Mike Lake

[Syria, December 11th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In response to our House leader's point of order, I want to point out that before he even had a chance to say a word—

[Committees of the House, December 2nd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded vote, please.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 22nd, 2024]

With regard to the CRA and the Disability Tax Credit (DTC) for the most recent fiscal year for which data is available: (a) how many initial assessments were completed and reviewed; (b) how many reassessments were completed and reviewed; (c) what is the number of initial DTC applications filed for both (a) and (b) that were approved; (d) what is the number of unsuccessful initial DTC applications filed for both (a) and (b) that were appealed; (e) what is the number of DTC applications filed for (d) that were approved; and (f) how many instances in (a) to (e) were specifically for autism diagnoses?

[Committees of the House, November 18th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, that is one of the first comments I think I have ever heard the hon. member make that I might agree with. We agree that it seems as though the minister in question sees every government program as a personal opportunity. That is what we are talking about today. It sounds like the hon. member was making the same point I am.

I was going back to the conversations I have had in year-end panels with the minister, where just the two of us, sometimes three when an NDP member from Edmonton was there, talked about situations with the federal government and the impact on Edmontonians or Albertans. The minister constantly repeated government talking points as they relate to, for example, the energy sector in Alberta. As mentioned earlier today, there are few industries more committed to indigenous involvement and meaningful indigenous contribution and benefit than the energy sector in Canada, yet the minister constantly stands in opposition in the House to the energy sector in Alberta.

I had the opportunity to do four constituent round tables last week, and it is unfortunate that with the scandals facing the minister today, he is not able to take part in meaningful conversations at cabinet. I believe there is a cabinet meeting tomorrow. I suspect this cabinet meeting will be more consumed with the side hustles of the minister than talking about employment, the workforce or official languages.

What my constituents are concerned about is our broken systems across the board. The government seems consumed with experimental policy on housing, immigration, public safety, energy and the environment. All of these issues were things that constituents were consumed with at the four constituent round table meetings I had over the past week. They are very concerned that their Liberal government, propped up by the NDP, is not just lost in the conversations but completely incompetent when it comes to dealing with the very real issues that Canadians are facing today.

With the indigenous procurement strategy, the outcome was supposed to be a stimulating of economic activity that benefits indigenous people, with a 5% set-aside for indigenous businesses. Of federal contracts, 5% were supposed to go to indigenous businesses, but before this even came up, a concern was raised, which has been raised over the last little while. There are three different areas of abuse that we can point to: instances where non-indigenous companies claimed to be indigenous and came to be regarded as indigenous by the federal government; instances where the joint ventures between indigenous and non-indigenous companies, which meant the joint ventures could access set-asides, led to the work and benefits bring monopolized by non-indigenous partners; and instances where small, nominally indigenous companies received contracts and then subcontracted them to non-indigenous companies. The first of these instances is what we are dealing with right now.

Even before this conflict, many of us, many of my constituents and, I would say, most people in Alberta believed that it was time for the minister to resign. The context to the conversation we are having today is that there was an underlying conversation about indigenous procurement and, as we have talked about, this concept of pretendians, as they have come to be known.

We were already having this conversation, and then it came to light over the last week that the minister himself and the organization, the company that he is a part of and has been a part of, is engaged in this same activity. I believe the lobbyist that he is tied to has received $110 million in government funds, which are taxpayer funds. Let us be clear on this. We are not talking about government money. The government has no money. Individual Canadians have money taken from their paycheques, money that would otherwise be used for things such as food, housing and maybe the odd vacation, if they can afford it. Instead, this lobbyist received $110 million. Then, while the minister was a partner in the company, it received a further $8 million in government contracts. In fact, he was a director in the company. There was already a conversation happening about that, and then this new situation came to light.

I will point out a couple of things that are really important in terms of the conversation. In question period today, we will notice something about the responses from the government on this particular question. No one denied that, before he was a minister or a member of Parliament, the minister pretended to be indigenous and that his company applied for federal funding. Even in the answers in question period today, nobody denied that this is the case. The government House leader, I believe, did an interview after question period today, and this is what she said. We should listen carefully to the wording. She said, “We addressed the fact that that business was never listed as an Indigenous business on the procurement site, and it in fact received no funding from the Government of Canada.”

I would hope the Prime Minister is holding his cabinet ministers to a higher standard than that. The assertion is that, before he was a minister, the minister pretended to be indigenous and his company applied for funding meant for indigenous procurement. The fact that the government did not give it that funding does not change anything about the minister's conduct and the question of whether the minister meets the standard that Canadians would expect.

I do not think there is any doubt that most Canadians would say that the minister needs to resign and that, if he does not resign, he absolutely needs to be fired by the Prime Minister. I would bet that, if we polled Canadians on that question and let them know exactly what the circumstances are, it would be 99% in favour of the Prime Minister firing the minister. I would be surprised if it were not. That is how serious this circumstance is that we are discussing today.

I am curious about the questions I will be asked. The Speaker is signalling to me that there is no time for questions. I will miss the member for Winnipeg North asking me a question today.

I will comment further on this. I want to point out something interesting: It seems that even the minister's cabinet colleagues have questions. It was interesting again today, in the early part of question period, that in question after question, no other minister was willing to stand up and defend the minister. It is very rare to see the minister have to stand up. He did not actually respond to or answer the questions. After question period, when a reporter asked the procurement minister clearly about the situation, he said, “It's for [him] to continue explaining the circumstances.” He named the Minister of Employment, not the other Randy.

Even Liberal ministers do not want to carry the water for the Liberal minister. In the larger picture, his time is up. His time is almost certainly up as a minister. Even as incompetent a government as this government is, there is no way it can possibly continue having the minister serve in the capacity that he is serving in. His time as a member of Parliament will be up too, because there is no way that even the staunchest supporters in Edmonton Centre will support him. They were not going to vote for the Liberal government anyway, but they certainly are not going to vote for this member of Parliament when the time comes.

I will conclude by saying that we look forward to the debate this week. We hope that ministers in the government and maybe the Prime Minister, if he is able to make it out this week, have some responses to this. We also look forward to seeing how every member of the House votes on this motion.

[Committees of the House, November 18th, 2024]

Madam Speaker—

[Committees of the House, November 18th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I am having a hard time.

[Committees of the House, November 18th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate the member for Timmins—James Bay and his dedication to a high level of debate in the House.

I will come back to the member for Edmonton Centre, an on-again, off-again member of the House. Of course, he was a member for four years and then was put on a time out and then came back for the last few years, taking a cabinet position as one of two Alberta members of Parliament.

I will point out that even before the series of scandals the minister has found himself in, he did absolutely nothing for the people of Alberta or the people of Edmonton in his role as the minister responsible for Edmonton. In fact, on multiple occasions, I had the chance to be on panels with him, up until—

[Committees of the House, November 18th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, actually, the quote-unquote comment was “fake news” from the hon. member, so that point of order seems to be fake news in and of itself.

I serve in an Edmonton riding. I have served for 19 years in the House. I have had the opportunity to—

[Committees of the House, November 18th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, before I start my comments today, I have an opportunity, because I am standing up, to recognize Sabrina Larson, who has worked in my constituency office for 16 years. She is here in Ottawa today to get a long service award. I cannot say whether she is in the House but I am very thankful for the work she has done for many, many years, helping my constituents handle their casework. I serve what is no doubt the largest constituency by population in the country, with a lot of casework. We think there are between 260,000 and 280,000 people right now in Edmonton—Wetaskiwin. I am looking forward to the boundary changes in the next election. I should mention that Sabrina's husband, Laine, is here in Ottawa. I am very thankful for him as well.

The new constituency, when the boundaries take effect at the election, will be switched from Edmonton—Wetaskiwin to Leduc—Wetaskiwin. In that new constituency, the community of Maskwacis will be added to my constituency. I am very much looking forward to the riding boundaries being moved in that way. It is very important for Maskwacis to be included in the region we are in.

Of course, the hon. member for Edmonton Griesbach and I may not agree on very many things, but as he spoke today, I was listening intently. I appreciated his comments, and I appreciated, especially, his shout-out to Willie Littlechild, who was the member of Parliament for that area, I believe, from 1984 to 1993, or in that time frame anyway.

We also have a connection in that he is very involved with the Edmonton Oilers Community Foundation. I worked for the Edmonton Oilers before I was elected. I am very thankful to Willie for his contributions to the broader community and specifically to the community of Maskwacis.

This debate is really important. As I was listening to the debate today, I was struck by Liberal members, including the Liberal member for Winnipeg North, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, and, earlier, the member for Saint John—Rothesay, standing up and completely discounting the importance of this conversation, completely demeaning the fact that we would even have this conversation today, talking about how unimportant it is.

Of course, the member for Winnipeg North called it “fake news”. Just a few minutes ago, as we were talking, he referred to the whole debate we are having today as “fake news”. Interestingly, Conservatives have brought up this issue at various committees in the House. We are having this debate today because of a concurrence motion brought forward by Conservatives.

The member will have the opportunity to vote on this concurrence motion and the amendments in the coming days. We will look forward to seeing how the member for Winnipeg North votes.

I want to focus on the member of Parliament for Edmonton Centre and the broader issue here. Of course, he is the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages—

[Oil and Gas Industry, November 7th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, after nine years, the NDP-Liberal government is not worth the cost. The government's own analysis admits that its cap on production will cost Canadians thousands of jobs and billions of dollars. Meanwhile, a Canadian company that cannot get a pipeline approved in Canada is investing $700 million in a U.S. project, and in 2023, the Liberals increased oil and gas imports to Canada, with over 40 million barrels shipped across the Atlantic from Nigeria and Saudi Arabia alone.

Why is the Prime Minister so intent on funding powerful paycheques in the U.S. and everywhere else, while Canadians struggle to afford food and housing?