Michael Chong
Wellington—Halton Hills North, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, it is clear that all sectors of the Canadian economy need significant investment, including aviation, forestry, aluminum and other sectors. However, investment has declined over the past year.”
“Mr. Speaker, reports indicate that the Palestinian representative in Canada met with the Canadian Museum for Human Rights during the development of its upcoming Nakba exhibit. This should be a Canadian museum for Canadian human rights stories, not foreign agendas. The museum is a Crown corporation reporting to the heritage minister.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada mourns the loss of Constable Marc Pinizzotto. The Globe has reported that a search warrant executed yesterday related to the shootings at a synagogue and the U.S. consulate. U.S. prosecutors linked these shootings to an IRGC‑backed terrorist network that is behind 18 attacks in the U.S., Canada and Europe.”
“Mr. Speaker, a year ago, the Prime Minister said that the PRC's foreign interference was the greatest threat to the security of Canada. The government now has a strategic partnership with the PRC. A year ago, the government said that nearly 30 operatives linked to the Iranian regime were here in Canada and should be deported.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the government is carrying out a great deal of analysis. [ English ] The death of Constable Marc Pinizzotto is not an isolated incident. Canadians are afraid. People are shooting bullets at synagogues, community centres, businesses and, now, the U.S. consulate in Toronto.”
“Mr. Speaker, U.S. prosecutors have linked the U.S. consulate and synagogue shootings to an IRGC terrorist network. In 2023, Global News reported that upward of 700 regime‑linked associates could be operating in Canada. A year ago, the government said that nearly 30 Iranian regime operatives who were here in Canada should be deported.”
The complete record
Every one of 141 lines we hold for Michael Chong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 3.
“Madam Speaker, I am open to all potential options for the way this place sits, but I would note that we already sit the least of any major national legislature in the west. The U.S. House of Representatives typically sits between 165 and 190 days a year, and the U.K. House of Commons typically sits between 146 and 162 days a year. We sit only 129 days a year, and provincial legislatures sit even less. We sit far less than we used to, and I believe that we should consider sitting through much of July and early August and then adjourn for the rest of the summer. I believe we should start earlier in January. Again, accountability of the executive to this place can take place only when the House is sitting. I would note that in the 1960s and—”
“We are the only national legislature amongst western Liberal democracies to remain in hybrid mode. The U.K. House of Commons ended hybrid sittings on July 22, 2021, five years ago. The U.S. House of Representatives ended hybrid sittings on January 9, 2023, and the Australian parliament ended hybrid sittings on July 25, 2022. I would note that the French National Assembly never actually had hybrid mode, because, if I recall correctly, the court declared it unconstitutional, mandating that members of the legislature appear in person throughout the pandemic time. Those are the three or four reforms I recommend to this place, and I look forward to the debate on this. I hope a committee of the House or a member of the House will take up these reforms and propose them to the House, and that some of them may be adopted.”
“Most importantly, I think the majority of members of the powerful board that administers this place should be no longer appointed by the Prime Minister , either directly or indirectly, but rather elected by members of this House on a secret ballot vote. Members of the ministry, as well as officers of the House on both sides of the aisle, should not be eligible for the majority of positions on the Board of Internal Economy. In other words, the majority of the members on the Board of Internal Economy should be backbench members of this House, elected on a secret ballot vote by their peers in this place. Those are the three areas of reform that I believe the House should consider. As a final note, I would add this: I believe we should end hybrid Parliament.”
“The third area of reform I think the House should consider is to take away the Prime Minister 's power to make key appointments in this place. I do not believe that the Prime Minister should be able to appoint the Clerk of the House, nor do I believe that the Prime Minister should be able to appoint the head of our parliamentary security, the Sergeant-at-Arms. I believe both of these positions should be appointed by the Speaker on the recommendation of a committee of MPs that has vetted various candidates. In fact, at the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that is exactly the process that is in place, and it is that process that is also in place in the U.K. Parliament and the Australian parliament.”
“In totality, the secret preferential ballot election of committee chairs and the secret preferential ballot election of committee members would strengthen the role of committees in this place and ensure that there is more accountability of the executive branch of government to the House and its committees. I would add something on this point of committee reform. The United Kingdom had a similar system for its select committees, equivalent to our standing committees, to the one we have here today. About a decade and a half ago, they implemented these kinds of reforms to their committees. After being in place for their select committee system for roughly a decade and a half, these reforms have, by universal acclaim, been seen to be effective reforms that have strengthened the U.K. Parliament.”
“The House should consider distributing the 25 chairs of the standing committees in a way that is proportional to the recognized parties' standing in the House. That is done in other Westminster parliaments, and I think it reflects the distribution of other aspects of the House when a Parliament is first constituted. The House should also consider a third change to the way committees are constituted. Members on committees should be elected by their peers in caucus. The election on a secret preferential ballot vote could take place at the same time as the election for Speaker. Other Westminster parliaments do the same thing.”
“That is because the moving of a nomination of a member for the chair position is done in public, and the whips use that fact to ensure that only a member that the ministry has decided should be the chair is moved and no one else is moved for nomination. The result, in almost all cases, is that members are acclaimed. (1015) One way to fix this is to require a secret preferential ballot listing all the names of committee members of the recognized party from which the chair is to be selected. That way, no nominations for chair can take place, and the 12 members of the committee, or 10 members, or however many members are allocated per standing committee in that particular Parliament, decide who will be the chair based on a single secret preferential ballot. To make committees even more effective, I think a second reform should be considered.”
“In 2002, the Standing Orders were changed, a move supported by then finance minister Paul Martin to address the democratic deficit, by replacing the appointment of committee chairs with their election. Unfortunately, the Standing Order was crafted in a way that did not anticipate it being used in the way it has been. That well-intentioned change has not worked out in practice. While, technically, committee members can elect committee chairs, about 21 or 22 of them are effectively appointed by the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister's designate, and I think four by the Leader of the Opposition .”
“For example, if four hours of debate are scheduled for a bill at second reading, and there are 40 members who wish to speak to the bill, the 240 minutes allotted are divided by the 40 members, thus each member would get six minutes to speak. In that system, every single member who wishes to speak to a matter in the House will have their voice heard, down to a minimum of three minutes, ensuring that their position on a particular matter is on the record. I hope all members in the House give serious consideration to this. I would note, in particular, that former Speaker Milliken advocated for this change to the rules of the House and advocated for it strongly. I believe he advocates for it to this day. The second area of reform the House should consider is its standing committees.”
“The House should do away with the list system and replace it with a system established and controlled by the Speaker. That system should have two broad principles. First, all members who wish to speak to a matter should get to speak. Second, time allocated to individual members who wish to speak should be distributed as equitably as possible to those members who wish to speak. As I understand it, in the United Kingdom Parliament, members who wish to speak, whether to a bill or during Oral Questions, go through a system established and controlled by the Speaker. For example, all members who wish to speak to a bill get to speak, because the time allotted for debate is divided by the number of members who have indicated to the Speaker that they want to speak, and the Speaker allocates time accordingly.”
“First, I believe that the Speaker's right of recognition should be restored. We are, to my knowledge, the only Westminster parliamentary democracy where the Speaker has effectively lost the right of recognition. In many proceedings of the House, during debate, during Oral Questions and during other proceedings, that right of recognition has been replaced by the list system, managed by the whips and House leaders, which has effectively displaced the Speaker's authority. During most of the proceedings of the House, in order for a member to speak, the member's name has to be put on a speaking list by either the House leader or the whip's office, and too often members do not have a voice in the House because they do not get on the list. The Speaker should determine who gets to speak in the House.”
“Madam Speaker, I am delighted to rise to participate in this very important debate, because I think checks and balances on power and how power is distributed in Parliament are an extremely important topic of debate. We have all seen what has happened in other democracies over the last number of years, the weakening of guardrails and the importance of guardrails in restraining executive power. Particularly in a Westminster parliamentary democracy, where the executive is not elected but appointed, and not only appointed but appointed out of this place, it is really important to have the rules and procedures in place to ensure that the legislature can hold the executive branch of government accountable. I believe there are three areas of reform that the House should consider.”
“Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague, the member for Calgary Confederation, with a great deal of interest. I would encourage him to look at Motion No. 517, which was introduced in the 40th Parliament and which echoes many of the issues he has raised. I note that in that motion, which the Liberal Party later adopted in the 42nd Parliament, the 43rd Parliament and the 44th Parliament, one of the five proposals was for the prime minister to answer questions on Wednesdays. There being roughly 36 to 40 questions on Wednesdays, Prime Minister Trudeau answered roughly 36 to 40 questions every week in the House. I do not believe that the current Prime Minister answers as many questions each week in the House. I am wondering if the member would like to see the restoration of Wednesday PMQs.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would simply say in response that I think the more pressing issue to protect our political process and our democracy is for the government to expeditiously and forthwith implement the foreign influence transparency registry, which I think would counteract the single biggest threat to our democracy, which is Beijing's foreign interference.”
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's question allows me to point out in greater detail that the Canadian government was not as successful in negotiating this trade agreement with Indonesia as the United Arab Emirates or the European Union were. The United Arab Emirates secured a 10% price preference in Indonesian procurement tenders and enhanced access for U.A.E. businesses to Indonesian government procurement opportunities. The European Union managed to secure non-discrimination obligations from Indonesia in government procurement. There is no such clause in this agreement in front of the House today. As I mentioned earlier, the European Union also negotiated a commitment to begin market access negotiations on a scheduled timeline. The Canadian government did not secure the same explicit timeline in the agreement in front of the House.”
“In Canada, not a single cargo container has been stopped and prevented from entering Canadian supply chains under the CUSMA agreement, and that is to the shame of the Canadian government, which, after five years, has failed to enforce our treaty obligations.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question about importing goods made with forced labour. That is a major problem. I think the crux of the problem is this. [ English ] Canadian law bans the importation of products produced from forced labour. This was first agreed to in the Canada-U.S.-Mexico trade agreement and then, subsequently, implemented in Canadian law. Importing products into Canada via forced labour is already banned. The problem is that the government has not enforced the law. For example, thousands of shipments of cargo containers from western China that have been produced using Uyghur forced labour have been interdicted by U.S. authorities and prevented from entering the United States over the last five years.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is not a new approach. I enumerated five bills that we already supported in the last year of this Parliament, Bill S-2 , Bill S-3 , Bill C-4 , Bill C-5 , Bill C-12 , and now, in addition to that, Bill C-14 and the bill that is now in front of the House, Bill C-18 . We have been supporting some pieces of legislation to move ahead. The government would like to present a narrative that the opposition is being obstructionist, because I think it would like to pull the pin early on a federal election.”
“That is just one example of the lack of trade corridor infrastructure that prevents us from significantly diversifying trade beyond that with our largest trading partner. Again, the government has introduced no real plans to significantly expand trade corridor infrastructure or improve its efficiency. (1655) [ Translation ] As I said, we support Bill C-18 , just as we have supported seven other government bills in the House. However, simply signing trade agreements will not do much to diversify our trade unless the government does the necessary work here in this country to make our economy more competitive and ensure that the essential infrastructure is in place to export our goods and resources to global markets.”
“Here is another example of a lack of trade corridor infrastructure: Canada is the largest high-income nation in the world without a comprehensive national highway system, and by highway, I mean an autobahn, an expressway or an autoroute, a system that would run from coast to coast, be entirely grade-separated, have no cross-traffic and have four or more lanes, two or more in each direction, allowing travel that is unimpeded by traffic signals, driveways, stop signs or intersections. I encourage anyone listening to go to Google Maps to map out the fastest way from Halifax to Vancouver or from Toronto to Vancouver. Every single route will route us through the United States of America, through the U.S. interstate system, which is faster and more efficient than any highway system we have in this country.”
“Currently, we do not have the capacity to significantly increase exports of commodities or goods via our country's largest ports. The port of Vancouver, which is our largest port and a federal entity, is woefully inefficient. According to a Standard & Poor's global study that was commissioned in 2024 by the World Bank, the port of Vancouver ranked 389 out of 403 global ports for efficiency. It is critical to have sufficient trade corridor infrastructure to significantly increase the export of commodities and goods via our ports to Asia or Europe.”
“That is because the Canadian economy has become uncompetitive and over-regulated. Our tax system has become a completely Byzantine mess, and this includes both the personal and corporate income tax system. We need to overhaul competition policy to make our economy more competitive. We need to eliminate regulation and the regulatory overburden that is strangling our competitiveness. We need to overhaul our personal and corporate income tax system in the same ambitious way that we once did in 1971 and in 1986. The government has introduced none of these types of reforms to get our economy moving and to make our goods and services more desirable for buyers in Asia and Europe. The second thing we need to do is increase the physical capability of exporting more goods and commodities to global markets via the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.”
“These are two things that the government has not been doing and that, if left undone, would prevent us from significantly diversifying trade away from our largest trading partner. The first thing we need to do is make Canadian goods and services more competitive to buyers in Asia and in Europe. Over the last decade, the Canadian economy has become uncompetitive, and many of our goods and services are no longer desired by buyers in Asia and in Europe. The trade data bears this out. In the year 2000, Canadian exports, expressed as a per cent of our gross domestic product, were 42%. In 2024, the last year for which we have data, our global exports, expressed as a per cent of our GDP, had dropped to 33%, which is a 9% drop. Clearly, our products and services are not as desirable to foreign buyers as they once were.”
“The European Union also negotiated a commitment to begin market access negotiations. Canada has no specific timeline to begin negotiating market access. For Canada, market access is left to further negotiations and no published coverage schedules. However, Conservatives will support passing Bill C-18 to committee, but we would scrutinize the effectiveness of this agreement and point to ways that it could be better utilized. [ Translation ] I would like to conclude my remarks on our support for this bill by adding the following: Just signing trade agreements is not enough to diversify our trade away from our main trading partner. [ English ] To capitalize on these trade agreements and these investment deals, the Government of Canada needs to do two other things.”
“[ Translation ] The Conservatives support Bill C-18 , an act to implement the comprehensive economic partnership agreement between Canada and Indonesia, because we support diversifying our trade with other partners, especially in the Indo-Pacific region. [ English ] This agreement would eventually reduce tariffs on 97% of Canadian exports destined for Indonesia. However, the government procurement in this trade agreement requires further scrutiny. Indonesian firms could bid on Canadian contracts, but Canadian firms could only bid on Indonesian government procurement if it is expressly opened. Indonesian government procurement is largely closed. Other trading partners of Canada secured better agreements with Indonesia on government procurement rules, including the United Arab Emirates and the European Union.”
“[ English ] We have supported the following six government bills: Bill S-2 , an act to amend the Indian Act; Bill S-3 , an act to amend the Weights and Measures Act and other acts; Bill C-4 , an act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians; Bill C-5 , an act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act; and Bill C-12 , the strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act. Recently, we agreed that we would expedite the study and passage of Bill C-14 , the bail and sentencing reform act. We have been clear that good ideas in the interest of Canadians will win our support. Including the bill in front of us today, we have supported eight government bills in this Parliament just in the last year.”
“That means the government needs to understand that, on certain bills in front of the House, we will oppose the government, and on other bills in front of the House, we will support the government. It is not reasonable for the government to expect the opposition in the House to support it in all and any bills that it brings before the House. That would undermine the constitutional role the official opposition has in holding the appointed executive to account. [ Translation ] The Conservatives support Bill C-18 , just as we supported Bill C-13 , an act to implement the protocol on the accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, and just as we have supported many other bills over the past year in this Parliament.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians elected a minority government, and Conservatives fully respect the democratic will of the electorate. That is why, as His Majesty's loyal official opposition, we will carry out our constitutional responsibilities within the House. (1650) [ English ] On some matters, we will oppose the government as the official opposition, which is a constitutionally mandated role in a Westminster parliamentary democracy. On other matters, we will support the government, seeing as Canadians did not give the government a majority, which requires the opposition to play a role in moving certain matters forward in the House. Conservatives respect the democratic will of Canadians as expressed in the last election. The government needs to do the same.”
“Canadians deserve a government that treats foreign interference seriously as a threat to our national security. The government needs to implement the foreign influence transparency registry now.”
“Mr. Speaker, Beijing's foreign interference is the biggest threat to the security of Canada; that is what the Prime Minister told Canadians last spring. Less than a year later, the Prime Minister has entered into a so-called strategic partnership with Beijing, yet we still have no foreign influence transparency registry. When the bill was being debated, the government said it hoped to have the registry up and running in 12 months, ahead of a federal election. It is now 19 months and one election later, and there is still no registry. Another election could pass without the protection of a registry. One wonders if the government delayed the registry until now to avoid offending Beijing's leadership, and for the same reason Liberal MPs were told recently to cut short their trip to Taiwan.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government over the last 10 years has arguably the worst economic record since 1945. Here is just one set of data points: Overall labour productivity has declined in each and every one of the last four years. I cannot think of any four-year period since 1945 where this has happened. It is in CANSIM table 383-0033. Productivity was $65 per hour in 2021, $64.60 in 2022, $63.50 in 2023 and $63.20 in 2024, last year. It has dropped in each and every one of the last four years since 2020. That is why the Bank of Canada has called it an emergency. The budget does little to address this productivity emergency. Would the member comment?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight some labour productivity statistics that members of the House may not be aware of. This is from Statistics Canada, table 36-10-0480-01: In 2006, labour productivity was $56.8 per hour. In 2015, it was $61 per hour, an increase of $4.2 an hour. In 2024, it was $63.2 an hour, an increase of only $2.2. It is clear that the record of the previous Conservative government on labour productivity for all industries, all sectors, was far better than that of the current Liberal government. I just wanted to make sure that was read into the record for the elucidation of members of the House who may not be aware of that.”
“Mr. Speaker, the record of the Liberals over the last 10 years has been the worst economic record in this country since the Second World War period. That is an incontrovertible fact. If members look at the labour productivity tables, for example, what will they see is that labour productivity has flatlined over the last number of years. Even with Statistics Canada's recent upward revision in GDP numbers, per capita GDP has flatlined over the last number of years, all while our economic peer group has seen per capita GDP go up. We are falling behind, which is why we are falling behind in global league tables on a range of measures such as productivity, growth, and so many other measures.”
“Mr. Speaker, when it comes to ensuring federal transfers to the provinces for health and social services, I think the most important thing is economic growth and long-term prosperity. Economic growth is the best way to ensure long-term prosperity. We need to increase our productivity. There is nothing about that in the budget, and I think that is a serious problem in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, that question highlights the financial illiteracy that pervades the House. The fact of the matter is that, if we go to Statistics Canada's labour productivity data, we will see that, over the course of the 1990s and the early aughts, right to 2015, a good part of 25 of the last 35 years in this country, labour productivity consistently marched upward. What we have seen, though, in the last 10 years, particularly in the last five, is that labour productivity has stalled, if not declined, in some years. As far as the debt goes, I would add, for example, that the Province of Ontario has a larger debt than the State of California, so the member is wrong when he talks about net debt.”
“The Liberals have been promising fundamental tax reform since their first budget in 2016. Other governments have introduced fundamental tax reforms that transformed the economy, moved productivity and created prosperity and growth. I think of the budgets of 1971, of 1988, of 1991 and of 1996. Instead of fundamental progrowth tax reform, regulatory reform and competition reform, we are getting a bunch of special loopholes and deductions for specially targeted sectors. It is creating more big government, more “big government knows best”, and more of the big programs and big sectoral focuses that will do nothing to turn this economy around or address the fundamental economic crisis we are facing in this country.”
“It did not have any money to meet payroll, and as a result, it went to the federal government and asked for an emergency transfer of cash to keep basic government operations going. When we take into account subnational debt, and when we take into account that we are the smallest of the G7 currencies and not a global reserve currency, the government's record on debt does not look as good as it would have everyone believe. I will finish by asking this: Where are the fundamental reforms that meet the moment? Where are the transformative reforms that are generational? Where is the competition reform? Where is the regulatory reform? Where is the tax reform? Many had hoped, myself included, that the government was going to commit to that comprehensive tax reform.”
“dollar, and we are not the U.K. pound. We are the smallest of the G7 currencies, and we are not a reserve currency like the U.S. dollar or the eurozone. The government's rhetoric on net debt also fails to take into account a second important distinction from other G7 countries, which is that we are the most indebted subnational debt country in the G7. We have some of the highest levels of subnational debt in the OECD, which the federal government backstops. I will remind the House that it was just over five years ago when a province hit the fiscal wall. It ran out of money. Now, that may not be remembered by many people, because it happened in March of 2020 when the global pandemic hit, but in March 2020, Newfoundland and Labrador tried to raise cash on debt capital markets to pay for nurses, doctors and teachers, and it could not.”
“The deputy governor of the Bank of Canada called Canada's low productivity an “emergency”. She said, “it's time to break the glass.” Despite that warning over a year ago, the government failed to meet the moment and failed to introduce fundamental reforms to get the Canadian economy on track. A famous economist once said that the only long-run determinant of prosperity is productivity, and the government has absolutely failed to introduce fundamental reforms to meet the moment to get our productivity turned around. A second point on the government's deficits and debt is that the government often touts its record on net debt, but that fails to take into account that Canada is the smallest of the G7 economies. It has the smallest currency of the G7 economies. We are not part of the eurozone. We are not the U.S.”
“This may be exacerbated by persistent economic underperformance caused by tariff risks and structural challenges, including low productivity. (1015) In other words, the government's increased deficits and rising additions to the national debt have eroded the federal government's finances and weakened its credit profile. We are at particular risk because all of this could be exacerbated by additional tariffs and our ongoing low productivity. We can all acknowledge that the tariffs levied by the U.S. administration are not within the control of government, but what is within the control of government is low productivity. The government has immense macroeconomic levers at its disposal to turn around this country's chronically low, if not declining, labour productivity. I would like to dwell on this for just a moment.”
“By then, the government projects that the interest on the debt will be $71 billion, chewing up 13¢ of every dollar, up from only six cents as recently as fiscal year 2022. Last July, bond rating agency Fitch Ratings warned that a material rise in the debt-to-GDP ratio and a material rise in our deficit could lead to a credit downgrade. This budget would double deficits and lead to an ever-increasing debt-to-GDP ratio. As a result, here is what Fitch Ratings said several weeks ago after the budget was delivered: Canada's...proposed budget, announced in Parliament on Nov. 4, underscores the erosion of the federal government’s finances, says Fitch Ratings. While Canada’s rating is broadly stable, persistent fiscal expansion and a rising debt burden have weakened its credit profile and could increase rating pressure over the medium term.”
“In fact, this government's budget has weaker fiscal anchors than the previous Liberal government's. The last Liberal budget had a fiscal anchor of deficits of less than 1% of GDP. This budget would double those deficits, averaging 2% of GDP in the coming years. The last Liberal budget had a fiscal anchor of a declining debt-to-GDP ratio. This budget would increase the debt to GDP. It is clear that this government's fiscal anchor is weaker than the previous Liberal government's. The new fiscal anchor is some weird new invention that very few, if any, other G7 countries use. The new fiscal anchor is a balanced operating budget by 2029 and a declining deficit rather than debt-to-GDP ratio. By fiscal year 2029, the deficit will only be $58 billion.”
“It was not a budget like that of 1988, which collapsed 10 federal tax brackets into three and started the country on a transformative change to our economy. It was not like the budget of 1991, which took the difficult step of eliminating the 13.5% manufacturer sales tax and introducing a broader and lower value-added tax in the form of the GST. It was not the budget of 1996, introduced by then finance minister Paul Martin, which introduced the plan to balance the federal government's finances in 36 months. This budget had none of the hallmarks of the budgets of those four important years. Instead, this budget would do quite the opposite. It would continue us down the path of the last 10 years. It is another big spending, big government, big Liberal budget.”
“I am honoured to participate in the budget debate. [ English ] I think that the context of this budget is important. First of all, it was delayed for an unprecedented number of months and introduced in the fall, which will now be the new government's budget cycle. It was also preceded by a lot of rhetoric from the government about what kind of budget it would be, with commitments about making this a budget full of “generational investments”, saying that it would “swing for the fences”, that it would “define our next century” and that it would be “transformative”. That is the context in which this budget was hyped. However, when we actually got the budget on November 4, it was anything but. It was not a budget like that of 1971, which introduced comprehensive tax reform that had been largely recommended by the Carter commission.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to represent Wellington—Halton Hills North. The Canadians who live in the riding, in Wellington County, the town of Halton Hills and the city of Guelph, are truly exceptional. In the last seven years, three people from Guelph and Wellington County have received a Nobel Prize. Donna Strickland received a joint Nobel Prize in physics, and David Card and Peter Howitt separately received joint Nobel Prizes in economics. This global excellence coming from Guelph and Wellington County, a community of some 200,000 Canadians, is extraordinary. What was it about the Guelph and Wellington County of the 1960s and 1970s, when these extraordinary Canadians came of age, that produced such global excellence? Whatever it was, Canada needs more of it. Congratulations to all three of these extraordinary Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, during the last election, some candidates were vetoed for foreign interference, and others were targeted. CSIS Director Dan Rogers said just last week that China and Russia continue to target Canada. We have had one federal election without a registry, and we could have a second one, at the speed that the government operates. Where is the sense of urgency in getting the registry up and running? Where are the speeds not seen in generations? Where are the consultations with opposition leaders? Where is the motion?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that the biggest threat to the security of Canada is Beijing's foreign interference. Parliament passed a law to create a registry to combat this interference a year and a half ago. The government said it would be up and running by year-end. The government must consult with opposition leaders and introduce a motion to appoint a commissioner. There are only three weeks left before Christmas adjournment. When will the government consult opposition leaders and introduce a motion to appoint a commissioner?”
“Canada could see the exodus of thousands of good jobs from this country as defence industrial companies exit Canada to ensure access to the U.S. market. These are companies like L3 Harris Wescam in Hamilton, Ontario, which employs over 1,300 workers; Magellan Aerospace in Mississauga, Ontario, which employs over 600 workers; Honeywell, also in Mississauga, Ontario, which employs over 3,500 workers; General Dynamics Mission Systems—Canada in Ottawa, which employs over 1,000 workers; and Lockheed Martin Canada, which employs over 1,400 workers across multiple locations in Canada, such as Ottawa, Montreal, Calgary and Victoria. [ Translation ] For all these reasons, I do not support this bill. [ English ] I would again like to thank the member for Vancouver East for bringing the bill forward to allow this debate in the House to take place.”
“The engine sensors are manufactured in this city, the city of Ottawa in Ontario, and the outboard wing assemblies are manufactured in Delta, British Columbia. One of the consequences of the bill is that it could result in a ban on F-35 parts manufactured in Canada being exported to the United States. It is not difficult to see how the United States would view this ban as a direct threat to their defence and security if Lockheed Martin's plant in Fort Worth, Texas, cannot complete the assembly of F-35 jets because of an inability of the company to import the necessary component parts from their plants in Canada. Another consequence of the bill that I fear is a possible deintegration of the integrated North American defence industrial sector.”
“For example, the United States could view the passage of this bill as a significant threat to its defence and security. I would like to highlight one such example. [ English ] The United States military describes the F-35 fighter jet as an indispensable tool and a cornerstone of their fighter fleet, both for homeland defence and for warfare. Some of the F-35 parts are manufactured in the United States, but other parts of the F-35 are manufactured in Canada, with the final assembly of the F-35 in the United States in Fort Worth, Texas. I would like to enumerate some of the F-35 parts that are manufactured in Canada, which my colleague across the way has highlighted. The horizontal tail assemblies for the F-35 are manufactured in Winnipeg, Manitoba. The weapons bay door inserts are manufactured in Lunenburg, Nova Scotia.”