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 3 of 3.
“Finally, the bill would change the current legal framework by requiring the minister to prepare and table in Parliament an annual report on the export of arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war and Canada's compliance with the Arms Trade Treaty. The defence industrial sector in Canada in 2022 contributed $14.3 billion to our GDP, which is roughly 0.5% of Canada's GDP. This sector is expected to grow substantially as a result of the government's commitment to massively increase Canada's military spending. Half of the production of Canada's defence industrial sector is exported, much of it to the United States, and herein lies the problem with the bill. (1805) [ Translation ] This bill could create some conflict between Canada and the United States.”
“It would also change the legal framework by preventing exemptions to the export control list for arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war based on their country of destination. The bill would change the legal framework by preventing the issuance of general export permits and general brokering permits for arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war; by expanding the list of considerations that the minister must take into account in issuing a permit to export or broker arms, implements, ammunition or munitions of war; and by providing that the minister must require end-use certificates from the government of a country to which these arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war are being exported if doing so would sufficiently mitigate a substantial risk of war crimes or violations of international humanitarian law or international human rights law.”
“The effect of the bill would be to bring the United States under the provisions of the Export and Import Permits Act by removing the power of the minister to grant exemptions such as the one that has been granted to the United States. This would result in an effective ban on Canadian defence exports to the United States if those exports were to be re-exported to another country on which Canada has implemented a defence export ban. The bill would change the current legal framework by clarifying that parts, components and technology necessary for the assembly or use of arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war are included in the meaning of those terms.”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑233 , an act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act, was introduced by the member for Vancouver East . I would like to thank the hon. member for introducing this bill, as it allows us to highlight the role of the Export and Import Permits Act. [ English ] The bill would amend the Export and Import Permits Act, which governs Canada's defence and military exports, by removing exemptions for specific countries. Currently under the Export and Import Permits Act, the United States is exempt from its provisions, due to a ministerial order. This exemption allows the United States to re-export Canadian military exports without the Government of Canada's approval. The United States is the only country under the act that is currently granted this exemption.”
“Mr. Speaker, the government often touts its record on net debt, but it fails to take into account that Canada is the smallest of the G7 economies. It has the smallest currency of the G7 economies, and it is not a reserve currency like the U.S. dollar or the euro. It also fails to take into account subnational debt in this country. It is among the highest levels in the OECD, which the federal government backstops. Just five years ago, a province hit the debt wall, ran out of money, could not pay its doctors and nurses and could not raise a penny on debt capital markets. The federal government had to bail it out. Would the member comment on that?”
“It would be a shame if Canadians don’t get onside”; and “After all the hype, [the Prime Minister's] first budget fails to meet the moment”. Those are out of just one publication, The Globe and Mail. Here is what the Toronto Star headline says: “Once again, [the Prime Minister ] doesn’t quite live up to the hype”. Would the member comment?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is safe to say that the budget is getting panned. Here are just some headlines today on the budget: “Canadian aid cuts will bite deeply in global crisis zones, relief agencies say”; “Federal budget signals [the Prime Minister ]’s new tone on climate policy, but not much substance”; “A ‘generational budget’ that does little but set federal spending adrift”, and that article, by the way, was written by the former associate deputy minister of Finance Canada; and another editorial headline, “The Liberals’ growing deficit of trust”. I am going to replace the Prime Minister 's name with his title here: “Budget shows [the Prime Minister] doesn’t know how tough it is out there on Main Street”; “Great budget, [Prime Minister].”
“Mr. Speaker, last July, bond-rating agency Fitch 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. Will the government acknowledge that it is putting this country's credit rating at risk, not to mention that it is saddling younger Canadians with a mountain of national debt?”
“Mr. Speaker, 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. The last Liberal budget had a fiscal anchor of a declining debt-to-GDP ratio. This budget would increase the debt-to-GDP ratio. Will the government admit that its fiscal anchor is weaker than the previous Trudeau government's?”
“Mr. Speaker, the last budget, of two years ago, had a fiscal anchor of a deficit of less than 1% of GDP in future years and constantly declining debt-to-GDP ratios in subsequent years. This budget has a fiscal anchor of deficits averaging 2% of GDP over the next number of years and a rising debt-to GDP ratio. Will the finance minister confirm that his fiscal anchor is weaker than the last finance minister's fiscal anchor?”
“This was a real opportunity for the Government of Canada to use this leverage to advocate for some 120,000 Canadians who are in desperate need of having these pensions indexed.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is inexplicable that the government did not use the leverage it had in this situation to advocate for and get a deal for the some 120,000 Canadians who are receiving an unindexed U.K. pension. I want to thank my colleague for raising that question in the House. It is inexplicable. For much of the past 20 years, there was no opportunity to use leverage with the United Kingdom government to get this deal, but the U.K. was desperate to get into other trade deals, such as the CPTPP, as well as other bilateral and multilateral trade deals, precisely because of Brexit. Because the United Kingdom had left the European Union, it was desperate to get into these other trade arrangements.”
“Mr. Speaker, I agree that not all the problems are related to the tax system. Part of the problem has to do with our rules around ports and commercial infrastructure. We are facing a major challenge when it comes to increasing our exports to Europe and Asia because of the lack of port capacity in places like Montreal, Halifax and Vancouver. Forestry products, for example, compete with other exports and goods. Currently, we do not have the necessary capacity to significantly increase our exports through these ports.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will reply to the hon. member's question by simply repeating the facts, which were obtained from Statistics Canada. Canada's exports, expressed as a percentage of our GDP, were 44% of our GDP in the year 2000. They were 32% of our GDP in the year 2024. By any analysis, that is a precipitous drop.”
“That is, in part, why we have seen a drop in global exports to countries around the world, excluding the United States, over the last number of years. It is why global exports, expressed as a percentage of Canada's GDP, have gone from some 44% back in 2000 down to about 32% today. I will finish with this final point. The government missed a huge opportunity when negotiating this deal with the United Kingdom to address the plight of some 120,000 Canadians living in this country and receiving U.K. pensions, which remain unindexed. It is an issue that has festered for a number of years. This was an opportunity for the government to address the plight of those pensioners. Pensioners who live in the United States, Spain, Germany and France receive indexed pensions, but pensioners living in Canada do not.”
“The Trans-Canada Highway is a two-lane, paved road and much of it is interrupted by hundreds and hundreds of driveways, intersections and traffic lights. People cannot drive from Halifax to Vancouver in this country without encountering thousands of driveways, hundreds of intersections and dozens of traffic lights. Another example of our abysmal trade corridor infrastructure is the port of Vancouver. The World Bank commissioned a study several years ago on the world's top 350 or so global ports, and the port of Vancouver ranked second to dead last in efficiency. None of these issues are on the government's list of national interest projects. None of these issues are being addressed by the current government.”
“In the United Kingdom, people can get on the “M” series highway and drive uninterrupted from Bournemouth all the way up to Aberdeenshire in Scotland on a four-lane, divided, limited-access highway. In the United States, people can drive from New York to L.A. on multiple four-lane, divided, limited-access interstate highways that began construction in the 1950s under the Eisenhower administration. In France, people can get on autoroutes that will take them from one side of France to the other on a limited-access, four-lane, divided highway system. We do not have a single highway like that in Canada. In fact, what we call our Trans-Canada Highway is Highway 7, which leads out of Ottawa on the way to Toronto.”
“The tertiary services sector, which is supposed to be the future of the Canadian economy, faces a marginal effective tax rate that is almost double that of many other sectors in the Canadian economy. It is a result, I would argue, of regulatory policies that are stifling major investments, such as trade corridor infrastructure. Canada's trade corridor infrastructure is abysmal, and the current government has done little to address that fact. Let me highlight two examples of our abysmal trade corridor infrastructure. To my knowledge, we are the only major OECD economy without a single national highway. In our case, we could have one running from the Atlantic coast to the Pacific coast.”
“The fact is, as reflected by the decline in our exports over the last number of years, fewer and fewer people outside of Canada want to buy our products. (1305) Fewer and fewer people abroad want to buy Canadian goods and services, and that is because government tax policies make it difficult to attract domestic and foreign investment, leading to a situation where Canadian companies invest in plant capital and equipment at a far lower rate than their foreign competitors. Jack Mintz argued in his paper entitled “A Proposal for a ‘Big Bang’ Corporate Tax Reform” that government tax policies have led to a situation where the marginal effective tax rate on the services sector in Canada is almost double that of other economic sectors in Canada, such as manufacturing, forestry and agriculture.”
“In fact, if we look at our global exports, excluding the United States, they, too, have dropped over the last 25 years by some 2%. The second point to make about this massive drop in global exports is that most of it took place before the arrival of the Trump administration south of the border. That second point is a very important one to make. There is a third point that I would like to make about this massive drop in these exports, most of which happened before the arrival of the Trump presidency and some of which happened to our exports outside of the United States. The big reason why this has happened, I would argue, is that Canada has become uncompetitive. No one would dispute the argument that we have become uncompetitive as a country.”
“For that second reason, it is good to increase trade with the United Kingdom. While the United Kingdom is Canada's second-largest export market this year, it is important to take a step back and look at the bigger picture of Canada's exports. The picture is not good. Canada's exports to the world, expressed as a percentage of our GDP, have massively declined over the last 25 years. Our global exports, expressed as a percentage of our GDP, went from 44% in 2000 to 32% in 2024, which is a massive drop. I want to make three points about this big drop in exports. First, not all of this drop is attributable to a drop in exports to the United States. While global exports have dropped by about 12% of GDP over the last 25 years, not all of that is attributable to the United States.”
“Measured in two-way trade, the United Kingdom is Canada's third-largest trading partner, with two-way trade valued at $63 billion in 2024. Measured in terms of exports, the United Kingdom is Canada's second-largest export market. It is bigger than China and second only to the United States. According to Adam Murray at EDC, “As of 2025, the U.K. is Canada’s second-largest destination for total exports of goods and services, valued at $40.2 billion.” There is a lot of opportunity to build on increasing exports to our second-largest export market, the United Kingdom, with agreements like the one before this House. There is an opportunity to increase exports with a country that is a western, liberal democracy. It is a country that not only shares our values, but shares very similar institutions, like this very House of Commons.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from York—Durham . For most of Canada's history, the United Kingdom was Canada's largest trading partner. As late as 1941, the United Kingdom, not the United States, was Canada's largest export market. For those watching who wish to find this data, I found it in a Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce publication entitled “Canada's Trade Performance—1960-1977, Volume 1: General Developments”. It was published in October 1978 and is available on the department's website. I welcome this debate on Bill C-13 because it gives us an opportunity to debate how we can increase trade and investment between Canada and the world. While the U.K. is no longer our largest trading partner, it remains an important one.”
“Mr. Speaker, another question about what the Prime Minister called the biggest threat to the security of Canada relates to foreign interference. In the last election, some candidates were vetoed for interference and others were targeted, and millions of Canadians continue to live in fear because of threats from foreign interference. The foreign influence transparency registry was passed into law last year. The government said it would take 12 months to implement. Sixteen months have passed, and there is still no registry. When will it be up and running, and when will the commissioner be appointed?”
“Mr. Speaker, in the last election, during the debate, the Prime Minister was asked to name the biggest threat to the security of Canada. He answered in one word: “China”. Now the foreign affairs minister is talking about a strategic partnership with Beijing, including security. These two things seem contradictory. Can the minister reconcile these two things, or is this another example of the Prime Minister saying one thing during the election and doing another afterward?”
“Some of the aspects of the bill are interesting, such as the codification of that rule into law, but I think the way the bill has been worded in its second and third elements, related to a review and vote in the House and its committees, would put an undue burden on the House.”
“I think that three treaties every 10 sitting days being laid before the House, triggering a debate with a commensurate vote, and three treaties every 10 calendar days being sent to committee for review and report would put a big burden on the House and distract us from the other critical work we need to do in this place. (1810) I will finish by saying that I think this is a well-intentioned bill that has allowed us to shine a light on the Ponsonby Rule, which has been in place here in the chamber since the Harper government issued the policy through a ministerial statement in 2008.”
“In the 43rd Parliament, which was the pandemic Parliament, when arguably, even though it lasted for a year and a half, we really sat for only about a year, 32 treaties were negotiated during the roughly 20 to 30 weeks the House sat. In the 44th Parliament, over three years, 62 treaties were laid in front of the House. Just in the first eight weeks of the current Parliament, I counted ministers' laying before the House 17 treaties, at a rate of roughly more than two a week. When I look at what the bill proposes, I think it would be an undue burden on the House and its committees.”
“Seeing that the House typically sits only 26 or 27 weeks a year, we would be looking at having a day of debate and a vote in the House pretty much three days out of every two weeks the House is sitting, and the committees of the House would also be tasked three times every 10 sitting days with reviewing and reporting back on a treaty. I looked at the statistics for the last five Parliaments, beginning with the 41st Parliament, about the number of treaties that have been laid before the House. In the 41st Parliament, which lasted about four years, there were 142 treaties that were laid in front of the House, which is roughly 110 a year. In the 42nd Parliament, which sat for four years, there were 91 treaties that were laid before the House, which is a rate of roughly 22 treaties each sitting year.”
“The third element of the bill is that all major treaties would be reviewed by a committee of the House and that the committee would have to report back to the House. I think the second and third elements of the bill would be a problem, and I want to explain why. As my hon. colleague mentioned, there are some 4,400 treaties that Canada is party to. Let us just assume that they have been negotiated over about 100 years; that means about 44 treaties a year. That would be a lot of treaties for the House to debate and to vote on each and every time. It would be a lot of work for a committee to review and report back to the House each and every time.”
“What we currently do here in practice in the House, what the government currently does in policy, which was enacted by the Harper government in 2008, is being proposed to be codified by the bill that is before us, and I think that is an interesting idea. It is something the U.K. has done, but in practice I do not think it would make any real change to the way we consider treaties here in the House. The second and third elements of the private member's bill would change significantly how we deal with treaties. The second element is that “the Minister must obtain the advice of the House of Commons regarding the treaty before ratifying it.” In other words, the minister needs to ensure that a debate and a vote take place in the House as a whole for each treaty laid before the House.”
“What the bill would do can be summarized by three elements. The first is it would codify existing policy and practice by the Government of Canada and the practice here in the House of Commons, which my hon. colleague across the aisle called the Ponsonby convention. (1805) As an aside, I might mention that one of the primary schools I went to when I was a kid was Ponsonby Public School, which is just down the road from where I grew up. It was probably named after the person who authored the convention, but it is the Ponsonby rule that had been in place in the United Kingdom since 1924. That rule in the United Kingdom has been codified into law by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.”
“A major treaty is defined as any treaty that requires for its implementation “the enactment of an Act of Parliament”, “the conferment of new powers on His Majesty in Right of Canada”, or “the imposition of a tax by Parliament”; “imposes a significant direct or conditional financial obligation on Canada”; “concerns the transfer of part of Canada’s territory”; “requires Canada to impose...economic or military sanctions on a state”; or “concerns the territorial jurisdiction of Canada”. In the final two descriptions, a major treaty is any treaty that “concerns international trade or investment” or “concerns Canada’s participation in international institutions”. When we look at what a major treaty is as defined in the bill, it pretty much encompasses all treaties. A very broad set of treaties would be defined and captured by this bill.”
“It is important to start with that description of what we in Canada call a treaty before we go on to a discussion of the bill. When I look at Bill C-228 , I note that it further defines a treaty as an amendment to a treaty. Treaties are not simply the original bilateral, multilateral or plurilateral agreement; any amendment to such an agreement is also considered a treaty in the definition provided by the bill. The bill then goes on to define what a major treaty is. When I read the bill, a major treaty seems to encompass pretty much all treaties. They are almost one and the same.”
“An important starting point for this particular private member's bill is discussing the nomenclature of a treaty. Under the Vienna convention that codified international practice in 1969, Canada defines a treaty as “a single instrument” or “two or more related instruments” and indicates that treaties can come in various forms of description. They can be called treaties, conventions, agreements, protocols or some similar word. They can be a simple exchange of diplomatic notes or a simple exchange of diplomatic letters. All of these are incorporated into what Canada considers to be a treaty. What is not a treaty is an arrangement or a memorandum of understanding. Those two documents are not considered by Canada to be treaties, although other states consider them to be treaties.”
“Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the Bloc Québécois for bringing this bill forward. I think it will give us an opportunity to talk about the treaty process here in Canada and in the House of Commons. [ English ] The first multilateral treaty negotiated and signed by Canada was the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. The first bilateral treaty negotiated and signed by Canada was the Halibut Treaty between Canada and the United States in 1923. Before that, the United Kingdom negotiated, signed and ratified treaties on behalf of all of the countries in the empire. Full treaty authority was not fully delegated to Canada until 1947, with the issuance of the Letters Patent, 1947. As I think my colleague mentioned, there are some 4,400 treaties that Canada has entered into or has been bound by over the years.”
“I congratulate Mayor Seeley and the township council for continuing the 175-year tradition of local democratic governance.”
“Mr. Speaker, this year, in Wellington County, the Township of Puslinch celebrates its 175th anniversary. Older than Confederation, Puslinch was established in the Province of Canada in 1850 under the municipal corporations act of 1849, which had been introduced by the great ministry of Robert Baldwin and Louis-Hippolyte LaFontaine. Named after a place in England, the township is filled with history from early pioneers: the English, Highland Scots, Germans and Irish Catholics. The township played a key role in early Canadian agriculture, with Dr. Frederick Stone bringing to Puslinch the first Hereford cattle breed and other cattle breeds. His farm eventually became the Ontario Agricultural College at the University of Guelph.”
“Mr. Speaker, the bill, in part 1, sweepingly replaces multiple ministers in multiple departments and multiple quasi-judicial entities with a single minister. In clause 6, it says, “The Governor in Council may, by order, designate a member of the King’s Privy Council for Canada as the Minister for the purposes of this Act.” Can the minister tell the House who the minister responsible for this act would be?”
“Mr. Speaker, Finland is also undertaking this big project. They announced their purchase of F-35 jets around the same time Canada did, in early 2022. Finland purchased 64 jets, Canada 88. The Auditor General has reported that facilities and training for the F-35s are years behind schedule. The Finns' F-35s will achieve full operational capability in 2030. The government will not achieve that until at least 2033-34, years behind the Finns. Why can the government not deliver these jets on time and on budget?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has reported that the cost of the F-35 jets has increased by billions, by almost 50%. I have a simple question. Are these increased costs included in the Prime Minister 's recently announced plan to meet NATO's 2% target by April 1 of next year?”