Sean Casey

[Points of Order, June 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I think if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That the House commend and thank the RCMP for the excellent work that they do protecting Parliamentarians and all staff who work in the Parliamentary Precinct, recognize that traffic regulations and signage are important for the safety of those working on the Hill including construction personnel and visitors, and that the House reminds all members, and staff that their full compliance and cooperation is required.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 13th, 2013]

With regard to the presence of foreign governments in Canada, specifically the operation or presence of any security, intelligence or law enforcement agencies: (a) what are the names of all law agencies operating with the permission and consent of the government within the sovereign territory of Canada, broken down by country; (b) is the government aware of any law enforcement agency present or operating without the consent and permission of the government; (c) what are the police powers of foreign law enforcement within Canada; (d) does the government allow any foreign law enforcement agency the power to act alone without the presence of a designated Canadian police or peace office present; (e) does the government grant power on a case-by-case basis to an agent of foreign law enforcement to stop any resident of Canada for questioning; (f) does the government allow agents of foreign law enforcement the power to present identification or a badge within Canada for the purpose of investigating within Canada; (g) does the government currently allow agents of foreign law enforcement agency the power to cross a Canadian border either by air, sea or land in possession of a weapon; (h) does the government intend to allow agents of a foreign law enforcement agency the power to enter, leave and operate in Canada with the power to enforce Canadian law, including the power to detain, questions and arrest a citizen or permanent resident of Canada; (i) does the government intend to extend the power to agents of a foreign government law enforcement agency the right of pre-emptive arrest or pre-emptive detention without warrant, as provided in Bill S-7; (j) does the government currently have a cap on the number of agents from a foreign law enforcement agency assigned to Canada and, if so, what is the maximum number of agents allowed; and (k) does the government allow agents of a foreign law enforcement agency the authority to operate their own police vehicles, including police boats, airplanes, or any motor vehicle, within Canada, including the use of sirens or other identifiable police markings?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 12th, 2013]

With respect to correspondence from Parliamentarians addressed to the Minister of National Revenue, for the period September 1, 2010 to the present: (a) what is the amount of correspondence, initiated by Parliamentarians (MPs and Senators), that has gone unanswered (i) after three months, (ii) after six months; (b) what percentage of correspondence not answered after three months was from (i) Conservative MPs and Senators, (ii) Liberal MPs and Senators, (iii) NDP MPs, (iv) other MPs and Senators; (c) what percentage of correspondence not answered after six months was from (i) Conservative MPs and Senators, (ii) Liberal MPs and Senators, (iii) NDP MPs, (iv) other MPs and Senators; and (d) what is the average response time for correspondence received from (i) Conservative MPs or Senators, (ii) Liberal MPs or Senators, (iii) NDP MPs, (iv) other MPs or Senators?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 12th, 2013]

With respect to the Community Volunteer Income Tax Program (CVITP) in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island: (a) what is the level of support the CVITP has received from Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) over the past five years, broken down by fiscal year, including (i) the nature of the support offered each year, (ii) the cost to CRA to provide this support; and (b) does CRA have plans to reduce, eliminate, increase, or restore support to the CVITP in Charlottetown?

[Main Estimates 2013-14, June 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I did not think that I would ever say this, but I agree with much of what the hon. member has had to say, especially with respect to the check on majoritarianism. It is particularly relevant in my small province of Prince Edward Island. Since the Conservative government has come to power, we have seen the withdrawal of front-line services for immigrants, taxpayers and veterans. There needs to be some sort of a check on this majoritarianism.

However, the member did say that he has some difficulty with there being a reopening of federal-provincial negotiations with respect to Senate reform. Does he not agree, given the long delay that the government went through before sending this to the Supreme Court of Canada, that the result of the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada will inevitably be those federal-provincial discussions that the Prime Minister seems to abhor?

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I very much enjoyed the speech by the member for Markham—Unionville. He posed a question that I would like to hear the answer to.

He indicated that this motion is grounded in one of three possibilities: it is a cynical political stunt, it reflects a misunderstanding on the part of the NDP as to how government works or it reflects the New Democrats' idea of federalism.

The member left it as an open question. I would invite him to answer it.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear the hon. member's comments with respect to how this budget would purportedly help veterans, and the measures that are in it with respect to the War Measures Act.

The member would undoubtedly know that those measures are a direct result of a five-year court battle that the government waged against disabled veterans. Those amendments should actually be called the “Manuge amendments”, because they are in the budget only because of Dennis Manuge.

While these amendments would stop the clawbacks as the court ordered, they would continue to claw back welfare payments, other payments made by the Department of Veterans Affairs, old age security payments and CPP payments. That is how far this would go. It would go only as far as the court said it had to.

The member stood and said he is proud of what this budget would do with respect to veterans in the Last Post Fund; however two-thirds of all applications to the Last Post Fund were rejected before this budget and would continue to be.

He talked about the investment in the helmets to hardhats program; however the Government of Canada's investment into the helmets to hardhats program is $100,000 to a website. That program is pretty much totally funded by private industry.

My question is for the member. Is he generally proud of what this budget would do for veterans, considering that all the changes in the budget with respect to veterans were forced on the government by the court in the Dennis Manuge case?

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, here we are debating a motion for closure just after a very passionate presentation by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands with respect to how these motions for time allocation impact on individual members.

I am a new member of Parliament here, but in my previous career I had occasion to work with the hon. minister when he was general counsel with an insurance company. Back then, one of the principles by which he guided his career was that a negotiated resolution was always better than one imposed.

Given the minister's previous work history, my question for the minister is this: what measures were taken to try to come to a negotiated resolution and try to come to a compromise in terms of debate limits before this draconian measure was imposed yet again?

[Ethics, May 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it was unanimous. The Prime Minister should never have appointed his buddy from Ottawa to a Prince Edward Island seat. Mike Duffy is now on the ropes and, for reasons still unknown, a full scale cover-up is under way with deals done in secret to protect him. Through all of this, the Prime Minister has shown very poor judgment.

Will the government apologize to the people of Prince Edward Island for the insult of this senate appointment?

[Ethics, May 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I spent Saturday afternoon going door to door on Lilac Avenue and Dale Drive in Charlottetown and the feedback was unanimous: disgust and embarrassment.

The Prime Minister should never have appointed his buddy from Ottawa—