Sean Casey

[Fair Elections Act, February 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would be interested in hearing my colleague from the NDP speak about some of the points raised by the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville.

Section 11 of the Competition Act gives the director of competition the power to compel witnesses, or the power to get authority from a judge to compel witnesses, in the course of an investigation. It is not after a charge is laid but in the course of an investigation. That is the power Elections Canada has been looking for that the government has refused to put in, and it has refused to answer a direct question.

Who should have sharper teeth, a freer hand, and whatever the other buzzword is: someone investigating price-fixing or someone investigating election fraud? That is my question for the hon. member.

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I share the concern of the member for St. John's East. This idea was not only brought forward in 2004 by the committee to which he refers; it was also advanced by the public safety committee in 2009 and a special Senate committee with respect to anti-terrorism measures in 2011. This is not something new; it is something for which the time has come.

It is difficult to understand why something is automatically a bad idea if it generates from this side of the House. I appreciate the hon. member's concern that there is no reason that we cannot work in the interests of Canadians and our constituents on this matter, even if it means reaching across party lines. It would be a healthy change.

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am relatively new here, having been elected just in 2011. I find it too bad that someone who has been in the House significantly longer than I have is saying that everything here is partisan. With respect, it does not have to be. I believe we are here to be the voice of our constituents in Ottawa and not Ottawa's voice in our constituencies, so I do not accept, and I do not think Canadians should accept, that everything has to be partisan. We have the capacity to work together, and there should be a lot more of that in this place.

I hope that everyone in this place can see a way to work together in the interests of our constituents, and that includes bipartisan co-operation on committees. It is possible. There just needs to be a will.

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I wish to advise that I will be sharing my time with the member for Kingston and the Islands.

Media reports suggest that Canada's intelligence and spy agency, the Communications Security Establishment Canada, or CSEC, is collecting personal data on Canadians using Wi-Fi networks at Canadian airports. I am troubled by these serious allegations. If the allegations are true, and the information contained in top secret documents revealed by Edward Snowden seems to suggest their veracity, this is a serious violation of Canadian law.

It is important that Parliament and the government respond to these concerns and act legislatively, if necessary. The privacy of Canadians should not be an issue that divides the House of Commons along partisan lines, but I fear that the temptation to do that will prevail.

Canadians have a right to be assured that no agency of government has access to their personal information without legal authority.

Here is what we know thus far. According to recent reports from the CBC, the Communications Security Establishment Canada stands accused of actively intercepting and retaining information related to individuals, Canadian and otherwise, transiting through major Canadian airports. These activities were done without the cooperation of the airports involved, without a warrant, and with the suggestion that all of this was being done in contradiction of CSEC's lawful mandate. This seemingly happened despite the recent assurance by the Chief of CSEC, John Forster, that CSEC does not “target Canadians at home or abroad in our foreign intelligence activities, nor do we target anyone in Canada”.

We are now confronted with a serious problem. We have evidence, as reported by the CBC, that government agencies are collecting personal information about Canadian citizens at our airports through Wi-Fi intercepts. We also have conflicting assurances from the head of CSEC that, in fact, this is not occurring and that our security services are not, in fact, doing this sort of invasive surveillance. Challenged with these conflicting stories, what are members of Parliament to do? Are we to take the word, at face value, of people entrusted with leading our security services in compliance with the spirit and letter of the law? Do we simply decide to trust, or do we decide to trust and then verify?

The revelations we have heard over the past year about the NSA as a result of the documents leaked by Edward Snowden have unleashed a significant and profound debate in the United States, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere. Here in Canada, we are told that despite allegations about the collection of personal data by our own security services, all is well. We simply need to trust the government. We are told by the Minister of National Defence, with a wave of the imperial hand, that we have nothing to worry about and that the current system of checks is sufficient. We are told to trust but not to verify.

For many Canadians, this is not a satisfactory answer. Canadians, whether the government accepts it or not, are concerned, and we have a duty to respect those concerns. Again, do we simply trust, or do we trust and then verify?

We are obligated to take note of the profound revelations occurring across the globe that point to the massive collection of the data of citizens not only in Canada but elsewhere. We expect this sort of smothering surveillance from countries without any meaningful democratic principles, so when media reports alert us to the fact that our very own security services may be operating outside their authority, we have a duty and a responsibility to listen. We can not only trust. We must trust, yes, but we must also verify.

The “we” in this situation is us. We are, after all, the elected representatives put here in Parliament to represent Canadians. We have a duty to respond to the fear and concern of Canadians who feel that their personal data is being watched, accessed, and monitored at our Canadian airports. This is not a minor problem, and the government should know this.

I think we have an opportunity in the House today to address the concerns of Canadians and their personal data.

My colleague, the hon. member for Malpeque, in whose name the motion stands before the House, is appropriately versed in such matters. In the previous government, the hon. member was the Solicitor General of Canada. He was responsible to Parliament for the conduct of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies, so I believe Parliament and certainly members in this current House can learn from his experience.

The member for Malpeque has put forth a reasonable solution in calling for a national security committee of Parliament. This parliamentary committee would have special access to our security services, while respecting the legitimate need to protect the confidentiality of important national security matters.

The important element here is that this oversight is to be provided by a committee of Parliament that would then provide added and important parliamentary oversight to CSEC and CSIS.

I wonder, then, if members of the government would tell Canadians what specifically they find objectionable about the motion put forth by the member for Malpeque. The motion reads:

That the House express its deep concern over reports that Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC) has been actively and illegally monitoring Canadians and call on the government to immediately order CSEC to cease all such activities and increase proper oversight of CSEC, through the establishment of a National Security Committee of Parliamentarians as laid out in Bill C-551, An Act to establish the National Security Committee of Parliamentarians.

I really do not understand why members of the Conservative government would oppose the motion. Surely more accountability to elected members of Parliament vis-à-vis our security services is a good move, as long as those members of the national security committee are senior members of our caucuses, duly vetted, and perhaps sworn members of Privy Council as well.

However, the Conservative members seem to be opposed to this for reasons that are not at all clear, although, to be fair, there is a suggestion or a view from across the aisle that sufficient oversight is already in place. That current oversight, as we know, involves a part-time semi-retired judge who is responsible for overseeing the activities of CSEC.

That is all well and good, but are we really saying, despite the serious revelations that our spy agencies are collecting the personal data of Canadians, that we cannot do more to provide proper oversight? Are we really saying that the concerns expressed here today in this House and by Canadians outside of this House are not worthy of at least having the discussion about the privacy of Canadians and the protection of their personal data? Should we not err on the side of more oversight rather than less?

The matter of privacy is not a new issue for Canadians. Not too long ago, we saw the Conservative government introduce a bill that would allow for massive surveillance into the personal lives of Canadians. That bill, introduced by the former Minister of Public Safety, Vic Toews, would have allowed government security agencies and the police unfettered access to our personal computers without warrant.

The Conservatives had no issue with Big Brother having access to our personal information without a warrant and they hoped that Canadians would not notice, or perhaps they hoped, cynically, that Canadians would not care. However, Canadians do care. They care about their rights, particularly when a government is so willing to snoop, without a warrant, into their personal lives. The response from Canadians to this bill, to this massive intrusion of privacy, was immediate and overwhelming. It was so overwhelming that the Conservatives were forced to back away from their e-snooping bill.

Canadians were rightly outraged, and they turned to Twitter in order to express their anger. We all remember the hashtag #tellviceverything that was created when literally tens of thousands of Canadians sent messages to Vic Toews, effectively telling him to butt out of their private lives.

Canadians told Conservatives that mass surveillance of citizens is unacceptable in a free and democratic society. Not willing to listen to the views of Canadians and unwilling to concede anything, the government simply introduced a new bill, ostensibly to tackle cyberbullying, but in fact it is a shameful cover to bring in almost every element of the old Vic Toews e-snooping bill.

The Conservatives' obsession with secrecy and flouting the privacy of Canadians is troubling. Surely we can do better than this. Surely we can do more to provide oversight to our security agencies so that Canadians can trust that their rights are not being set aside, or perhaps even violated, without their knowledge.

I really encourage Conservative MPs to do the right thing and support the motion put forward by the hon. member for Malpeque.

[Federal-Provincial Relations, February 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP's Sherbrooke declaration is in direct conflict with the Clarity Act and a Supreme Court ruling on separation. Roy Romanow said over the weekend that a vote of 50% plus one is not acceptable to break up Canada. He is not the only senior NDP to speak with clarity.

Former NDP leader Ed Broadbent stated:

I believe a majority of 50% plus one, even if clear, is morally insufficient in deciding to break up any established democracy, including Canada.

The NDP member for Winnipeg Centre said this about the Clarity Act:

...let sleeping dogs lie. I voted in favour of it, and I still feel strongly that it was the right thing to do.

The NDP member for Toronto—Danforth has introduced a bill to repeal the Clarity Act. Why will he not put his bill before the House for a full debate and vote? Is it because he and his leader know that their position is opposed by senior members of their own caucus and party?

Canadians deserve better. The NDP leader should listen to Mr. Broadbent, Mr. Romanow, and others and reject the 50% plus one position and put unity first.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 27th, 2014]

With regard to government institutions within the meaning of the Access to Information Act, for each fiscal year from 2006-2007 to 2013-2014 inclusive, what was or is the budget and total employment, distinguishing full-time and part-time employees, for the Division, Directorate, Office, Secretariat, or other like organization within that institution who are responsible for processing Access to Information requests?

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 27th, 2014]

With regard to the Privy Council Office, and to the following documents: an e-mail, dated December 4, 2012, between Nigel Wright and Senator Duffy, tabled in the Senate on October 28, 2013 as Sessional Paper No. 2/41-112S; e-mail correspondence, dated February 11, 2013, between Senator Duffy and Nigel Wright, tabled in the Senate on October 28, 2013 as Sessional Paper No. 2/41-113S; an e-mail, dated May 15, 2013, between Senator Duffy and Chris Woodcock, referenced on the CBC News Network program “Power and Politics“ on October 28, 2013, and published on the program's Web site; and the statements made in the Senate by Senator Michael Duffy on October 28, 2013: (a) does the Access to Information Directorate of the Privy Council Office still conclude that no records exist with regard to Access to Information requests A-2013-00231, A-2013-00232, A-2013-00233, A-2013-00075, A-2013-00076, A-2013-00077, A-2013-00080, A-2013-00085, A-2013-00099, A-2013-00101, A-2013-00103, A-2013-00104, A-2013-00105, A-2013-00106, A-2013-00113, A-2013-00114, A-2013-00116, A-2013-00120, A-2013-00125, A-2013-00126, A-2013-00131, A-2013-00132, A-2013-00139, and A-2012-00751; (b) will the Directorate re-examine the handling of those requests in light of the new information outlined above; (c) did the Privy Council Office formerly hold records which would have satisfied one or more of those requests; (d) if so, were the records transferred, removed, or destroyed; (e) if transferred or removed, to whose custody or control were they transferred or removed; (f) if destroyed, when were they destroyed, on what date or dates was the destruction approved, and what is the file number of any order, instruction, directive, or authorization concerning their transfer, removal, or destruction?

[Criminal Code, December 9th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, today the Conservative member of Parliament for Fort McMurray—Athabasca is presenting his bill, another bill on crime.

I want to state from the outset and for the record how troubling it is to be presented with yet another private member's bill related to crime. I will not suggest today, though, as I often do, that the bill was prepared by the PMO and disguised as a private member's bill. I do not think even the PMO would have suggested a bill that does so little. I honestly believe that this is a solution seeking a problem.

Would it not be nice if, just for once, someone over there would use the opportunity of private members' business to place before the House a proposal that would actually make a difference for people, such as do something that would signal a nod to poverty or inequality, or acknowledge the fact that crime is often rooted in poverty and in mental health issues? Would it not be great if, just for once, someone over there would do something that was decent, rather than focus on or be motivated by an obsession with crime and punishment?

Would it not be great if the Conservatives would put some of that energy into actually helping to prevent crime by supporting community programming to help young people who, through no fault of their own, grow up in systemic poverty, who come from troubled families, and who are often exposed to addiction from early ages? Would that not have been a much better use of time and effort?

Instead, we get this, which is another so-called crime bill tinkering around the edges of the Criminal Code.

Why, I ask, did the member not present a bill that would tackle a real issue, such as the overrepresentation of aboriginals in the prison system? Why did he not put forth a bill calling for a national strategy to tackle poverty, which is again the root of much of the crime he and his party are so obsessed with? Why did he not put forth a bill that would help tackle addiction among young people, which is again the root of much of the crime he and his party are so obsessed with?

Why did he not put forward a bill to encourage more support for our veterans who suffer from PTSD?

Why did he not put forward a bill to address youth unemployment, which is so rampant in Canada, and which the government has done so little to address?

Why did he not produce a bill to remove political control over government to advertising and call for an independent watchdog so that we could finally do away with the over $500 million, and counting, of wasted government propaganda and unprecedented abuse of taxpayer money, all for the benefit of the Conservative Party? Why did he not put forward a proposal calling for sweeping changes to election fraud to put an end to the shenanigans his party now stands accused of?

Instead, we get another pointless bill that does nothing to help.

Such is the manner in which the Conservative government and its compliant backbench operate. They are so obsessed at showing themselves as being tough on crime that at times they seem to practically fall over one another to prove themselves.

To listen to the Conservatives, one would think that crime is rampant and that riots are breaking out across the country.

The Conservatives peddle in fear and propaganda for political party purposes. Part of peddling falsehoods about crime in Canada and part of the real purpose for all these crime bills is to raise money from the narrow-minded group they call their base.

The House knows the group of which I speak. It is the group of right-wingers who constitute the backbone of the Conservative Party. They are the people who loathe the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They loathe it so much that when Canadians sought to honour its 30th anniversary, they ignored them. Instead, they issued a belated press release, and that was it. They issued a press release to honour the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There was no year-long celebration of the charter, unlike the effort to worship the War of 1812, an exercise in propaganda that wasted millions of dollars in doing so. There was not a chance they would honour a document like the charter that actually makes a difference to Canadians, but for any 200-year-old wars used for propaganda purposes they would give $12 million.

What we have here are amendments to the sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code. As we have heard, these amendments create a new aggravating factor, one that fixes a number of three persons as the level at which something goes from not being an aggravating factor to being an aggravating factor.

Why three? Why not four? Why not two? Why not some other number? There is a real sense of arbitrariness that defies explanation.

The bill creates a new category of aggravating factors, a super-category called “serious aggravating factors”, and it lifts two of the aggravating factors presently contained in the code and elevates them to another level. They relate specifically to organized crime and to terrorists. Again, I say this is a solution in search of a problem. There is no indication, no evidentiary basis, on which to suggest that sentences for organized crime or terrorism are too light. If there were, why not increase the sentences?

We are tinkering with a coherent sentencing regime that is set forth within the Criminal Code, and this tinkering could have unintended consequences. By creating a new super-category, are we suggesting that in all cases a mobster is worse than a neo-Nazi? That is essentially the type of argument that this bill is bound to produce once it runs through the test of everyday litigation.

We in the Liberal Party believe in evidence-based policy-making. There is absolutely no evidence that sentences for organized crime or for terrorists are too low. In fact, the most recent example of a case involving a terrorist conviction and sentencing in terrorist cases is the Khawaja case in Ontario. In 2006, at trial, Mr. Khawaja was sentenced to 10 years. When it went to appeal, the appeal court found that the sentence was too light and sentenced him to life. That sentence was upheld before the Supreme Court of Canada, so there is no empirical evidence to suggest that there is a problem here.

We are concerned that an otherwise coherent sentencing regime is being tinkered with solely for political purposes. This is so that the opposition parties can be goaded into voting against a bill that is arbitrary and redundant for the sole purpose of appealing to the base. We support measures that deter organized crime and terrorism—everyone does—but the bill is redundant and arbitrary. It misses the mark.

I am pleased to hear the member say that he is open to suggested amendments from the government side and from the opposition benches. I hope he is genuine in that regard, because when this matter gets before committee, I expect we will be going on that search for some empirical evidence to justify what has been put in the bill with respect to the Criminal Code. If we do not find it, I would hope that the bill is going to be scrapped. If there is some other way to address what is a real evil, not a perceived evil, my hope is that we will have opportunity to deal with that.

The obsession with crime within the Conservative ranks is indeed troubling. Just recently we heard the Minister of Justice suggest that on arrest, we should be able to take a DNA sample prior to any conviction. This, of course, would undoubtedly be found to be wholly unconstitutional, but it sure would make the Conservative base happy as we gear up for what is likely to be a pending leadership.

This obsession with looking tough on crime, I would submit, should be of grave concern to the House and to Canadians. When will the Conservatives get tough on fighting poverty? When will they get tough on fighting climate change? When will they get tough on fighting for health care? When will they get tough on helping the most vulnerable? When will they stop putting ideology over facts and evidence? The only thing the government is tough on is the truth, and it is Canadians who will suffer as a result.

[Criminal Code, December 9th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the hon. member.

I do not think there is anyone who rejects the general principle of the need for deterrence in serious crimes. However, I really wonder whether the bill is, quite frankly, a solution in search of problem.

I have two specific issues. First, there is a line drawn at three people. Why is it not two? Why is it not four? Is there some evidentiary basis for this decision to fix on three people? Is there some indicator in the stats that this is the cut-off at which we have seriously deficient sentences?

The other issue I am concerned about is the potential unintended circumstances of creating an elevated category of aggravating circumstances. By putting certain factors as “seriously aggravating”, do we not run the risk of some crafty defence counsel being able to successfully argue, “Well, this is a hate crime but it is not a terrorist crime. Hate crimes are only aggravating factors. Terrorist crimes are seriously aggravating factors. Therefore, you should go easy”?

Are we not running that risk by creating this new category? Are we not trying to fix something that is not broken?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, December 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the House leader's response to the question from the member for Winnipeg North, where he said in part that the purpose of the budget implementation act is to implement the provisions of the budget. This budget implementation act amends the Supreme Court Act and try as I might in going through the volumes of the budget, I could find no reference to the Supreme Court Act. Therefore, I would argue that this budget does a lot more than that. In fact, I asked the Minister of Justice if he could find it and he could not find it either.

My question for the hon. House leader is this. Apparently matters of economic interest are not entitled to a full debate here, so we are imposing the guillotine. Is there any subject matter that would warrant a full debate that is not limited by time allocation? Is there anything the government feels justifies a full and unlimited discussion in the House?