Sean Casey

[Petitions, May 2nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of several residents of Atlantic Canada who are concerned about the decision with respect to the Experimental Lakes Area.

These petitioners call on the government to recognize the importance of the Experimental Lakes Area to the government's mandate to study, preserve and protect aquatic ecosystems, and to reverse the decision to close the ELA research station.

[Criminal Code, April 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the debate on Bill C-394 and the issue of gang recruitment. I had the privilege of sitting in on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights while it considered this legislation, and I will expand on some of the issues discussed in those meetings.

I speak, I believe, for all members of the Liberal Party when I say that I want to deter youths from joining gangs. Indeed, if this legislation served any preventive end, we would gladly endorse it. However, not only does Bill C-394 fail to address the fundamental reasons that youths join gangs—the root causes, if I dare say that—but it also would employ a mandatory minimum penalty, which the Liberal Party opposes in principle.

I raise the root causes of youth gang involvement as an issue, because the government acknowledges the problems but it fails to provide solutions either in Bill C-394 or elsewhere. For example, the website of the Department of Public Safety lists risk factors relative to youth gang involvement and includes the following as major risks: limited attachment to the community, over-reliance on anti-social peers, poor parental supervision, alcohol and drug abuse, poor educational or employment potential and a need for recognition and belonging, yet Bill C-394 does not address any of these. In fact, the government is missing in action on things like youth unemployment and access to education, things it could take proactive measures to correct.

With regard to violence among aboriginals, public safety's website explains:

The increase in gang violence and crime in some Aboriginal communities has been attributed in part to an increasing youth population, inadequate housing, drug and alcohol abuse, a high unemployment rate, lack of education, poverty, poor parenting skills, the loss of culture, language and identity and a sense of exclusion.

As Idle No More and similar movements demonstrate, the government is out of touch with the needs of aboriginal communities. If it took those needs seriously, we could begin the process of reconciliation. We could address the social problems plaguing first nations. We could give aboriginal youth access to education and opportunity. Instead, by ignoring these problems, we further the cycle of despair that makes gang life attractive to youth.

It is interesting to have this discussion in light of the Conservatives' attack ad on the member for Papineau. They criticize him for being a camp counsellor, a rafting instructor and a drama teacher. If we want kids to feel included in their communities, to have a sense of belonging and purpose, we ought to have more camp counsellors, more rafting instructors, more teachers seeking to make a difference in the life of a child, not attacking these sorts of things as useless pursuits unbecoming of a leader. However, the government buries its head in the sand and refuses to acknowledge that preventing crime involves addressing tough issues beyond the Criminal Code.

I can assure the House that youths are not joining gangs because they believe their activities are lawful, nor do gangs recruit because they believe it is legal to do so. This is the problem with the Conservative approach to crime. Everything is a matter for the criminal law, and every incident provides a pretext to legislate.

As was said by the member for Toronto Centre, “when the only tool we have in our toolbox is a sledgehammer, everything starts to look like a rock”. For Conservatives, criminal law is all about punishment. By adding new offences and penalties and, in some cases, duplicating existing offences and penalties, the Conservatives attempt to regulate on the back end, after the crimes have been committed. This ignores the fact that there are other elements to criminal justice such as prevention, rehabilitation of the offender and reintegration into society, let alone addressing the underlying causes of crime.

As I mentioned, I may be accused of perhaps committing sociology on this. Let there be no mistake. Bill C-394 deals with gang recruitment only on the back end once it has occurred. I submit that by then, it is way too late.

As I have indicated, this issue is already addressed by the Criminal Code. Former justice minister Anne McLellan said in this place, upon the introduction of what is currently in the Criminal Code that we are seeking to amend today, the following:

We know that successful recruitment enhances the threat posed to society by criminal organizations. It allows them to grow and to more effectively achieve their harmful criminal objectives. Those who act as recruiters for criminal organizations contribute to these ends both when they recruit for specific crimes and when they recruit simply to expand the organization's human capital.

In other words, we knew when introducing what was already in the code that recruitment was an issue, is an issue, and we put in place offence language that captured it. Thus, while the regime in the code at present may not use the word “recruitment”, the intention is clear in the record and there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that prosecutions for recruitment are not happening because of some legislative loophole.

Indeed, as it is proposed, the bill will actually add to the problem by putting in a mandatory minimum penalty. International studies corroborate what even Justice Canada has found, that mandatory minimums do not deter crime. Among other things, mandatory minimums remove prosecutorial and judicial discretion. They lead to prison overcrowding. They lead to more crimes in prison and more crimes outside of prison. They contribute to a clogging of the courts, resulting in accused persons being set free. They are, as I indicated in my question to the member earlier, constitutionally suspect. Mandatory minimums have prejudicial consequences, particularly on aboriginal peoples and minority communities.

I know colleagues in the NDP have argued that the mandatory minimum in this bill is light and, therefore, acceptable, in their view. We take a different approach, which is that there is no need for adding something that could lead, in the right fact situation, to this legislation being overturned. This just is not smart legislating.

However, if I were to address the Conservatives' inability to legislate intelligently, I would certainly run out of time. In fact, we might be here all night. Instead, I will focus on one shortcoming relevant here, which is the failure to vet bills for constitutionality. Much has been made of that in the House and, in particular, by my colleague, the member for Mount Royal, of the obligation of the Minister of Justice, under the Department of Justice Act, to review government legislation for compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights.

The minister, time and time again, has said that his bills are constitutional, yet time and time again the provisions are struck down and the government is called to account for its failure to comply with the supreme law of the land. Not only does legislating in such a reckless way risk the statute being struck, it also clogs up the courts with challenges that could have been avoided. It also costs the taxpayers, who bear the burden of defending the government. For a government that claims accountability, why is it not accountable to the charter and its statutory obligations? For a government that prides itself on fiscal restraint, why is it wasting taxpayer money?

One may wonder why I am raising this issue when the obligation for a charter check is only on government bills, not on private members' bills like Bill C-394. The answer is that the government has been increasingly using private members' bills to legislate through the back door. If this bill was so important, why was it not included in the omnibus crime bill, Bill C-10? Why has the minister not introduced it on his own accord? Surely, if it were so necessary, the minister could have made this change to a government bill and it would have passed through the House much faster. Indeed, by using the private member bill route, the government minimizes House debate and circumvents the required charter review.

We must address the cycle of poverty and homelessness that affects too many children in the country. Where is the government on that? We must say to ourselves that if children are to be the priority, maybe we need more camp councillors, rafting instructors and drama teachers. What they do not need is a government that says it cares, throws a Band-Aid on the problem that will not hold and then pats itself on the back for having done anything at all. Bill C-394 would be just that, and that is why the Liberal Party will vote no on this bill.

[Criminal Code, April 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the biggest single problem the Liberal Party has with the bill is the introduction of yet another mandatory minimum sentence. The introduction of mandatory minimum sentences through private members' bills, of course, avoids the necessity of having a review done by Department of Justice officials with respect to their constitutionality.

We know that mandatory minimums have been struck down as unconstitutional in this country. My question for the member is the same one I posed to him at committee: What measures has he taken to ensure that the bill will be constitutional, in view of the decisions that have already been made with respect to the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences?

[Last Post Fund, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak today. To begin, I would like to congratulate the member for Random—Burin—St. George's and thank her for her work on this file. This is a very important motion. It is very important that this matter be debated publicly because we were not able to debate it in committee.

I am very pleased to participate in the debate. Part of the reason is that for some time now, I have actually had a motion before the veterans committee. The minute we tried to introduce the motion to do a root and branch study of the Last Post Fund before the veterans committee, it went in camera. Now here we are discussing this in public. I thank the member for Random—Burin—St. George's for ensuring that we are able to do this.

Imagine my surprise, when just a few minutes ago, we heard the parliamentary secretary talk about how the minister is directing a continuing review of the Last Post Fund. That is the very thing in the motion before the veterans committee that is not worthy of public discussion.

I have said on many occasions that the government places more value on symbolism than on substance. This choice of symbolism, spin and propaganda is done to convince Canadians that Conservatives are doing something on veterans issues. This is evident in the empty measures recently announced in the budget, to which I will return to later.

I want to highlight, for the benefit of the House and for Canadians, the true record of the Conservative government with respect to veterans. It is a long rap sheet. It is a record of blaming others, spin and political opportunism. Here are just a few examples.

It was the Conservatives who made the decision to interfere with the work of the independent Privacy Commissioner, who was conducting an audit of the department and investigating breaches of privacy, including the privacy of a decorated veteran, Captain Sean Bruyea.

It was the Conservatives who interfered and halted the work of the independent veterans ombudsman's investigation of breaches of privacy, notably the Conservatives' snooping into medical records of veterans who spoke out against their policies.

It was the Conservatives who removed a decorated veteran, Harold Leduc, from the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. The only reason they did this was that he was an outspoken advocate in his defence of veterans, and more often than not, he granted the benefit of the doubt to the veterans appearing before him.

It was the minister's decision to spend millions of dollars in departmental funding on propaganda, media backdrops, photo ops and other communications to the benefit only of the Conservatives, all the while ignoring the needs of veterans and chopping front-line services.

It was the Conservatives who dragged disabled veterans into the Federal Court over their disability pensions. It was the Conservatives who decided to fight them in court for five years over money they had earned and deserved. The Conservatives lost that case, but only after the minister spent $750,000 fighting the very people the Conservatives go to great lengths pretending to care about.

They did not learn much. There are two class action suits presently wending their way through the courts. All too often, the government's response to valid complaints from veterans is “Have your lawyer call mine”.

It was the Conservatives who shut down local Veterans Affairs district offices. It was these offices that provided a place where veterans could meet caseworkers in person to discuss the issues they are facing, including pensions and benefits. In the case of my province, veterans who are being case managed have had their case managers moved out of the province.

It was the Conservatives who have been and are still in the process of firing hundreds of employees from Veterans Affairs Canada, and they are not done yet. In the report on planning and priorities, issued last week, it shows that over the next 23 months, another 319 positions will be cut. That is 10% of the workforce at a time when they claim that veterans' services will not be affected.

These cuts are happening at a time when veterans' needs are actually increasing. Even the Auditor General has raised alarm bells about the impact of these cuts to veterans' services.

This is the Conservatives' record with respect to veterans. It is a record of symbolism over substance. It is a record where talking points trump substance, where spin trumps truth.

The motion before the House was not brought by accident. It is not something that was created in a vacuum. It was brought before the House because the Conservative government has failed in its duty to support the real needs of veterans and has failed to provide financial support for their burial costs.

Today we have heard the Conservatives talk about how great they are, because they made an announcement about the Last Post Fund in the recent budget. As a result, they intend to oppose the motion. That is a disgrace.

Do the Conservatives know that their colleagues, successive Conservative ministers, refused to implement changes to the Last Post Fund recommended over three years ago by officials in their own department? It was the Department of Veterans Affairs, over three years ago, that recommended changes to the Last Post Fund to expand access to financial support at the passing of veterans. For three years, the Conservatives did nothing. Yet today they are beating their chests as if they saved the day with changes to the Last Post Fund.

As we heard earlier in the debate, there has been very little in the way of detail. It is clear that these changes were made without consultation with the Last Post Fund, the very organization that administers the fund.

We heard the parliamentary secretary describe this as a responsible and effective program. Do the Conservatives think Canadians will forget that they were responsible for the rejection of 66% of all requests for funding to help bury our veterans? Do the Conservatives think Canadians will forget that for years, successive veterans ombudsmen have called for changes to the Last Post Fund to help veterans? They did nothing. They ignored the ombudsmen's recommendations. Do the Conservatives think Canadians will forget that it was their government that ignored recommendations made by the Royal Canadian Legion for changes to the Last Post Fund in the years 2008, 2010 and 2012? They did nothing. They ignored the legion. For years the Liberal Party was calling for expanding access to the Last Post Fund. The Conservatives did nothing. For years they ignored the veterans community, and only after overwhelming pressure to finally do something, they added one paragraph in the 2013 budget and now claim to have solved the problem. That is false. It is a ruse. The proposed changes outlined in the budget provide little in the way of detail.

However, I am grateful to my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore for his co-operation and the great work he has done. He was able to obtain a briefing and some information. We are now led to believe that access to the fund, which is now very limited, which was the fundamental complaint, has not been changed, as it should have been. Expanding access to the fund was the primary issue for the ombudsman and the legion. The Conservatives failed them and failed veterans. Not one veteran currently excluded from accessing the burial fund will have access to the fund under the proposed changes announced in budget 2013.

The members opposite may think that their Minister of Finance handed them political cover to go out and brag about how great they are helping veterans, but the truth tells a different story.

Canadians are tired of spin and talking points. They want real action from the government but are getting nothing. The Conservatives have failed veterans, and we are here to tell Canadians the truth.

[Petitions, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of hundreds of Prince Edward Islanders concerned about changes being made by Canada Post to post offices across the country without adequate consultation, as is required under the Canada postal service charter.

As an example, one of these changes requires that letters being sent from Charlottetown to Summerside go through Halifax. Therefore, the petitioners are urging the Government of Canada to instruct Canada Post to halt its plans to downgrade public post offices and to consult with the public and others to develop a better process in this regard.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 15th, 2013]

With respect to advertising for the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) for the years 2003-2013 inclusive: (a) what was the advertising budget, broken down by year; (b) how many different advertising campaigns were created or used, broken down by year; (c) how many different advertisements were produced or used, broken down by year; (d) what was the total cost (design, production, airtime, printing, etc.) for the advertising campaigns in (b); (e) what was the total cost (production, airtime, printing, etc.) for the advertisements in (c); (f) what was the cost to produce the television, radio, print, or online spots, broken down individually by advertisement; (g) what companies produced the advertisements, broken down individually by advertisement; (h) what was the cost of television airtime for the advertisements, broken down individually by advertisement; (i) what television channels were the advertisements aired on; (j) what was the cost of online airtime for the advertisements, broken down individually by advertisement; (k) what online platforms were the advertisements aired on, broken down by free media (i.e. posting to YouTube) and fee media (i.e. online commercials); (l) what was the cost of ad space in newspapers and other print publications, broken down individually by advertisement; and (m) what programs or divisions of CRA were responsible for (i) overseeing/coordinating production of the advertisements, (ii) financing the production of the advertisements, (iii) financing the purchase of airtime both on television and online, and print space in newspapers and other print publications?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 15th, 2013]

With respect to staffing cuts at Canada Revenue Agency (CRA): (a) how many positions at CRA have been cut as part of the government’s plan to eliminate 19,200 jobs from the federal public service as of February 1, 2013, broken down by the (i) number of actual positions cut, (ii) number of full-time equivalent (FTE) positions cut, (iii) divisions where these cuts have been made, including the total number of positions and FTEs cut from each division, (iv) locations of these cuts across the country; (b) are 3,008 FTE positions still the estimated number of cuts to be made at CRA as part of the plan mentioned in (a); (c) in which divisions are the 3,008 FTE positions, or revised target number, anticipated to take place; (d) are any auditors in the Aggressive International Tax Planning (AITP) division to be cut as part of the estimate in (b); (e) how many auditor positions at CRA have been cut as of February 1, 2013; (f) how many auditor positions have been cut from the AITP division as of February 1, 2013; (g) how many auditors were working in AITP before cutbacks, if any, took place; (h) how many auditors are currently working in AITP; and (i) how many auditors were working in AITP, broken down by fiscal year, for each of the past five years, including the current fiscal year?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 15th, 2013]

With respect to staffing at the Canada Revenue Agency, what is the number of personnel, sorted by job title and broken down by year, working on aggressive international tax planning for the years 2003-2013 inclusive?

[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.