Michael Chong

[STEM Day on the Hill, October 16th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, jobs in STEM, science, technology, engineering and mathematics, are dominating our economy. We need more students to continue studies in STEM after they become non-compulsory in grade 10.

In order to ignite youth interest in STEM, Parliament Hill will be hosting the first STEM day on the Hill this Wednesday, October 17, between noon and 1:30 p.m. There will be interactive displays, including a Lego robot to spark curiosity in the STEM fields.

The members for London West, Nanaimo—Ladysmith and Simcoe North will be joining us for this event. I encourage all members of this House to come and support Canadian youth in STEM.

Canada's Donna Strickland just won the Nobel Prize in physics. Let us build on that big win and support the next generation of Canadians in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

[International Trade, October 5th, 2018]

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?

[International Trade, October 5th, 2018]

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?

[International Trade, October 4th, 2018]

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?

[Nobel Prize in Physics, October 2nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Donna Strickland has just won the Nobel Prize in physics. Born and raised in Guelph, Ontario in Wellington County, she went to a local high school, the Guelph Collegiate Vocational Institute. She went on to earn an engineering degree from McMaster University, and a Ph.D. from the University of Rochester. Currently, she is a professor of physics at the University of Waterloo.

Donna Strickland is the first Canadian woman to win the Nobel Prize in physics. She joins Marie Curie and Maria Goeppert Mayer as one of only three women in history to win this prize. I hope that the young girls of today look to this remarkable Canadian woman and pursue their dreams, whether it is in science, technology, engineering or math.

I know that all members of the house will join me in congratulating Dr. Strickland on winning this year’s Nobel Prize in physics.

[Impact Assessment Act, June 12th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member opposite what she thinks of legislation, this one included, which gives a minister of the crown the veto over a quasi-judicial process before it has even begun, whether it is a veto over a competition law review of a joint venture for an airline in this country or whether it is a veto over a natural resource project application before the impact assessment has even begun.

[Impact Assessment Act, June 12th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, while the government has continued to further distort the income tax system, in introducing this new federal bracket of 33%, it was like squeezing the balloon. It created a problem in the small business tax sector, which was why the Liberals ham-fistedly tried to introduce reforms to the small business tax system.

At the end of the day, we want a system of much lower personal and corporate income taxes where the differentials between the rates are smaller than they are today. This will ensure people do not game the system and distort the system, leading to the inefficiencies we see today.

[Impact Assessment Act, June 12th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, what the member opposite needs to realize is that the government's approach on income taxes will end in failure. We know how this has worked in the past.

From 1971 to 1986, the Government of Canada went to 10 federal income tax brackets and an upper marginal rate of 34%. What happened by the mid-1980s? The economy was in trouble, and it was why the government of 1984 won its mandate. The economy was in trouble, jobs were fleeing the country, foreign investment was fleeing, unemployment was high, and people were losing their jobs, their livelihoods, and their income.

Therefore, in 1980, the government of Brian Mulroney dropped the number of brackets from 10 to three and dropped the upper marginal rate from 34% to 29%. What did we have? We had 20-plus years of economic growth and prosperity and incomes.

We are now back up to five brackets and an upper marginal rate of 33%. It is not going to work, and some future government is going to have to undo it.

[Impact Assessment Act, June 12th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, with respect to Norway, in some ways it is much easier for them to make the case for reducing emissions than it is for us, because Norway, granted through foresight, built up a trillion dollar sovereign wealth fund and now has that asset to depend on its future interest and capital gains to fund all the programs that Norwegians have come to rely upon. We do not have that here in Canada, anywhere near that scale, so I think Statoil and Norway sovereign wealth fund are in some ways in an enviable position that we simply do not find ourselves in.

What I do know is this. I believe that every major resource project in the country should undergo a proper and full environmental assessment, but if we want to combat climate change and reduce emissions, the right way to do it is not by denying the construction of new pipelines, new highways, or things like that. It is to actually properly price carbon, either through a regulatory approach or other approaches that will actually result in a reduction in emissions, rather than targeting the method by which we transport those products.

[Impact Assessment Act, June 12th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, first, the government did not reduce income taxes in aggregate. It robbed Peter to pay Paul. It increased the upper marginal rate from some 29% to 33%, four percentage points, in order to pay for its middle bracket tax plan. Therefore, it did not reduce the overall income tax burden. In fact, income taxes are too high in Canada. Two-thirds of the federal budget's revenues come from income taxes, approximately $200 billion a year: about $170 billion a year from personal income tax and about $30 billion or $40 billion a year from corporate income tax. It did not reduce the overall income tax burden on the Canadian economy, and it blew the opportunity to do that. Hiking income taxes on one bracket of income earners to pay for income tax cuts on another bracket of income earners is not my idea of significant income tax cuts.

Furthermore, with respect to what our plan would do, it will be forthcoming in the election, but I will say that whatever problems there were with the previous government's approach, the sector by sector regulatory approach put decades of certainty into the process. Rather than them layering on, in addition to regulation this price, which ends in 2022, it creates that uncertainty for Canadian consumers and businesses.