Mike Lake

[Carbon Pricing, October 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, with Manitoba coming out strongly against the Liberal government's carbon tax this week, the Prime Minister's signature initiative now has the support of just two provincial governments.

I asked the environment minister a clear question yesterday, and today I hope for an actual answer. There seems to be a clear consensus among experts on all sides of the issue that the government will not come close to meeting its international climate change commitments. Could the minister confirm that the government is in fact not on track to meet its Paris agreement targets?

[Carbon Pricing, October 4th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, Manitoba joins a growing number of provinces in saying a firm no to a national carbon tax. The Liberal carbon tax plan is clearly in shambles, and the minister cannot even tell us how much her tax will reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. Experts on all sides are now saying that the Prime Minister's plan is nowhere near meeting its international commitments.

Therefore, my question for the minister is clear: Will she confirm today that her government will not meet its Paris agreement emissions targets?

[The Environment, September 25th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is increasingly evident that the Liberal environment and energy policy is an unmitigated disaster. The Liberal carbon tax has been resoundingly rejected as just a tax on Canadians that will have literally no impact on global emissions. Even with significant Canadian taxpayer dollars spent, there is a broad consensus that we will still not meet our greenhouse gas emission commitments.

Will the government confirm today that despite all of its bluster, it will not in fact meet our Paris Agreement targets?

[Firearms Act, June 19th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I am struck by the fact that the minister, usually one of the most bombastic ministers in the House, combative almost every single day here, is obviously very uncomfortable when it comes to the topic of time allocation. I wondered why. I went back and looked at some of what he had to say previously in the House. I looked back to April 30, 2012, when he talked about our government at the time. He said, “They have used closure to ram through their legislation more times in four or five months than most majority governments used in four or five years.” Now, this is the third time in three weeks that he has used time allocation or given notice of time allocation. I think that might be a record.

On May 2, 2013, he said this:

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the timing issue here, obviously it is unfortunate when debate in the House is curtailed by the use of time allocation or closure. That impinges upon the democratic right of members of Parliament to adequately consider matters that are before the House.

I wonder if the minister stands by his own words.

[Latin American Heritage Month Act, June 13th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, there is a lot of activity on the other side of the House right now. I imagine people are flooding in to have the opportunity to finally speak to this legislation.

With that, I will cede the floor, with the hope that, finally, a Liberal member will stand to speak to this important legislation.

[Latin American Heritage Month Act, June 13th, 2018]

Yes, a lot of closure and time allocation debates, and then the time spent during the votes on those things. I think we had five in a three-day span last week. We have been discussing the $18-billion deficit that the government is running, despite the fact that it promised a balance budget by next year. We are talking about some pretty devastating stuff.

The government has increased spending by $58 billion annually and cannot find a way to balance the budget. It had increased spending by over 21% in four years and our kids and grandkids are the ones who will pay the price for that down the road, just like in the days of the former Trudeau government of the 1970s. There were massive increases in spending and it was the generation in the mid-1990s that had to pay for a $35-billion cut in health care, social services, and education transfers to the provinces, which was when the bill came due. We are going in the same direction now.

It is very encouraging to have the opportunity to talk about something other than the nationalization of pipelines, for example. At one point, there were four pipelines in the pipeline, so to speak, when the Liberal government was elected in 2015. Northern gateway was approved and energy east was well on its way. Trans Mountain was moving forward as well, and there was a lot of talk about Keystone XL.

The Liberals managed to cancel northern gateway and completely changed the rules that made it impossible for energy east to move forward. The energy minister likes to say that the company made an economic business decision to cancel energy east, after it had spent $1 billion navigating a regulatory system, and the government changed the rules on it. Naturally, it made an economic decision not to go forward and not to waste another $1 billion.

It is very encouraging to have the opportunity to talk about something tonight other than the Liberals' failed policy on pipelines, which has it now buying a pipeline for $4.5 billion because it cannot find a private sector company to move forward with it, when there used to be four projects on the go. It is very nice to have the opportunity to talk about something other than those things tonight.

We could have been talking about the carbon tax. There has been a lot of discussion about the carbon tax.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to have the finance minister go before the finance committee of the House of Commons and tell Canadians what the carbon tax will cost Canadian families.

[Latin American Heritage Month Act, June 13th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that no Liberal wanted to get up to speak to this, but they have no hesitation in heckling us as we are speaking to this important bill.

We have been discussing the bill for several hours tonight, and those who are watching, and I am sure many people are riveted to the debate tonight, may have forgotten what we are talking about. I will read the bill as a way of reintroducing it to folks who may have tuned in late and who may not know what we are talking about.

It is Bill S-218, an act respecting Latin American heritage month, which was moved by Senator Enverga, who was a valued member of our Conservative team. He was a senator from 2012 until he passed away in 2017.

Senator Enverga was the first Filipino Canadian elected in the city of Toronto. He was a Catholic School Board trustee in Toronto, and he was known in the region for launching the Philippine Canadian Charitable Foundation. He was also co-chair of the Canada-Philippines Interparliamentary Group.

He inaugurated the annual Filipino independence day flag-raising on Parliament Hill, and he was a “tireless champion for multiculturalism” and was “an advocate for people with disabilities”, as pointed out in The Globe and Mail article, as his daughter Rocel has Down's syndrome, which is obviously something close to my heart as well, as people in the House know.

One of the things that strikes me about this legislation is the fact that even though Senator Enverga was a tireless champion for folks in the Filipino community, he decided to move a bill to propose a Latin American heritage month. That just speaks to who he was.

One of the things that I will remember about Senator Enverga is that whenever he walked into a room, the room got brighter because he was there. He was a shining light.

He was very passionate about Canada and about the work our Conservative government was doing. He was also very passionate about the opportunity he had as someone born in the Philippines who immigrated to Canada and who took his place as a senator in this country. We miss him in our caucus, and the Hill is diminished by not having him around.

I often think about my own community in Edmonton—Wetaskiwin. A lot of people looking at this riding on a map make the mistaken assumption that there is no diversity there. However, Wetaskiwin, which is a community of 17,000 people, actually has a significant Filipino population. When I am in Wetaskiwin, I think of folks like Senator Enverga, and I see this unbelievable passion within the Filipino community there.

Those members of Parliament who have a sizable Filipino community in their riding will recognize what it is like to get to a Filipino household when they are door-knocking. It is almost like there is a celebration because a member of Parliament is there. When members show up for events, the Filipino people have an incredible joy. Senator Enverga was the personification of that within our team and within the confines of Parliament Hill.

His bill, an act respecting Latin American heritage month, is pretty simple. It reads:

Whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes that members of the Latin American community in Canada have made significant contributions to the social, economic and political fabric of the nation;

Whereas the designation of a month as Latin American Heritage Month would be a meaningful way to remember, celebrate and educate the public about these contributions;

Whereas Latin American communities across Canada would be mobilized by a Latin American Heritage Month to jointly celebrate, share and promote their unique culture and traditions with all Canadians;

And whereas October is a significant month for the Latin American community around the world;

Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

1 This Act may be cited as the Latin American Heritage Month Act.

2 Throughout Canada, in each and every year, the month of October is to be known as “Latin American Heritage Month”.

It is very simple, and I hope members from all parties will support this bill.

I am really glad we have had the opportunity to discuss this tonight. Having listened to the debate tonight, it is probably one of the most productive evenings we have had in the House of Commons in the last several weeks. It is a nice break, because if we look at the things we have been discussing in the absence of legislation like this—

[Latin American Heritage Month Act, June 13th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I have a point of order. I do not think any Liberal has spoken yet on this piece of legislation. There are a few of them still in the chamber, and I want to make sure that no one wants the opportunity—

[Impact Assessment Act, June 6th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it was very interesting to hear the hon. member speak. He talked about the billions and billions of dollars that my province has contributed through equalization. Of course, folks in my province are very concerned about the approach of the Liberal government and will be particularly interested in the member expressing his excitement at the possibility that his government would acquire a pipeline. He said, “this is what it means to be in government”. I wonder if the hon. member realizes how ridiculous that sounds.

[National Security Act, 2017, June 6th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, while this debate has been going on, I had an opportunity to look at some old Hansards. I found one from May 2013, when the hon. member was in opposition. He stated:

obviously it is unfortunate when debate in the House is curtailed by the use of time allocation or closure. That impinges upon the democratic right of members of Parliament to adequately consider matters that are before the House.

He said that five years ago. How could the hon. member stand in the House for the last half hour completely unashamed by his own blatant hypocrisy?