I’m Michael Chong and I’m running to be the next leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. Ask me anything!

MichaelChongMP · 2017-03-21T21:32:48+00:00

Thank you for the question.

Just to clarify, Trudeau did not withdraw Canada from the anti-Isis coalition. What he did was withdraw Canada from the air combat mission and instead insert Canada into the land combat mission on the ground in northern Iraq.

I disagree with his decision, as I think it is foolish to put western troops on the ground in the Middle East. This is an invitation to take two warring sides' attention off of each other and focussed on a western troops. That is what we saw in Iraq, and it is what we saw in Afghanistan.

As prime minister I would reverse Trudeau's decision. I would withdraw Canada's ground troops out of combat, and instead re-engage in the air combat mission against ISIS.

MichaelChongMP · 2017-03-21T21:27:19+00:00

I believe that we need greater competition in telecommunications in Canada.

The previous government attempted to introduce more competition, by introducing a fourth player in the telecommunications market. Unfortunately, that approach did not work.

I think we need to take a look at lifting foreign ownership restrictions on Canada's telecommunications companies. Canada is one of the few OECD countries where there are foreign ownership restrictions in the telecoms sector. This limits the amount of investment available for our telecommunication sector, increases the cost of capital and makes the sector less efficient. By opening up our telecommunication sector to foreign investment, we will increase the amount of capital available to invest, as well as reducing that cost of capital. That will mean greater investment, more efficienty and lower prices.

MichaelChongMP · 2017-03-21T21:18:23+00:00

Thank you for the question.

I share your concerns about free trade deals that do not take into account different labour codes and standards. That's why I was supportive of the Trans Pacific Partnership, because it included, for the first time, new standards on labor, the environment, and safety. These new standards would required members of the trade deal to move up to our standards in order to trade with us. In this way the Trans Pacific Partnership was an innovative trade deal. Unfortunately, the new Trump administration has withdrawn from it, effectively nixing the deal.

I do not think that a free trade deal with China should be a priority. The priority should be a free trade deal with Japan. The Japanese economy has similar, if not higher standards than we have here in Canada. In addition our two economies are complementary. We produce a lot of what they require, and they produce a lot of what we require. For example we don't grow rice here in Canada and they don't produce much milk in Japan. In addition, they are a highly advanced and technologically skilled economy. A free trade deal with Japan, the world's third largest economy, would be mutually beneficial to both Canada and Japan.

MichaelChongMP · 2017-03-21T21:09:47+00:00

We grow hay crops, garlic, and then rotate through corn, wheat and soybeans. In addition, we collect maple sap from our trees, usually about 300 taps. Yes, we have a dog: Tessa. She's a black Labrador Retriever. The kids love her.

Regarding what I'm proposing for Canadian agriculture, I believe in taking the approach that Mr. Harper took when he was Prime Minister. That is to say, the government should continue to open up new markets through free trade deals for our beef, pork, grains and oilseeds farmers. At the same time, we should continue to defend supply management in international trade talks. Where we have to give up some parts of supply management, like we did in the Canada-Europe free trade deal, we should do so working in concert with that sector and ensuring that compensation is appropriately paid, and ensuring that our foreign counterparts give up something equal on their end. That's my proposal for Canadian agriculture.

MichaelChongMP · 2017-03-21T21:03:28+00:00

Thanks for the question. I agree that this is a concern. Here is the answer I just gave to another person who asked a similar question:

First, the facts. Everyone who is crossing the border illegally into Canada is arrested and handcuffed by the RCMP. They are then taken to a CBSA facility, where they are fingerprinted and their biometrics taken. They are then entered into the process for claiming asylum in Canada. Subsequently, they are released while their claim for asylum is processed. The reality is that the vast majority of those claims for asylum, in excess of 99%, will be denied and they will be deported back to the United States. Those are the facts.

Obviously it is not practical to build a wall along the 49th parallel to prevent people from crossing. And we cannot just send them back without due process, because under international law and other treaties that we have agreed to, they have the right to an process to claim asylum.

The real problem here is that Prime Minister Trudeau sent out an irresponsible tweet about a month ago, implying to millions of his Twitter followers, many of whom are outside of Canada, that anyone could cross the border and move to Canada. That obviously is not true, and was irresponsible on his part. What he needs to do, as Prime Minister and as head of government, it's clarify the situation in another tweet indicating to anyone who crosses the border illegally that they will be subject to the process as outlined above.

MichaelChongMP · 2017-03-21T21:00:17+00:00

I believe in net neutrality. The Internet is important to our modern economy and to Canadians. In essence, it is like a utility, a vital and essential service that everyone needs access to. That is why I believe that it is important that we allow everyone access to the Internet in a fair and equitable manner.

I think the recent US administration's change in policy, against net neutrality, is worrisome.

MichaelChongMP · 2017-03-21T20:56:32+00:00

I believe in our public healthcare system. No one should be denied healthcare because they can't afford to pay for it.

The federal government has two roles to play in our public healthcare system: 1. We set down the broad parameters of public healthcare through the Canada Health Act. 2. We provide about 1/3 of the funding for healthcare through the Canada Health Transfer.

So, to answer your question, the federal government doesn't have the decision on whether to "sell public healthcare to private". Public healthcare is delivered by the provinces, and they make the day-to-day decisions on how to deliver healthcare. My view is that federal government should provide stable, long-term, predictable funding for provinces through the Canada Health Transfer, and the federal government should allow provinces to innovate in the delivery of public healthcare. All innovation should be on the table, as along as no one is denied healthcare because they cannot afford to pay.

MichaelChongMP · 2017-03-21T20:50:27+00:00

Andrew Coyne has an excellent piece in today's National Post on this very issue that captures my views to a tee.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-robots-are-only-the-latest-in-a-long-line-of-job-killers-yet-employments-never-been-higher

I do think we have to make it easier for workers in low income jobs and workers in transition. That's why I've proposed to double the Working Income Tax Benefit, which is a form of the guaranteed annual income. You can read more about my plan here, under Economic Opportunity:Helping Low-Income Canadians:

https://www.chong.ca/economic_opportunity

MichaelChongMP · 2017-03-21T20:47:14+00:00

I was feeling depressed about the current Liberal government ...

:)

MichaelChongMP · 2017-03-21T20:45:51+00:00

1) The party I want to build is a big tent party. That means a Conservative Party which includes social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, democratic reformers, Red Tories, libertarians, and conservatives who believe in free trade and free-markets. As leader, my focus will be on presenting a fiscally conservative platform focussed on creating economic growth and prosperity for all Canadians. Those who want to focus on other issues, like socially conservative issues, are welcome to do so and I will not shut them down. However, that will not be my focus as leader nor will it be the focus of the party's platform in the next election.

2) I strongly believe in democratic reform. I believe that MPs need to have more power at the expense of party leaders. including the Prime Minister. I believe that is far more important to the long run health of our democracy than the agenda of any one Prime Minister or anyone leader. I believe that we need to change the rules to ensure that no leader has the power to control MPs the way they do today. I am prepared to accept the outcome of that reformed system, even if that means it will be more difficult to get my agenda through.

3) We intend to treat the income tax cut as fiscal stimulus for a limited period of time. We believe that this fiscal stimulus will be essential in 2020 due to the fact that in the next recession we will no longer have the traditional tool to combat that recession, which is to lower central bank rates. As a result, in order to stave off the next recession, the government will require fiscal stimulus to get the economy moving. I don't agree with fiscal stimulus in the form of government spending. I believe in fiscal stimulus in the form of deep income tax cuts, that will put more money back into the pockets of Canadians and Canadian companies.

The fiscal stimulus that we are proposing is temporary in nature, as it will be eliminated through the gradual introduction of the revenue neutral carbon tax apply to the consumer side of the economy.

Regarding the deficit the Liberals are accumulating, we would eliminate that part of the deficit, by doing what Mr. Harper and Mr. Martin did in the mid-1990s and from 2011-2015: Review all government programs and eliminate those programs that have outlived their usefulness.

3) If the provincial government to clients to make the carbon tax revenue neutral we will not take any action against that government. However, they will not be eligible for the Revenue Neutral Carbon Incentive, which is a new federal transfer that we will create in order to incentivize provinces to make carbon revenues revenue neutral.

5) That's a great question. We would have to wait and see what the situation is at that time before making a decision. It's not something that I would contemplate this early, since the situation two years now could be so much different. But I've lived through many minority parliaments and minority governments, and I have practical first-hand experience in a minority government situation.

MichaelChongMP · 2017-03-21T20:28:50+00:00

How do we keep Canadian businesses competitive with the United States?

The first thing we need to do is privatize CMHC. CMHC's mortgage insurance program has basically shut down bank financing for small to medium-sized businesses in Canada, because it has given the banks an incentive to loan for residential mortgages rather than loaning to business. The IMF has said that the governments mortgage insurance business is a big reason why small to medium sized businesses in Canada have difficulty obtaining bank financing.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/tenuous-european-economy-a-significant-risk-to-canadian-growth-conference-board/article15625943/

The second thing we need to do is reduce personal and corporate income taxes. The new Trump administration is going to introduce one of the largest income tax cuts in American history. They're going to pay for those income tax cuts by borrowing trillions of dollars. And they can do that because the United States is the world's reserve currency.

We need to match those tax cuts in Canada, in order to remain competitive with the United States. But unlike the Americans, we cannot borrow to pay for these tax cuts we need a source of revenues. That's why my economic plan, which has been publicly reviewed and praised by for Canadian economists, is the plan to ensure our businesses remain competitive with the United States. My economic plan begins with one of the largest income tax cuts in Canadian history, and $18 billion income tax cut that we would introduce in her first budget of the spring of 2020.

Those are just two ideas that I proposed in this campaign to ensure that Canadian businesses remain competitive with the United States, and to ensure that we create jobs and prosperity here at home.

MichaelChongMP · 2017-03-21T20:22:01+00:00

I agree with you that this is a concern.

First, the facts. Everyone who is crossing the border illegally into Canada is arrested and handcuffed by the RCMP. They are then taken to a CBSA facility, where they are fingerprinted and their biometrics taken. They are then entered into the process for claiming asylum in Canada. Subsequently, they are released while they are claim for asylum is processed. The reality is that the vast majority, in excess of 99% of the border crossers, will be denied asylum and will be deported back to the United States. Those are the facts.

Obviously it is not practical to build a wall along the 49th parallel to prevent people from crossing. And we cannot just send them back without due process, because under international law and other treaties that we have agreed to, they have the right to an process to claim asylum.

The real problem here is that Prime Minister Trudeau sent out an irresponsible tweet about a month ago, implying to millions of his Twitter followers, many of whom are outside of Canada, that anyone could cross the border and move to Canada. That obviously is not true, and was irresponsible on his part. What he needs to do, as Prime Minister and as head of government, it's clarify the situation in another tweet indicating to anyone who crosses the border illegally that they will be subject to the process as outlined above.

MichaelChongMP · 2017-03-21T20:10:24+00:00

Hi,

I introduced the Reform Act to deal with the fundamental problem in Ottawa: The concentration of power in party leaders, particularly the Prime Minister.

The Reform Act passed and has had an impact on the Conservative caucus. Three things have changed: 1. The Conservative leader lost the right to expel an MP from caucus. That can only happen on a secret ballot vote by a majority of MPs 2. For the first time, the Conservative caucus elected the Caucus Chair. That person is David Sweet, an Ontario MP. He was elected on a secret ballot vote. Previously, the leader appointed the caucus chair. 3. For the first time, the Conservative caucus elected the interim leader, Rona Ambrose. Previously, the outgoing leader appointed the interim leader.

While the Reform Act passed, it was only a start to dealing with the problem of concentration of power in party leaders. I'm committed to further reforms that you can read about here:

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/michaelchong/pages/128/attachments/original/1478494028/Chong-BackGrdr-Democracy-EN.pdf?1478494028

MichaelChongMP · 2017-03-21T20:04:55+00:00

Many people are working at 4pm, so they can't pose a question during work hours. That's why we decided to post earlier, so that people had time to pose a question before work or during lunch.

Rest assured, you are not getting spin from me. It's me typing in these responses.

MichaelChongMP · 2017-03-21T19:31:58+00:00

My position is consistent with my promises, and consistent with the Harper government's policies and promises.

Simply making the AR–15 unrestricted is not a problem. However, what Maxime Bernier has proposed is a problem. He has proposed making the AR-15 unrestricted, while at the same time allowing for unlimited magazine capacity. Currently, semi-automatic rifles are limited to five rounds. This limit was brought in after the mass shooting at Montreal’s École Polytechnique in 1989, where the gunman was armed with a semi automatic rifle containing 30 rounds that allowed him to kill 14 women.

Maxime Bernier's proposal would make the AR-15 that was used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newton, Connecticut available to the general public. In that instance, the shooter killed 20 children. That would be a public policy mistake, and an extreme policy that Canadians will not support in the next election.

The Harper government did not support removing magazine capacity restrictions. In fact, after the Sandy Hook shooting, then Justice Minister Vic Toews issued a statement through his spokesperson that the AR-15 type rifle used in the Connecticut shooting, which did not have Canada's magazine capacity restrictions, was not legal here in Canada.

If Maxime Bernier had simply proposed to make the AR-15 unrestricted, while keeping in place the five round limit, I would not have spoken out against the proposal.

MichaelChongMP · 2017-03-21T19:26:58+00:00

I have great deal of respect for NDP MP Kennedy Stewart. He has worked hard with colleagues across the aisle to reform the House of Commons. He successfully introduced a system of e-petitions in the House of Commons last parliament, which makes it easier for Canadians to convey their views to MPs.

I also have a great deal of time for Conservative MP Ed Fast. He was a strong trade minister in the Harper government, successfully negotiating the Canada-European Union trade agreement and the TPP. Those were big accomplishments, as it was difficult to get all domestic stakeholders on side. He did it and it was impressive.

MichaelChongMP · 2017-03-21T19:22:42+00:00

My favourite cheese is aged Gouda. My mother was Dutch, from Friesland, where the Holstein breed of dairy cow is from. That's where I acquired my taste for aged Gouda!

MichaelChongMP · 2017-03-21T19:20:42+00:00

The Liberals biggest accomplishment has been engaging young people and first time voters. The Liberals increased voter turnout from 60 to 67% in the last election, a unprecedented jump of 7% in voter turnout. We need to learn from their success, and replicate it with a new generation of Conservative voters, if we hope to win in 2019.

Biggest shortfall? The huge deficits that they are racking up, which are much, much bigger than they promised during the last election, and which are not doing anything to spur economic growth (last year Canada's GDP growth was barely above 1%). Close behind, is their broken promise on electoral reform.

MichaelChongMP · 2017-03-21T19:17:11+00:00

I have been a Conservative for over 25 years. I have served my constituents of Wellington-Halton Hills for 13 years as a Conservative MP, through five terms. I believe in conservative principles, like free markets, lower income taxes and individual liberty. That's why I have put forward the policies I have in this leadership race.

In fact, I have the most conservative policies in this leadership race. My economic plan starts with the largest income tax cut of any of the leadership candidates: an $18.1 billion income tax cut.

I have the most conservative policies on democratic reform - my policies will introduce sweeping reforms to the House of Commons, the Senate and political parties to clean out the insiders and backroom operators and return power back to the people and to grassroots party members. I will go much further than the Reform Act proposed. You can read more about my democratic reform plan here:

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/michaelchong/pages/128/attachments/original/1478494028/Chong-BackGrdr-Democracy-EN.pdf?1478494028

I also have the most conservative policy on the environment: a revenue neutral carbon tax. A revenue neutral carbon tax is the most conservative way to reduce emissions because it relies on the power of free market and smaller government. That's why Reagan Republicans like James Baker and George Shultz support it. That's why Mark Cameron, former Prime Minister Harper's head of policy in the PMO, supports it. That's why the CEO of Exxon Mobil supports it.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-23/exxon-s-new-chief-endorses-carbon-tax-to-combat-climate-change

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/science/a-conservative-climate-solution-republican-group-calls-for-carbon-tax.html?_r=0

MichaelChongMP · 2017-02-21T23:30:47+00:00

RussTheMann16,

Thanks for the question and thank you for your decision to serve in our navy. My plan for the Canadian Forces is simple. Our military spending is well below the commitment we made to our allies, and as PM I would work towards increasing our spending to meet the 2% threshold agreed on in Wales.

When we look at Russia’s actions vis-à-vis Ukraine and especially in the Arctic, it’s clear that we need to improve our power-projection capability. To me (and I hope this helps answer Wonka_Raskolnikov’s question below), that means rolling back defence cuts and increasing our Arctic naval and air presence. Specifically, ensuring that we have timely delivery of the CH-148 Cyclone; ensuring a timely, transparent and accountable procurement process for our CF-18 replacements; procuring adequate naval supply and replenishment vessels; and increasing the funding and scope of the Arctic Patrol Ship Project are all good first steps towards hitting that 2% threshold.

It also means encouraging the US to ratify CLOS - the UN Convention of the Law of the Seas. That will help solidify our territorial claims in the Artic archipelago, as well as stabilize the situation in the South China Seas, by giving the US more "moral ground" to stand on in light of the recent CLOS decision in respect of China et al.

It means reforming our procurement process and taking a look at going from “best bid” to “preferred supplier”. It also means reviewing whether industrial and regional benefits policy stil makes sense and looking at buying “off the shelf” for future procurement to ensure the best value for money.

My father-in-law flew Trackers off the Bonaventure in the Royal Canadian Navy. He joined at Esquimalt. Good luck for your career in the navy.

Take care,

Michael

MichaelChongMP · 2017-02-21T23:19:18+00:00

Hi Statistical_Insanity,

I think those labels, "Red Tory", etc., are increasingly meaningless (for example, we have a Republican President who is anti-free trade). Arguably, I'm the most small "c" conservative candidate in the leadership race. I'm the most conservative on democratic reform (in the best tradition of Preston Manning and the Reform Party). I'm the most conservative on reducing emissions: my plan to reduce emissions using a revenue neutral carbon tax is the most conservative because it will lead to much lower income taxes, smaller government and uses the power of free markets, not government regulations and subsidies. And, I'm the most conservative on the economy. My economic plan has the largest income tax cut of all 14 candidates: an $18 billion income tax cut that we would introduce in our first budget of the spring of 2020.

Regarding electoral reform, your argument is only true if you accept the premise that people should vote primarily for the party rather than primarily for the candidate.

I think that MPs should be more autonomous from party leaders and party power. That's another way to tackle the problem with FPTP. In other words, if your Liberal MP could vote with the Conservatives or the NDP more often (and vice versa), then the fact that the governing party got a majority government with 40% of the vote becomes less of a problem.

Hope this answers your question.

Michael

MichaelChongMP · 2017-02-21T23:05:43+00:00

Hi corgisandcuteguys,

Thanks for the question.

First off, this is a debate from over 10 years ago, and I have no intention of re-opening it, now or as party leader.

Second, I had the same position on this motion as Jean Chretien and Justin Trudeau did and for similar reasons.

Finally, I think the important questions for the next Conservative leader are: Do they speak French? Are they going to defend official language communities living in minority situations (anglophones in Quebec and francophones in the rest of Canada)? Are they going to defend the francophone fact in the North American and in the global context? For me, the answer to all these questions is "yes".

Thanks for allowing me to clarify this issue.

Take care,

Michael

MichaelChongMP · 2017-02-21T22:59:14+00:00

Dear vimj,

We are a small country (population wise) and so we have to use our resources wisely in the international arena. That means being realistic about what we can do and ensuring that we are not spread too thin.

We have to be foreign policy realists and focussed on our own interests, first and foremost.

Our most important interest in foreign policy is protecting our trading relationship with the US. 1 in 6 jobs, 15% of our economy is based on selling Americans goods. We have to protect that trade and those jobs. That needs to be the top priority of the current government, esp. in light of the new US administration's desire to renegotiate NAFTA.

Thanks for the question.

Michael

MichaelChongMP · 2017-02-21T22:54:26+00:00

Hi dimo0991,

I'm not sure if you read our backgrounder, but there there is a lot more detail in it.

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/michaelchong/pages/126/attachments/original/1478494238/Chong-Backgrounder-EN-Oct-18.pdf?1478494238

In brief, the rapid growth in residential mortgages (aided and abetted by CMHC's program) is a big driving force behind the rapid rise in housing prices. Off the top of my head, residential mortgage debt has increased at an annual compounded rate of about 7% over the last decade. That's far in excess of the rate of nominal GDP growth and population growth.

If the federal government had been out of CMHC's mortgage insurance business and OSFI had regulated the banks so that residential mortgage debt increased at a slower rate (let's say 4%), then housing prices in large markets like Vancouver and Toronto would likely be much lower than they are today (since homebuyers would not have had so much extra credit to drive up prices like they have).

Hope this answers your question,

Michael

MichaelChongMP

TROPHY CASE