Rob Moore

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, even though my colleague and I are on opposite coasts, we have a shared interest in this very important issue. When the Prime Minister said that every Canadian would be able to be vaccinated by September, the cruise industry thought that could be good news for its industry. For Transport Canada and the Liberal government to come forward and say there will be no cruises whatsoever in 2021, and 2022 looks very bleak, is very troubling. My hon. colleague and I need to get answers from the government on that, because I have not seen the rationale.

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, what we saw over the course of the COVID crisis in the last year was that many of the safeguards that were in place were inadequate. We saw that the response from the federal government was inadequate. For example, when CERB first came out, my constituents were struggling. If people earned even one dollar, they lost $2,000. If people were trying to keep their businesses going, they were ineligible. If people were self-employed, they could not access this benefit.

As members of Parliament and the government, we have to look at ensuring those safeguards are in place. That is why I advocated for all of those changes that ultimately were made by the government so we could better help people who were struggling through this crisis.

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, as I laid out in my remarks, Canadians need to see nothing less in areas clearly in federal jurisdiction, like airlines, rules around cruise ships, the quarantine hotels and delays in the justice system. We are asking that Canada put forward something that it has not yet, that the federal government put forward a plan for recovery. Canadians need to see that. My constituents and New Brunswickers need to see that as we plan forward. The only way for them to plan and for the tourism businesses to plan is to see the federal government's plan for reopening.

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to participate in this important debate today on our party's motion that calls for greater clarity from the federal government on a path forward as we recover from COVID. As a New Brunswicker, I can say that circumstances in Atlantic Canada are unique compared with those in much of Canada, but one thing remains consistent: a lack of certainty from the federal government on what the path forward will look like.

As a member of Parliament for the riding of Fundy Royal, I want to speak for a few minutes on the situation facing tourism operators. Fundy Royal is home to some major tourism attractions, like the Fundy Trail, the Hopewell Rocks and Fundy National Park. Most tourism operators in my riding are small, independent businesses that have managed to build a successful business over their years in the communities. These are small entrepreneurial businesses that rely on tourism. In many cases, this has allowed families to stay in the same communities they grew up in, or it offers newcomers an opportunity to build on their dreams, often in rural communities that they have always wanted to move to.

In some cases, these businesses are operated by New Brunswickers who are getting older, but they keep on working because it is what they have always done. It keeps them young and it keeps them busy. In other cases, these tourism businesses are operated by young parents who rely on the income to help keep food on the table and build a life in New Brunswick for their children.

All of this to say that the past year has been especially devastating for those who operate in the tourism industry. Many operators used their life savings to survive last summer in the hope that they would have a path back to full recovery in the summer of 2021. Unfortunately, while U.S. President Joe Biden has said he is eying July 4 as a sort of independence day from the virus, that is highly unlikely to be the case here in Canada because of the Liberal government's mismanagement in acquiring vaccines early enough.

The provincial government in New Brunswick established a program to try to help tourism operators with a financial incentive to encourage travel across the province by New Brunswickers. I have heard from many business owners in my riding that this has been very helpful, but of course it does not replace the amount of business they would normally receive. They were counting on increased income from this year to make up for the very difficult summer of 2020.

What these business operators are looking for is some degree of certainty from the federal government on what the path forward will be. I am very concerned that we will see a number of tourism operators close because they are unable to get through this upcoming season. The reason for that is the fact there is such significant uncertainty for the path forward. They have no expectation of when things may return to normal. The messaging from the federal government has been mixed at best. These business owners need to make life-altering decisions on ever-changing scenarios. The uncertainty of the path forward, and even what next year will look like, is daunting to many of these business owners.

I met recently with Carole Alderdice, the president and CEO of the Tourism Industry Association of New Brunswick. She noted the impact of the lack of cruise ships on the Port Saint John and all of our local tourism operators. This includes every business, from restaurants to small shops to bus tour operators. Of course, most did not expect cruise ships to enter Canada this past summer or even this summer, but with the rapid rollout of vaccines in the U.S. and the Prime Minister's stating that Canadians would be vaccinated by September, some in the tourism industry were dismayed that the cruise ship ban will be in effect all the way until February 28, 2022.

Even more concerning is this: What if those cruise ships do not even come back in the summer of 2022? On the east coast, this would have a detrimental impact on many of our communities. For example, in 2019, Halifax saw 320,000 passengers arrive in the city. This had significant economic benefits for businesses, restaurants and regional tourism operators. The Port of Charlottetown, the Port of Sydney, the Port of St. John's, the Port of Saint John and many more in Atlantic Canada are all hoping that 2022 will see a return of those ships that local businesses rely on.

I also want to touch on the suspension of flights throughout much of Atlantic Canada. The president of the Atlantic Canada Airports Association said late last year that their industry cannot survive and operate in these conditions and that they are seeing the worst case scenario playing out today. In New Brunswick we have seen a significant reduction in flights, in particular into Saint John and Fredericton. There is also concern that these cuts may be permanent and that the airports will not see a return to travel once the pandemic is over. This would mean permanently lost jobs and significant impacts on local residents.

There are other communities that are feeling the impact and concern about the future, including Charlottetown, Gander and Sydney. The elimination of these flights will have a significant impact on communities in the long term if they are not restored. For example, these flight closures can have a significant effect on rotational workers. A rotational worker flying into Halifax who lives in North Sydney in Cape Breton would need to drive over four hours after landing, often after a very long flight. There are legitimate safety concerns about such a long drive, but it also raises the question of whether individuals will simply move out of their home communities to eliminate that long commute. The Atlantic Canadians I hear from are concerned that these flight cancellations will be permanent and, of course, the impacts permanent as well.

Conservatives have called for a plan from the federal government that would include the restoration of Canada's regional routes. We need confirmation from the Liberal government members that they will do everything necessary to ensure that these regional flights return. Without them, our communities are at risk.

I want to touch for a moment on the government's policy regarding the quarantine hotels and the absolute failure these have been. We have heard about the truly horrific conditions some Canadians have found themselves in as a result of this terrible policy. Not only that, but there have also been issues with accessing the phone line to book rooms at these overcrowded hotels. Despite my colleagues calling for data from the federal government on why it feels these quarantine hotels are more effective at preventing the spread of COVID, the government has been unable to present any data.

I had a constituent reach out to my office recently who is very concerned about his family's return to Canada at the start of May. The constituent, Brodie, is a professional hockey player who has worked in Denmark and is accompanied by his wife, his five-year-old, a three-year-old and a baby just born in February. He said that when the quarantine hotel measure was announced in late January, it was too late for his wife to fly back to Canada before the measure came into effect. Brodie had previously self-isolated with his family in New Brunswick and followed all the rules. They would gladly do so again if allowed by the federal government, but now, as his work visa comes to an end, Brodie and his family face being stuck in a hotel room. If anyone has young kids, they should be able to understand how ridiculous it is to cram a couple, two toddlers and a baby into a hotel room.

Further, we all know that there has been widespread reports of Canadians not receiving adequate supplies of basic necessities while in these hotel rooms. Having a baby obviously makes this situation even more difficult, as far more resources are needed. I ask that common sense be applied and that Canadians be given the opportunity to simply conduct their quarantine at home, as Brodie and his family had previously done. The government's quarantine hotel program has been nothing short of an absolute failure and should be scrapped.

As the Conservative shadow minister for justice and the Attorney General, I want to touch briefly on the impacts of COVID-19 on the justice system. Quite early in the pandemic last year, I asked for clarity from the government on how the courts could respond to the increased delays due to COVID. I particular, I am concerned with the backlog in the courts and how they relate to the Jordan decision by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Minister of Justice had said that this is something he and his provincial and territorial justice counterparts are closely monitoring. While he referred to a sort of safety valve mechanism for exceptional circumstances, it is unclear how long that will be valid, as Canada hopefully recovers from COVID and the backlog in the courts remain. As the minister would know, the courts were already struggling with the backlog before the pandemic.

In conclusion, Canadians need a plan from the federal government on how our country will proceed going forward, which is what this motion we are debating today is asking for. For many Canadians, both 2020 and 2021 have been difficult years, but we need to do our part. Canadians are looking for leadership on the path forward and I call on the federal government to prioritize plotting a path forward for all Canadians.

[Justice, March 12th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, the government has indicated that it plans to finally move forward with a parliamentary review of Canada's medical assistance in dying legislation, nearly one year late. Persons with disabilities and mental health advocates are worried that their concerns will continue to be ignored. They are concerned that engaging in the process will be a waste of their time. Can the minister confirm that all options will be on the table in this review, including reversing some of the changes pushed through in Bill C-7?

[Medical Assistance in Dying, March 12th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, yesterday the Liberals invoked closure on their motion that significantly altered Bill C-7 by expanding medically assisted death to those with mental illness. They did so at the absolute last moment possible in the parliamentary process.

I have received hundreds of emails, letters and calls in opposition to Bill C-7, in particular from persons with disabilities and groups that advocate for them. Many of them wanted more time to speak out in committee against Bill C-7. The government has now expanded Bill C-7 so that MAID will be accessible by those with mental illness. This was done with no consultation directly on this issue in the House of Commons.

I call upon the government to actually listen to those who are raising concerns with the changes made by Bill C-7 and be willing to address them through the upcoming parliamentary review.

[Criminal Code, March 11th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, as the hon. member would know or should know, as it is his party that is enabling the shutting down of debate today by supporting the Liberals' motion for closure, the minister has testified at the Senate that Alzheimer's and dementia is not included in the definition of mental illness, so this expansion by the Senate would now include people who are suffering from mental illness, suffering from severe depression, to be considered for medical assistance in dying.

Many of the individuals we have heard from are contacting our office and saying to please vote against this Senate amendment because it will have an impact on people like them who are suffering and are at a low point. We are sending the message that maybe their life is not worth living, and I know that is a message that parliamentarians do not want to send.

[Criminal Code, March 11th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, as the parliamentary secretary knows, even as late as today at the justice committee, Liberals rejected an opportunity for us to hear from mental illness professionals, from those who would be impacted by this legislation, and that is our job. We are listening.

I received a letter signed by 129 organizations, such as Inclusion Canada, the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association and the DisAbled Women's Network. There are 129 organizations asking us to please support the Conservative amendment, and please do not include mental illness as a grounds for someone to receive assisted dying.

We need to listen to the experts first, and the parliamentary secretary knows that we have not done that. We had committee meetings on Bill C-7, but this was not part of Bill C-7 when we had those meetings.

[Criminal Code, March 11th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for South Surrey—White Rock.

Madam Speaker, it has been very interesting to hear the Liberal speakers today on this sad day when the Liberals have brought in closure on what is a very important life-or-death amendment from the Senate, and to hear the Liberals spinning their wheels and making up excuses and pretending that past studies on other bills dealing with medical assistance in dying somehow should be taken and counted in support of the huge expansion suggested by the Senate, which has only had a very few hours of consideration in the House before this closure motion today.

For those who are watching, closure by the government means that members of Parliament will not be able to further debate or further study the application of medical assistance in dying to those suffering with mental illness.

It is important to have a bit of context on this because when the Minister of Justice appeared at our justice committee when we were studying this bill, we did not hear from those in the community dealing with suicide prevention and with mental illness because that was not an aspect of the bill. The minister at the time said that there was no consensus in Canada when it comes to mental illness, and there was no consensus among physicians when it comes to mental illness; yet now, a few months later, the Liberals are ramming this through today in a very unfortunate and contemptuous way.

I expect that desperation we hear in the voices of Liberal members is because they are getting the same emails, phone calls and messages that the rest of us are getting. These messages are from those who are fighting for vulnerable people, those who are fighting for people with depression and people suffering from mental illness, saying, “Please do not pass this Senate, and now Liberal government, amendment.”

From the beginning the government has mismanaged this issue. The Liberals say that Bill C-7 was originally aimed at responding to the Quebec Superior Court decision from 2019. Conservatives, at the time, said very clearly that the government should defend its law and should have appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. Instead, the Minister of Justice, who himself voted against Bill C-14 on medical assistance in dying because it did not go far enough, saw this as an opportunity to rapidly expand the medical assistance in dying regime under the cover of responding to that Quebec court decision.

I disagree with the position of the Liberals not to appeal this to the Supreme Court. As the Conservatives said, that would have given Parliament clarity on how to legislate going forward. However, the Liberals took the highly unusual approach of not defending their own legislation. If the Liberals simply wanted to respond to the Quebec court decision, they would and could have done that. They chose not to do that. Instead, today, they are trying to ram through this bill that goes dramatically beyond that. It is very clear that the Liberal government sees the work of Parliament as a nuisance and that anything other than complete acceptance of its legislation must be opposed.

When this bill was first introduced just over a year ago, it was done one week after the government had already asked for its first extension from the Quebec court decision. Therefore, the Liberals were already failing to meet the court deadline that they said was their goal. Then, rather than introduce a bill that simply addressed the Quebec court decision, the Liberals introduced a far more expansive bill that requires a significantly greater amount of scrutiny by Parliament.

Under Bill C-14, the government's original MAID legislation, a legislative review was required five years after the bill received royal assent. That was scheduled to take place last year. This review would have looked at the impacts of Bill C-14 and would have provided insight on how to proceed forward. Let me be clear: Rather than allow Parliament to do that work first, the government decided to expand MAID legislation in Bill C-7. Again, rather than simply responding to the court decision and allowing Parliament to do the work necessary to study this issue, the Liberals overreacted and brought in expansive new legislation.

The government ended up receiving an extension from March 11 to July 11, 2020, and, with the COVID outbreak, Parliament's scrutiny was limited for a number of months. As time ticked toward July 11, it was apparent that yet again the Liberals would not be able to ram their bill through Parliament, and another extension was requested on June 11, this time for December 18, 2020. When Parliament eventually resumed in September 2020, we could have had the opportunity to debate Bill C-7, but of course we were, ironically, prevented from doing so by the Liberals who are now so keen on passing Bill C-7, because they prorogued Parliament, wiping the legislative slate clean. We all know this was done to avoid scrutiny of the WE scandal to protect the Prime Minister and other senior members of cabinet.

Based on the communications over the past couple of days, one would expect that the Liberals may have had a sense of urgency to reintroduce Bill C-7, instead they did not introduce Bill C-7 again in the first week or the second week. It took the Liberals until the third week of Parliament after they prorogued to actually reintroduce Bill C-7.

The Liberals have set themselves up time and time again to miss their own deadlines, and they have set themselves up for failure, but now there is this rapid rush. however, as has been pointed out, this is an entirely new bill that has come back from the Senate because it includes what was explicitly excluded by our House of Commons, which is made up of elected members of Parliament from all across this country. The mental illness component was specifically and deliberately excluded, and now it is being added in.

By including mental illness as a sole underlying condition to be eligible for MAID, the government wants to expand MAID even further in a way that is a complete 180° turn from Bill C-7 as it was introduced a year ago. This is a completely different bill than was originally debated in the House. As the vice-chair of the justice committee, I know we did not seek to hear from experts on this topic because the government's bill explicitly said expanding medical death to those with mental illness was not being considered. Now, at this last stage of the bill, the government is recklessly accepting a dramatic expansion of the bill, an expansion to which the Minister of Justice himself said there was no consensus.

What are people saying on this mental illness issue? It is unfortunate because Canadians are not going to be able to be engaged and participate in this conversation before we vote on the matter tonight. However, for those of us who are listening, the CEO of the Mental Health Association sounded alarm bells in an article urging all members of Parliament to please vote against the Senate amendments. Her point in the article is that MAID should not be broadened to those with mental illness until at least the health care system adequately responds to mental health needs of Canadians.

She highlights that it is not possible to determine whether any particular case of mental illness represents an advance state of decline and capabilities that cannot be reversed. She concluded her article writing, “We have to cure our ailing mental health system in Canada before we even begin to consider mental illness incurable.”

In a CBC, Dr. Mark Sinyor, a psychiatrist and associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto recently wrote, “As a scientist, I have to be open to the possibility that all of the claims advanced by MAID advocates are accurate. But enacting law, one which literally governs life or death decisions, based on a possibility isn't good enough.”

He continued, “In other areas of medicine, thoughtful scientists typically devote whole careers to meticulously studying benefits and harms of treatments before rolling them out. Here, that proven approach has inexplicably been replaced with hand-waving and moralizing.”

We know that it is our job as members of Parliament to study these things and hear about them at committee from experts, those that are directly impacted, before passing new legislation. We heard this week at a press conference from Wayne Wegner. He told his story of struggling with mental illness. Wayne had a series of difficulties in life that led him to a very dark place, and he urged members of Parliament to please vote against this legislation.

In conclusion, this is not how we should be operating. We should not be dealing with closure today. We should be listening to persons with disabilities and persons suffering from mental illness issues and their advocates. We should all do our jobs as members of Parliament and listen first before we act. That is our duty.

[Criminal Code, March 11th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, we heard the minister use the word “consensus” over and over again in the last little while. The fact is that when he appeared before the justice committee on Bill C-7, he said there was no consensus to include mental illness. When he went to the Senate and spoke there, he said there was no consensus in the medical community or in Canada on the issue of mental illness.

He is now showing complete contempt for Parliament by having no debate and no study at committee and complete contempt for those in the mental illness community and those in the suicide prevention community. They include such groups as Inclusion Canada, the Canadian Institute for Inclusion and Citizenship, the DisAbled Women's Network, the Council of Canadians with Disabilities and the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action.

Hundreds of organizations have signed a letter asking members of Parliament to please vote against the inclusion of mental illness in Bill C-7. Why is the minister putting the cart before the horse? We need to first study this legislation before moving forward.