What they do not say is that the debt incurred, the deficits run up, under the Mulroney government were almost entirely interest on Pierre Trudeau's debt. The interest levels were so high that our biggest deficits in history were simply interest payments on the debt that Pierre Trudeau ran up. Of course, that bill came due and it came due more than a generation later than when the deficit started to be racked up by the Trudeau government. That debt came due in the late 1990s when, as the Liberal member for Scarborough—Guildwood pointed out, we were named as an honorary member of the third world.

I hope that we learn something today as we go down the road we are going down. We have to acknowledge that we are in a global pandemic and any government in power, any of the main parties, would be running large deficits at this point in time to deal with the challenge we are facing. The Conservative government back in 2008, 2009 and 2010 had to run fairly large deficits to deal with the global meltdown. The difference between now and then is that the Conservative government had a plan right from the start to get our budget back to balance.

We knew that we could not incur these deficits forever and that eventually, in the long-term interest of Canadians, we had to ensure we got our budget back to balance, so in 2008 we laid out a seven-year plan to get back to balance. In 2015 we got back to balance. We followed the plan to a T. I had the pleasure of serving on the cabinet committee from 2012 to 2105 that reviewed the plans of the government, ministers and departments to play their role in getting back to balance. We got back to balance by 2015 and that was the fiscal situation that the government of the day inherited.

If we look at this budget, where the government is on program spending, in 2014-15 program spending in the Conservatives' last year of government was $254 billion. Now let us look at 2019-20, pre-pandemic, before anybody knew what was going to happen. We should remember that the entire way through, Conservatives were asking the government if it was prepared for a future eventuality where the global economy was not as strong as it was. During this entire time of global strength in the economy relative to what it had been previously, rather than continue with a balanced budget and increased spending because of increased revenues that the government could then have the flexibility to spend on priorities of Canadians, it decided to rack up massive new spending. In 2014-15, program spending was $254 billion and by 2019-20, it was $349 billion, up $95 billion, 37.5%, in just five years. That is insane in terms of fiscal management. That was leading into the pandemic.

If we look at this budget, we are dealing with what we are dealing with now, but Canadians would expect to see a government that would have a plan for a post-pandemic world, for getting our finances in order and moving beyond the pandemic. In this budget, if we fast-forward to 2022-23, plans for spending after the pandemic is over, the government's projected program spending is $412 billion. We should remember that in the last year of the Harper government, it was $254 billion. Eight years later, the government plans program spending of $412 billion, an increase of over $150 billion, over 62%, in just eight years.

If we go back to the Trudeau government of the 1970s and look at the disaster its fiscal plan was for a future generation, my concern is that we are heading down that exact same path now with the current government. We need a change in direction. We need a plan from the government, even if it is a long-term plan, to get back to balance eventually so that we can again continue on the path that we were on in 2015, an upward trajectory where governments had the flexibility to spend on the priorities of Canadians.

COVID-19 in Alberta May 5th, 2021

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I sensed a question in that, so maybe I will give someone else a chance to actually ask me a question.

COVID-19 in Alberta May 5th, 2021

Mr. Speaker, that is a fantastic point.

Obviously, if we had gotten similar numbers of vaccines delivered earlier and spread out over time, we would have been able to deliver them in a more efficient way. We would have put less pressure on our frontline responders.

By the way, I got vaccinated this past weekend with my first shot as well, and I want to use this opportunity to comment on the unbelievable professionalism of people running the vaccination centre in Alberta. I know folks across the province right now are putting in extra hours to make sure Albertans are getting vaccinated and doing fantastic work, but this would have been a very different story, had we been receiving vaccines at the same time as residents of—

COVID-19 in Alberta May 5th, 2021

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the hon. member listened to my speech. Maybe he just came in time to ask the question because I referenced the fact that the targets were not good enough. They were not ambitious enough in the first place, so I ask who cares if we meet the targets.

We are talking about a target down the road of six vaccines for every Canadian three years from now. That does not matter right now. We needed vaccines when other countries in the G20 were getting them. We needed them when our closest comparators, the U.K. and the U.S., were getting vaccines months ago. We needed them. We are in this circumstance right now.

I am hearing questions about lockdowns tonight. The lockdowns are only necessary as a last resort, because we did not actually deliver vaccines and we did not do a good enough job on testing. We could get into a whole variety of things, such as our approach on the borders early on. We need a better plan, and the government has not delivered. We need—

COVID-19 in Alberta May 5th, 2021

Mr. Speaker, it was great to listen to my colleague speak on behalf of his constituents in Edmonton Mill Woods, which is an area I represented for 10 years before the boundaries changed. I am so glad that those constituents have such a fantastic MP advocating for them. I sensed the passion in his speech, and I share that passion. My thoughts tonight, as we are having this conversation, are with my constituents here in Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.

It has not just been a tough last year and a bit, but a tough five years for the people of our province and of my riding. When COVID hit in March 2020, we woke up to a different world on March 11, 12 and 13, and the government put in place programs to deal with the emerging situation. One of the things that was really tricky was that many of the income support programs did not actually address the needs of my constituents. They had been on EI long enough that their benefits were just about to run out or were running out, so they did not qualify for the early programs put in place by the government. Things have been tough here financially for a long time.

From that time to where we are today, many months later, one of the challenges has been a complete lack of transparency and accountability on the part of the government, and it started almost immediately. We had two weeks when we were supposed to be sitting, with a weird schedule of three constituency weeks thrown in. For these five weeks we had an opportunity to shut down Parliament and rely on the advice of some of the world's best public health experts to treat Parliament as an essential service and get back to work. Members from all sides could have been acting on behalf of their constituents, and those of us in the opposition parties could have been asking tough questions of the government to come up with the best policies to serve Canadians. Instead, Parliament was largely shut down for the better part of six months. It sat as a glorified committee most of the time, when it sat at all. Of course, we had the six-week prorogation period when everything was shut down so that the government could avoid scrutiny on some particular problematic programs.

We finally came back in late September. Ever since then, question after question from members of the Conservative Party, but also from the NDP, the Bloc, the Greens and independents, was met with condescension and derision. It is immeasurable how many times Liberal ministers, led by the Prime Minister, stood in the House of Commons and, rather than actually answering a question, met the question with an accusation of partisanship. We have seen it tonight in the debate. For example, a couple of minutes ago we saw the member for Kingston and the Islands talk about using 10 minutes to cast blame, and he was talking about the previous Conservative member's speech. The Conservative member simply brought up issues that are the responsibility of the federal government. As a federal member of Parliament serving his constituents, it is his responsibility to ask those questions or bring up those issues.

We heard the minister earlier talk about opposition members playing partisan games tonight. We heard the member for Winnipeg North make all sorts of accusations, and accuse me of being untruthful when I asked a question of him. Here is the funny thing about it. His response was in reference to March 13 numbers and where we were in terms of doses administered by countries. I was referencing March 13. On that day we were behind the U.K., U.S., Turkey, Germany, Italy and France. He put forward misinformation in his accusation of untruthfulness. This is the constant, daily m.o. of the government right now, and it is problematic.

Right now, I think members from all sides, but particularly members of the Conservative Party, have rightly raised the issue of vaccinations.

As we have raised the issue of vaccinations, going back to when we were raising those issues in November, December, January and February and when we were not completely discounted out of hand, the promise that was given was that a whole bunch of vaccines would be coming down the road, far in the future.

Here we are today. The vaccines did not come in time, and across the country there is a price being paid for the fact that the vaccines did not come in time. The lockdowns we are seeing in different parts of the country are part of the price that is being paid.

I liken the response to the question of when vaccines are going to come to buying an old house with old wiring and no fire extinguishers. There might be a chance to redo the wiring one day when it can be afforded, but imagine having a family meeting and bringing up the issue of fire safety. Imagine one of the kids saying that they heard in class they should have three fire extinguishers in their house. Imagine, as a parent, saying that instead of getting three fire extinguishers for the house they were going to wait until September, and in September they would get 15 fire extinguishers, three per member of the family, many months from now. Imagine the reaction of the kids who were simply raising what the experts were saying was best for the house.

That has been the response of the government. Somewhere down the road, by September, everybody who wants a vaccination will get one. Clearly there is a price to be paid for that.

I have pointed out multiple times tonight, and I think it is worth pointing out again, that as of today, we were at 37.85 doses administered per 100 Canadians. If we are going to talk about information, let us deal with real information. That is 37.85 doses administered. Fifty-two days ago, on March 13, the U.K. passed that threshold. On the same day, the U.S. was at 31.61 doses administered per 100 people. On that day, Canada was at 7.77 doses administered, or one-fifth of where the U.K. was. Imagine if we had met the same standard, and had taken it as seriously as other countries. We would not be in the predicament we are in today.

Tonight we are talking about Alberta. Let us look at the Alberta situation. Today we have 146 Albertans in the ICU. On March 13, we had 35. Today we had 2,271 new cases. On March 13, we had 474. Again, imagine if we were at 35 doses administered per 100 Canadians, instead of 7.77 on that day.

It is absolutely fair and right for opposition parties to hold the government to account for its lack of performance, and to ask tough questions about where we are going. It is absolutely right for Canadians to expect their government to answer those questions. That has not happened up to this point. I hope that for the rest of tonight and moving forward, Canadians and Albertans particularly, the folks we are elected to represent, can expect answers from their federal government.

COVID-19 in Alberta May 5th, 2021

Mr. Speaker, that was quite something. The hon. member talks about a consistent message from Ottawa like that is the whole point of Parliament. It is as if parliamentarians on opposition benches should not ask tough questions of their government and expect actual answers from their government and that Canadians would not be better served by that.

He talked about false information, accused Conservatives of throwing it out there and then went on to list about six or seven completely false examples of things Conservatives had said, including that Conservatives demanded “50 million vaccines” by January.

Let us talk about real information. Yesterday, we passed 37.85 doses administered per 100 Canadians. On March 13, 52 days ago, the U.K. passed that threshold. On the same day, the U.S. was at 31.61 doses per 100 Americans. Canada had 7.77 doses administered per Canadian on that day. I am wondering if the hon. member would verify that information is indeed true.

COVID-19 in Alberta May 5th, 2021

Mr. Speaker, taking a look at the Our World in Data numbers for COVID vaccinations, yesterday we were at about 37.85 vaccine doses administered per 100 Canadians. When I look at the numbers for other countries, I see that the U.K. passed that threshold on March 13, almost two months ago, and the U.S. passed it on March 21.

Regarding the U.K. numbers two months ago, when we take a look at Alberta's numbers on that same day, we see that in Alberta our ICU number was 35, our hospitalization number was 254 and our active cases were 4,500, which are significantly different numbers than we have now.

I would like to hear the minister comment on the reasons for the delay and, on reflection, what she might have done differently. Most importantly, I would like to hear how the evaluation of those things will impact the government's decisions moving forward to improve this very difficult situation facing our province.

Natural Resources April 15th, 2021

Madam Speaker, after four or five months, and with an army of public servants to give briefings on the issue, there is still absolutely zero attempt to answer the question, which relates to the oil coming from Saudi Arabia, Algeria and Nigeria, and other countries such as Azerbaijan, Côte d'Ivoire, Columbia, Russia and Kazakhstan. The question is whether oil coming from those countries is subject to the same rigorous regulations on upstream and downstream emissions as oil coming from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland.

I am pretty sure the answer is no. Perhaps the hon. member could simply answer that question and confirm it by answering yes or no.

Natural Resources April 15th, 2021

Madam Speaker, how fitting it is that I would follow the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan reminiscing about his one suit. While he might not think I teased him, I just did not tease him to his face about his single suit. We certainly noticed it and I rib him from time to time. He was a great parliamentary secretary assistant, by the way.

The genesis of my speech tonight for four minutes goes back to four questions that I have asked. I asked the same question four times. I asked it in November, December and twice in February. I got non-answers every time and, interestingly, I got the same non-answer three out of the four times. I am going to read the initial question so everyone will have the gist of it. The initial question was as follows:

Mr. Speaker, there is no one in the world more committed to clean energy production than Canadians working in the oil and gas sector, yet because the Liberal government has made it impossible for the private sector to build a pipeline in this country, we continue to import hundreds of thousands of barrels a day. After the U.S., the top source countries in recent years are Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Algeria.

Could the minister tell us if oil imported to Canada from Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Algeria is subject to the same rigorous regulation on upstream and downstream emissions as oil coming from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland?

It is a pretty straightforward question. The parliamentary secretary at the time in November gave a laundry list of completely unrelated projects, a completely incomprehensible response. I cannot even call it an answer. I revisited the question on December 11. I will not read the preamble, but the question will sound very familiar. It was, “Can the government commit that the tens of millions of barrels of oil coming from Saudi Arabia, Algeria and Nigeria will be subject to the same rigorous regulations as oil coming from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland in terms of upstream and downstream emissions?”

This time, interestingly, the parliamentary secretary pretty much read the exact same non-answer from the script that he read the first time I asked the question and threw a couple of things in. He talked about “continuing to make sure we have the highest standards so that when we export, we make sure we have the highest standards in the world.” He added that at the end of the same list that he read off the previous time. As for export, we cannot even get it from one province to another. We are not even talking about exporting. We are talking about the fact that we are giving preference to oil coming from places like Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Algeria over oil coming from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland. That makes absolutely no sense to any reasonable Canadian looking at the issue.

I decided, since I did not get any answers the first two times, to ask the question again and I was heartened, actually, because on February 19 when I stood to ask the question, I noticed that the minister was there. The minister is from Newfoundland, so having been briefed about the fact that I had asked this question a couple of times, I thought maybe the parliamentary secretary would be a little sheepish about it. I asked the same question and got the exact same list of projects.

I am going to ask the parliamentary secretary one more time. Could he tell us if oil imported to Canada from Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Algeria is subject to the same rigorous regulation on upstream and downstream emissions as oil coming from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland?