Rob Moore

[Criminal Code, October 9th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the reminder to all of us that it is Mental Health Week.

We are hearing from those who suffer from mental health issues, from those in the disability community and from a broad range of people. This legislation literally deals with life or death. As the member rightly pointed out, as we have seen over the last several months with the COVID-19 crisis, mental health issues have been brought to the forefront. We need to ensure that even—

[Criminal Code, October 9th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, normally with a case like this, which comes from one province's courts, a case of national importance, the responsible thing to do for certainty, because we are a federation, would be to appeal the decision to a higher court and, indeed, on a decision this important that impacts our criminal law would be to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

We are listening to organizations that represent those with disabilities. They say that the failure to appeal the decision, the failure to pre-empt the study that was to take place this summer on assistance in dying legislation and the desire of the government to push something out right after there was one decision on it, pushing new legislation that goes beyond what the decision called for, is an affront to those persons with disabilities.

We are listening to them, and those are their words on this bill.

[Criminal Code, October 9th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I thank hon. parliamentary secretary for his work on the justice committee and on this file.

It is one thing to consult, but it is another thing to listen and hear what people are saying. We are hearing, loud and clear, from those in the disabilities community that this legislation, and these are their words, not mine, leads us to a society that says their disabilities are a fate worse than death. They want to see more protections in the legislation.

The hon. parliamentary secretary or the minister could pick up the phone and speak with Inclusion Canada or any one of the 70 signatories to that letter to hear about what they would like to see included in legislation safeguards to protect the most vulnerable in our society.

[Criminal Code, October 9th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Sarnia—Lambton.

It is my pleasure as shadow minister for justice for the official opposition to use this opportunity to speak to the proposed legislation before us. It is important legislation. We have been hearing points from both sides of the House on Bill C-7, which impacts many Canadians. In fact, it impacts us all. This is a piece of legislation that deals with life and death, and there is probably nothing more important that we could be talking about today.

Any time we, as legislators, are asked to review and analyze legislation like this, it is critical that we take the time to get it right, and this is part of the problem. As we have heard many times over the course of the last year, we should not be dealing with this legislation today because the Minister of Justice and this government should have appealed that decision.

This is what was being called for by those in the medical community, those in the disability community and individuals across the country after that decision came out in Quebec. The right thing to do, which is what our party, the Conservative Party, called on the government to do, would have been to appeal that decision.

What we have been left with is a patchwork across our country. We have been left with confusion. We should have had the certainty of an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on something this important. Instead, the government took the Superior Court of Quebec decision, responded to it and, in my view, went far beyond what was required to respond to that decision. I will discuss some of those things.

The bill was introduced as a response to a Superior Court of Quebec decision made on September 11, 2019. That decision found that the law was too restrictive in the requirement for death to be reasonably foreseeable in order to access medical assistance in dying. At the time, we called upon the government to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court.

As we debate the bill before us, we still do not have the clarity that we could have had if the government had appealed that decision. Rather than defend its own legislation, this government has used this as an opportunity to broaden assistance in dying legislation in this country without doing the fundamental consultation and homework necessary to get an important decision like this right. Even in the previous legislation, Bill C-14, there was to be a mandatory review of assistance in dying legislation and what flowed from it, which was to take place this past summer. This government circumvented all of that with this new legislation.

When the government passed Bill C-14 in the 42nd Parliament, it required this review to be conducted this year. The review was to analyze the state of assistance in dying in Canada in a comprehensive way, and instead of waiting for that, we see with this legislation the government going far beyond what had to be done to respond to the Quebec court decision.

This topic is a very sensitive issue for many in the House who have personal experience with it and, indeed, it is a sensitive issue for many Canadians. We ask that all members on each side of the House be aware of this. While there may be disagreements, we are each here to represent our constituents and arrive at legislation that best protects Canadians.

I have heard directly from many Canadians who are concerned about the lack of protection for conscience rights for health care professionals in both the bill before us and the original MAID legislation. As the government looks to broaden the legislation further, it becomes even more important that the conscience rights of health care professionals are protected. By further expanding medical assistance in dying, the government risks reducing the number of medical professionals willing to take part in this process. It is also important to note that this expanded access could result in a heavy emotional burden on those health care providers, as we head into uncharted territory with the bill.

We, as members of Parliament, cannot appreciate the burden that this has put on health care providers who are working in this system and providing medical assistance in dying.

Further, there are very few protections in place for medical professionals who do not want to participate in the process and may be penalized, as a result, by an employer. This is a point that I raised when Bill C-7 was introduced earlier this year, and it is disappointing to see that it was not corrected in this version of the bill.

This brings me to my next point about standing up for Canadians with disabilities. The 10-day waiting period, which could already be waived in the legislation for extenuating circumstances, has been removed. I heard the chief justice say today that removing the 10-day waiting period was universally accepted in his consultations across the country. I wonder who he has been talking to.

Yesterday I spoke with a group that represents those with disabilities across the country at Inclusion Canada. Those in that group said that they are in favour of maintaining the 10-day waiting period, and their role is to stand up for individuals with disabilities. It is interesting to note that they called on the minister of justice at the time to appeal the decision of the Quebec court. They said that medical assistance in dying must have limits. Individual rights must be balanced with protections, not only for our most vulnerable citizens, but also for society as well.

One of the most important foundations of our Canadian society and identity is that we are a caring, compassionate country. For those with disabilities, their experience now is that they are told, often bluntly, that they would be better off dead. The Foley case in London, Ontario, is one example of this. This decision, if it remains unquestioned, will simply erode provincial health responsibilities for expert clinical care and social support for people who are fragile.

The Minister of Justice would also be familiar with a letter written to him on October 4, 2019, which was signed by over 70 organizations that stand up for Canadians with disabilities from coast to coast to coast. They wrote that they found the decision by the Superior Court of Quebec to be very concerning. One of the reasons for this concern was that the decision failed to respect Parliament's authority to balance the interests of the individuals with the interests of society, effectively limiting Parliament's capacity to pursue social targets, such as substantive equality and inclusion.

They describe the decision as a dangerous precedent, writing, “The Supreme Court must weigh in on this flawed analysis. The decision will entrench stereotypes and exacerbate stigma further for Canadians with disabilities.” The letter continues, and I agree, “[We] must avoid sending a message that having a disability is a fate worse than death.... Canada must appeal the decision to prevent additional stereotyping”. The letter concluded by urging the government to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.

Again, the letter was signed by over 70 organizations, including the Council for Canadians with Disabilities, the Canadian Association for Community Living, Disability Law Centre, People First of Canada and the Canadian Mental Health Association. I mention this because it underscores how we need to get this legislation right.

Last November, the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association and the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians issued a call to action due to ongoing confusion in the general public regarding hospice, palliative care and MAID. Quite frankly, palliative care focuses on improving the quality of life and symptoms through a person-centred approach for those living with life-threatening conditions.

The federal government should be looking for ways to improve further palliative care across Canada, as was committed to many times by the government. In their call to action, the groups I mentioned state, “Less than 30% of Canadians have access to high quality hospice palliative care, yet more than 90% of all deaths in Canada would benefit from it.”

I want to stress my previous point that this is an important issue for many Canadians. On matters of literal life or death, we need to take our responsibilities as legislators—

[Judges Act, October 8th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on an excellent speech. I appreciate his input, his background and perspective on it, and his support for this very important bill.

One of the figures mentioned was about only a small percentage of cases involving sexual assault being brought forward. Could my colleague, in his experience as a police officer, could elaborate a bit on why he thinks that is the case and how, perhaps, this bill could help in that regard?

[Judges Act, October 7th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, that was an unfortunate display we just saw from the hon. member as we are discussing a bill as important as Bill C-3. He spent virtually no time on the bill and spoke only about delay.

I just want to draw the attention of the hon. member. Maybe he could answer a question for me. Prorogation of Parliament, according to Marleau and Montpetit, results in the termination of a session. Prorogation is taken on the advice of the prime minister, and the effect of it is to terminate all business, including the work of committees.

My question for the hon. member is this: Who is the prime minister whose advice it was to prorogue Parliament, thereby requiring a restart on all business in this House?

[Judges Act, October 7th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows the history of this bill and a lot of the research that has gone into it. I really appreciate her perspective on this.

Could the hon. member give us a bit more background on the bill? We know that our former colleague, Rona Ambrose, brought it forward, and the Conservatives certainly supported it. However, there were reasons why she brought the bill forward. Could she speak to those reasons?

[Telecommunications, October 1st, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, announcing the same money over and over again is just not getting the job done. Here in New Brunswick, there remain tens of thousands of households and small businesses without access to reliable high-speed Internet connections.

In 2019, the Liberals said they would accelerate the expansion of rural Internet. They promised the same thing in May. They have made the same promise again in this new throne speech.

When will the minister give a clear timeline? When will upgraded connections roll out in rural New Brunswick?

[2020 New Brunswick Election, September 24th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, since early this year New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs and his team have worked to successfully limit the spread of COVID-19 in New Brunswick. Thanks to his PC government's recognizing the havoc that the virus would unleash, they put in place measures early on to protect New Brunswickers. His hard work was recognized by voters on September 14 when they elected 27 PC MLAs to lead New Brunswick with a majority government.

I was also proud to see all PC MLAs elected across my riding of Fundy Royal, including Premier Blaine Higgs, Gary Crossman, Bill Oliver, Bruce Fitch, Sherry Wilson, Ross Wetmore, Mike Holland, Glen Savoie and Tammy Scott-Wallace.

On behalf of me and our entire Conservative caucus, I wish to congratulate Premier Higgs and his team on the election results. We look forward to working with him in the months and years ahead.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 11th, 2020]

With regard to the commitment on page 30 of the 2019 Liberal election platform to plant two billion trees: (a) what is the projected breakdown of how many trees will be planted in each of the next 10 years; (b) what is the projected breakdown of how many trees will be planted in each province or territory; (c) how many of the trees will be planted in the riding of Fundy Royal; and (d) of the trees in (c), what is the breakdown by community or geographical area?