Rob Moore

[Justice, January 27th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough.

The Liberal government's poorly drafted Bill C-75 means criminals are now facing retrial and victims of crime will have to relive the horrific situations yet again in court. This is a significant failure of the Liberal government to protect victims. We already know that the sloppy implementation of the bill will lead to retrials in Ontario.

When will the Prime Minister act before more criminals go free?

[Justice, January 27th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals carelessly rushed through changes to Canada's criminal justice system in Bill C-75. Conservatives raised concerns over the impacts of the bill and how it would impact and harm victims of crime. Legal experts warned the Prime Minister that his poorly drafted legislation would result in guilty verdicts being nullified. Now in Ontario we see that is indeed the case.

What is the Prime Minister planning to do now that criminals are being set free and victims will have to go through painful retrials due to the government's incompetence?

[Justice, December 11th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the current government's new jury selection rules have already been found to be unconstitutional in Ontario. Further, courts have been split on whether to apply the changes on a go-forward basis or retroactively. This confusion, created solely by very poorly drafted Liberal legislation, could have the impact of nullifying more than 30 guilty verdicts, including in a murder trial.

How will the Prime Minister fix his mistake to ensure that murderers do not walk free?

[International Trade, May 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, this agreement represents an unprecedented opportunity for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I want to quote from Derek Butler, executive director of the Association of Seafood Producers. He said, “As we said in December, we've been fighting EU tariffs for years now, and we should not put their removal in peril. Jeopardizing CETA—or freer trade generally—is not a solution.”

We remain open to working with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to come to an agreement on this one.

[Intergouvernmental Affairs, May 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the member's problem is that he opposes a trade agreement that his province and the industries in his province and the people of his province support.

Our government remains open to working with the province of Newfoundland and Labrador on its specific proposals for a minimum processing requirement fund. We have indicated all along to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador that we are open to a fund that includes support for displaced workers, research and development, and innovation.

However, this fund was always designed to compensate Newfoundlanders for any losses for having given up minimum processing requirements. It was never intended as a slush fund that would be to the detriment of other provinces.

[Regional Economic Development, February 5th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the hon. member travel to Cape Breton and get around a little more, because our government is committed to supporting economic development in Cape Breton and throughout Atlantic Canada. In fact, just in the last year alone we have provided $2.2 million toward the implementation of the Richmond County tourism strategy, $1 million to assist with the operation of the Celtic Colours International Festival, $1.3 million for the expansion of the Sydney boardwalk, $200,000 for the Inverness County Trails Federation in an effort to make the Inverness portion of the Trans-Canada trail, and $105,000 to support Synergy Louisbourg.

I could go on and on, if the member has a supplemental question.

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. friend's speech, even that final quote.

Worker displacement, research and development, innovation, a fisheries transition initiative: these are all things that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador was asking for, and these are all things that we are perfectly willing to work with the province together for on this fund. We have committed to this fund and we have budgeted for this fund. Even in the letter the hon. member just cited and all throughout our correspondence with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, all of which was released by the previous premier, it says “up to $400 million”—“up to”.

We have referenced some of the various initiatives that could be funded under the fund, but there is not a person in this place who would say that a compensation fund should be accessed without some measure of impact. We have committed to being flexible in how that looks and how we measure the impact. For example, we have not tied a specific loss of a job to funding for that specific loss, but we have said that there has to be a measurement of impact. We have said that publicly and with the premier.

I was pleased that the Prime Minister met with Premier Davis, but he was very clear that for a compensation fund, there has to be a measure of loss. The hon. member is a lawyer, and he would know this. We as a government, through the CETA, have negotiated compensation funds with both the pharmaceutical and dairy sectors, but there has to be a measure of loss.

Does the hon. member honestly believe that there could be an expectation of a $400 million compensation fund with no way to measure that compensation? That is what we are talking about here today. CETA is tremendous for Newfoundland and Labrador, and this fund is there in case there is any impact whatsoever on the province as a result of giving up minimum processing requirements.

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. friend's speech with much interest. I have a question relating to the past question.

When we look at the documentation the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has released, every single piece of correspondence from the federal government, when referencing this fund, says up to $400 million, cost-shared on a 70-30 basis. That is important. We have been consistent on that throughout.

I have in my hand letters from the St. John's Board of Trade, the Newfoundland and Labrador Employers' Council, and the Seafood Processors of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I could go on, all of them asking that we not throw out the baby with the bathwater. This agreement means too much to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and CETA will benefit the industry and the people immensely.

I wonder if the hon. member could remind us of some of the benefits of this agreement for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Intergovernmental Affairs, February 2nd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, as I just said, our government remains committed to working out the details of the minimum processing requirements fund with the government of Newfoundland and Labrador. We remain open to this transition initiative, but this fund was never intended to be a blank cheque that could be used to disadvantage the other Atlantic provinces.

The hon. member needs to consult with industry and consult with the province and realize that this agreement is of immense benefit to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Intergovernmental Affairs, February 2nd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I was in this place two hours ago when the hon. member stood on his feet and said that his party does not know where it stands yet on the Canada-European Union trade agreement, an agreement that will benefit his province immensely. The province of Newfoundland and Labrador recognizes that CETA is of huge benefit to the province as well as to the fisheries.

Our government remains committed to a fund with Newfoundland and Labrador for transition, but we will not have a fund that will be a blank cheque that could be used to disadvantage other provinces.