Peter Kent

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, May 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech

While we in the official opposition and the NDP disagree on many points and many points relative to this budget, we do have convergence in a number of areas. I wonder if the NDP shares our concern about the absence of any mention of what was an immediate commitment in the Liberal campaign for $3 billion for home care and palliative care at a time when the government is rushing to comply with the Supreme Court order for the constitutional right to physician-assisted death while putting off, we do not know for how long, the commitment to provide palliative care for Canadians' constitutional right to live a full, complete, and comfortable end of life.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, May 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her thoughtful comments and constructive criticism of this budget. However, a day after the government abruptly shut down debate on Bill C-14 to comply with the Supreme Court order to provide Canadians with the constitutional right to a physician-assisted death, I wonder if she does not find a bit rich the finance minister's comments about avoiding half measures, in that there is not a mention of a penny of the $3 billion promised during the campaign by the Liberals for palliative care, among other things, which would ease Canadians' constitutional right to live a full and complete life. I wonder if my colleague shares my concern about this disappointing delay of priorities.

[Criminal Code, May 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the application of the guillotine motion is outrageous. The government is behaving as though it is a prankster in a model parliament.

Almost two-thirds of the official opposition caucus have been denied the opportunity to debate this important moral issue. An even greater percentage of Liberal members have been denied the opportunity.

On one of the most important moral issues to be debated in the House for years, why is the government not extending evening sittings?

[Iran, May 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have quietly delisted two-thirds of the individuals and entities prohibited by Canada under Iran's sanctions. When they did add six individuals directly linked to ballistic missile testing, they kept those names secret from Canadians. We had to learn those names from the American public listing.

The minister can also issue sanctions exemption permits to allow Canadian individuals or companies to seek commercial opportunities. Could the minister tell us today just how many Iran exemption permits he has signed and for whom?

[Iran, May 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, in February, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of International Trade announced that Canada was positioning for commercial trade in Iran.

Yesterday, the minister told us the Liberals have no current plan to delist Iran as a state sponsor of terror.

Exactly how does he think he can negotiate these two diametrically opposite courses? Can he tell us when he expects to sit down for a business chat with his terror-sponsoring, human-rights-abusing Iranian counterpart?

[Anti-Semitism, May 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, B'nai Brith Canada has just released its annual audit of anti-Semitism in our country, and the results are alarming.

Although the level of anti-Semitism has remained relatively constant over the past five years, the nature of incidents has changed. While spray-paint vandalism, crudely drawn swastikas, holy site desecrations, and violent events are down, there has been striking growth in social media anti-Semitism.

The audit points out that social media has a much broader reach than the old form of hate and that it is much more difficult to remove once such anti-Semitic content is posted. The B'nai Brith findings are similar to the Toronto Police Service report that Jews continue to be the single most-targeted victim group in the city of Toronto.

Anti-Semitism has no place in Canada. I call on all members of the House to join me in condemning this pernicious form of hatred.

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I must say despite the justification offered by the House leader and the hon. member, this is an extraordinary disruption, even though members were assured that debate would continue. As the member should know, the justice committee is now in extended sittings, from early morning to late night, and is still hearing witnesses. Expediting this bill now, changing the schedule now, is not going to change the course or the receptiveness of the committee to consider what eventually we send to committee.

I think this is extraordinary and bizarre in that it is normally the business of the House leaders to confer in the normal business of Parliament while debate continues, as the government assured us it would. We are still wondering why the member has taken this side track in the midst of debate.

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I think the answer is politics. As we have seen characteristic of the Liberal government in recent weeks and months, it is reluctant to reach difficult decisions. There is an attempt to keep everyone happy on every file, with procrastination and avoidance of the tough decisions that need to be taken. I think this is another case, such as with pipelines, military missions abroad, the environment. However, in this case, risk aversion has basically brought the government to enter a piece of legislation which does not go, as I said, where the Supreme Court ordered us to go.

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the three parties to the Carter decision would not be assisted by Bill C-14. I listed the three conditions: spinal stenosis, ALS, and multiple sclerosis. All three of these particular afflictions would require additional legislative provision. I believe that is why the legislation will be back before the Supreme Court to order an extension of its provisions.

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for a very thoughtful question, one that has been asked many times in recent months as the Supreme Court deadline has loomed. There are a great many accounts written by Alzheimer's patients with significant medical and academic ability, who compose diaries from the time of diagnosis and their observations of steadily diminishing capacity.

There is a point, supported by an Alzheimer's patient in the final stages, and I would be surprised if they would allow that they themselves, even though they might be unaware, continue to that final stage. The burden on family, friends, and the medical institutions is overwhelming. The period of 15 days obviously does not work, but there are some worthy accounts which can be referred to. There was a great personal diary in The New York Times Sunday magazine a few months ago about an academic who was provided with mail order barbiturates from Mexico to be prepared when she realized she was in the last stages of fully controlling her life and her situation.

I think physicians and experts in this area could provide us with answers to the member's question.