Peter Kent

[Justice, April 8th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, after months of hiding the truth from Canadians about his corrupt conduct and fraudulent excuses, the Prime Minister himself has created an opportunity to come clean. The PM is obviously trying to intimidate the Leader of the Opposition with the threat of a lawsuit, with no intention of proceeding. Because if he did, the PM would have to present his evidence and finally testify under oath.

Therefore, might I respectfully suggest that it is time for the PM to put up or shut up.

[Justice, April 8th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's threatened lawsuit is a classic SLAPP suit, a strategic lawsuit against public participation. The Prime Minister is clearly attempting to censor, silence and intimate, without intending to proceed. However, if he actually does, the Prime Minister should proceed quickly. The Leader of the Opposition has invited him to “Bring it on.”

Could the Prime Minister assure the House that he has ordered retention of all documents related to the SNC-Lavalin corruption scandal?

[Justice, April 4th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, last December, the foreign affairs minister stated:

We’re seeing a lot of countries around the world that are starting to play fast and loose with...rule of law.

The minister promised:

Canada is not going to be one of those countries.

That promise came three months into the Prime Minister's incessant campaign to corrupt the rule of law to help a corrupt corporation avoid criminal justice. Does the Prime Minister not owe that minister, as well the former attorney general and all Canadians, an apology and a resignation?

[Petitions, March 18th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from constituents regarding their concern about the reprehensible international trade in organ harvesting. Very often individuals who are taken into custody extrajudicially have organs removed for those travelling from western nations to in effect buy those organs.

These constituents are urging the Parliament of Canada to deal urgently with Bill C-350 in the House of Commons and Bill S-240 in the Senate.

[Justice, March 18th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, six weeks ago, the Prime Minister denied that he attempted to interfere in a criminal trial. His excuses have evolved as evidence of political interference has accumulated, despite sycophantic stonewalling by Liberal members of the justice committee. Now the Prime Minister and senior staffers have lawyered up, on the public dime, in apparent anticipation of criminal investigation and possible prosecution.

We are looking at unvarnished corruption here. Will the Prime Minister direct Liberal MPs to stop the cover-up at the justice committee tomorrow?

[Justice, February 21st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Prime Minister met with the former attorney general on September 17. We also now know that the Clerk of the Privy Council was present at that meeting and that there was discussion of a matter before the court.

Here is a simple question that may one day be asked in court: Does the Prime Minister still challenge the former attorney general's belief that this was an attempt to improperly influence her?

[Business of Supply, February 19th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, for all members of the opposition and many members on the backbenches of the Liberal Party, my hon. colleague's speech contained some fairly profound truths.

With regard to the first question from the government side today about the investigation by the Ethics Commissioner, I wonder if my friend could recall the Ethics Commissioner's eventual report on the Prime Minister's illegal Caribbean vacation, when the Prime Minister delayed for months a request to meet with the commissioner to discuss the allegations against him. I wonder if the Liberals are hoping the commissioner's investigation will be delayed until they can run for the hills in the summer recess.

[Justice, February 7th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that from the day the Liberals took office, from the Prime Minister down, the proclaimed ethical standards and the “go-beyond-the-letter-of-the law” ministerial mandate letters were simply window dressing, empty words. Every violation exposed by the Ethics Commissioner was sloughed off with, “The PM is working with the commissioner.”

Today's revelations of alleged corruption in the highest office in Canada, attempted interference in criminal justice and punishment of a minister who resisted demand answers and accountability now.

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, although he was using all sorts of diversions throughout much of it.

There were many red herrings in that speech.

When it comes to the question of the government's inability to understand what to do with the public service workers now filling out this redundant second filing of income taxes in Quebec, I wonder why one would not simply reassign those jobs. This could be done most productively, perhaps, in the pursuit of offshore Canadian tax evaders. It could be done long distance, done at a computer. That is what the minister's staff on that assignment are doing now. Why not do this?

[Ethics, January 31st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, all Conservative contributions are disclosed on the Elections Canada website.

Let us get back though to the Liberal Brampton $600,000 undisclosed. Who attended the fundraiser? Were ministers there? Were lobbyists in attendance under the Liberals sneaky Laurier Club dispensation? Where did the funds go, the bumptiously claimed $600,000? How many cheques were unacceptable under Elections Canada regulations?

Who are the Liberals protecting? What are they hiding?