Sean Casey

[Canadian Human Rights Act, November 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I request consent to split my time with the member for St. Catharines.

I am rising to take the opportunity to speak about Bill C-16. I would like to use some of my time to respond—

[Fisheries and Oceans, November 15th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I repeat that I am confident that in the regulatory management of the aquaculture industry in all of Canada, but most particularly in British Columbia, the effect of all regulations and reporting requirements in place makes finfish aquaculture in British Columbia the most heavily regulated and most transparent aquaculture sector in Canada.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada agreed to enable multi-year licensing for aquaculture operators in British Columbia, however, the government maintains the ability to change licensing conditions at any time for the conservation and protection of fish, regardless of the licence duration. This initiative was undertaken in full consultation with the aquaculture industry and other stakeholders, as well as indigenous peoples.

We believe that the regulatory regime is sufficiently robust and strong to be able to ensure well-paying and stable jobs for thousands of people living in rural, remote, and coastal communities, and protect wild fish populations.

[Fisheries and Oceans, November 15th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to say that I am confident in the regulatory management of the aquaculture industry in all of Canada, but most particularly in British Columbia. Measures are in place through regulations and conditions of licence to apply evidence-based thresholds and standards to manage environmental impacts. Moreover, the industry is required to report to Fisheries and Oceans Canada on all of its activities.

The effect of all these regulations and reporting requirements makes finfish aquaculture in British Columbia the most heavily regulated and transparent aquaculture sector in Canada. As a result, we are able to know a great deal about how finfish aquaculture is managed and practised in British Columbia, including its outcomes according to reporting, audit, and surveillance activities and other management measures.

What does all the data, which has now been collected over the last five years, tell us? Are there indications of any significant problems with finfish aquaculture in British Columbia? In fact, the evidence shows an industry that has steadily reduced its environmental impact, mitigated the impacts it has had, and minimized its interactions with wild populations and their habitat.

We are a country and a government that rely on the best scientific advice to inform our regulatory regimes. We use evidence as a basis for making decisions and we see no evidence that the environment is being sacrificed to further the economic development of the aquaculture industry in British Columbia. Canada's aquaculture industry, as a whole, has an exemplary record. The compliance rate of aquaculture operations with the Fisheries Act regulations was over 99% each year.

Based on this evidence, Fisheries and Oceans Canada agreed to enable multi-year licensing for aquaculture operators in British Columbia. Multi-year licensing is the standard in other countries and employing it in British Columbia gives our industry more of a level playing field with its competitors. This initiative was undertaken in full consultation with the aquaculture industry and other stakeholders, as well as indigenous peoples.

The point to emphasize is that the government maintains the ability to change licensing conditions at any time for the conservation and protection of fish, regardless of the licence duration. This change reduces the administrative burden on both industry and on Fisheries and Oceans Canada, but it does not affect our ability to manage the industry.

Based on all the evidence, we believe that the regulatory regime is sufficiently robust and strong to be able to ensure well-paying and stable jobs for thousands of people living in rural, remote, and coastal communities, support an innovative and world-leading aquaculture industry, and protect wild populations and the aquatic environment.

Therefore, I stand here in the House in full support of British Columbia's aquaculture industry as well as the aquaculture industry across the country, in support of our robust regulatory regime, in support of good jobs, and in support of healthy and nutritious farmed seafood products that feed Canadians as well as people around the world.

[Criminal Code, November 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today to Bill C-235, an act to amend the Criminal Code, regarding fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

I would like to begin by thanking the member for the Yukon for his long-standing advocacy on this important issue. By introducing this private member's bill, he has focused the attention of Parliament on a disorder that goes too often unnoticed in society. For this he is to be commended. He is clearly motivated by a desire to help society's marginalized and in the process create a safer and more just society. This private member's bill proposes to make changes to both the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to address the pressing challenge of persons with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder in the criminal justice system.

The issue of FASD was discussed by federal, provincial, and territorial ministers responsible for justice and public safety at their recent meeting this past October. At that meeting, the ministers approved a report from a steering committee of officials who were tasked with examining the issue. The report, which is now publicly available, sets out several comprehensive recommendations for addressing FASD in the criminal justice system. I will return to that report in more detail in a few minutes because it raises some key points.

First, though, I would like to say a few things about FASD itself.

As we have heard, FASD is a diagnostic term used to describe brain damage caused by prenatal exposure to alcohol. When a woman consumes alcohol while she is pregnant, the alcohol can impact the developing fetus and alter both the physical structure of the brain and the brain's capacity to function. This brain damage is permanent and has lifelong and far-reaching impacts on the individuals it affects and on society as a whole. FASD poses challenges for the criminal justice system, because without appropriate supports, individuals with FASD can be impulsive, unable to regulate their behaviour, and may be unable to learn from their mistakes. In fact, one study has estimated that 60% of individuals with FASD end up in trouble with the law.

This concern is compounded when combined with the limited available data about the number of individuals with FASD who are incarcerated in Canadian prisons. The most recent data on FASD in corrections comes from the Yukon. In that jurisdiction, the prevalence of FASD among convicted offenders is at least 17%. This number could in fact be as high as 34%, but given the challenges in confirming maternal alcohol consumption, the diagnosis cannot be conclusively made for these other individuals.

When faced with an overwhelming challenge to the criminal justice system such as FASD, often the first instinct is to look for a legislative solution. Amending the Criminal Code to specifically address FASD seems like an obvious place to start. However, as with many complex social issues, the most effective solution is often just as complex and may not be found in legislation. I would encourage all of us to think about the most effective way to truly have a positive impact on the lives of people with FASD.

It is worth noting that the report approved by federal, provincial, and territorial ministers in October, which I mentioned earlier, was the product of several years of study by the Steering Committee on FASD and Access to Justice comprised of officials from across the country. Their report did not recommend specifically naming FASD in the Criminal Code because that would single out one disorder to the exclusion of all others. Rather, it recommended further study of whether a more general assessment power for all mental disorders, including but not limited to FASD, would be a useful reform to assist courts in sentencing persons who are living with these conditions. Such a recommendation, especially from this source, merits consideration.

I would like to spend my remaining time discussing some of the specific proposals of Bill C-235 that raise some thought-provoking issues.

Bill C-235 proposes a legal definition of the term “fetal alcohol disorder” for the purposes of the criminal law. I note that this is slightly different from the medical term that is used to describe the condition, which is “fetal alcohol spectrum disorder”.

As part of the legal definition, the bill also lists some common symptoms of FASD, including impaired mental functioning, memory problems, and the inability to control impulse behaviour. I would note that this element of the bill would be a significant change in the Criminal Code, which currently does not single out specific disorders for differential treatment. The current approach is to use the general definition of mental disorder in section 2 of the code, which, according to the Supreme Court of Canada, can include an “illness, disorder, or abnormal condition which impairs the human mind and its functioning”.

I am given to understand that FASD is already considered a mental disorder for the purpose of criminal law, so it is entirely fair to ask whether it is necessary to create a separate definition specifically for FASD. Should we be concerned that this may result in pressure to single out other disorders in the Criminal Code?

The bill also proposes to permit the courts to order FASD-specific assessments for the purpose of bail and sentencing. It would require a sentencing court to adjust the sentence of the offenders if it was shown that they had FASD and that the FASD contributed to the commission of the offence.

These elements of the bill appear to be aimed at ensuring that the court has the necessary information to make appropriate decisions about a particular individual at the bail stage and to be sure that any sentence imposed is proportionate to the degree of responsibility of the offender. These are commendable objectives and ones that I know are shared by all those who advocate for a fair and effective criminal justice system.

The proposal for an assessment at the bail stage raises questions about the potential impact on the presumption of innocence and the liberty interests of accused persons who are suspected of having FASD. In particular, the bill would permit an accused to be held in custody for up to 60 days in certain circumstances while the assessment was undertaken. Given that this would occur before any trial on the merits of the charge, or potentially even before the bail hearing itself, it is possible that an assessment could in fact work to the detriment of the accused in some cases.

At the sentencing stage, it is fair to question whether the objective of imposing a proper sentence should only apply to individuals with FASD or whether there may also be a pressing need to consider the relevance of mental disorders or disabilities more generally, as the report from the federal-provincial-territorial steering committee recommended.

Finally, the bill proposes amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which would further require the Correctional Service of Canada to provide FASD-specific programming for individuals with FASD who are serving a federal sentence.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the member for Yukon for providing us with an opportunity to debate this important issue facing the criminal justice system. As he indicated, this is an issue that was presented in the form of two private members' bills in the last Parliament. They never did make it to the stage of having gone through committee, in part because of the call of the election and also in part because of some determination by the former member for Yukon to withdraw the bills to have them converted into a study.

It is a timely debate. It is one that needs to be had. The member for Yukon is doing the right thing by bringing it forward, and I look forward to hearing from other members of the House on this important issue.

[Health, October 20th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I want to reiterate that the Government of Canada is unwavering in its support of the Canada Health Act.

We are committed to defending our publicly funded health care system. In our work, we are striving to eliminate extra billing and user fees, which create barriers for Canadians in accessing health care. We are actively re-engaging with the provinces and territories. Our government knows that this approach is the best way to resolve potential compliance problems.

We strongly believe that all Canadians deserve access to timely, quality, universal health care and to receive health care services based on an individual's need and not the ability or willingness to pay.

Finally, I want to thank my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue for raising this question. There is no doubt that it is an important issue and we are fully committed to upholding the principles of the Canada Health Act.

[Health, October 20th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, this government has been very clear in our support for the principles of the Canada Health Act and the values that they reflect. These values of accessibility, equity, and solidarity form the foundation for both our publicly insured health care system and for the nation as a whole. They are the values that reflect the belief that, regardless of how much money they make or where they live, health care should be available for all Canadians when they need it.

Our commitment to the publicly insured health care system is reflected in our actions. This means restoring leadership at the federal level by revitalizing and setting solidly in place strong collaborative working relationships with our provincial and territorial counterparts to realize the aims of the Canada Health Act.

The Canada Health Act continues to be the cornerstone of the Canadian health care system. The aim of the act is to ensure that all eligible residents of Canada have reasonable access to medically necessary insured services without direct charges. The act is very clear: any charges to patients for publicly insured services are considered extra billing or user charges and are prohibited under the act. Our government wants to see all such charges eliminated.

Canadians depend on and expect all governments to work together to ensure that citizens across this country can readily access and rely on a health care system that ultimately supports them in leading fulfilling and productive lives. When Canadians are in good physical and mental health, they are able to work better, be more productive, and contribute more fully to our economy while living healthier, happier lives.

Our health care system is one that Canadians across the country continue to take pride in and to cherish. Statistics Canada confirms this point in its 2015 report on Canadian identity, which states that close to 80% of Canadians have pride in our health care system.

Respecting the value that Canadians place on our health care system, this government's commitment to Canadians is having a federal government that is fully engaged with provinces and territories on matters related to the Canada Health Act. Our approach to the administration of the act emphasizes transparency, consultation, and dialogue with provincial and territorial health care ministries to resolve potential issues.

As I mentioned earlier, extra billing and user charges are prohibited under the act, as these fees create barriers to accessing health care. Part of the reason Canadians take pride in our health care system is that they know the system will provide them with the care they need regardless of their ability or willingness to pay.

This government is committed to ensuring that Canadians across this country continue to have access to the health care they need, when they need it. That is why the Minister of Health wrote to the Quebec health minister in September, underscoring her commitment to publicly funded health care without charges to patients for insured services.

Proactively holding such discussions with provinces and territories on compliance issues provides real opportunity to resolve potential problems before they become more fully developed. It should also be noted that independent action on the part of provinces and territories can also lead to good outcomes. This government was pleased that the Quebec minister of health recently announced concrete action toward removing barriers to access, by eliminating fees charged to patients for insured services at the point of delivery.

It is important to remember that the ultimate goal of enforcement is not to levy penalties but to ensure compliance with the principles of the Canada Health Act, so that Canadians can have access to the health care they need when they need it. The Minister of Health did not levy penalties in her letter to the Quebec government.

[Justice, October 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, we inherited a process that was badly broken, that was secretive, and that did not involve parliamentarians. We have reformed that process. It is now open, transparent, and accountable.

That process has resulted in a list going forward to the Prime Minister of highly qualified, functionally bilingual jurists, including candidates from Atlantic Canada.

We are perfectly capable of participating in a national competition. We have been doing it for more than 141 years.

[Justice, October 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I think I can do one better. I married a Cape Bretoner.

The process that was in place under the previous government was opaque, outdated, and in need of an overhaul.

The four senators absolutely deserve credit for their advocacy on this issue. Those four senators were advocates for Nova Scotia even before the last election. I am pleased to say that the advisory board tasked with coming up with jurists of the highest calibre has included names from Atlantic Canada on its list.

[Justice, October 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Niagara Falls for his interest in Atlantic Canada.

What we committed to during the election was to fix a broken Supreme Court of Canada nomination process that was in effect under the previous government. That process was opaque, secretive, out of date, and in need of an overhaul.

That is why we have put in place a process that is transparent, accountable, and open. It involves parliamentarians, and it does not involve attacks by the Prime Minister on the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. That is real change.

[Justice, October 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the decisions made by the Supreme Court of Canada affect us all. We know that the process used by the previous government was badly broken. That is why we have reformed it.

The advisory committee has been asked to identify jurists of high calibre, ones who reflect the cultural diversity of our country and are functionally bilingual.

As a Prince Edward Islander, I find that a bit rich coming from the party that appointed a Conservative fundraiser from Kanata to the Prince Edward Island seat on the Senate. It is a bit much.