Sean Casey

[Petitions, October 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of several residents of Prince Edward Island who are concerned about the proposed changes to the employment insurance program. In particular, they are concerned with the lack of consultation with respect to the fact that the changes will force people to drive two hours per day in rural areas in the wintertime at risk to their personal safety and that the changes will force employers to hire workers who are not adequately trained, which will further punish areas that are already economically disadvantaged.

The petitioners call on the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development to cancel the proposed changes.

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear the member talk about knowing about investment and business. The member would know that probably the greatest enemy to investment and business is uncertainty. Given the government's promise to clarify in legislation the concept of net benefit, an uncertainty exists that is affecting business and our economy as a result of inaction.

What explanation can the member offer for the inaction in the fulfilment of the promise made by the government to clarify the definition of net benefit in the legislation? What is the explanation for the delay?

[Service Canada, October 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Prince Edward Island is the only province without a passport office. Prince Edward Island is the only province without a citizenship and immigration office. Prince Edward Island is the only province without a district office to serve veterans. Prince Edward Island is the only province with no counter service at Revenue Canada. Prince Edward Island will be one province severely punished by changes to employment insurance.

Would it be too much to ask for someone, anyone in the cabinet over there, to stand up to the Prime Minister and defend Prince Edward Island?

[Business of Supply, September 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, during the course of this debate we have spent a fair bit of time talking about people on a first name basis and hypothetical people. I want to talk about Roger Byers, who has given me permission to use his last name. He is a real person who lives in a real apartment on Hillsborough Street in downtown Charlottetown.

Roger Byers is a frequent user of the EI system. He is from Atlantic Canada but he is not lazy. He has two jobs. One job is full-time for six months of the year as a labourer for the city of Charlottetown. Another job is part-time, year round, $10 an hour for 20 hours a week at a bingo hall. For six months of the year this man works 60 hours a week. At the end of his term every fall he goes on EI, and under the present rules the clawback from his $10 an hour job at the bingo hall is $6. However, the clawback is now $100 because of the changes.

I invite my colleague opposite to look in the camera and explain to Roger Byers from Charlottetown how these measures are fair to him.

[Veterans Affairs, September 24th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives spent $750,000 unsuccessfully fighting disabled veterans in court to justify clawing back their pensions. Disabled RCMP vets have also sued to stop the government from doing the very same thing to them.

This morning, the Minister of National Defence spoke to an association of military ombudsmen about fair treatment and support for the defence family.

Did the minister explain to this international audience that the Conservatives have learned their lesson or will they put disabled and retired police officers through the same grief?

[Business of Supply, September 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to be able to pose a question for the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca. Being from Prince Edward Island, I know many of the well-paying jobs for Islanders are also in Fort McMurray. Certainly the member referred to Newfoundlanders, but there are a fair number of Islanders there as well.

The member talked passionately about the strength and the potential in our country and in the various regions. Coming from an area as rich as Fort McMurray, I suppose it is easier to have such optimism. Here in the Liberal Party we believe in a prosperous Canada but a prosperity that is profoundly shared. I regret to say that we are not feeling that sharing in Prince Edward Island. Some of the other well-paying jobs that are actually in Prince Edward Island are in the civil service. When the government cut the civil service, it cut it by 5% across the country but 10% in Prince Edward Island.

My question for the member comes back to the motion. The speech was a very good speech about national unity and about not dividing the country. What is wrong with having the first ministers of this country in the same room to compare notes and to try to find solutions? What is wrong with bringing them all together? That is what the motion is about and that is what I would like to hear the member talk about.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, September 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives spent close to $800,000 to fight the veterans represented by Dennis Manuge. RCMP veterans are in the same position. They have also had to give up part of their pension.

Do the Conservatives intend to waste time and money dragging RCMP veterans before the courts, or are they going to do the right thing and include them in the discussions that are currently taking place on this issue?

[Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, September 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the slack being offered to me as a result of my juniority.

As the hon. member went through the list of perceived wrongs of previous Liberal governments, the one that did stick out for me, not because I was here because I was not, was the national child care policy. I remember working very hard on the leadership campaign of Ken Dryden, who introduced a national child care policy. While I cannot speak to that long list, and I am sure I will not be allowed to do so, I do have a distinct recollection of that.

With regard to the direct question, the member absolutely does make a point. The suggestion in the bill that the undue hardship defence be eliminated is quite simply wrong-headed, and judges should be trusted to exercise their discretion based on the evidence they hear in the courtroom, and that defence should continue to be available.

I would also point out that it seems as though the justification for the removal of that is that there is a fine option program and defenders could be allowed to work it off. A fine option program does not exist in all provinces, so it will be available to some but not to all.

[Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, September 17th, 2012]

I have a couple of points arising from that, Mr. Speaker. On Prince Edward Island there is an institution called the Addictions Research Centre, and one of its roles is to examine and study the link between addictions and crime. That is something that would provide evidence and research to that point. The government has decided to close it.

The other point I want to make with regard to evidence is that under this scheme, in order for the revenues generated from the victims of crime surcharge to fund programs, it is necessary for the crimes to be reported, for them to be prosecuted and for there to be successful conviction and collection.

If the government were serious about funding programs for victims of crime, it would not make them contingent on all of those things but would fund them outright.

[Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, September 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. It is true that this bill will make poverty problems in our society bigger. It will not reduce the crime rate, and the cycle of poverty will continue.

I am in complete agreement with the premise of the question. I share the hon. member's concerns with respect to the removal of judicial discretion. There are fine people appointed as judges in this country and they should be allowed to do their jobs. This bill would remove an element of judicial discretion that is critical in assessing the individual circumstances of each offender and would only serve to worsen the circumstances of those most vulnerable.