Kyle Peterson

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, we have a rare opportunity to hear from the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, and I appreciate his question in this House. It is an important question.

I think everyone here agrees that we would all be very disappointed if we enacted a law that resulted in people having their lives terminated without their consent. I agree with the member that, as long as the mechanism in place could still be processed quickly without further suffering to the patient, it is a safeguard that should be in the system. We want to ensure that we are aligned with the Supreme Court that the patient consents to the termination of his or her life. I am happy to support whatever we need to do to ensure that is in the legislation.

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to comment on Bill C-14. Before beginning, I want to commend all members of the House for so far treating this debate with the sensitivity it warrants. This is without doubt an issue that evokes much passion on both sides of the issue. This debate at its essence pits the sanctity of life against the inherent autonomy of the individual. I think it may be a worthwhile exercise to go back in time, not just a little but back a few decades so we can attempt to put the current debate into some legal context.

The common law crimes of attempting suicide and assisting suicide were codified in Canada when Parliament enacted the Criminal Code in 1892. Eighty years later, in 1972, the House repealed the offence of attempting suicide from the Criminal Code based in part on the argument that a legal deterrent was unnecessary in those circumstances. However, the prohibition on assisting suicide remained. This prohibition is found currently in section 241 of the Criminal Code. This in my opinion is the fundamental shortcoming of our current law.

Currently, able-bodied Canadians can take their own lives without any legal consequences. Those who physically cannot are currently discriminated against from doing so. This brings us to Carter, a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that overturned the 1993 case of Rodriguez. Carter holds that, among other things, the Criminal Code prohibition against assistance in dying found in section 241 is unconstitutional on the grounds that denying disabled people the right to assisted suicide is contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The current legislative prohibition found in the Criminal Code was held to be over broad in that it prohibited physician-assisted death for a competent adult person who, first, clearly consents to the termination of life, and second, has a grievous and irremediable medical condition including an illness, disease, or disability that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual and the circumstances of his or her condition.

This leads us to where we are today. The court decision requires strict limits that are scrupulously monitored. This government is proposing a framework that considers different interests, including personal autonomy toward the end of one's life, the protection of vulnerable persons, and conscience rights, all values that are deeply important to Canadians across this country.

The debate regarding medical assistance in dying is important to each and every one of us for different and for deeply personal reasons in many cases. For all Canadians this is a difficult and profoundly sensitive issue tied to their life experiences and personal beliefs.

I have heard many of my constituents share with me their opinions on the bill, some of whom face difficult and sometimes unimaginable health challenges. Just today, I received an email from a woman in my riding suffering from a slow-moving form of ALS. Gradually this horrible disease has taken her voluntary muscle control, making it difficult for her to sign her own name, to speak, and to even form the most basic sentences.

In her own words to me she describes the situation as thus, “Our hearts continue to pump. We are aware of everything happening to us and around us, but become unable to do the simplest things for ourselves. We cannot predict our lifespan”. She urged the House, through me, to reconsider the issue of advance directives. This is one Canadian who will be directly impacted by Bill C-14, one Canadian of many.

Members may ask why I relay this story. It is because Bill C-14 clearly states that a requirement for assisted dying must be that natural death is within the reasonably foreseeable future. For many Canadians, suffering and looking toward the future of only further pain and suffering, there is no clear, distinguishable path to death, but this should not diminish their choices. For some, without this choice in the future, it can feel like a loss of comfort, a loss of safety and a loss of autonomy.

Additionally, this past weekend I had the opportunity to sit with a few of my fellow members of Parliament from York region to listen to important concerns and questions relating to Bill C-14. With an open mic, this event not only provided the opportunity for the participants to express their views and opinions on medically assisted dying, but also allowed me a great opportunity to meet and discuss on a more personal level with the people in my community who would be directly affected by the results of this debate.

While these discussions are important, it is equally important that a person does not come to end-of-life decisions lightly. Oftentimes the decision follows years of personal deliberation and what I can only imagine would be the most difficult conversations of a family member and those closest to them.

For these reasons and many others, Bill C-14 cannot and should not be taken lightly. While there will always be those who believe the bill does not go far enough, others believe it goes too far.

The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously decided that Canadians suffering intolerably had the right to request assistance to end their suffering. The bill respects that decision. However, I would encourage all members to engage with their constituents on this important matter and bring that informed advice to committee.

Medical assistance in dying represents a significant change in the Canadian medical landscape, and this government has conducted consultations with many experts. Physicians have indicated that they would be most comfortable providing this option to patients approaching death as another option alongside palliative care, withdrawal of treatment or palliative sedation. These options are all individually important and are woven into the bill to ensure that patients are served and equally protected, as well to limit any risks to the physician.

As this government engages with the provinces and territories to support the development of a pan-Canadian monitoring system to collect and analyze data, monitor trends and publicly report on medical assistance in dying, I ask that we all take time to consult with our constituents.

While I am open to the government's Bill C-14 and will support it to move it to committee, I do feel some amendments may be necessary. We, as legislators, are not doing our jobs if we are not open to continually hearing from Canadians and engaging in meaningful consultations and dialogue, especially on an issue as important and fundamental as this one.

I urge all members to also support the bill. I thank the Speaker for allowing me to rise to speak on such an important topic and share my perspective.

[Health, April 15th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, as you may know, the Town of Newmarket recently proclaimed national health and fitness day to be held on the first Saturday of every June, this year on June 4. This initiative is a growing recognition to enhance the health and fitness of constituents and all Canadians. Many local councils across Canada have taken part, all with the goal of raising awareness to celebrate and promote the importance of health. Physical activity and healthy eating go hand in hand.

Will the Minister of Health please tell me what the Government of Canada is doing to promote healthy lifestyles across Canada?

[The Budget, April 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend for that great question. The dynamic the member sets up in choosing between culture and arts and sports I do not think is a fair dynamic. I do not think investing in arts and culture makes couch potatoes out of our kids.

The member from Saskatchewan has probably lured more children to stay on the couch in his past career when his wonderful baritone voice covered sports throughout the province of Saskatchewan. Children were probably thrilled and waited every night to hear his sports report, and that kept them on the couch, I am sure. I appreciate the member's affinity for sports and his affinity for culture. Believe me, they are not opposed; they can work in conjunction.

On the sports credits, I agree. Tax credits perhaps encourage people to try different sports. However, answer me this if you will. Think of a family whose parents cannot afford to put the child into sports. A tax credit does nothing for people who cannot afford to pay for sports in the first place. We would be taking that tax credit and putting it into the Canada child benefit so every child in Canada, including in Saskatchewan, can play sports and can play three, four, or five sports a year. That is what this budget would do. That is not what the former government did.

[The Budget, April 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the member for Elmwood—Transcona for that question, and let me advise him that palliative care is something very near and dear to my heart.

I was once the president of our local hospice, Doane House Hospice in Newmarket—Aurora. I have been committed to palliative care throughout my volunteer work in our community, and I remain committed to palliative care. I think palliative care is an important component of any end-of-life program in a civilized and moral society, and I will advocate of course to continue my commitment to palliative care and to do what I can to ensure palliative care remains a priority for this government.

[The Budget, April 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the brilliant and fantastic member for St. Catharines.

I rise today to speak in favour of budget 2016. At the outset, I want to let the House know how proud I am of this budget and how proud I am to be part of a government that believes in Canada, believes in Canadians, and believes in restoring hope and rewarding hard work.

Budget 2016 focuses on growth, not austerity. It includes many measures that will grow the economy for the benefit of every Canadian. Investment is desperately needed, and it is needed now.

Members need not take my word for it alone. The International Monetary Fund and the OECD have called on countries to make use of available fiscal room as an effective lever to support long-term growth.

The strategic and smart investments in budget 2016 will strengthen and expand our middle class. They will reduce inequality among Canadians and, what I think is especially important, they will position Canada for sustained economic growth for years and years to come.

The Canadian economy is bearing witness to dramatic shifts in the global economy, but these shifts present opportunities both for Canadians and for our economy. This is why we need a long-term plan for growth. There are no quick fixes, and significant investment is required. We will make these investments.

This government listened to Canadians and took their input to heart. This budget was designed in part through extensive consultation with Canadians. I was pleased to participate in pre-budget consultations with my constituents in Newmarket—Aurora.

There are many elements of this budget that I am particularly proud of and will be speaking about today. I want to highlight four components of budget 2016: infrastructure investment, the Canada child benefit, support for seniors, and investing in arts and culture.

Canada's middle class will benefit from the immediate help provided by budget 2016, but ongoing growth is equally important. By investing in infrastructure now, this government is delivering on its promise to support the middle class and to secure a future of economic growth.

Infrastructure is crucial to our everyday lives. My riding has seen considerable growth recently, and the municipalities there need infrastructure investment. Without these investments now, economic growth is ultimately undermined. Congestion in Canadian communities makes life more difficult for busy families and has a negative effect on the economy.

Together, investments in infrastructure and innovation will form the foundation of a more inclusive society. Through strategic investment, this government is working to help facilitate and create good, well-paying jobs that can help the middle class grow and prosper today and well into the future.

Canadian businesses can only succeed when they have the tools to succeed. Budget 2016, by investing in infrastructure, goes a long way to support businesses across this nation. This means having better infrastructure to move products and get to work. It means having faster and more reliable broadband to communicate and reach customers, and it means having access to experts who can advise on how to develop businesses, including how to grow businesses globally.

Another important component of this budget, of course, is the Canada child benefit. It is essential for Canada to invest in its children. Canada's existing child benefit system is complicated and is neither tax free nor income tested. This system is inadequate for meeting the demands of so many Canadian families, and it is not efficiently targeted to those who need help the most.

Budget 2016 gives Canadian families more money to help with the high cost of raising their children by replacing the current complicated child benefit system with the new Canada child benefit. The CCB will provide a maximum annual benefit of up to $6,400 per child under the age of six and up to $5,400 per child for those aged 6 to 17. Families with less than $30,000 in net income will receive the maximum benefit.

With the introduction of a much better-targeted Canada child benefit, about 300,000 fewer children would be living in poverty by 2017. Let us think about that: 300,000 more Canadians who would have greater opportunity and, most importantly, more hope.

The budget also has a good component for seniors. The government has made a clear commitment to improving the lives of all Canadians, and a key element of this commitment is improving the quality of life for seniors through strengthening public pensions and increasing social infrastructure funding for seniors' living.

Canada's retirement income system has been successful in reducing the incidence of poverty among Canadian seniors. However, many seniors continue to be at risk of living in poverty. The budget has committed to increasing the guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit by up to $947 annually for the most vulnerable single seniors. It supports those seniors who rely almost exclusively on old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits.

Once again, I am proud that budget 2016 is supporting Canadians who need it the most.

The challenges in affordable housing are something I hear from constituents in my riding, and it is an increasingly difficult barrier facing seniors. Through budget 2016, the government has committed to new social infrastructure investments that would be instrumental in increasing the quality of life for very many seniors. With real investments in construction, repair, and adaption of affordable housing for seniors, the government has committed over $200 million over two years to help provide this vulnerable population with access to the affordable housing that they need so desperately. Our senior population is growing, and our government understands that every individual deserves housing that is safe, affordable, and ultimately sustainable.

In 2017, Canada and all Canadians will be celebrating the 150th anniversary of Confederation. Budget 2016 would ensure that our country's heritage is celebrated and shared.

As many know, our cultural industries represent a key driver in our economy. Investing in the Canadian cultural sector helps to create jobs, strengthens the economy, and ensures that our unique Canadian stories are shared with the world. By investing $1.9 billion in arts and culture, budget 2016 would offer support to national institutions, safeguarding of our two official languages, and promotion of industries that highlight Canada's culture.

Another announcement made in budget 2016 to celebrate this important time is the enhancement to the national historic sites cost-sharing program. This enhancement would include expanding the program to include heritage lighthouses and railways through the provision of $20 million over two years. Improving and restoring Canada's very important historical sites is something that is important to many communities across Canada.

The government will work with our partners to ensure that all Canadians will have the opportunity to participate in local, regional, national, and international celebrations. This celebration is an exciting opportunity for everyone to get involved and to showcase Canada's heritage, which has been shaped through one of the strongest pillars of our great nation, our diversity.

I am proud to support the budget, and I encourage all members of the House to support budget 2016. By investing in communities, in our children, in our seniors, and in our arts and culture, budget 2016 is a clear step toward a prosperous future. It offers immediate help to those who need it most and lays the groundwork for sustained, inclusive economic growth that will benefit Canadian families for years to come. When Canadians have more money to save, invest, and grow the economy, everyone benefits.

[The Budget, April 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit I am a little confused after hearing the hon. member's comments. He speaks about his riding's priorities. I do not disagree with him. Investing in communities, affordable housing, first nations communities, helping students go to school by making tuition more affordable are all contained in budget 2016.

I share my hon. friend's sense of priority of these important issues, so how can he be so against a budget that, in fact, contains these important priorities that I know would help the people of Port Moody—Coquitlam and across our wonderful country of Canada?

I would like him to elaborate on why he sees the budget not going far enough in that regard because, frankly, it does. I think the member knows it does. It would be great for his riding as well as mine and hopefully all of our ridings.

[The Budget, April 13th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the member and I have ridings in the same region, the York Region.

It is interesting to note that recently the mayor of Markham and the chair of York Region both said that the infrastructure spending in the last six to eight years was woefully inadequate.

How can the member stand there today, as the member for Markham—Unionville, and not encourage infrastructure spending in his municipality, pretending that what was done in the past was sufficient? It was not, and he knows it. Anyone who tries to get around our region knows that.

There needs to be more money spent on transportation, more money spent on key infrastructure items that just were not done in the last six to eight years. How can the member answer to his constituents when they say we need more infrastructure spending and we need it now?

[Situation in Indigenous Communities, April 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to give my hon. colleague the opportunity to elaborate on how his private member's bill can be part of the solution to this grave problem that our nation faces. If he would like to elaborate on that, we would be happy to hear that elaboration.

[The Budget, April 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that contribution from the member for Calgary Shepard. Frankly, he is being quite generous with his unsolicited credit counselling services.

I have a quick question for him. Where were these services in 2007? Where were these services in 2008? Where were these services in 2009? Where were these services in 2010? Where were these services in 2011? Where were these services in 2012? Where were these services in 2013? Where were these services in 2014?

I wonder why he was not willing to avail the former government of his wonderful credit counselling services during that decade of darkness.