Michael Chong

[Health, November 20th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, the FDA had approved five tests last August. Other countries had approved rapid tests way before Canada and have rolled them out across their countries at their borders, at their airports. Canada has yet to do so, and as a result, our airline industry is failing and tens of thousands of jobs have been lost. The airlines are at risk of failure. The government has failed to act on rapid tests to ensure their survivability.

When will the government take action, fix the process and get these tests into the hands of Canadians?

[Health, November 20th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, the government can rattle off statistics all it wants. The reality is it was late in approving rapid tests and now we are late in delivering them to Canadians. There is a pattern here.

The Deputy Prime Minister went out of her way in September to say that the government would not lean on scientists to get a move on rapid tests. We need rapid tests at our borders. It is so important to our airline industry. Air Canada and WestJet have laid off over 30,000 people and are losing tens of millions of dollars a day.

When will the government take action to reform the process to get these tests into the hands of Canadians?

[Health, November 20th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, rapid tests are an essential tool to combatting the coronavirus. Other countries had rapid tests way before Canada did.

The Prime Minister recently said it was not his job to approve rapid tests, implying it was not his fault but rather Health Canada's. The Prime Minister is head of government. It is his job to oversee the regulatory approval process that leads to the approval of these tests.

When will he take action to reform the process and get these tests into the hands of Canadians?

[Foreign Affairs, November 19th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, last year the Liberals broke with Canadian policy in pursuit of a UN Security Council seat. We all know how that ended. Canada lost the vote with six fewer votes than it had received in 2010, which is a damning indictment of the government's foreign policy. That is six fewer countries that see Canada as a leader on the world stage today.

When will the government restore Canada's long-standing opposition to these anti-Israel resolutions, which were upheld by previous Liberal and Conservative governments and put in place by former prime minister Paul Martin?

[Foreign Affairs, November 19th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, today the Liberal government voted against the state of Israel at the UN General Assembly for a second year in a row, contrary to our long-standing Canadian policy of opposing all resolutions that single out Israel. This is a policy that former prime minister Paul Martin had put in place. Even Ambassador Rae said he disagreed with the preamble of the resolution.

Why did the government break with long-standing Canadian policy and vote against the state of Israel at the UN General Assembly today?

[Foreign Affairs, November 17th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the government will vote for our motion tomorrow.

In May last year, the government said it would make a decision on Huawei before the election, and then in July it said it would make a decision on Huawei after the election. It has now been more than a year since the election and still no decision. The government also says that it believes in multilateralism, but four of the Five Eyes have already made a decision to restrict Huawei from their networks. Canada is unilaterally alone in not making a decision.

When will the government join with its allies and make a decision on Huawei's participation in Canada's 5G network?

[Foreign Affairs, November 17th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, the government has finally admitted that its China policy is not working. That is why it is going to introduce a new framework on China.

Meanwhile, China has been running covert operations here in Canada, targeting Canadians and jeopardizing Canadians' rights and freedoms. When will the government introduce a real plan to thwart China's operations here in Canada?

[Business of Supply, November 17th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for proposing the amendment. I have had discussions with the foreign affairs minister, but I have also had discussions with my colleagues on this side of the House.

The consensus with my colleagues is to not accept the amendment as it is too vague and does not put a time frame in place for a decision to be taken on this matter.

[Business of Supply, November 17th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, there has been a lot of misinformation about the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement. This is an agreement that the Government of Canada struck with dozens of countries. It is an agreement that other OECD countries have struck with dozens of countries. What the FIPA says is that a foreign firm can sue Ottawa only if they receive different treatment compared to that of a Canadian-owned counterpart.

For example, if Nokia or Ericsson were subject to article 7 of China's national intelligence law, which requires Huawei to support, assist and co-operate with China's intelligence activities, the Government of Canada would arguably treat it in exactly the same way. Therefore, Huawei is not being singled out for special treatment here. If any other company that provides this kind of 5G telecommunications networking equipment was subject to article 7 of China's national intelligence law, it too would be subject to the same restrictions that four of the Five Eyes have placed on Huawei.

This motion that we have presented in the House, and the position of the Conservative Party that the government should ban Huawei, is entirely consistent with the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement and does not single out Huawei for special treatment any more than it would any other company, regardless of the nationality of its ownership.

[Business of Supply, November 17th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, the motion has a 30-day deadline. That is reasonable, because, a year ago, the government announced that it would be submitting a new policy on China. In my view, any new policy on China should include a decision concerning Huawei and a plan to settle the matter of Chinese operations on Canadian soil.

What does the hon. member think?