Peter Kent

[COVID-19 Emergency Response, February 4th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, almost a year after the government began pumping out billions of dollars to properly support the pandemic unemployed and struggling businesses, many of the emergency funding programs remain inequitable and unfair. Many thousands of Canadians in need are still denied access.

For example, in May last year, the Prime Minister promised to make COVID support funding available to new businesses, the legitimate start-ups stuck in limbo because of the lockdown. To date, there has been nothing for worthy companies in Thornhill and across the country.

Another of many examples is the thousands of pregnant women or new mothers laid off because of COVID closures who are now stranded without support because whereas CERB protected women's insurable hours, the new CRB-EI does not.

Given that emergency support programs will be necessary for many more months because of the Liberals' vaccine shortfall, it is time the government fixes the flawed program to ensure that all Canadians in need have equal access.

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I was pleased to hear my colleague refer to our former Harper government. As a member representing a beef-exporting province, and although it was a bit before his time, I am sure he fondly recollects our successful World Trade Organization challenge against the Obama administration over the issue of country of origin labelling.

I wonder if my colleague believes the proposed committee would be the ideal spot to consider the remarks made just yesterday by the new U.S. agriculture secretary, who is the same agriculture secretary who imposed the COOL ruling against Canada by America. He has said that he is open to again imposing country of origin labelling against countries like Canada.

[COVID-19 Emergency Response, February 1st, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, many deserving Canadian companies are still denied emergency support, like a Thornhill firm, Fleets Coffee, which launched a new business just before the lockdown. A large facility was leased, five mobile coffee shops were acquired, commercial agreements were signed and staff were hired. However, because it had no revenue in the previous year, Fleets Coffee has been denied access to the wage subsidy, rent subsidy and credit availability programs.

Do the Liberals see the inequity in the denials of these flawed programs?

[COVID-19 Emergency Response, February 1st, 2021]

Mr Speaker, the Conservatives have supported, from the start, emergency funding to help the pandemic unemployed to buy groceries, pay rent and mortgages. Yesterday, a 21-year-old Kingston student boasted in the New York Times that he made $9,000 by making a highly speculative investment of his CERB dollars in a stock market play.

Given that emergency support will be necessary for many more months because of the Liberal vaccine shortfall, how can the government explain easy cash for a stock market play, even as thousands of other Canadians are still denied funds to survive?

[COVID-19 Emergency Response, January 27th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, this is the old deflect and dissemble. Let us move on to another Liberal snafu.

Thousands of Canadians who have applied for EI since CERB have been refused and told to apply for the CRB, but they are being rejected because they made the original EI claim. Service Canada confirms the denials are improper. The CRA said it is trying to fix its faulty computer codes. For many, family savings have run out and there is no money for groceries.

Glib assurances are unacceptable. Where is the fix?

[COVID-19 Emergency Response, January 27th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday the government asked for unanimous consent to pass a bill correcting the paid sick leave loophole in the rushed Canada recovery benefit legislation that can be exploited by non-essential travellers and vacationers. The House said no, that it was better to study it at committee to get it right this time. The Liberals then refused to table the legislation.

What could be so urgent that it needed to be passed without study, but is now so unimportant the Liberals will not introduce it for proper consideration?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 25th, 2021]

With regard to the acquisition of land by government departments or agencies, since January 1, 2016, for each transaction: (a) what is the land location; (b) what is the amount paid; (c) what is the size and description of the land; (d) what is the file number; (e) what is the date of transaction; (f) what is the reason for acquisition; and (g) who was the owner of the building prior to government acquisition?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 25th, 2021]

With regard to the acquisition of buildings by government departments or agencies, since December 1, 2019, for each transaction: (a) what is the location of the building; (b) what is the amount paid; (c) what is the type of building; (d) what is the file number; (e) what is the date of transaction; (f) what is the reason for acquisition; and (g) who was the owner of the building prior to government acquisition?

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 25th, 2021]

With regard to the impact of the changes to the broadcasting industry proposed in Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts: (a) does the government have a projection of what the Canadian media market will look like in five years without the changes in Bill C-10; (b) does the government have a projection of what the Canadian media market will look like in five years with the changes in Bill C-10; (c) what are the government's projections related to the scenarios in (a) and (b); and (d) if the government does not have the projections in (a) or (b), then on what basis are the changes proposed in Bill C-10 being made?

[Criminal Code, December 8th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend my hon. colleague for the powerful logic of his remarks today.

While we know the Liberals have blocked reasonable amendments to protect the most vulnerable in committee and here in the House, we also know that the Minister for Disability Inclusion testified before the Senate committee prestudying Bill C-7 that she has grave concerns and that she regularly hears from people who are appalled to discover that a family member with a disability has been offered what she calls “unprovoked” medical assistance in dying. We also know that the Liberal House leader has questioned the acceptability of amendments to be made potentially in the Senate.

I wonder if my colleague could address the legitimacy of possible amendments, when Bill C-7 does arrive in the Senate, for better protection of the most vulnerable.