Sean Casey

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 15th, 2013]

With regard to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT): (a) who drafted the press release issued on September 22, 2012, under the title “Baird Receives Honourary 7th Degree Black Belt in Taekwondo”; (b) who approved or authorized the release of that press release by or on behalf of DFAIT; (c) what was the cost of distributing it via Marketwire; (d) was the press release transmitted or distributed by any other commercial means or services and, if so, (i) which means or services, (ii) at what costs; (e) who paid or will pay the costs of using Marketwire or any other means or service; (f) was the press release published to either the national or any regional DFAIT web sites and, if so, (i) which web sites, (ii) at what time was it published, (iii) was it later removed from the web sites, (iv) if it was removed, why was it removed and when was it removed; and (g) what was the total cost of translation?

[Committees of the House, March 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak to the House this evening about bullying and cyberbullying in particular. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre is to be commended for her bill before the House. The hon. member is someone whose public and private lives have been in the service of others, particularly to those who struggle for equality and acceptance.

Tonight, we are discussing cyberbullying. This is not a discussion on the essential value technology plays in our daily lives but on the reality of bullying moving from the schoolyard or office to the online world. Facebook, Twitter and the like are relatively new means for bullies to transmit abuse and untruths and sadly to unravel the self-esteem and self-worth of others.

When we think of bullying today, we are reminded of the young girl whose life became so dark, painful and degraded that she felt no other option but to commit suicide to escape the pain. Still, there are many others who are suffering in silence. It is very sad. No parent could imagine what it would be like to lose a child driven to suicide because they were made to feel worthless. Cyberbullying is real. On that point, we all agree.

How many young and old Canadians right now in all parts of the country are sitting alone in their rooms, terrified of what might be said or was said about them in an online post, in a tweet or on Facebook? How many young people are now, at this moment, subject to an online post calling them a homo, a fag or a dyke; called fat or ugly; or subject to abuse because they speak or look differently?

Bullying is the reality for many people. Words do matter and often those words inflict devastation on young people. We know that school can be tough, but bullying is not the exclusive domain of young people. I submit to my colleagues that we find bullying here in the chamber. We attack one another for having differing opinions. We exaggerate that which is often not worth exaggerating. We also do not always do a very good job of listening and engaging in real debates where we can learn from one another. Instead, we attack one another. We cast aspersions on others, using the pretext of democracy to legitimize such behaviour. This is, frankly, the poor example we sometimes give to the public and to young people.

Let me give another example. Just last week, we debated a bill on transgendered rights. There are many here who oppose that bill and that is, of course, completely within their rights. In the course of that debate, we heard some MPs using troubling and hurtful language to defend their opposition to extending rights to transgendered Canadians.

It is clear that for some, the transgendered bill simply did not sit right with them. To them, their opposition was expressed in their vote against the bill. They did not take to the airwaves, suggesting that transgendered people were odd or mentally ill. They did not take to Twitter to make fun. They simply voted in a way that reflected their beliefs. Others, however, opposed the bill using language and tactics that could very well be mirrored on any schoolyard in Canada. It was language meant to degrade.

Day in and day out, we had members of Parliament refer to the transgendered bill as the so-called bathroom bill. Their suggestion was not subtle at all. The bathroom reference was meant to frame the debate in a negative way and to create a profile of transgendered people as those who lurk around bathrooms late at night for illicit purposes. The problem is that none of it is true. It is an assertion wholly founded on fear, not reality or evidence.

This is a form of bullying that was extended to cyberspace and was, at times, committed by people who purport to be of faith, decency and moral rectitude. The thousands of Canadians who are transgendered certainly do not need parliamentarians telling them they are strange people lurking about bathrooms.

The point I seek to make is that cyberbullying occurs for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the example we set for others, including young people in our schools. We need to do a better job in the House of setting an example of how to treat one another.

The reason we need to provide protections against cyberbullying is that while a nasty name said on a playground hurts, it will disappear. However, cyberbullying and harassment can be engraved in the public domain forever. Harassments by ex-boyfriends can lead to personal photos being posted that should not be publicized.

We need to empower the victims with tools to reclaim their identities and to protect them from harassment from people they know and from strangers who lurk online. Empowerment is what Joe Killorn, a resident of Stratford, Prince Edward Island, is trying to do after personally witnessing the effects of bullying on a family member. Joe is striving for empowerment to support those who are being bullied and empowerment to change the culture in our schools. He empowers us through the pink shirt campaign on Prince Edward Island to stand out against bullying together. The entire city council in Charlottetown stood together this year against bullying. They recognized that as community leaders we need to show a better example.

We can never legislate behaviour, but we can legislate some consequences to bad behaviour. We need tools and legislative enhancements to tackle cyberbullying, and I believe the bill is one that seeks to address some of those challenges.

While I also realize that the bill is not likely to survive passage because of Conservative opposition, it is my hope that the government will deal with the prevalence of cyberbullying. We must assure young people who feel that they are on the margins of society, who feel that they are not included or who are subject to verbal abuse at school, that they should not have their home, their personal and private space, which has always been a refuge, violated by bullies who now extend the reach of their abuse via Facebook, Twitter and the Internet.

No young person with their whole life ahead of them should have to endure online verbal abuse and attacks on their identity. These online attacks cause such deep and lasting emotional pain that some young people simply find life too much to bear.

I thank the member for her bill and my chance to speak to it. I also want to take this opportunity to recognize and thank all Canadians working on this issue, including Joe Killorn and the many volunteers back home on Prince Edward Island, for taking a stand.

[The Budget, March 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I was quite surprised to hear the member say that all of these measures would be brought in without any increase in taxes. I am looking at page 292 of the budget. Perhaps he has not had a chance to look at it, but on page 292 it shows that the projected premium rate for EI premiums for employees and employers would be increasing and would continue to increase over the next four years. Perhaps what he meant to say is that there would be no increases in taxes unless one is an employee or an employer. I invite the member to correct that statement.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, March 20th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Veterans Ombudsman called on the Conservatives to settle a class action lawsuit with disabled RCMP veterans. Former ombudsman Pat Stogran and veterans organizations have also called for a settlement in order to avoid repeating the costly mistake of fighting disabled Canadian Forces veterans in court for five years. The Conservatives lost that case, resulting in legal fees of over $60 million.

Instead of making the same mistake twice, will the government now talk directly with disabled RCMP veterans, settle the issue and give these veterans the fairness they deserve?

[Ethics, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Peter Penashue resigned as member of Parliament to avoid having Elections Canada rule on his 28 illegal campaign contributions. His plan to run again shows that the Conservatives want victory at all costs and that they are prepared to let honesty and ethics take a back seat.

How can the Prime Minister think that victory at all costs—including cheating—has a place in our democracy?

[Canadian Human Rights Act, March 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured this evening to speak to Bill C-279, a bill that seeks to extend the scope of human rights legislation to include transgendered Canadians. I applaud the members who have led the charge in this regard, including the member for Vancouver Centre, the member for Burnaby—Douglas, as well as the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca in whose name this bill resides.

I will summarize briefly the thrust of the bill. Bill C-279 seeks to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity as prohibited grounds of discrimination. This is important because today, when transgendered individuals seek to allege they have been discriminated against, they have to fit their claim within the definition of either discrimination on the basis of sex or discrimination on the basis of disability. That is the state of the law at present. Bill C-279 also seeks to amend the Criminal Code with respect to hate speech to include gender identity and gender expression in the definition of what constitutes a recognizable group within the meaning of the code.

I support this bill and I do so without reservation. I acknowledge my colleague, the hon. member for Mount Royal, the former Attorney General and justice minister of Canada and an esteemed law professor. His interventions are always instructive. I certainly would not be able to improve upon them, and there are a couple that bear repeating.

The member for Mount Royal stated:

By adopting the amendments that have been proposed in Bill C-279, Parliament can send a strong message of support to transgendered Canadians, affirming their identity and acknowledging their struggles. Indeed, this legislation, again as my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca pointed out, ensures that they will enjoy the legal protections accorded to other targeted groups.

The hon. member for Mount Royal went on to dispel the notion we just heard from the member opposite, that existing legislation already covers those who identify as transgendered, when he said:

Some members of the House have argued that Bill C-279 is unnecessary because transgendered people are already protected under the existing categories of sex and disability. With respect, this position is misinformed. First, gender identity and gender expression do not refer to biological sex or sexual orientation. Rather, the terms refer to an inner feeling of being male, female, both or neither. Second, gender identity and gender expression are not a disability. Rather, they are a sense of self and a source of identity. To confound gender identity and gender expression with sex and disability is to ignore the unique experiences of discrimination and disadvantage that are faced by transgendered Canadians.

The member continued:

The Canadian Human Rights Act is more than just an act of Parliament. It is an act of recognition, a statement of our collective values, and a document that sets out a vision of a Canada where all individuals enjoy equality of opportunity and freedom from discrimination.

So in the context of this debate, which has at times been a vigorous debate and at times a debate with moments unworthy of this House, there are some who, contrary to evidence and facts, choose another path to make their case. They choose fear and innuendo, all the while claiming a moral high ground. They claim for themselves exclusivity to that which is right and decent, using language that is hurtful and demeaning. How can anyone claim to be of good heart or claim the virtue of “love thy neighbour” yet reduce this bill to gutter language when they call it “the bathroom bill”? It is an entirely offensive and erroneous implication to suggest that transgendered people would be lurking late at night in bathrooms should this bill pass.

These purveyors of fear and intolerance are often the same people who claim same-sex marriage would lead to the downfall of marriage or that same-sex marriage would lead to rampant polygamy. It was pure nonsense then and it is pure nonsense today.

In contrast to these voices of intolerance, we have the work of organizations like the Canadian Professional Association for Transgender Health. It has done excellent work using facts and evidence as the basis of this debate. This is what it said with respect to Bill C-279 and the so-called bathroom question:

It is also important to recognize that the provisions...will not create new or special rights for transgender individuals, and in particular, it will not change the law with respect to washroom use. Rather, its enactment will explicitly confirm the law’s protection of the safety and human dignity of everyone in Canada regardless of gender identity or gender expression. It will also ensure that gender variant people’s right to participate in, and contribute to, Canadian society and economic life are not hampered by ignorance, prejudice, hatred and violence.

Not too long ago, I had the opportunity to listen to interventions by Conservative MPs, whose passion and thoughtfulness at the justice committee was encouraging. I first acknowledge the member for Delta—Richmond East, now the Associate Minister of National Defence. She should be applauded for her courage in defending the rights of transgender Canadians at the justice committee. One can only imagine her embarrassment, however, when a fellow Conservative MP, a non-member of the justice committee, was sent by the Prime Minister's office for the sole purpose of hijacking the meeting in order to filibuster and prevent this important bill from proceeding through the committee. In the face of this intervention and filibuster, the Conservative member for Delta—Richmond East held firm to her convictions in supporting Bill C-279.

The second individual I would like to acknowledge is the Conservative member for Saint Boniface. She is a rare ray of light in this debate, using reason to construct an argument that is worthy of the House. Unlike the vast majority of her Conservative colleagues, she supports protecting transgender Canadians. Allow me to highlight one quote by the member for Saint Boniface:

To give hope and opportunity to transgendered people through a bill like this, to give them hope in knowing they will have clarity every single time they report, every single time they want to go before a commission or a tribunal, that gender identity means they can be a transgender individual and not have to rely on sex, which to most people means plumbing, or disability, which is not what many of them feel, I think is imperative. I think it's imperative that this move forward. I think it's imperative that we, as Canadians and parliamentarians, embrace the notion that we are inviting other Canadians to feel the sense of belonging that this bill will give them.

The march to full equality is never easy. There will always be voices opposed to progress and to full equality. Those voices of intolerance are now on the fringe of society, where they belong. One need only reflect on a time when women were not allowed to vote and treated like second-class citizens, if even citizens at all, or we think of the great injustice inflicted on black people who struggled and, arguably, still struggle for the justice and equal treatment they deserve by virtue of their inherent dignity, or we think of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters and how they were treated, so marginalized and shunned. Many of those who oppose same-sex marriage are the same people who now oppose this bill.

Let me close by suggesting this. If the Conservatives use their majority to defeat this bill, they may very well take comfort in the victory of intolerance over justice, but the fight for equality and dignity will continue. Those who are vulnerable to hate speech, marginalization and discrimination in the workplace because they are transgendered will one day, despite the Conservative government, get the protection they deserve as full and equal citizens of this great country.

[Stompin' Tom Connors, March 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, last night we lost a Canadian icon and friend. Stompin' Tom Connors held a special place in the hearts of all Prince Edward Islanders, but he will be remembered for bringing us together as Canadians.

We know his songs from coast to coast. His voice gave us an anthem for hockey, for the red mud and for stomping our feet. Stompin' Tom had a unique talent for writing about what it is to be Canadian. His pride allowed us to boast about our country and our work in our unpretentious way.

Some of his own last words demonstrate his love for our great and vast country. He said:

It was a long hard bumpy road, but this great country kept me inspired with its beauty, character, and spirit, driving me to keep marching on and devoted to sing about its people and places that make Canada the greatest country in the world.

His trademark song Bud the Spud contains the words:

Now from Charlottetown or from Summerside They load him down for the big long ride

Stompin' Tom Connors, it has been a great ride. He will be missed.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the question is actually a timely one. Since my election in May, I have decided to spend one full day per month going door to door within the riding of Charlottetown to simply ask people what is on their minds and how I can do a better job representing them.

Nobody is talking about the abolition of the Senate. Nobody is talking about constitutional reform. The topics on the minds of the constituents in my riding change from month to month. Last week it was Senator Duffy and EI. The EI topic seems to be a consistent one. Health care is a consistent one. I can assure members that Senate reform and constitutional negotiations are not.

We have dramatic economic issues in provinces where we have seasonal economies, economic issues that are not only being ignored but exacerbated by the government. That is what is on the minds of the people in my riding, not constitutional negotiations.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I do understand history. That quotation was from 1984 when the interim leader of the Liberal Party was Ontario's New Democratic premier. My colleague certainly did her homework.

However, that is not our party's position. We believe that it is more subtle than that. This is not a simple issue; it is a complex one. We understand that. The problem with the NDP and its position on this issue is that it does not seem to understand that this is a complex issue.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to be able to address this motion from the NDP and to be able to follow my colleague from Beauséjour. He is always a tough act to follow, and I expect you are aware that his tongue was planted firmly in his cheek as he was praising what he may expect in remarks from me. Nonetheless, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion before the House. I will be opposing the motion.

The Senate is an important and essential component of our constitutional and political life. The motion put forth by the NDP to abolish the Senate is a simplistic and knee-jerk response to the current and questionable behaviour of some senators. If lack of decency, lack of integrity, half-answers, half-truths and a general disregard for democracy are grounds for abolishing the upper chamber, then there would be ample grounds for Canadians to call for the abolition of the House of Commons.

Our democracy is in decline, but not because of the Senate. Rather, its decline can be traced to a Conservative government that believes the entirety of our democratic legitimacy occurs during an election. To the Conservatives, once an election is held, there is no more need for democratic engagement. That is why we see them shutting down voices in the public sphere and in civil society. That is why we see a complete evisceration of facts and evidence from their decision-making through gutting science and Statistics Canada. That is why we see women's organizations and other civic voices that disagree with the Conservatives having their funding cut or being told to toe the line.

If there is concern about the political health of the country, it is not the Senate that should be the focus of the NDP but the reform of this place, the House of Commons. Day in and day out we see scripted questions and scripted answers. Day in and day out we hear empty words and hyped-up rage and rhetoric, disingenuously calling it debate. It is not debate. Debate implies that we listen to one another. Debate implies that we are genuinely open to different options and new ideas. It implies as well that the health of our democracy cannot be sustained when we as MPs simply sit here like trained seals and do what we are told. We need fundamental change on how MPs operate.

We do need real reform, and it should start here in this chamber, but today we are chasing headlines again by debating a motion introduced by the NDP, a motion to abolish the Senate. The motion shows a lack of appreciation of our history, and that to me is troubling. I am privileged to be a member of Parliament and further honoured that I represent the riding of Charlottetown, the birthplace of Confederation.

This debate is meaningful to me because the construction and building of our federation was not an accident. The creation of the Senate was not an accident. It was a deliberate and thoughtful decision made by our founding fathers, as the Senate was meant to be a counterbalance to the House of Commons.

Again historical context is important. Representatives of the Maritime colonies at the time, including Prince Edward Island, were rightly concerned that the concentration of political power and decision-making would be centred in what was then Upper Canada. Even the distinguished Quebec representatives from Lower Canada at the time understood the need for a counterbalance against the power centre of Ontario, then Upper Canada.

That is why it is shocking that today we have Quebec MPs who would in any way wish to reduce the power and influence of Quebec. This would in fact occur if the NDP had its way and the Senate was abolished.

The principle of representation by population, rep by pop, was to apply to the election of members of the House of Commons. Under this principle, the people of Upper Canada would naturally have received the greatest number of seats in the House of Commons. That is where the population centres existed. For the people in the Maritimes who embraced responsible government, though, the idea of a second chamber based on regional representation was fundamental to the Confederation agreement.

Again, it was, and is, fundamental to counterbalance the power of the House of Commons and the concentration of power in what is now Ontario.

The Province of Prince Edward Island has as its coat of arms a large red oak tree and, beside it, three small saplings. Under the coat of arms, in Latin, are the words parva sub ingenti, which means “the small under the protection of the great”. That has been the motto of Prince Edward Island since 1769.

The Senate is there to ensure that the small are protected by the great. Provinces like mine need a strong federation. We need that representative regional voice that is part of the Senate. We need that to avoid being trampled. We need it to avoid the tyranny of the majority.

My province is small but proud, and we have some very serious challenges. The government is quite happy to kick us to the curb.

In my province, we have a chance to diversify our economy. We had that chance through the announcement that was made in 2005 by the Liberal government of the day to construct a third subsea cable that would ensure electricity would come from the mainland. That is the key to energy security, to economic opportunities going forward. That project was cancelled by the Conservative government.

Right now we are going through a very vigorous debate. The gutting of the EI system and the impact it will have on the seasonal economy that we have in Prince Edward Island are topics on the lips of everyone in my province.

Back in the last budget, when the Conservative government decided it was going to cut back the civil service, the rate of cuts across the country was 4.8%, but not in Prince Edward Island. In Prince Edward Island it was double that, so where we do have good-paying jobs, they are being cut at twice the rate they are in the rest of the country.

We are the only province without a passport office. In every province in this country, if veterans want to see their case manager, they can go to a case manager in their province, but not in mine. If immigrants want to talk to a live person about their case, they can talk to somebody in their province, but not in Prince Edward Island. If taxpayers want to talk to a live person about their income tax return, they can talk to a live person in any province in Canada, but not in mine.

There has been a lot of talk in this chamber about a certain senator, Mike Duffy. I can tell members that the appointment of Mike Duffy in Prince Edward Island was a huge insult. As far as we are concerned, out of the four seats that were set aside for Prince Edward Island, one has been given to Ontario. Every time he opens his mouth, that embarrassment is further exacerbated.

The real issue in this debate should be the quality of the appointments, not the Senate as an institution. When we see the Prime Minister appointing Senators Brazeau, Duffy and Wallin, we should rightly question his judgment. We certainly must not, as the NDP is proposing, rush out with simplistic and ill-conceived policies that would undermine the protection of Quebec and the Maritimes as well as their constitutional and historical links to the Senate.

The NDP's approach to democratic reform looks a lot like the Conservatives' approach to justice: when the only tool they have in their tool kit is a sledgehammer, everything starts to look like a rock.

As the member of Parliament for Charlottetown, I say to the NDP that the current government has done enough to undermine Prince Edward Island's status as a province. Please stop helping them.