Sean Casey

[Veterans Affairs, February 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the President of the Treasury Board, a man deeply committed to wasting taxpayers' money, advocated spending tens of millions of dollars on advertising in order to tell Canadians what a great job the Conservatives are doing unravelling Canada's social safety net. Meanwhile, his friend, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, is cutting funding for veterans' funerals as the propaganda budget grows.

Why do Conservatives choose propaganda over the dignity of a veteran's funeral?

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question on an infrastructure need that is near and dear to my province.

In 2005, the Liberal government announced a plan to place a third subsea cable from Prince Edward Island to New Brunswick in order to replace the two existing cables that are at the end of their useful life. However, this project was immediately cancelled when the Conservatives came to power in 2006, and we are still waiting. We have a problem. As I said, the cables are at capacity and at the end of their useful life.

This project is important, for three reasons. First, if we were to succeed in attracting an industry to Prince Edward Island that was heavily dependent on electricity, we would not have the capacity for it. Second, Prince Edward Island produces 20% of its electricity from wind; however, if we are going to be able to feed into the grid, we need this third cable. Third, in terms of energy security, invariably we are looking at brownouts and blackouts as a result of the age and capacity of these cables.

It is a big project. It is a $90 million project, but our province cannot do it alone. We have been waiting for six years for some sort of partnership with the federal government to get this done.

The member talked a lot about the benefits of an infrastructure plan. I would like to flip that around and ask him to comment on the downside of not doing it.

[Veterans Affairs, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago the Royal Canadian Legion launched a public campaign calling on the Conservatives to increase funding to the Last Post Fund.

Yesterday, the Royal Canadian Legion got its answer. It is buried at page 382 of the estimates. It shows that the Last Post Fund will be cut next year by $1.4 million. At the same time, the Conservatives will increase their advertising spend by 10 times that amount.

Why have the Conservatives put self-promotion ahead of a dignified burial for our veterans?

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act, February 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the member indicated that we would support the bill going to committee, but I have two specific questions.

First, is there any advice he can provide the committee that would be studying the bill in terms of amendments or areas of improvement to the bill?

Second, could the member comment on the extent to which the drafters of the bill have heeded the advice of the Supreme Court of Canada? Is all of the advice contained in the Tse decision incorporated into the bill or is there room for improvement?

[Veterans Affairs, February 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of National Defence strangely claimed that he stood up for veterans against their own lawyers. Was he standing up for veterans when more than five years ago he refused to even negotiate for them? Was he standing up for veterans when he argued all the way to the Supreme Court that they should not even have the right to bring their case forward? Was he standing up for veterans when he fought them in Federal Court to deny their pensions and failed?

When the minister said that he was standing up for veterans, did he really mean he was standing up to them?

[Criminal Code, February 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-444, presented by the Conservative member for Red Deer. According to the bill, its enactment amends the Criminal Code to establish that impersonating a police officer or a public officer for the purpose of committing another offence must be considered by a court to be an aggravating circumstance for sentencing purposes.

From the outset, I want to reiterate the position put forth by the Liberal Party critic, the hon. member for Mount Royal, that this bill be sent to the justice committee for review. I would also suggest, as did my hon. colleague for Mount Royal, that the bill seems more declaratory than prescriptive. I say this not to in any way impugn the motives of the member, who raises an important issue, but rather to suggest that the effect of the bill, if passed, would be of little consequence. It is already an offence under the Criminal Code to impersonate a police or peace officer. However, I am pleased that the member resisted the temptation to constrain judicial discretion in the bill and that he further resisted the temptation to impose a mandatory minimum sentence. I want to say that the hon. member is providing an opportunity to draw the much needed attention of Parliament and the public to the fact that there are people out there who will impersonate a police officer.

The case that motivated the hon. member for Red Deer to introduce the bill relates to a very tragic and disturbing situation whereby an individual posing as a police officer pulled over a young women. He did so using police-style flashing lights and wearing what appeared to be a police uniform. I would note that this young woman of 16 reacted the way most of us would. Most of us would pull over if we saw flashing lights. The young woman regrettably placed her trust in the hands of someone who caused her great harm, both physically and emotionally. This type of event would naturally cause most of us to stop and wonder how this could happen and what we might do to remedy it in future. Therefore, I understand the motivation behind the bill and applaud the member for his effort.

As mentioned earlier, we should review this bill at committee. We should ensure that the justice committee hears from victims, law enforcement and the legal community. We need to do this to ensure that the bill meets the intended objective of the member and the House. The committee process would also provide an opportunity to highlight the issue of individuals impersonating police officers.

I took the opportunity to read previous interventions on this bill, including the speech given by the member for Mount Royal. In his speech, he correctly indicates the difficulty of deterring an individual intent on impersonating a police officer. For whatever reason, there are obviously troubled individuals who seek to become people they are not. As suggested, an individual impersonating a police officer is not likely to parse through the relevant sections of the Criminal Code to identify the sentencing regimes involved for such and such a crime. Therefore, a higher sentence in a circumstance such as this is unlikely to be a deterrent. What would be of some value is to explore the possibility of limiting or cutting off the ability of individuals to buy and sell paraphernalia that allows criminals to impersonate police officers. In particular, I speak of limiting the ability of individuals to obtain flashing lights and police-like uniforms.

I want to return to the point about public awareness, which to me is the value of the bill. It is important that governments and police at all levels work together and encourage public awareness. We need to tell Canadians that it is okay to ask questions when pulled over or when otherwise engaged by people presenting themselves as police officers. Canadians should know that it is okay to be cautious. It is okay to request a badge number or to call 911 if something seems to be seriously amiss.

I commend the initiative put forth by the hon. member for Red Deer. I would also suggest that in some respects, he is setting himself apart from his Conservative colleagues.

Time and time again, we have seen a right wing ideology emerge in the private members' bills of the Conservative back bench. These so-called tough on crime pet projects are approved by the Prime Minister's Office and the Minister of Justice. Most of them, except the measure before the House today, are rooted in ideology not in reality.

Conservatives have a very loose relationship with facts. They have an even more distant relationship with reality when it comes to crime. Far too often, Conservatives use the Criminal Code as a fundraising tool. Most of us would agree that we must deal with crime in our communities. We must continue to send the message to criminals that there are consequences to committing crime. However, Canadians want a justice system that is evidence-based, cost effective and focused on crime prevention. Therefore, while most members of the Conservative caucus have an approach to crime that lacks evidence and facts, Canadians want and deserve evidence-based policy.

Recent data provided by Statistics Canada tell us that crime rates are going down in Canada. Serious crime, in particular, is down across the board.

Justice must be firm, fair and proportionate. It cannot, however, be arbitrary and punitive. Nonetheless, the government continues to introduce bills that run contrary to evidence and facts. One of the more egregious aspects of their so-called crime agenda is their wilful failure to make a proper connection between addiction, mental health problems, generational poverty and resulting criminal activity. We can never excuse crime but we cannot ignore the role, for example, that poverty and addictions play as key factors in the commission of crime.

The real danger, it seems to me, with these one-off crime bills is the damage they cause to the coherence of the Criminal Code. It is simply not good public policy to cherry-pick the Criminal Code. Changes to the Criminal Code should never be made to satisfy the political interests of the Conservative caucus. Furthermore, the Criminal Code should never be used as a fundraising tool by Conservative operatives. Unfortunately, however, this is what is happening in Canada under the Conservative government.

I will close by saying to the hon. member for Red Deer that this bill is an exception in this regard. I believe that the issue he is raising in this legislation is worthy of review and study, and I salute him for his effort.

[Veterans Affairs, February 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am here to stand up for veterans. I am here to stand up for the veterans who the government fought for five years in court. If it is not bad enough that it fought this group of disabled veterans for five years, there are two more class action lawsuits that it will not negotiate. It will not sit down. It is waiting for these guys to also rack up a great big bill that would either have to be paid by the veterans or the taxpayers.

What will it be? Will the government sit down with this group of disabled veterans or treat them like the ones in the Manuge case?

[Veterans Affairs, February 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's phony performance by the Minister of National Defence was farcical. Bravely answering a planted question, he pretended to be outraged by the legal costs resulting from the government's class action settlement with veterans.

Does he really believe that Canadians forget that it was the Conservative government that dragged disabled veterans through the courts for five long years in the first place?

How much of the legal costs, all caused by the government, will it agree to pay, or will it stick the veterans with the whole bill?

[Veterans Affairs, February 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Charlottetown had two big snow jobs this weekend, one from mother nature and the other from the Minister of Veterans Affairs.

Backpedalling from closing nine district offices, the minister hatched a plan. He came to P.E.I. under the cover of night. His mere presence, unannounced, amounted to a grim reaper moment, unnerving employees wondering what further misery he was bringing.

True to form, as the minister of symbolism, he announced that he would open a wicket line for vets, calling it an “access office”. Would the minister tell the House if his new wicket will include case managers to help veterans?

[Business of Supply, February 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my question to the hon. member specifically relates to the potential for delay. We are coming up on a critical period in terms of the budget cycle nationally. The end of the fiscal year is upon us. The main estimates and the budget are coming up in fairly short order. If the term of the Parliamentary Budget Officer is allowed to lapse and there is a gap, I would invite my hon. colleague's comments on the impact that would have on transparency in this critical period.