Michael Chong

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the government said that chapter 32, which requires us to get Washington's permission to negotiate free trade with certain countries, was not a big deal because, “any party to NAFTA is allowed...to leave with six months' notice.” That is ridiculous. The government knows full well that Canada is not going to quit a trade deal on which one in five Canadian jobs depend. Effectively, the government has given up our independence in setting trade policy for Asia-Pacific. Yes, the government got a deal, but at what cost?

Mr. Speaker, the government keeps repeating the refrain that committees are independent of the PMO and masters of their own domain. Therefore, have there been any communications from either the office of the chief government whip or the office of the government House leader and Liberal members of the ethics committee about next Tuesday's meeting?

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to members opposite on the issue in front of the House right now, talking about how bad Conservative budgets were in the previous government. I would like to ask a quick question. Does she know that the Liberals voted for the Conservatives' first budget in the spring of 2006?

Mr. Speaker, in the last election, the Liberals promised to run modest deficits of less than $10 billion to fund infrastructure. Instead, they are racking up much bigger deficits, but they are not spending the money on infrastructure. In fact, the PBO reports that one-quarter of the money promised for infrastructure will go unspent. That means that millions of Canadians stuck in traffic and roads and bridges unrepaired. The Liberals also promised to transfer unused funds into the gas tax fund. Where is the promised Liberal plan for infrastructure?

Mr. Speaker, 100 years ago, 60,000 Canadians died in the Great War. Their sacrifice and bloodshed is full of the remembrance of that war. Parliament is full of reminders of that sacrifice. Their bloodshed paid for an independent Canadian foreign policy. It paid for our signature on the Treaty of Versailles. It paid for the Statute of Westminster, but the current government was so desperate for a deal that we now have to ask Washington for permission to negotiate free trade with certain countries. Article 32 makes us a vassal state. Is this restoring Canadian leadership in the world? Is this standing up for Canada?

Mr. Speaker, a Liberal MP told Michel Doucet, a candidate for Commissioner of Official Languages, that, “if he did not talk to certain Liberal Party of Canada higher-ups, he would not get the job.”The Commissioner of Official Languages is an agent of Parliament, not a partisan employee of the Liberal Party of Canada.In the last election, the Prime Minister promised to clean up the partisan swamp. He promised to do things differently. Is this his idea of cleaning things up?

Madam Speaker, concerns are being raised about proposed changes to Hong Kong's extradition law. These changes would allow the extradition of anyone in Hong Kong, including 300,000 Canadians living there, to mainland China. We have an extradition treaty with Hong Kong. In mainland China, two Canadians are in jail and another two are on death row. Democracies around the world are under threat. It is even more important at this time that Canada stand for democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Will a minister from the government make a clear, unambiguous statement about these proposed changes to Hong Kong's extradition law?

Mr. Speaker, this is not about any one party's position on free trade with China; it is about our sovereignty to negotiate those kinds of deals. The Liberals also sold us out on our exchange rate policy, on our central bank policy. As Greece has found out, if we do not control our central bank, we do not have a sovereign state. If Washington does not like our exchange rate, chapter 33 forces us into consultations to arrive at a mutually acceptable resolution. The Liberals were so desperate to get a deal, any deal, they sold Canada out on our central bank policy. Again, yes, they got a deal, but at what price?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals just introduced their budget bill, which joins Canada to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. The government is going to transfer up to half a billion dollars into this bank for infrastructure outside of Canada, while at the same time the PBO reports the government is behind on infrastructure spending within Canada. Why is the government spending money on infrastructure projects halfway across the world when it is behind on fixing our worn out bridges, roads, and highways right here at home?

Mr. Speaker, when Mr. Harper proposed Graham Fraser for the position, his credentials were above any partisan approach, but the present Prime Minister proposed a candidate who does not pass the partisan smell test, and he failed to legally consult the opposition. This past January, the Prime Minister refused to answer an anglophone in English. So much for the respect for this institution of Parliament, so much for the respect for Canada's two official languages. When will the Prime Minister withdraw this nomination?

Mr. Speaker, we now have confirmation that the Prime Minister and cabinet undermined the rule of law on November 5, 2015, by preventing Liberal MPs from complying with section 49 of the Parliament of Canada Act. Liberal members were to have voted in a recorded division, just like in the House of Commons, on the secret ballot expulsion rule. By not voting, they acted illegally and broke the law.Now that illegal act has come back to haunt it, will the government hold off on any caucus expulsions until it has complied with section 49, and will the Attorney General ensure that the government comes into compliance with section 49?

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to Liberal members criticize Conservative budgets of the previous government over the last 11 years. I find it highly ironic because Liberals supported most of those budgets. As I mentioned earlier in the House during debate, the Liberals supported the budget of 2006. In fact, if we check the news reports from June 6, 2006, it was reported that the House unanimously supported the budget at third reading. In the 2009 budget, CTV News reported on January 28, 2009, “Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff offered his support for the federal budget Wednesday.”In 2010, the Liberals also supported the Conservative government's budget. I quote the Toronto Star of June 9, 2010. The “Conservative government has passed its fifth consecutive federal budget with the tacit support of the Liberal opposition.” It is typical Liberal Party rhetoric to say one thing and do another. This is a good example of that. Liberals supported most of the Conservatives' budgets during those minority Parliaments for one reason, because they were good budgets and they were good for Canada.

Mr. Speaker, two major stakeholder groups representing francophone linguistic minority communities and Acadia throughout this country and anglophones in the province of Quebec have voiced concerns about the process.Last January, the Prime Minister refused to hold the spirit of the Official Languages Act by refusing to respond to an anglophone in Quebec in English. Now the Liberals have failed to consult with leaders of the recognized parties here in the House of Commons and the Senate before coming forward with this nomination. This process is flawed. The government lacks respect for the Official Languages Act. When will it restart this process and give us a real nomination?

Mr. Speaker, the latest Liberal budget, which joins Canada to the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, will send up to $500 million overseas for infrastructure, yet the Liberals are not delivering on infrastructure at home. Just several weeks ago, Toronto said that Ottawa was making unreasonable demands and could pull $121 million in TTC funding from the federal government. Why are the Liberals so eager to send infrastructure money overseas, while neglecting to spend on desperately needed roads and transit right here at home?

Mr. Speaker, I want to give the Minister of Canadian Heritage another chance. She said that stakeholder groups fully support the process. The Quebec Community Groups Network, the representative of anglophones in the province of Quebec, and the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne both have said that they have concerns with the process by which the government has proposed the new Commissioner of Official Languages. Will the government and the minister admit that the process is flawed and commit to restarting this process?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when the government House leader was asked whether he and the cabinet complied with the law by voting four times last November 5, he said, “I want to assure the House and the member that at all times, everyone on this side complied with all legislation.” However, Canadian Press reported on November 5, that Liberal MPs chose unanimously to defer a decision on the rules. The government House leader is reported as saying, “We didn't think it was appropriate [to vote]”. Could he explain this contradiction? Did he and his cabinet colleagues vote four times, in accordance with the law, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, that is not the case. According to the parliamentary budget officer, the budget provides an incomplete version of the government's infrastructure spending plan. In fact, he asked the government for a copy of the plan, but there is no plan. Before the Liberals refer to their so-called infrastructure plan, would they care to tell us where we can get a copy of the plan?

Mr. Speaker, I encourage members opposite to Google the Parliament of Canada Act, read section 49, and conclude themselves whether they followed the law on November 5.My question is for the Attorney General. What will she do to uphold the rule of law and ensure that ministers acted in accordance with section 49?

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The House has rules and the rule is clear. When a chair occupant rises, all members need to sit down in their place to defer to the authority of the Speaker. I would ask that you clarify the rule of the House in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, in December 1941, Canadians died in defence of Hong Kong and her liberty. Yesterday, a million people took to the streets of Hong Kong and thousands more here in Canada to voice their concerns about their liberty because of proposed changes to Hong Kong's extradition law. These changes would allow anyone in Hong Kong, including 300,000 Canadians living there, to be extradited to mainland China where two Canadians are being improperly detained and two others are on death row. Will the Prime Minister make a clear statement about these proposed changes and has the government taken a démarche with the government in Beijing or the Government of Hong Kong?

Mr. Speaker, in the last election, Liberals promised to treat scientists with respect, but last week, scientists in the Networks of Centres of Excellence found out about funding cuts in a newspaper article. The Stem Cell Network is working on cures for diabetes, blood cancers and heart disease. Their funding runs out in three months and they have been told that is it. They have been funded since 2001, for the last 17 years. How is telling scientists about funding cuts in a newspaper article treating them with respect?

Mr. Speaker, government ministers, at all times, must comply with the law, whether they are in caucus or out. The government does not get to pick and choose which laws they get to follow and which laws are appropriate for them to follow. They must follow the law. The rule of law is the most sacrosanct principle of our democracy.I encourage members opposite to Google the Parliament of Canada Act, section 49—

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Please indulge me for a few seconds. For the historical record, while it was the first meeting of the Parliament of Canada here some 150 years ago, it was not the first meeting that took place in this very chamber some 150 years ago. The very first meeting that took place was the last session of the Parliament of the United Province of Canada, which met here for its last time before Confederation. I would like that to be noted because this building has a very deep history indeed.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. She is the Attorney-General of Canada and chief law officer of the crown responsible for holding the rule of law at all times. Last June, Parliament passed the Reform Act. As a result, section 49.8 of the Parliament of Canada Act required her and her cabinet colleagues to vote in four separate recorded votes last November 5 determining which powers the Prime Minister would have.Did she and her cabinet colleagues comply with the law? Did they vote four times in four separate recorded votes last November 5?

Mr. Speaker, subsection 49.8(5) of the Parliament of Canada Act requires that the chairs of the recognized parties inform the Speaker of the House of Commons of the outcomes of the four votes that took place in the caucuses that met on November 5. I also note that it is the practice that the Speaker tables certain documents, such as bylaws stemming from the Parliament of Canada Act, and seeing that these three documents that your office has received stemmed from that Act, I am wondering if the Speaker has any plans to lay upon the table the three documents that pertain to the outcomes of the recorded votes that were to have taken place at the first meeting of the three recognized parties of this House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, we now have confirmation that the Prime Minister and cabinet undermined the rule of law on November 5, 2015, by preventing Liberal MPs from complying with section 49 of the Parliament of Canada Act. Liberal members were to have voted in a recorded division, just like in the House of Commons, on the secret ballot expulsion rule. By not voting, they acted illegally and broke the law.Now that illegal act has come back to haunt it, will the government hold off on any caucus expulsions until it has complied with section 49, and will the Attorney General ensure that the government comes into compliance with section 49?

Mr. Speaker, I want to give the Minister of Canadian Heritage another chance. She said that stakeholder groups fully support the process. The Quebec Community Groups Network, the representative of anglophones in the province of Quebec, and the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne both have said that they have concerns with the process by which the government has proposed the new Commissioner of Official Languages. Will the government and the minister admit that the process is flawed and commit to restarting this process?

Mr. Speaker, two major stakeholder groups representing francophone linguistic minority communities and Acadia throughout this country and anglophones in the province of Quebec have voiced concerns about the process.Last January, the Prime Minister refused to hold the spirit of the Official Languages Act by refusing to respond to an anglophone in Quebec in English. Now the Liberals have failed to consult with leaders of the recognized parties here in the House of Commons and the Senate before coming forward with this nomination. This process is flawed. The government lacks respect for the Official Languages Act. When will it restart this process and give us a real nomination?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals just introduced their budget bill, which joins Canada to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. The government is going to transfer up to half a billion dollars into this bank for infrastructure outside of Canada, while at the same time the PBO reports the government is behind on infrastructure spending within Canada. Why is the government spending money on infrastructure projects halfway across the world when it is behind on fixing our worn out bridges, roads, and highways right here at home?

Mr. Speaker, this is not about any one party's position on free trade with China; it is about our sovereignty to negotiate those kinds of deals. The Liberals also sold us out on our exchange rate policy, on our central bank policy. As Greece has found out, if we do not control our central bank, we do not have a sovereign state. If Washington does not like our exchange rate, chapter 33 forces us into consultations to arrive at a mutually acceptable resolution. The Liberals were so desperate to get a deal, any deal, they sold Canada out on our central bank policy. Again, yes, they got a deal, but at what price?

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The House has rules and the rule is clear. When a chair occupant rises, all members need to sit down in their place to defer to the authority of the Speaker. I would ask that you clarify the rule of the House in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, when Mr. Harper proposed Graham Fraser for the position, his credentials were above any partisan approach, but the present Prime Minister proposed a candidate who does not pass the partisan smell test, and he failed to legally consult the opposition. This past January, the Prime Minister refused to answer an anglophone in English. So much for the respect for this institution of Parliament, so much for the respect for Canada's two official languages. When will the Prime Minister withdraw this nomination?

Mr. Speaker, in the last election, the Liberals promised to run modest deficits of less than $10 billion to fund infrastructure. Instead, they are racking up much bigger deficits, but they are not spending the money on infrastructure. In fact, the PBO reports that one-quarter of the money promised for infrastructure will go unspent. That means that millions of Canadians stuck in traffic and roads and bridges unrepaired. The Liberals also promised to transfer unused funds into the gas tax fund. Where is the promised Liberal plan for infrastructure?

Mr. Speaker, government ministers, at all times, must comply with the law, whether they are in caucus or out. The government does not get to pick and choose which laws they get to follow and which laws are appropriate for them to follow. They must follow the law. The rule of law is the most sacrosanct principle of our democracy.I encourage members opposite to Google the Parliament of Canada Act, section 49—

Mr. Speaker, in December 1941, Canadians died in defence of Hong Kong and her liberty. Yesterday, a million people took to the streets of Hong Kong and thousands more here in Canada to voice their concerns about their liberty because of proposed changes to Hong Kong's extradition law. These changes would allow anyone in Hong Kong, including 300,000 Canadians living there, to be extradited to mainland China where two Canadians are being improperly detained and two others are on death row. Will the Prime Minister make a clear statement about these proposed changes and has the government taken a démarche with the government in Beijing or the Government of Hong Kong?

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to Liberal members criticize Conservative budgets of the previous government over the last 11 years. I find it highly ironic because Liberals supported most of those budgets. As I mentioned earlier in the House during debate, the Liberals supported the budget of 2006. In fact, if we check the news reports from June 6, 2006, it was reported that the House unanimously supported the budget at third reading. In the 2009 budget, CTV News reported on January 28, 2009, “Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff offered his support for the federal budget Wednesday.”In 2010, the Liberals also supported the Conservative government's budget. I quote the Toronto Star of June 9, 2010. The “Conservative government has passed its fifth consecutive federal budget with the tacit support of the Liberal opposition.” It is typical Liberal Party rhetoric to say one thing and do another. This is a good example of that. Liberals supported most of the Conservatives' budgets during those minority Parliaments for one reason, because they were good budgets and they were good for Canada.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when the government House leader was asked whether he and the cabinet complied with the law by voting four times last November 5, he said, “I want to assure the House and the member that at all times, everyone on this side complied with all legislation.” However, Canadian Press reported on November 5, that Liberal MPs chose unanimously to defer a decision on the rules. The government House leader is reported as saying, “We didn't think it was appropriate [to vote]”. Could he explain this contradiction? Did he and his cabinet colleagues vote four times, in accordance with the law, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the government said that chapter 32, which requires us to get Washington's permission to negotiate free trade with certain countries, was not a big deal because, “any party to NAFTA is allowed...to leave with six months' notice.” That is ridiculous. The government knows full well that Canada is not going to quit a trade deal on which one in five Canadian jobs depend. Effectively, the government has given up our independence in setting trade policy for Asia-Pacific. Yes, the government got a deal, but at what cost?

Mr. Speaker, the government keeps repeating the refrain that committees are independent of the PMO and masters of their own domain. Therefore, have there been any communications from either the office of the chief government whip or the office of the government House leader and Liberal members of the ethics committee about next Tuesday's meeting?

Madam Speaker, concerns are being raised about proposed changes to Hong Kong's extradition law. These changes would allow the extradition of anyone in Hong Kong, including 300,000 Canadians living there, to mainland China. We have an extradition treaty with Hong Kong. In mainland China, two Canadians are in jail and another two are on death row. Democracies around the world are under threat. It is even more important at this time that Canada stand for democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Will a minister from the government make a clear, unambiguous statement about these proposed changes to Hong Kong's extradition law?

Mr. Speaker, subsection 49.8(5) of the Parliament of Canada Act requires that the chairs of the recognized parties inform the Speaker of the House of Commons of the outcomes of the four votes that took place in the caucuses that met on November 5. I also note that it is the practice that the Speaker tables certain documents, such as bylaws stemming from the Parliament of Canada Act, and seeing that these three documents that your office has received stemmed from that Act, I am wondering if the Speaker has any plans to lay upon the table the three documents that pertain to the outcomes of the recorded votes that were to have taken place at the first meeting of the three recognized parties of this House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, 100 years ago, 60,000 Canadians died in the Great War. Their sacrifice and bloodshed is full of the remembrance of that war. Parliament is full of reminders of that sacrifice. Their bloodshed paid for an independent Canadian foreign policy. It paid for our signature on the Treaty of Versailles. It paid for the Statute of Westminster, but the current government was so desperate for a deal that we now have to ask Washington for permission to negotiate free trade with certain countries. Article 32 makes us a vassal state. Is this restoring Canadian leadership in the world? Is this standing up for Canada?

Mr. Speaker, a Liberal MP told Michel Doucet, a candidate for Commissioner of Official Languages, that, “if he did not talk to certain Liberal Party of Canada higher-ups, he would not get the job.”The Commissioner of Official Languages is an agent of Parliament, not a partisan employee of the Liberal Party of Canada.In the last election, the Prime Minister promised to clean up the partisan swamp. He promised to do things differently. Is this his idea of cleaning things up?

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Please indulge me for a few seconds. For the historical record, while it was the first meeting of the Parliament of Canada here some 150 years ago, it was not the first meeting that took place in this very chamber some 150 years ago. The very first meeting that took place was the last session of the Parliament of the United Province of Canada, which met here for its last time before Confederation. I would like that to be noted because this building has a very deep history indeed.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. She is the Attorney-General of Canada and chief law officer of the crown responsible for holding the rule of law at all times. Last June, Parliament passed the Reform Act. As a result, section 49.8 of the Parliament of Canada Act required her and her cabinet colleagues to vote in four separate recorded votes last November 5 determining which powers the Prime Minister would have.Did she and her cabinet colleagues comply with the law? Did they vote four times in four separate recorded votes last November 5?

Mr. Speaker, the latest Liberal budget, which joins Canada to the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, will send up to $500 million overseas for infrastructure, yet the Liberals are not delivering on infrastructure at home. Just several weeks ago, Toronto said that Ottawa was making unreasonable demands and could pull $121 million in TTC funding from the federal government. Why are the Liberals so eager to send infrastructure money overseas, while neglecting to spend on desperately needed roads and transit right here at home?

Mr. Speaker, I encourage members opposite to Google the Parliament of Canada Act, read section 49, and conclude themselves whether they followed the law on November 5.My question is for the Attorney General. What will she do to uphold the rule of law and ensure that ministers acted in accordance with section 49?

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to members opposite on the issue in front of the House right now, talking about how bad Conservative budgets were in the previous government. I would like to ask a quick question. Does she know that the Liberals voted for the Conservatives' first budget in the spring of 2006?