Sean Casey

[Veterans Ombudsman, June 17th, 2025]

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 2024-25 annual report of the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, May 29th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating you on your much-anticipated ascension to the Speaker's chair. As a former occupant of that lucky seat, as we have talked about many times, it was absolutely bound to happen. It has, and that is a good thing.

This is my first time on my feet in this Parliament. I would also like to thank the good people of Charlottetown for sending me back to Parliament for the fifth time, with the largest majority in the history of the riding.

I would like to congratulate and welcome the member for Prescott—Russell—Cumberland on her maiden speech here in Parliament. I was particularly impressed with how she spoke on a range of topics: supply management, bilingualism, the importance of Radio-Canada and civility.

While I would very much like the member to expand further on that last point, I think it has been broached pretty thoroughly in recent days. Could she talk a bit about the importance of supply management in her riding, its place in the upcoming trade war and the possible resolution of it?

[Election of Speaker, May 26th, 2025]

Mr. Chair, I wish to start by acknowledging that we are on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin people, who have lived here for millennia. We recognize the enduring presence of first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples in this territory.

Decorum, civility and respect for Parliament and the office of the Speaker have declined at an accelerating pace over the last decade. From 2003 to 2017, not a single member of Parliament was asked to withdraw for disregarding the authority of the Speaker. Compare that to the last eight years, when nine members have been kicked out of the chamber for violating the rules of debate, refusing to withdraw unparliamentary language, failing to apologize for their conduct and defying the Speaker. I have witnessed almost all of these incidents, and, frankly, there should have been more expulsions.

What is worse is that this lack of respect for Parliament has actually been used as ammunition to raise funds. Sadly, this demonstrates the current state of decorum. It is not okay. That is why I stand before you to offer my candidacy for the office of Speaker, and I do so with some degree of optimism.

We, the members, are the only ones who can restore respect for our institutions. Roughly one-third of the members in the House today are new. I assume that none of them campaigned on a promise to be the best heckler or to figure out how to insult or belittle other members, let alone the Speaker.

I have no doubt that they promised to passionately, vigorously and effectively represent the voices and values of their constituents and to remain focused on them rather than the next Instagram reel. Newly elected members have an important role to play in the reset that is needed to restore respect in the House and in the Speaker's office.

I also hold out hope for returning members in wanting a reset. After thousands of interactions with constituents during the course of the campaign, I cannot imagine that anyone held up the current state of civility in Parliament with pride. We owe Canadians a genuine effort to raise the bar in how we treat each other. A new session with so many new faces offers a fresh start and a real chance to lead by example.

If you agree that the conditions and the timing are right to make a meaningful change, then I offer my experience and approach to lead that reset.

Before entering into politics, I was a lawyer and businessman. As a litigator, I had a duty to uphold the administration of justice. Professional courtesy toward opposing counsel and zealous representation of my client were integral to that duty. Experience and mastery of procedural rules were essential to being effective. That career instilled in me the principles of fairness, structure and impartiality, which are essential qualities for the speakership.

I was first elected to Parliament in 2011. For four years, I was one of only two new members of the third party. After winning re-election in 2015, I was successively appointed parliamentary secretary for three different ministers. More recently, I chaired two standing committees.

I became an MP at 48 and have since focused on becoming bilingual. I obtained level C last year. I am extremely proud of that accomplishment.

I have served with four different Speakers and have learned what works and what does not. First, it is vitally important for the Speaker to set the tone early and rigorously. A collegial approach, cajoling repeat offenders, has proven ineffective. The current state of debate requires the consistent application of progressive discipline. I offer the experience, the tone and the temperament to deliver exactly that.

I would be honoured, with your support, to lead a collective effort to rebuild respect in Parliament.

[Petitions, December 16th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is on the subject of parental alienation and the use of this pseudo-theory in divorce and child custody cases. This is something that is commonly invoked when domestic violence is reported on the part of a custodial parent. It is an unfounded and dangerous theory, and it sometimes causes courts to lose sight of the best interests of the child and make decisions focused on parental rights, and to trivialize domestic violence.

The United Nations has spoken out on this through a special rapporteur. The special rapporteur on violence against women and girls has urged governments to prohibit family courts from using parental alienation pseudo-theory. That is exactly what the petitioners are calling on the government of Canada to do, which is to amend the Divorce Act to prohibit parental alienation accusations in family disputes.

[Petitions, December 16th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.

The first petition is from Prince Edward Islanders who are concerned about pharmacare. They point out that health care is a human right and that age, income, pre-existing conditions, province or territory and immigration status should not determine their ability to pay. Petitioners call on Parliament to immediately pass legislation for a public, single-payer universal pharmacare program, as outlined by the advisory council on implementing national pharmacare in its 2019 report.

[Committees of the House, December 12th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 23rd report of the Standing Committee on Health, entitled “Saving More Lives: Improving Guidance, Increasing Access and Achieving Better Outcomes in Breast Cancer Screening”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

In conclusion, I would like to thank our committee's support team, including the clerk and the analysts, for their hard work.

[Petitions, December 11th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on the subject of a basic income guarantee demonstration project in the province of Prince Edward Island. In November 2020, the Special Committee on Poverty in PEI recommended immediate negotiations with the Government of Canada to implement a basic income guarantee demonstration project for Prince Edward Island. This particular idea has the full support of all the political parties on Prince Edward Island. It would be of significant benefit to Canada, as poverty is a social determinant of health.

Therefore, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to begin immediate negotiations with the Government of Prince Edward Island to develop and implement a basic income guarantee demonstration program in the province of P.E.I. that would be administered, monitored and evaluated for at least five years.

[Committees of the House, December 4th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to do that. The minister was as set back and put off by the draft guidelines as just about everyone else. The minister has encouraged the committee to bring forward a recommendation that is along the lines of the pre-emptive motion we are looking at here, but something a little more robust. He is of the view that the draft guidelines should not stand and should be revisited in a manner that is consistent with the evidence and with developments in medicine.

[Committees of the House, December 4th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the question may be slightly off topic for the speech and the conversation, but health care is indeed one of the major challenges facing the federal and provincial governments. When I go door to door in my riding, this is the number one issue on people's minds.

As I mentioned in my speech, one complex aspect of this issue is the fact that funding for Canada's health care system is shared among the provinces and the federal government, but the jurisdiction is primarily provincial. This factor is relevant to any discussion of health care.

[Committees of the House, December 4th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the study before the health committee included nine witnesses, 15 briefs and some heart-wrenching stories, both from witnesses and from members of Parliament, about the impact of this disease on them and their families. There is absolutely no question that this is something that merits the attention of the Parliament of Canada, and in a way that puts forward our best work.

As I indicated in my speech, that was on display at the health committee. A comprehensive report is in process and will be coming before the House. It is a safe bet that the report will include recommendations for measures around funding, transparency and a process to ensure that the task force has the right people in the right seats, with the right information and the right mandate to get to the right result. That is what we hope for, and that is the goal. It is a worthy goal.