Sean Casey

[The Budget, April 23rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I was mildly bemused to hear the member for Medicine Hat extolling the virtues of the changes made to the EI program in his remarks on the budget. In particular, he talked about the working-while-on-claim pilot that has been extended. There are many things the government has done that have been bad with respect to EI benefits for those in seasonal industries, but few as unpopular as that particular program.

My question for the member also relates to EI. It comes from page 163 of the budget, where it says that the government will be:

Taking steps to ensure that Employment Insurance claimants are aware of their job search responsibilities when moving or considering moving for work. The Government will also ensure that individuals willing to move are not excluded from Employment Insurance training opportunities across the country.

Is this a veiled attack on those who are not willing to move?

[The Budget, April 23rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member about poor seniors, the seniors living in poverty.

Almost immediately upon obtaining their majority government, the Conservatives decided to increase the age of eligibility for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement from 65 to 67 years of age. The result of that is to take $28,000 from the pockets of the poorest seniors.

Within this budget, for those seniors who have had their pockets picked to the tune of $28,000, which of the measures is going to help them most: the TFSAs, the RRIFs, or the income splitting?

[The Budget, April 23rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments, particularly those relating to regional economic development. I am from Prince Edward Island, and in my province, the government closed the Citizenship and Immigration Canada office, the Veterans Affairs Canada regional offices and, as my colleague said, the Canada Revenue Agency office.

My question is about this government's priorities. My colleague commented on the government's decision to wait before spending money on infrastructure. The government also decided to postpone spending on financial aid for students and our military personnel. However, some measures will be in effect immediately.

Given these differences and under the circumstances, what message is the government sending to Canadians?

[The Budget, April 23rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member about seniors living in poverty. He talked about the economic action plans. It was in either economic action plan 2011 or economic action plan 2012 that the Conservatives made the decision to increase the age of eligibility for the old age security and the guaranteed income supplement from 65 to 67. The result is that poor seniors would receive a two-year delay in receiving about $13,000 a year. It was tantamount to reaching into their pockets and taking out $28,000. That is for our poorest, most vulnerable seniors.

My question for the member is this. Which of the measures in this budget is addressed to those vulnerable seniors who are being forced to pay more than their fair share to bring the budget into balance? What is going to help them? Will it be income splitting? Will it be the universal child care benefit? Will it be the increased limits on TFSAs, or will it be the ability to have less tax on their registered retirement income funds? These are seniors living in poverty. Which one of those programs will benefit them the greatest?

[The Budget, April 23rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, as a fellow Atlantic Canadian, the member and I certainly have some issues in common.

He talked about the EI fund. Certainly, because of the dominance of seasonal industries in my province, issues around employment insurance are extremely important and the gutting of the program in previous budgets has had a terrible effect.

The question I want to ask the member is in regard to a direct quote from the budget with respect to EI. I would like to get his take on it. In the budget it says:

Taking steps to ensure that Employment Insurance claimants are aware of their job search responsibilities when moving or considering moving for work. The Government will also ensure that individuals willing to move are not excluded from Employment Insurance training opportunities across the country.

I would take that to mean that those who are not willing to move would be excluded.

I invite my colleague's comments with respect to this particular provision regarding availability of EI under the budget.

[The Budget, April 23rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank that member for his speech and for his service to this country. I know that he is sincere when he talks about the interests of veterans. He must at times be frustrated that he is swimming against the tide in that caucus. I also appreciate his reference to Dennis Manuge, whom the current government fought tooth and nail in court until the injured veteran won in court and compelled the government to take action.

The member referenced case managers and disability claims adjudicators. I want to focus my question on those positions that are now being added.

I have two questions. First, case managers in the past worked from district offices for veterans. The current government has closed those district offices. Does the member continue to stand by the decision of the government to close district offices?

Second, is the fact that this budget has announced 100 new positions for case managers and 100 new positions for disability claims adjudicators tantamount to an admission that the Conservatives cut too deep?

[Justice, April 21st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, it is National Victims of Crime Awareness Week, yet the victims bill of rights ignores an important group of victims. At committee, Maureen Basnicki, whose husband was killed in the 9/11 attacks, pleaded for Canadian victims of crimes committed abroad to be included under the bill. The government rejected those pleas. Why are Canadian victims, like 9/11 widows, being ignored? Conservatives claim to be focused on terrorists. What about the victims?

[Petitions, April 21st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present to the House a petition signed by many of my constituents, respecting the right of small-scale family farmers to preserve, exchange and use seeds.

This is a petition that has been actively promoted by an organization called Development and Peace. It calls on the Government of Canada to adopt international aid policies that support small family farmers, especially women, and recognize their vital role in the struggle against hunger and poverty.

[Questions on the Order Paper, March 31st, 2015]

With regard to the communications activities of the Prime Minister’s office: (a) what is the source or provenance of each individual video clip, segment, or shot which was combined to produce the video entitled “24 SEVEN Exclusive: Canada stands strong and free”, which was posted on January 28, 2015; (b) who owns the copyright or any other intellectual property rights in each such video clip, segment, or shot; (c) for each such video clip, segment, or shot, was permission obtained to use the clip, segment, or shot; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, when, how, and from whom was the permission obtained; and (e) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, was the permission obtained in return for payment or other consideration, and what are the details of that payment or consideration?

[Safe and Accountable Rail Act, March 30th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put for my hon. colleague the position put forward by the member for Trinity—Spadina in his remarks, and it is this. One of the most dangerous aspects of rail travel with regard to freight is the shunting of large trains from place to place to make way for passenger trains.

It is not so much a case of choosing between efficient passenger travel and efficient freight travel or safety as much as it is a question of allocation of resources. All too often we see that every problem here apparently can be addressed by a legislative change, when really, what we should do is look at how resources are allocated.

Does the hon. member agree that increased infrastructure spending, especially with respect to rails, would increase safety, and is an 87% cut in the build Canada fund from $2 billion down to $287 million consistent with the government's apparent support of rail safety in that context?