This is a single
speech (house debate) resource
from the openparliament.ca API. If you’re new here, you might want to look at the documentation. If API and JSON are gibberish to you, you’re better off at our main site.
This is a single
speech (house debate) resource
from the openparliament.ca API. If you’re new here, you might want to look at the documentation. If API and JSON are gibberish to you, you’re better off at our main site.
{
"time": "2023-04-24 18:15:00",
"attribution": {
"en": "Hon. Mike Lake",
"fr": "L\u2019hon. Mike Lake"
},
"content": {
"en": "<p data-HoCid=\"7706548\" data-originallang=\"en\">Madam Speaker, since we are having this conversation, I have a couple of points on this. It is interesting that we are supposed to be talking about the budget today. The NDP and Liberal members have agreed to have this debate here in this House because they do not want to talk about the budget, including all the challenges with the budget and the economic disaster that reflects the previous approach taken by a different Prime Minister Trudeau back in the seventies and eighties. It is also interesting that the debate we are talking about today is something that the coalition could decide to have any day, if they wanted to.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"7706549\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Any day, NDP and Liberal members could decide to move legislation to accomplish exactly what we are talking about today. Instead, they have chosen to do this in a different way, using up valuable House time when we could be talking about the budget. If it was something that was important to them, they could do it on their own through their coalition.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"7706550\" data-originallang=\"en\">I am not on the immigration committee, but my understanding is that parties have worked collaboratively on that committee. I understand that the senator who moved this Senate public bill did not want to move beyond the scope to the degree that we are talking about right now. This goes way beyond the scope of the bill. It is very unusual to see this approach.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"7706551\" data-originallang=\"en\">It is sad. First of all, it is an important issue that deserves to be discussed seriously. The bill itself is a bill that members from all parties of the House should be able to support. Instead, we have this political gamesmanship of sorts today.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"7706552\" data-originallang=\"en\">It seems that this is all because the NDP and Liberal members do not want to talk about a disastrous budget. What we are not talking about today, because we are talking about this, is an approach with the budget that projects endless deficits into the future. If we look at the impact of this budgeting approach, again, we only need to look back to the Trudeau government of the seventies and eighties to see what that disastrous approach would look like. In those years, there was a deficit in 14 out of 15 years. The then Trudeau government came into power with almost no debt in Canada and left with a generational debt. It was a debt that, a generation later, required another Liberal government in the late nineties, the Chr\u00e9tien-Martin Liberal government\u2014</p>",
"fr": "<p data-HoCid=\"7706548\" data-originallang=\"en\">Madame la Pr\u00e9sidente, puisque nous abordons ce sujet, j'aimerais soulever quelques points. Il est int\u00e9ressant de constater que nous devrions parler du budget aujourd'hui. Les n\u00e9o-d\u00e9mocrates et les lib\u00e9raux se sont entendus pour que le d\u00e9bat porte sur ce sujet \u00e0 la Chambre aujourd'hui parce qu'ils ne veulent pas parler du budget. Ils ne veulent surtout pas aborder tous les d\u00e9fis li\u00e9s au budget ni le d\u00e9sastre \u00e9conomique qui rappellent l'approche adopt\u00e9e par un autre premier ministre Trudeau dans les ann\u00e9es 1970 et 1980. Il est aussi int\u00e9ressant de constater que la coalition aurait pu soumettre \u00e0 la Chambre ce d\u00e9bat \u00e0 n'importe quel autre jour, selon leur volont\u00e9.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"7706549\" data-originallang=\"en\"> \u00c0 n'importe quel jour, les n\u00e9o-d\u00e9mocrates et les lib\u00e9raux auraient pu d\u00e9cider de proposer des mesures l\u00e9gislatives ayant exactement le m\u00eame but que ce que nous d\u00e9battons en ce moment. Ils ont plut\u00f4t choisi d'agir autrement, en gaspillant du temps pr\u00e9cieux dans cette enceinte \u00e0 un moment o\u00f9 il serait plus appropri\u00e9 de parler du budget. S'il \u00e9tait si important pour eux d'aborder ce sujet, ils auraient pu le faire entre eux, au sein de leur coalition.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"7706550\" data-originallang=\"en\">Je ne si\u00e8ge pas au comit\u00e9 de l'immigration, mais je crois savoir que les membres des diff\u00e9rents partis y ont travaill\u00e9 en collaboration. Je comprends que la s\u00e9natrice qui a propos\u00e9 le projet de loi d'int\u00e9r\u00eat public au S\u00e9nat ne voulait pas \u00e9largir le champ d'application dans la mesure o\u00f9 nous en parlons maintenant. On d\u00e9passe largement le champ d'application du projet de loi. Il est tr\u00e8s inhabituel de voir cette approche.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"7706551\" data-originallang=\"en\">C'est triste. Tout d'abord, il s'agit d'une question importante qui m\u00e9rite d'\u00eatre discut\u00e9e s\u00e9rieusement. Le projet de loi lui-m\u00eame est une mesure que les d\u00e9put\u00e9s de tous les partis de la Chambre devraient pouvoir appuyer. Au lieu de cela, nous assistons aujourd'hui \u00e0 une sorte de man\u0153uvre politique.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"7706552\" data-originallang=\"en\">Il semble que tout cela soit attribuable au fait que les d\u00e9put\u00e9s n\u00e9o-d\u00e9mocrates et lib\u00e9raux ne veulent pas discuter d'un budget d\u00e9sastreux. Comme nous parlons d'immigration, ce dont nous ne parlons pas aujourd'hui, c'est d'une approche budg\u00e9taire qui projette de futurs d\u00e9ficits sans fin. Pour avoir une id\u00e9e de l'incidence de cette approche budg\u00e9taire et constater \u00e0 quel point elle est d\u00e9sastreuse, il suffit de revenir au gouvernement Trudeau des ann\u00e9es 1970 et 1980. \u00c0 l'\u00e9poque, 14 ann\u00e9es sur 15 ont \u00e9t\u00e9 marqu\u00e9es par un d\u00e9ficit. Le gouvernement Trudeau de l'\u00e9poque est arriv\u00e9 au pouvoir alors que le Canada n'avait pratiquement aucune dette et il a laiss\u00e9 derri\u00e8re lui une dette g\u00e9n\u00e9rationnelle. Une dette qui, une g\u00e9n\u00e9ration plus tard, a n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 l'intervention d'un autre gouvernement lib\u00e9ral \u00e0 la fin des ann\u00e9es 1990, le gouvernement lib\u00e9ral Chr\u00e9tien-Martin...</p>"
},
"url": "/debates/2023/4/24/mike-lake-4/",
"politician_url": "/politicians/mike-lake/",
"politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/4302/",
"procedural": false,
"source_id": "12156534",
"h1": {
"en": "Routine Proceedings",
"fr": "Affaires Courantes"
},
"h2": {
"en": "Committees of the House",
"fr": "Les comit\u00e9s de la Chambre"
},
"h3": {
"en": "Citizenship and Immigration",
"fr": "Citoyennet\u00e9 et immigration"
},
"document_url": "/debates/2023/4/24/",
"related": {
"document_speeches_url": "/speeches/?document=%2Fdebates%2F2023%2F4%2F24%2F"
}
}