Michael Chong

[Canada—Ukraine Relations, March 20th, 2024]

Madam Chair, I would like to thank the member opposite for highlighting the government's recent announcement on acquiring additional 155-millimetre shells. I believe that the government should also be building domestic capacity to produce shells here in Canada.

It is clear in discussions I have had at NATO headquarters in Brussels last year and in talking to defence experts here in Canada that there is an undercapacity that has developed since, frankly, the fall of the Berlin Wall with respect to armament production. We have, through a series of decisions we made as a result of what was then called the peace dividend, decided to reduce the capacity of western democracies, NATO democracies in particular, to produce 155-millimetre munitions and other munitions, and we are in desperate need of rebuilding capacity.

The Government of Canada should lead an effort, which could be part of our 2% contribution to the Wales declaration, to invest in the capacity here at home to increase armament production, munitions production, so we can meet not only our needs but also the needs of NATO members and the needs of democracies beyond the NATO alliance, such as Ukraine.

[Canada—Ukraine Relations, March 20th, 2024]

Madam Chair, we are here this evening to take part in a debate on the Canada-Ukraine relationship and the new strategic partnership between Canada and Ukraine.

I want to say clearly, at the beginning of this take-note debate, that Conservatives support the newly agreed to Canada-Ukraine strategic security partnership.

We have long supported Ukraine. We did this well before the war in Ukraine began, started by President Putin's illegal invasion in 2014. On December 2, 1991, Canada became the first western country to recognize Ukraine's independence from the Soviet Union, under then Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney. The late Brian Mulroney was recognized this week in the House for his great foreign policy accomplishments with then external affairs minister Joe Clark.

It was under Prime Minister Harper's leadership that Conservatives first negotiated the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement, the first free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. This deepened trade and investment relations between the two countries. The trade agreement removed tariffs from 86% of Canada's exports, with the remaining tariffs being phased out over the following seven years. This allowed for stronger exports of agricultural goods to and from Ukraine.

It was under Prime Minister Harper that Operation Unifier was started. That was a significant operation that was done jointly with the United Kingdom, and it was critical in preparing the Armed Forces of Ukraine for Russia's illegal invasion. In fact, my hon. colleague who just spoke in the House referenced that many were surprised about how Ukraine stood up to Russia's second illegal invasion in February 2022; many expected Ukraine's armed forces to collapse in the face of the Russian invasion. In fact, they did not collapse, in large part because of Operation Unifier, which began in 2015.

It was also Prime Minister Harper who led the charge at the G8, which no longer exists, to expel Russia as a member. This turned it into the G7. We all remember that famous video of Prime Minister Harper confronting President Putin on camera when they met in Australia, telling him he needed to “get out of Ukraine”.

These are some things that Conservatives have done in the past to support Ukraine. In opposition, as we have been since 2015, we have continued that support. We have continually called on the government to support Ukraine and to provide more support, particularly military support. We have largely supported the government's initiatives with respect to Ukraine over the last two years.

Long before Russia's war on Ukraine began in February 2022, we had called on the government to provide more lethal military equipment to Ukraine. It was not until February 14, 2022, a mere 10 days before the invasion began, that the government heeded our call. It then reversed its decision not to provide lethal military equipment and started to provide that equipment.

Since February 2022, we have called on the government to provide surplus light armoured vehicles from the Canadian Armed Forces and role 3 mobile hospitals. Recently, we have also called on the government to provide the NASAMS air defence system, as well as the CRV7 rockets, of which there are 83,000 in surplus in the Canadian Armed Forces. Ukraine has indicated that it wants and could use them.

The government could provide these four things immediately to support Ukraine: the surplus light armoured vehicles, the role 3 mobile hospitals, the 83,000 rockets and the NASAMS air defence system.

We have been calling on the government to do these things because we believe Ukraine needs additional military support. We have also been calling on the government to increase arms production in Canada, and in particular, the production of munitions. The NATO alliance and Ukraine, beyond that, are in desperate need of 155-millimetre shells. It has been assessed that Russia has produced millions of similar types of shells and that the alliance is desperately underproducing these shells. The government recently announced that it has looked at increasing shell production in Canada. Conservatives believe the government needs to do that expeditiously to meet not only Ukraine's defence needs but also our own here in Canada.

I will go back to the strategic security partnership that was just agreed to by the Government of Canada and the Government of Ukraine, formally titled “Agreement on security cooperation between Canada and Ukraine”. There are two clauses in that agreement, in particular, that Conservatives support. Section I is titled “Resilience of Energy and other Critical Infrastructure”. That part of the agreement reads:

Acknowledging that energy supply security remains crucial for Ukraine’s resilience, and building upon existing support for Ukraine’s energy infrastructure from the G7 and others, Canada will continue to seek to support Ukraine’s overall energy sector with a special focus on nuclear safety and security and clean energy transition.

We support that; one thing we think Canada should be doing to support Ukraine and counter Russia is exporting clean liquefied natural gas, not only to displace Russian liquefied natural gas in western Europe and in Ukraine, as well as liquefied natural gas among other democratic allies, but also to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A kilowatt hour of electricity produced by coal-fired plants produces double the greenhouse gas emissions that a plant fired by natural gas does. We can meet our security and defence goals in co-operation with Ukraine and, at the same time, help reduce global emissions. About a fifth of all global emissions are produced from coal-fired electricity plants. If we could eliminate those in the next 10 years, we could cut global emissions, just on that alone, by 10%.

The technology to replace coal-fired electricity plants with LNG or with natural gas plants is decades old. It is easy to do. Ontario did it when it closed down the Nanticoke coal plant some years ago and replaced it with natural gas-fired plants throughout the province of Ontario.

The other section we like in this agreement is section N, titled “Compensation for Losses, Injuries and Damages Caused by Russian Aggression”. We like it because we have long called for Canada to lead an effort, which we have suggested should be at the G7, to repurpose some 300 billion U.S. dollars in Russian assets that have been seized by western democracies. When the war broke out two years ago, scores of Russian assets were seized by western governments in order to punish Russia for its illegal invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Those assets remain seized, but we need to take the next step and repurpose them for the reconstruction of the infrastructure in Ukraine, which has been much damaged by Russian aggression. About $200 billion of those assets rest in Europe.

Canada has strong diplomatic ties to many countries in Europe; it has strong ties with the European Union, NATO member countries and individual member states. We should be using this diplomatic capacity to come to an understanding among the western alliance that we are going to repurpose the $300 billion in assets to create a Marshall-type recovery plan for Ukraine. Thus, when this war ends, the people of Ukraine can rebuild their infrastructure, join the community of democracies and rebuild their lives.

[Canada—Ukraine Relations, March 20th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague's speech and want to thank him for his support for Ukraine.

We had the Ukrainian ambassador in front of the foreign affairs committee this afternoon. She gave us some very concerning statistics: Ukraine is facing six to seven times the number of shells daily from Russia that Ukraine is directing toward Russia. They have a dire need for 155-millimetre ammunition. There was a discussion at the committee today about the need for increased ammunition.

I know the Government of Canada has recently made announcements about shell production. Could the member tell us what the government's plans are with respect to increasing Canada's 155-millimetre shell production in order to contribute not only to Canada's security but to that of Ukraine?

[Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, March 19th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to remark on the life of the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, in the hope of looking at his life as a way for us to look toward the future.

I was a young, grade 11, student at Centre Wellington District High School in Wellington County in 1988 when I joined the Conservative Party. There was an election that would take place later that fall. That spring I joined the party to campaign for my local member of Parliament at the time, who has become a very good friend, the Hon. Perrin Beatty. That was my first step into the life of politics.

I clearly remember why I joined the party. I clearly remember why I helped campaign for Perrin Beatty in 1988 as a young high school student. It was because I believed in the vision that Brian Mulroney outlined for this country. It was the free trade election that many have referenced in the House. It was a big shift in Canadian policy, the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States. In fact it was arguably the biggest shift in foreign policy in Canada in a century, since the reciprocity election of, I believe, 1911, when then prime minister Laurier argued for free trade and the Conservatives of the day argued against it and in favour of what was called the national policy. Canadians at that time decided against free trade and decided to implement a series of tariff barriers to protect domestic industry and shield it from foreign competition.

Brian Mulroney, after listening to experts in 1986 and 1987, decided that it was time to spend some political capital and convince Canadians to do away with the over 100-year-old policy that Sir John A. Macdonald had implemented, the national policy, in order to ensure our future prosperity. That is exactly what he did. The 1988 free trade election was arguably one of our only recent modern elections that has been about foreign policy, because it essentially was about Canada's relationship with the United States. I joined the party at that time as a young teenager, a high school student, because I believed in his vision, in his confidence in what this country was and could be.

When we look at the track record of the Mulroney government, we see a remarkable record. It implemented the last series of big tax reforms that we have seen. We all know about the 1971 tax reforms that were the result of the Carter commission, but many of us have forgotten the reforms of 1987 and 1988 and, subsequently, of the early 1990s. The Mulroney government took 10 federal tax brackets and reduced them to three. It eliminated a punitive 13.5% manufacturers sales tax and replaced it with a value-added goods and services tax that expert economists had been arguing for since the early 1970s, all in an effort to unleash the productive capacity of the Canadian economy. It implemented monetary policy reform at the Bank of Canada under the leadership of then governor John Crow by implementing inflation targeting of 2%, which is with us to this day. It also privatized and deregulated many industries, unleashing productivity, growth and job creation in those industries.

On top of doing all of that, it actually, over its term in government, brought the budget to an operating surplus. The reason that is significant in today's context is that it was the Mulroney government that was the last government in this country to meet our NATO 2% defence spending commitment. It was also the last time we came close to meeting the overseas development assistance goal of spending 0.7% of gross national income on aid to the world's most vulnerable and poorest.

It was also the government that was ambitious in its foreign policy when it came to the environment. It was the government that helped put in place the Montreal Protocol, which banned substances that contained chlorine and bromine, that came into effect in 1989 and that effectively helped close off the ozone hole, which continues to be repaired to this day as a result of that protocol.

It was the government that implemented what we now call the acid rain treaty, which was known as the air quality agreement, that convinced Republican President Ronald Reagan to sign on to such an agreement, as well as his successor George Bush, in order to de-acidify the freshwater lakes in much of Canada, particularly throughout the Canadian Shield, many of which had become dead lakes because they had become so acidic they no longer could support the native flora and fauna as they once did.

It was the government that introduced the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, which is something near and dear to my heart as an Ontario MP, that touches on four of the five Great Lakes, Great Lakes that hold one-fifth of all the surface freshwater on the planet.

It was a government that accomplished those foreign policy goals in the environment, in defence and in overseas development assistance, all the while bringing the Government of Canada's operating budget to a surplus during the nine years it was in power.

On top of all that, the late Prime Minister Mulroney led the charge in the Commonwealth to stand up against an apartheid regime in South Africa. He was a leader in joining with allies on so many other initiatives.

Perhaps the greatest accomplishment of the late prime minister Brian Mulroney was to instill in this country a confidence about who we are and what we could be. He was the prime minister who said to Canadian businesses that they can compete with the best in the world and that they do not need a tariff wall to protect them from competition, because he knew Canada, Canadians and Canadian businesses, and he knew they were excellent. He knew they could compete with the best in the world.

He instilled in our academic researchers that same kind of confidence with the initiatives he undertook to fund post-secondary education and research. He instilled in all parts of the country this idea that Canada had boundless potential and that it was only limited by our own limited horizons about what we could be.

Perhaps his greatest accomplishment was to instill in a new generation of Canadians, who would later follow him to serve in the House and who hopefully will come to serve in subsequent Parliaments, the idea that we can be the best in the world, that we can compete with the best in the world and that we can strive for and can achieve excellence.

I want to thank Mr. Mulroney for his contributions to this country. I want to particularly thank his family, Mila, Caroline, Ben, Mark and Nicolas, for the sacrifices they made over so many years and for allowing Mr. Mulroney, a father and a husband, to donate and to contribute so much to this country we call home.

[Business of Supply, March 18th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, what I will say is that Conservatives have supported Canada's long-standing position on the State of Israel. That position calls for a negotiated settlement between the two parties, the State of Israel and the Palestinian people, that would arrive at a two-state solution.

Conservatives also support a long-standing position that was held by the previous Liberal government and the previous Conservative government, a policy developed by Irwin Cotler, Pierre Pettigrew and then prime minister Paul Martin that said that we were not going to vote in favour of resolutions at the United Nations General Assembly that singled out the State of Israel for targeting.

We support Canada's returning to that long-standing position at the UN, where resolutions that single out the State of Israel would be voted against by Canada in order to indicate that we are not supportive of an anti-Semitic approach that we often see, where the Jewish people or the State of Israel is singled out for special condemnation when there are plenty of other cases around the world in which there are actual cases of human rights violations and actual cases to be condemned but that go ignored.

[Business of Supply, March 18th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, international humanitarian law, in other words the law of armed conflict, makes it clear that what Hamas did on October 7, 2023, was war crimes. The taking of hostages is a war crime. I think we all acknowledge that hostages were taken. The raping, murdering and targeting, deliberately, of civilians is a war crime. This has been assessed by reputable organizations.

What I am not aware of is any reputable organization's, including the International Court of Justice's, assessing that Israel has committed a war crime. States have the right to defend themselves and to use force to defend themselves. They have the right to target military infrastructure and the right to eliminate terrorist entities like Hamas that pose a threat to the safety and security of their own citizens.

I am not aware of any international organization, the UN or any high court that has assessed that the State of Israel has committed war crimes since October 7, 2023.

[Business of Supply, March 18th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Thornhill.

Today I speak on behalf of Conservatives. Conservatives, like everyone in this chamber, want to see an end to the conflict between Israel and Hamas. We are concerned about the loss of civilian life in Gaza, the loss of children, women and other civilians. We are equally concerned about the humanitarian crisis, the humanitarian needs of some two million Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip. We are concerned about their access to food, water and the other basic necessities of life.

We condemn the atrocities of October 7, 2023, atrocities committed by Hamas against some 1,200 innocent Israeli civilians. Hamas committed these atrocities against these innocent women, men, children and babies, who were just civilians living their lives in their houses on that dark day of October 7. Conservatives assess that Hamas committed war crimes that day. We base that assessment on the evidence collected by reputable news organizations and western governments. Innocent civilians were raped and tortured. Children and babies were slaughtered. Civilians were beheaded and bodies were burned. Hamas deliberately used techniques employed by ISIS.

Conservatives also condemn the taking of 253 innocent civilians as hostages that day by Hamas, also a crime under international humanitarian law. Over half of these innocent civilians remain hostage, held by Hamas. This too is a war crime, a crime under the law of armed conflict.

This is why we, as Conservatives, support humanitarian aid and humanitarian pauses for the Palestinian people in Gaza and why we support the State of Israel's right to defend itself in eliminating Hamas as a threat. However, we cannot support providing humanitarian aid through an organization whose employees joined Hamas and participated in the October 7 atrocities. Humanitarian aid needs to be delivered through a different mechanism, through a different organization than that of UNRWA.

There are those who say that UNRWA is the only organization that can possibly deliver aid on the ground to some two million Palestinians in Gaza. What happened to the creativity and the immense resources of the west? Seventy-six years ago, the west faced another similar humanitarian crisis of similar proportions. Some two million West Berliners were trapped in a Soviet-occupied zone in Germany, blocked from receiving aid and the basic needs of life because of a blockade that had been set up by the Soviets. The west responded with creativity and with far fewer resources than we have today to help the people of West Berlin.

The Berlin airlift of 1948-49 lasted for 15 months and provided the basic needs of life for two and a quarter million West Berliners. At the time, there were plenty of people saying that it could not be done, plenty of naysayers saying that it was impossible to do, but our forebears in Ottawa, Washington and London decided otherwise. They came up with a creative way, with much more limited resources than we have today, to help the people of West Berlin. Maybe an airlift is not the solution here, but surely the west, with much greater resources today, can use the same kind of creativity that we had 76 years ago to deliver humanitarian aid to the some two million Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip without having to use an organization that has been complicit with Hamas.

Conservatives support providing humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people, but not through UNRWA. We also support the right of the State of Israel to defend itself against Hamas, which committed the most unspeakable atrocities on October 7. We should not forget the genesis of this most recent conflict. The genesis is Hamas and its atrocities of October 7. Hamas is what we should be focused on, not the State of Israel. Hamas is the only party to this conflict that is to blame for this conflict, that started this conflict and that can end this conflict. Hamas, today, can unconditionally surrender, release all of the remaining 130 or so hostages and lay down all its arms.

Let us not forget it was this Parliament and the Government of Canada that decided Hamas is a terrorist entity. The decision was made by Parliament to empower the Government of Canada, through the Criminal Code, to designate entities as terrorists. The Government of Canada has taken the decision to list it as a terrorist entity, and we should not forget that this reflects the will of the Canadian people as expressed through Parliament and through the Government of Canada.

Hamas is at fault for October 7. Hamas is the one who, on October 7, broke a ceasefire. Hamas is responsible for the greatest loss of Jewish civilian life since the Shoah, the Holocaust. Hamas is the reason Israel has executed on its right under international law and on its responsibility to protect its people from this horrendous threat.

Conservatives support Canada's long-standing position of a two-state solution, a state of Palestine living in peace, security and prosperity next to the State of Israel. However, this cannot be achieved through some sort of unilateral declaration in the House of Commons, just like we cannot declare in this House of Commons that an authoritarian state is suddenly a democracy.

I would think that in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, in the aftermath of the second war in Iraq and in the aftermath of what happened in Afghanistan several years ago, we would understand that simply declaring a democracy does not result in one. Democracy is not the result of a declaration. It is the result of a long, arduous process that can take months, if not years, of negotiations for a constitution that results in democratic institutions that have popular support. It is only then that one can have a democracy and that one can have democratic elections that result in the selection of leaders who govern.

Similarly, a two-state solution cannot be achieved just by a declaration. It can only be achieved through a long, arduous process that will take months, if not years, of negotiations between the two parties at hand: the State of Israel and representatives of the Palestinian people, representatives who have the popular support of the Palestinian people, who have renounced violence and terrorism and who have accepted the rules-based international order.

Let me finish by saying that Conservatives support the aspirations of the Palestinian people to have their own state, a Palestinian state that would join the community of nations around the world and would allow the Palestinian people to fulfill their hopes and dreams, a Palestinian state that would contribute to the region's peace and security, like the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan has done and like other states have done in the region, a Palestinian state that would give hope, opportunity and ever-increasing prosperity to the millions of Palestinians living in the region and a Palestinian state no longer ruled by Hamas and other terrorist entities that use violence as a means to an end and that have used the Palestinian people for their own enrichment, their own control and their own ends.

Conservatives support the State of Israel. Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people. It has the right to defend itself and has the right to use all legal means necessary under the law of armed conflict to ensure its peace and security. Conservatives see Israel as a democratic partner in the Middle East. Israel, like Ukraine, is at the front line of a clash between a rising authoritarianism backed by states like the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China, and democracies like Ukraine and the State of Israel.

In this rising clash between two very different models of governance, there is no doubt where Canada's interests and Canada's values lie. We stand with liberal democracies like Ukraine and like the State of Israel. For all these reasons, Conservatives will not be supporting the motion before the House.

[Business of Supply, March 18th, 2024]

A humanitarian pause.

[Business of Supply, March 18th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs speaks for Canada, but I did not hear the minister clearly state the Government of Canada's position on this motion.

I think the Government of Canada has often, in the last several months, been unclear about its position on the conflict that has emerged between Israel and Hamas, so I will give the Minister of Foreign Affairs an opportunity to clearly state whether the government will be supporting or opposing the motion.

[Public Safety, February 29th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the documents reveal a shocking disregard for Canada's national security. They reveal a government that is completely asleep at the switch on national security and the machinery of government. They reveal government employees collaborating with Beijing's government and with the biological weapons unit of the People's Liberation Army.

Equally shocking are the health minister's comments. He said yesterday that there was no evidence of actual breaches at the lab and that no sensitive information actually left the country. The documents say otherwise.

Does the minister stand by those comments?