Michael Chong

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 27th, 2020]

With regard to the $6-million budget for the Leader’s Debates Commission: (a) how much has been spent to date; and (b) what is the breakdown of how the budget was spent, broken down by line item?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 27th, 2020]

With regard to the True North Centre for Public Policy v Canada (Leaders’ Debates Commission) litigation: (a) what costs have been incurred to date on behalf of the Leaders’ Debates Commission; (b) what costs have been incurred to date on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada; (c) was the Minister of Democratic Institutions or the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada briefed, and, if so, what are the details of each briefing; (d) were instructions provided by the minister or the president; (e) were instructions sought from the minister or the president; and (f) if the instructions were not sought from the minister or the president, who is the most senior official who instructed counsel for the Attorney General of Canada?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 27th, 2020]

With regard to social media “influencers” who have been selected to be paid by Elections Canada in relation to the 2019 election: (a) who are all of the “influencers”; (b) what are the details of each “influencer”, including platforms and “handles”; (c) why was each “influencer” chosen by Elections Canada; and (d) how much remuneration has Elections Canada agreed to pay each “influencer”, broken down by “influencer”?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 27th, 2020]

With regard to foreign interference in the 2019 federal election: (a) is the government aware of any organized efforts from foreign nations to interfere in the 2019 election, and, if so (i) what nations were responsible for the effort, (ii) what efforts did each nation make; and (b) did any member of the government request that any foreign head of state or former foreign head of state endorse any particular party during the last election, and, if so, does the government considered that action to be foreign interference?

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I would say this in response to the economic concerns that have been voiced by many about our relationship with China. More important than economic concerns are the principles and values on which this country is founded, principles such as democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Those are the very principles we risk undermining and doing away with if we continue to focus on the economic consequences of taking a reset and decoupling in our China relationship.

In the long run, our future prosperity will be assured if we get those three foundational principles of this country right and continue to defend them.

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I think a lot has changed, setting aside the issue of the two Canadians detained in China. What has changed is that China has increasingly used economic blackmail, whether with respect to the National Basketball Association and the general manager of the Houston Rockets, or with respect to video game manufacturers or producers of Hollywood content, or with respect to Air Canada, which was threatened by China when it listed Taipei as being in Taiwan on the signboards at Pearson Airport. China has done other things in this country. It has clearly attacked Canadian farmers on the issue of pork, beef and canola. Since 2012, it has acted in an increasingly belligerent manner toward its neighbours in southeast Asia. It has embarked, at a cutthroat pace, on building a blue-water navy.

Most important, we did not know in 2012 that up to a million Uighurs were in concentration camps. There is a systemic campaign by Beijing to wipe out the Uighurs in western China in a genocidal manner, and I use that term deliberately because it is systematic and it is comprehensive. That truly—

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the good people of Wellington—Halton Hills for returning me to the House to represent them, and I hope I am able to work as hard as I can to represent their interests and their concerns here on the floor of the House of Commons.

I support the motion, and I encourage all members of the House to do so, because things have changed with China. In the last year, we have seen the detention of the two Michaels, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. We have seen an increasingly hostile and aggressive government in Beijing that has put trade sanctions on the export of Canadian beef, pork and canola to China. We have seen a Chinese ambassador to Canada accuse the Canadian government of being white supremacists. That is just here in Canada.

Internationally, we have seen China intimidate and export its suppression of free speech and human rights by using economic blackmail. We have seen how they handled the issue when the Houston Rockets general manager spoke out on Hong Kong, or when a video game maker, Blizzard, encountered a gamer who expressed his views on the issue of Hong Kong.

We have seen what they have done with productions like South Park, which made a satire of the policies in China, and we have seen what they have done more recently with big business in this country, when they threatened Air Canada because it would list Taipei as being in Taiwan rather than as being part of mainland China. They are taking an increasingly aggressive and hostile stance and using economic blackmail to export values that run contrary to the values this country is based on, such as the rule of law, human rights, free expression and so many of the things that we cherish here in this country.

They have been acting belligerently in the South China Sea, in the construction of new islands to extend their sphere of sovereignty and in failing to recognize the treaty to which they are a party, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which they are a signatory, as is Canada, and under which process of the United Nations their territorial claims in the South China Sea were denied, yet they fail to acknowledge those rulings.

More broadly, as a Christian, I feel quite strongly that people of all faiths should be able to enjoy religious liberty, whether they are Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims or people of any particular religious faith. In recent months, information has come to light about the shocking concentration camps of Uighurs in western China. It is now being reported that up to one million Uighurs are in concentration camps. I use that term deliberately, because that is what they are. They are camps that are housing families and individuals separated under austere and harsh conditions, and they are using torture techniques to deprogram them and to reprogram them as the Chinese state sees fit.

As a western country that 75 years ago fought on the beaches of Normandy, that fought for the liberation of Europe against the tyranny of totalitarianism and Nazism, we cannot stand silently by, when, because of this information, we are witness to the largest human rights abuse taking place today on this planet. That is no longer speculation; it is an incontrovertible fact. There are satellite images of these camps. There is now well-documented evidence from people who have fled, and we now know that up to one million Uighurs are in these concentration camps. We cannot ignore that fact any longer.

That is why we need, as a country, a new approach and why the Government of Canada needs to take a look at the Canada-China relationship, why it needs to reset the relationship and why a parliamentary committee, a legislative committee of Parliament, should be established to take a look at resetting this relationship.

It is clear from the government's actions in the last year that it is not interested in resetting the relationship. In fact, reading through the tea leaves of the government's actions, it is clear that it wants to continue business as usual. It is clear in the appointment of the Minister of Foreign Affairs; it is clear in the appointment of the Minister of International Trade; and it is clear in the appointment of Ambassador Dominic Barton. All three of those appointments are pro-business appointments that the pro-China business lobby wants. That is a strong signal to Canadians and to the world that the Canadian government believes that we can continue as usual and that the events of the last year or so have not made a difference in its view on how to deal with China.

I could not disagree more strongly. That is why we need a special legislative committee of this House, which is not under the authority of the executive branch of government, to take a look at this relationship, to call expert witnesses, in camera and in public, and to come forward with a report for the floor of this House to consider a reset in that relationship.

I will finish by saying that the Chinese government needs to understand that the approach it has been taking with Canada, and with countries like Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom, is not working. In fact, recent polls show that a majority of Canadians are opposed to having Huawei build Canada's 5G network. The Pew Research Center in the United States has done polling of China's neighbouring countries and found negative and declining favourability ratings for China in southeast Asia. It finds the same results here in North America and in Europe, and the European Union has listed China as a systemic rival.

All this bellicosity and belligerence on the part of China is not working, but it seems to me that the current government in this country is completely naive and oblivious to this changing reality. That is why we need a committee independent of the PMO and the executive branch of government to study these issues and to take a serious look at resetting this relationship with a view to considering decoupling our relationship with China and reorienting Canada away from China and that part of the Pacific, toward parts of the world that not only share our values but have large economies that we can broaden and deepen trade ties with.

[Foreign Affairs, December 10th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, 75 years ago, soldiers from Winnipeg and Quebec City fought to defend the people of Hong Kong, including my father. Hundreds of Canadian soldiers were killed in the Battle of Hong Kong. Some 300,000 Canadians live in Hong Kong today, and millions of people are marching in the streets for their freedom.

Will the government take a firmer, stronger and clearer position on Hong Kong?

[Foreign Affairs, June 10th, 2019]

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?

[Points of Order, May 29th, 2019]

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.