Michael Chong

[Points of Order, November 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I read a report today that a Supreme Court vacancy may be filled before the federal election.

Order in Council appointments, on my reading of our conventions, should not be made when there is a question of confidence by the House in the government.

I would refer you, Mr. Speaker, to Pierre Trudeau's minority government in the 1970s when he was advised by the Privy Council Office that during the period of time when there was a question of confidence in his government that had not been settled definitively by the House that he not make order in council appointments.

However I also noted in the report today that the justice minister spokesperson said that the government not only had the legal right to do so when there was a question of confidence but that it had the legal right to appoint a Supreme Court judge during the election period.

I believe that clearly there is a question of confidence in the government today and certainly by next week there will be a question of confidence in the government and we will likely be into an election period. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you consider this a point of privilege in the House that order in council appointments not be made during this time and especially not during the election period.

[Supply, November 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, supply management is something that I support and with good reason. There are 500 dairy farms in Wellington County, the county within which I live in Ontario. They support thousands of people in related industries and provide a very good, high quality product of which we all can be rightfully proud.

I note with interest that despite the many detractors of supply management out there, over the course of the last year and a half, since I was elected in June 2004, I have not had one constituent, one consumer, complain to me about the price of milk, or eggs, or butter, or cheese, or complain about the price of chicken or turkeys. That is a very telling sign that the consumer is getting a very reasonably priced, high quality Canadian produced product. That is another reason I support supply management.

There are some concerns being raised in the community. I met with the Wellington dairy producers the other day. They highlighted concerns to me about the threat they perceive to be at the WTO trade talks and their fears about the over-quota tariffs being reduced to the point where the whole threat to supply management would be introduced because of lower tariffs allowing for the importation of milk, eggs, chickens and turkeys.

I wonder if my hon. colleague would comment on that. What would he see as the solution to the government's position at WTO? I know the Bloc is advocating that the government ensure that no reduction in over-quota tariffs are pursued, but what suggestions does he have as to what the government position should be at WTO regarding the non-supply managed part of the agriculture industry? In other words, how should Canada best pursue its trade objectives in terms of obtaining a level playing field for those farmers in non-supply managed industries?

In my neck of the woods, the farmers in non-supply managed sectors of agriculture are probably facing some of the worst financial circumstances that they have seen in a generation, if not in two or three generations. I note that the price of corn in Ontario is below the price of production. I think it is around $2.80 a bushel, which is quite a bit below the price of production. These farmers are suffering because of unfair subsidies and unfair tariffs in other jurisdictions like the U.S. and Europe.

I wonder what suggestions my hon. colleague has as to what position the government should pursue in order to obtain a level playing field for those farmers in non-supply managed sectors of agriculture.

[Airports, November 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Toronto's Pearson airport is being asked to pay two-thirds of the country's airport rent even though it carries one-third of the traffic. Because of this usurious rent, Pearson has the highest landing fees in the world.

Seventy thousand jobs and $14 billion in economic activity are at risk because of the government's irresponsible rent policy. Instead of gouging Toronto and telling us that Montreal's Dorval would happily take away Toronto Pearson's business, why will the minister not give Toronto the same deal he gave the rest of the country?

[Human Resources and Skills Development, November 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Imperial Tobacco recently announced the closure of its Guelph plant, eliminating over 500 jobs. These jobs support hundreds of area Guelph families. The government should be doing all it can to cushion the blow. We have proposed a $1,000 grant for apprentices, an employer tax credit for their salaries, and a $500 deduction for their tools. Our proposals will help these workers retrain for the tens of thousands of skilled trades jobs that go unfilled in this country.

When will the government follow through on a recommendation and help these workers and the 100,000 other workers who have lost jobs in manufacturing?

[Aboriginal Affairs, October 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the measure of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable. Some of the most vulnerable live in Kashechewan and their treatment speaks for itself: substandard housing, substandard health care, and water that causes scabies, impetigo and hepatitis. This is a stain on all of us. Even more alarming, in the last 10 years under the Liberal government, the number of aboriginal communities living with unsafe drinking water has increased from 25% to 75%.

My question again is, when will the Prime Minister ask his Minister of Indian Affairs to resign?

[Aboriginal Affairs, October 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of this House, as a Canadian, I am ashamed at what has happened at Kashechewan. That this would go on in my country, one of the richest in the world, is a pox on the government, a pox on our country and a pox on all of us. The government knew two years ago that Kashechewan was a tragedy waiting to happen, yet it did nothing. The Minister of Indian Affairs has utterly failed the people of Kashechewan.

The Prime Minister just said in this House that the situation is totally unacceptable. When will he replace his Minister of Indian Affairs with someone more competent?

[Lobbyists, October 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister continually refuses to answer questions in this House about ethics and accountability.

The Sun King started with grand promises to eliminate the democratic deficit by giving his backbench MPs a greater say and to eliminate the cronyism of “who do you know in the PMO”.

His Quebec caucus did not stand a chance against unregistered lobbyists close to the PMO. To them, he now looks more like Marie Antoinette who said, “Let them eat cake”. With friends like Richard Mahoney and John Duffy in the PMO, they have decided so tough luck.

Why is he allowing this conduct to continue, flying in the face of his promises?

[Lobbyists, October 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister upheld Canadian Satellite Radio's licence, despite recommendations from his heritage minister and his Quebec caucus that it be revoked.

It did not stand a chance when PMO insiders, like John Duffy and Richard Mahoney, stepped up to the plate at a Liberal cocktail party fundraiser for the Laurier Club in Regina. These two lobbied to ensure that the licence would not be revoked in complete violation of the rules that they register as lobbyists.

Why will the Prime Minister not honour his commitment to greater ethics and accountability and hold these two accountable for these violations?

[Lobbyists, October 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, maybe I will rephrase the question. The Prime Minister's mandate began with promises that no longer would Ottawa be about “who do you know in the PMO”. Last month, Mr. Mahoney, along with supporters of Canadian Satellite Radio and other large Liberal donors, went to a cocktail party at 24 Sussex just before cabinet was to decide on his client's broadcast licence. Two days later, the Prime Minister and the cabinet ruled in favour of Mr. Mahoney's client.

How does he reconcile his own promise that no longer will it be about “who do you know in the PMO” with this kind of behaviour?

[Lobbyists, October 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal candidate Richard Mahoney, a close friend of the Prime Minister, lobbied for Canadian Satellite Radio even though he was not registered, in complete contravention of the rules.

The Prime Minister's mandate started with promises of greater ethics and accountability. He said that the sins of the past had nothing to do with them, but had to do with Mr. Chrétien. He promised that never again would this happen on his watch, yet last month, his friend, the candidate for Ottawa Centre, broke the rules by failing to register as a lobbyist.

Will the Prime Minister honour his commitment to greater ethics and accountability and remove Richard Mahoney as the candidate for Ottawa Centre?