Rob Moore

[Public Safety, February 24th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, my riding of Fundy Royal boasts great organizations like the Petitcodiac Sportsman's Club, the Shepody Fish and Game Association, the Hampton Rifle and Pistol Club and the Sussex Fish and Game Association. These are community hubs with engaged memberships of law-abiding New Brunswickers.

Unfortunately, it is Canadians like these that Bill C-21 will target, while violent gun crime remains largely ignored by the Liberal government. Conservatives want to target criminals, while the government would rather create them. Spending hundreds of millions of dollars to buy legal firearms from licenced owners will not make our community safer. The Liberal government wants Canadians to think it is concerned about safety, but it has just defeated a Conservative bill that would have cracked down on smuggling and possessing illegal firearms.

I will continue to speak up for the law-abiding firearms owners of Fundy Royal, and I firmly believe that Canadians deserve to have evidence-based legislation that will actually make our communities safer.

[Privilege, February 19th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege concerning the recent premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-22, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Yesterday, the CBC posted online, at 8:47 a.m., an article that outlined details of Bill C-22. Bill C-22 was introduced in the House later that morning. The article outlined several measures contained in the bill, including amendments to the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the elimination of several mandatory minimum penalties. The article also boasts a reliance on sources, not unlike in the case I raised with you, Mr. Speaker, on another matter of privilege almost one year ago.

On February 25, 2020, I was on my feet in the House defending the privileges of the House on the matter of the premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying). In that case, The Canadian Press posted an article that disclosed the details of the bill before it was introduced in the House and after the bill went on notice.

On March 10, 2020, Mr. Speaker, you came back to the House with your ruling. You said:

First, based on a reading of the Canadian Press article on Bill C-7 on medical assistance in dying, and in the absence of any explanation to the contrary, I must conclude that the anonymous sources mentioned were well aware of our customs and practices and chose to ignore them. It seems clear to me that the content of the bill was disclosed prematurely while it was on notice and before it was introduced in the House.

The rule on the confidentiality of bills on notice exists to ensure that members, in their role as legislators, are the first to know their content when they are introduced. Although it is completely legitimate to carry out consultations when developing a bill or to announce one’s intention to introduce a bill by referring to its public title available on the Notice Paper and Order Paper, it is forbidden to reveal specific measures contained in a bill at the time it is put on notice.

As everyone knows, the Department of Justice, unfortunately, has a history of leaking the contents of government bills. On April 19, 2016, the Speaker found that there was a prima facie case of privilege regarding Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other acts (medical assistance in dying). At the time, he said:

As honourable members know, one of my most important responsibilities as Speaker is to safeguard the rights and privileges of members, individually and collectively. Central to the matter before us today is the fact that, due to its pre-eminent role in the legislative process, the House cannot allow precise legislative information to be distributed to others before it has been made accessible to all members. Previous Speakers have regularly upheld not only this fundamental right, but also expectation, of the House.

Another question of privilege was raised on March 19, 2001, regarding, once again, the Department of Justice briefing the media on a bill before members of Parliament. In that ruling, Speaker Milliken said this at page 1840 of the House of Commons Debates:

In preparing legislation, the government may wish to hold extensive consultations and such consultations may be held entirely at the government’s discretion. However, with respect to material to be placed before parliament, the House must take precedence. Once a bill has been placed on notice, whether it has been presented in a different form to a different session of parliament has no bearing and the bill is considered a new matter. The convention of the confidentiality of bills on notice is necessary, not only so that members themselves may be well informed, but also because of the pre-eminent rule which the House plays and must play in the legislative affairs of the nation.

The Speaker found another case of contempt on October 15, 2001, once again involving the Department of Justice, which does not seem to learn, after it briefed the media on the contents of a bill prior to the legislation being introduced in the House.

We are being asked once again to deal with the contemptuous actions of the Minister of Justice and his justice team. We have had countless rulings from the Speaker. The House has expressed itself on numerous occasions. We have had three debates and extensive committee studies.

The message is crystal clear, yet the responsible minister continues to draft bills and then leak those bills to the media, ignoring the will of the House. I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you find a prima facie case of privilege, and I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Privilege, February 19th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, yes. Thank you.

[Privilege, February 19th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today on a question of privilege concerning the premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-22, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

[Questions on the Order Paper, December 7th, 2020]

With regard to judicial appointments made by the government, and the CBC report on October 20, 2020, that stated “[t]he Liberal Research Bureau also participates in the background checks on judicial candidates, according to federal sources and an internal government email”: (a) what role does the Liberal Research Bureau have for the government with regard to background checks for judicial candidates; (b) who in the government provides the names of potential judicial candidates to the Liberal Research Bureau; and (c) has the government provided secret security clearance to anyone in the Liberal Research Bureau so that those individuals are legally allowed to possess the names of candidates and, if so, (i) who was granted clearance, (ii) when was the clearance granted?

[Criminal Code, December 4th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I do want to point out that not one of the amendments that were proposed by our Conservative Party at committee was adopted. We proposed those amendments in good faith, and we proposed them with the support of the persons with disabilities community. Krista Carr, executive vice-president of Inclusion Canada, a group that represents persons with disabilities, said that Bill C-7 represents the “worst nightmare” for persons with disabilities.

I want to ask my hon. friend why they did not listen to the persons with disabilities community and why he is talking about delays, when it was his government that prorogued the House and caused Bill C-7 to have to have a complete restart.

[Criminal Code, December 2nd, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his great work at the committee. I believe one of his amendments, which we supported, would have helped in some way to improve the bill.

The hon. member is right. In assisted dying, it is not a true choice if someone has not had a consultation about their living situation, their social situation and palliative care. The bill would not even require that a person have a real consultation with a palliative care doctor, before MAID is offered, to know what quality of life they can have. We are hearing, even as recently as today, stories about isolation and about COVID being a determining factors in people's decision to end their life prematurely. In Canada, that should not be acceptable.

[Criminal Code, December 2nd, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his time spent on the justice committee during the limited time we spent debating the bill and dealing with witnesses.

He is absolutely right. I also thought, in hearing witness after witness, the disability community was unanimous. Groups representing people with disabilities are unanimously against this legislation. Krista Carr, who is the executive vice-president of Inclusion Canada, said that the bill represents the disability community's greatest fear.

I do not understand why our very modest amendments were rejected. They would have protected persons with disabilities from being offered death and helped them deal with their disabilities. I certainly hope that in the future we take greater care with these types of issues related to people with disabilities.

[Criminal Code, December 2nd, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak this evening, virtually, from my home province of New Brunswick, to what is a very important issue for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Four days is how long the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights took to study Bill C-7. I have listened with great interest to my colleagues on all sides of the House as we debate this important issue, and it has become abundantly clear that the amount of time the government allocated for the study of this legislation was woefully inadequate. That became abundantly clear to me as a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, where we heard witness after witness, in testimony after testimony, talk about the negative impacts that this legislation will have on Canadians, particularly Canadians with disabilities.

I go into this debate with an open mind. I know that all 338 members of the House of Commons come from different political parties, different backgrounds and different perspectives, but I would hope that most of us are united in our resolve to protect those who are vulnerable and help those who are less fortunate than some of the rest of us. Some of those people appeared before our committee. We had persons with disabilities and other persons who are vulnerable, and under Bill C-7, they would be, for the first time ever, eligible for assisted death in our country.

Bill C-7 is not a moderate change from the existing law. Five years ago, Bill C-14 was passed into law under a majority Liberal government, and it provided for assisted dying. One of the features in that bill, and there was a number of them, were the safeguards that were put in place. One of those safeguards was that a person's death had to be reasonably foreseeable in order for them to be eligible for assisted dying. In other words, the person had to be dying to be eligible for assisted dying.

There were other safeguards in place too, including a 10-day reflection period. We throw around terms like “life-or-death question” or “life-or-death situation”, but assisted dying truly is life or death, and the 10-day reflection period gave someone an opportunity to change their mind.

As members know, with the Truchon decision in Quebec, the Superior Court decided that a safeguard for the reasonable foreseeability of death was not constitutional. It is my position and the position of the Conservative Party, as well as that of many Canadians, that this decision should have been appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, for certainty. One of the key things the Attorney General does on behalf of a government, which is one of the key things a government does, is defend government legislation. This is brand new legislation on a brand new idea in Canada. However, the Liberal government, even at the first instance, did not defend its own legislation and its own safeguards, and did not appeal the decision.

We have heard from so many different groups, such as palliative care doctors and persons with disabilities, and they spoke of the need to appeal the decision. We heard at committee how important it would have been to do so. However, rather than appeal the decision, the government brought in Bill C-7, which not only responded to the Quebec court decision but went further in stripping away a number of safeguards that existed in the previous legislation.

At committee, the Conservative Party moved 10 amendments that were based on the feedback we heard from persons with disabilities, palliative care doctors and other specialists. They would have put back in place some of the safeguards that had been stripped away. However, one by one, amendment after amendment, these very modest proposals were defeated by the Liberal government.

I want to mention a few of those proposals.

One was to maintain the 10-day reflection period to give individuals who may change their mind about assisted dying the opportunity to do so.

Another was the requirement that two independent witnesses, neither of whom are paid, be there throughout the process of assisted dying. We sometimes have two witnesses for wills. Surely, to ensure ultimate safeguards we should have two independent witnesses for MAID.

Another was ensuring the physician who is dealing with the individual has an expertise in whatever ailment the patient is facing. That is not a requirement in this legislation.

We heard powerful testimony from Roger Foley. Members may have heard of his case. He recorded conversations he had with individuals within the hospital who were trying to encourage him to consider MAID, assisted death. I think he is someone who has so much to give, even in his state as a person living with a disability. Roger Foley appeared before the justice committee, and he did that not for himself, but to help other Canadians living with disabilities so they would not be faced with the same thing he was faced with: individuals advising him that he is eligible for assisted dying.

I have heard a number of members tonight talk about the equality of Canadians. We heard from different groups representing persons with disabilities, and they see this as an equality issue. They say there is no equality under this law because they are being singled out. They are asking why they are being singled out.

Dr. Catherine Frazee, a person with disabilities and a professor at the school of disability studies at Ryerson University, said:

Bill C-7 begs the question, why us? Why only us? Why only people whose bodies are altered or painful or in decline? Why not everyone who lives outside the margins of a decent life, everyone who resorts to an overdose, a high bridge, or a shotgun carried out into the woods? Why not everyone who decides that their quality of life is in the ditch?

As I mentioned, we heard from Roger Foley, who said:

What is happening to vulnerable persons in Canada is so wrong. Assisted dying is easier to access than safe and appropriate disability supports to live. Committee members, you cannot let this happen to me and others. You have turned your backs on the disabled and elderly Canadians. You or your family and friends will all be in my shoes one day. You cannot let this sliding regime continue.

As Conservatives, we have listened throughout this process. That's why we said the government should have appealed the decision.

As members know, there was a five-year mandatory review under Bill C-14 of the assisted dying regime in Canada. We know that was to start this summer, but the government did not even get the benefit of the mandatory parliamentary review before it brought in sweeping changes that fundamentally alter the assisted dying regime in Canada and alter it against the wishes of persons with disabilities, palliative care doctors and people who are caring for people at the end of their life.

We need to get this right. I would have loved to see an openness from the government to adopt some of our amendments, such as the one Roger Foley asked for, which would have specifically prohibited doctors from bringing up MAID to patients and required that it went the other way around so that the patient would have to bring it up.

For those for whom death is not reasonably foreseeable, who would be eligible for MAID under Bill C-7, we could have extended the reflection period to 120 days. This is based on testimony we heard. It would give time for treatments to take effect and for people to come to terms with their situation.

This is an important bill. It is one that we should have taken more time with. I know the Senate will be looking at it, but I urge all parliamentarians to think of persons living with disabilities who are saying no to the bill.

[Justice, November 30th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, there is a consensus that the government's latest MAID bill lacks safeguards and puts persons with disabilities at risk. Witness after witness said this at justice committee. We heard from disability advocates who say this bill is unfair to persons with disabilities. Krista Carr, of Inclusion Canada, described it as “our worst nightmare.” I am sure many Liberal members are also concerned about the gaps in Bill C-7.

Will the government allow a free vote among Liberal MPs so they may vote against this flawed bill?