Sean Casey

[National Philanthropy Day Act, March 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have the opportunity to speak this evening on the bill before the House of Commons to establish a national philanthropy day.

One of the outstanding qualities of Canadians is our willingness to extend our sense of purpose beyond our immediate families and friends and to engage the wider community. We do so to make our communities, provinces and, by extension, our country a better place. As well, honouring the contributions of millions of Canadians is an important function of Parliament.

It should be noted that there have been similar bills introduced that would have recognized the value of giving and volunteering. Unfortunately, those efforts were derailed due to multiple prorogations and two dissolutions of Parliament. At the start of the 41st Parliament last June, the Senate, under the leadership of Senator Terry Mercer from Nova Scotia, reintroduced this bill in support of national philanthropy day. I want to congratulate and thank Senator Mercer for reintroducing his bill and the hon. member for Halifax West for guiding it through the House of Commons.

Canadians may wonder why there is a need to designate November 15 of each year as a day to celebrate and acknowledge the efforts of Canadians who give of their time and money. It is simple. It is important that we recognize this activity so as to encourage its continuance and to set an example for others in the hope that more and more Canadians will give of themselves.

My colleague, Senator Mercer, when speaking in the Senate on this bill, captured quite well the purpose of this legislation. I realize that this quote has been read into the record already by my colleague from Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, but it bears repeating. I am quoting Senator Mercer, who stated:

—the statistics bear out the impact of the voluntary sector. In Canada, over two billion volunteer hours are given, which is the equivalent of over one million full-time jobs. What better way to say thank you to those volunteers and those in the charitable sector than by having the federal government officially recognize, by enshrining it in legislation, the tremendous impact this has on our society? I can think of no better way to say thank you.

I certainly agree with those sentiments.

A couple of years ago I had the opportunity to listen to an excellent speech given by our then newly installed Governor General, the right hon. David Johnston, a speech, I might add, that he gave in my home province of Prince Edward Island as part of the prestigious Symons Lecture on the state of Confederation. The Governor General spoke about philanthropy and volunteerism as a cornerstone of community life. He stated:

On October 1st, I delivered an installation speech entitled, “A Smart and Caring Nation: A Call to Service.”...

I outlined three pillars to achieve this vision: supporting families and children; reinforcing learning and innovation; and encouraging philanthropy and volunteerism.

This is the vision I suggest for 2014, and together we should ask, why not?

The Governor General went on to state that it would be his goal during his time as Governor General to highlight the value of family, education and the importance of philanthropy and volunteerism. He also took the opportunity to quote from Sir Winston Churchill, who said:

We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give.

Our Governor General gave a wonderful and inspiring speech that day to a large crowd at the Confederation Centre of the Arts.

Statistics Canada tells us that charity and philanthropic endeavours vary from province to province. The data indicate, and I am quite proud of this, that the people of Atlantic Canada are a generous lot. The top three provinces in terms of giving are Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.

One of the benefits of speaking to this bill is the opportunity to highlight a few people, and there are many back home, who have done so much to support and help our community. These people have seen much success in life and in business, and have given much back in return.

I want to salute, in particular, the following people. Many of them have given generously to our educational institutions back on Prince Edward Island, the University of Prince Edward Island and Holland College and our major hospital, the Queen Elizabeth Hospital.

I will start with Mary-Jean Irving and the Irving family, who have enjoyed substantial success with Master Packaging and Indian River Farms. They are very generous donors. In addition, Robert Irving, who although not an Islander, has employed thousands of Islanders through Cavendish Farms and is extremely generous in giving back to the community.

Danny and Martie Murphy have been tremendous donors, especially to children through the Oak Acres Children's Camp and also the Alzheimer Society. They have a big, beautiful home in Stanhope that they open to the community for numerous and sundry fundraising events, true pillars in our community.

The late Harry MacLauchlan and his wife Marjorie are veritable institutions within the province of Prince Edward Island. Harry MacLauchlan, during his life, would greet people, regardless of the weather, the conditions and his spirit, in the same manner with “It's a great day.” It could be 20 below with the wind chill and blowing a gale and if Harry saw anyone, he would say “Great day”. That was the way he carried himself through life and he always gave back to his community. He was an extremely generous donor. The hockey rink at the University of Prince Edward Island bears his name and the Queen Elizabeth Hospital would not be what it is but for Harry MacLauchlan.

Fred and Shirley Hyndman show their passionate support of history, heritage, the university and the hospital.

One of my former law partners, Alan Scales and his good wife, Patsy, along with his brother David and Doris Scales, have forever been generous donors in my community of Charlottetown.

Canadians are generous and compassionate people. We founded and built a country based on the idea of shared responsibility and shared prosperity. Not all Canadians benefit from our collective and individual success. For far too many Canadians, life can be difficult. For them, poverty is a sad reality passed from generation to generation.

The role of government in this regard is to provide equality of opportunity to give a hand up, not a hand out. We do this so all Canadians might share in our prosperity and live and raise their families with a sense of dignity. The role of civil society, of volunteerism and of philanthropy is to complement those efforts. Philanthropy and volunteerism do make a difference in the lives of people.

In closing, I once again want to thank my Liberal colleagues in the Senate and in the House for introducing and moving this important legislation through Parliament.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 26th, 2012]

With regard to government advertising: (a) which departments or agencies were engaged in any television advertisement by a department or agency of the government during the television broadcast of any Super Bowl game from Super Bowl XL (2006) through Super Bowl XLVI (2012) inclusively; (b) what were the stated objectives and purpose of each advertisement; (c) when did each advertisement run; (d) what was the cost of each advertisement; (e) which private companies were involved in the conception, design, and production of the ads; (f) were any advertising contracts sole-sourced and, if so, which ones and why; (g) what was the target audience of each campaign; (h) in which television markets did they appear; (i) what analysis was or will be done on the effectiveness of any such advertisement; (j) who undertook or will undertake that analysis, and at what cost; and (k) which of these advertisements failed to meet the stated objectives of the campaign, and why?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 26th, 2012]

With respect to the television advertisements “Our Veterans Matter”, “The Pride of Our Country”, “Veterans’ Week Vignette”, and other 2011 Veterans’ Week television spots: (a) how many different advertisements were produced or used to promote Veterans’ Week in 2011; (b) what was the total cost (production, airtime, etc.) for the advertisements in (a); (c) what was the cost to produce the television spots, broken down individually by advertisement; (d) what company or companies produced the advertisements, broken down individually by advertisement; (e) what was the cost of television airtime for the advertisements, broken down individually by advertisement; (f) on which television channels were the advertisements aired; (g) what was the cost of online airtime for the advertisements, broken down individually by advertisement; (h) on which online platforms were the advertisements aired, broken down by free media (e.g., posting to YouTube) and fee media (e.g., online commercials); and (i) which programs or divisions of Veterans Affairs Canada 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?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 26th, 2012]

With regard to translation services: (a) how many contracts were entered into since January 1, 2011, for translation from a non-official language into an official language by (i) the Privy Council Office, (ii) the Prime Minister’s Office, (iii) the Office of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, (iv) the Office of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, (v) the Department of Citizenship and Immigration; and (b) for each contract, what was the (i) cost, (ii) duration, (iii) scope, (iv) translation service provider, (v) source language, (vi) target language?

[Old Age Security, March 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, there are many seniors in the country who are dependent on provincial welfare payments for their basic needs. However, when they hit age 65, the federal system is more generous than many of the provincial systems with respect to old age security and guaranteed income supplement. Therefore, many seniors presently living in poverty look forward to the day that they turn 65 years of age.

This change will have a debilitating effect on society's most vulnerable. For those people who are presently living in poverty and who look forward to the day of hitting the age of 65, they will either be left completely without an income, if the gap is allowed to occur, or remain on the provincial rolls for an additional two years.

The change will have a devastating effect disproportionately on low income women and on those living with disabilities. Those in our society who are now the most vulnerable, those who are now living in poverty, they will be the ones who will bear the cost of this change.

[Old Age Security, March 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, there has been absolutely no indication that there has been consultation with the provinces or with the business community with respect to this proposed change. This appeared to be some sort of a pronouncement from an alpine perch. It will, undoubtedly, result in either another download to the provinces or a huge gap for people who are presently supported by welfare systems in the various provinces to the age of 65, until the age of 67, where there will be absolutely no social safety net.

The other thing I would point out is that, for those people who are fortunate enough to be working as seniors at advanced age, this will have significant effect with respect to private disability plans as well. To the best of my knowledge, there is absolutely no indication that industry or the provinces were consulted with respect to this and it appears inevitable that they will likely be the ones forced to bear the costs.

[Old Age Security, March 26th, 2012]

moved:

Motion No. 307

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize the contributions that the baby boom generation has made in building Canada; (b) affirm its support for the Old Age Security program; (c) commit to maintaining the sixty-five year qualifying age contained in section 3 of the Old Age Security Act; and (d) recognize that Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement, a program designed to help low income seniors, are inextricably linked and ensure that they continue to have identical ages of eligibility.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the matter of old age security. I would like to acknowledge the very hard and determined work of the hon. member for York West, the Liberal Party critic for pensions. My motion is a direct response to a petition signed by tens of thousands of Canadians who are troubled by the decision of the Prime Minister to change the age of eligibility for old age security.

I will outline a number of facts today.

A little under a year ago, someone made a promise. He made that promise during the last election. Here is what he said, “We're not going to cut the rate of increase to transfers for health care, education and pensions. That is job number one.

It was the Prime Minister who made that promise. It is important to note when the Prime Minister made that promise. Was it when he called Canada a northern welfare state? Was it when he said that Atlantic Canadians suffer from a culture of defeat? Was it when he said that he would not touch income trusts? Was it when he advocated for a two tier health care system? Did he say it when, as part of his firewall plan, he called for Alberta to set up its own pension plan and, in doing so, rejected the very notion of a national system of pensions? Or, was it when he said, “providing for the poor is a provincial, not a federal responsibility”? No, the Prime Minister made the promise not to touch pensions on April 11, 2011, just three weeks before election day.

Two months ago, the Prime Minister announced in Switzerland that he intended to institute massive changes to old age security and, in consequence, mandate massive changes to the guaranteed income supplement as well. In less than 10 months, after getting his majority government, he broke his promise to seniors and future generations of pensioners.

Here is another fact. According to the Canada Revenue Agency, almost 4.4 million Canadians are in receipt of old age security. The vast majority of those seniors live pension cheque to pension cheque. Those of us here, I would suggest, will not need to worry about our retirement. We will not be living pension cheque to pension cheque. None of us here in this chamber will depend on the old age security to maintain a decent level of living when we retire. However, for millions of Canadians, the old age security and guaranteed income supplement provides them with a pension to live, not in comfort, but to meet the basic needs of food, heating oil and medication.

The Prime Minister gave his word and then broke his promise and it will be most vulnerable who will suffer. It will not be members here, but women, low income seniors and persons with disabilities.

Here is another fact. A report issued by the Prime Minister's own government tells us that current seniors whose income is less than $20,000 rely heavily on old age security as well as the guaranteed income supplement. The two are linked. The government will change the age for old age security to age 67 or higher. What will happen to the guaranteed income supplement? Changing the age of eligibility from 65 to 67 or beyond also means that the GIS will be affected as people cannot obtain the GIS unless they are in receipt of old age security.

On Friday afternoon I received a frantic letter from the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, sent on an urgent basis, asking me to consider an amendment to remove any reference to the age of 65 in the motion before the House. Of course, the minister's suggestion is completely unacceptable. The Liberal Party will not accept any change that will raise the age of eligibility for old age security, period.

The present pension system works, it is not broken and any suggestion otherwise is simply not true. The current pension system provides all Canadians access to old age security and further provides those seniors who have little or no income beyond old age security the guaranteed income supplement.

I know many seniors whose entire income is based on the present system. To suggest, as the Prime Minister has, that future seniors already living week to week can now suddenly invest that extra $10 they might have into a RRSP or some other private investment plan is, to be generous, a joke. However, it is not a laughing matter. It is very offensive.

We also know that women disproportionately rely on the guaranteed income supplement more than men. Twenty-four per cent of all women who are senior citizens qualify for and rely on the GIS.

A change of two, three or four years in eligibility may seem insignificant to us but to people who continue to live in a cycle of poverty waiting an extra two to four years is a lifetime. Yet, the government is spending billions on prisons, billions on fighter jets, adding new members of Parliament to the House, all the while unravelling our pension system.

However, this all makes sense when we read what the Prime Minister once said, “providing for the poor is a provincial, not a federal responsibility”.

Furthermore, the argument presented by the Prime Minister to justify this broken promise is anchored in the idea that old age security is suddenly unsustainable. When did he first come to that revelation? Did he think that pensions were unsustainable last April when he promised not to touch them? We must remember what he said. He said, “We're not going to cut the rate of increase to transfers for health care, education and pensions. That is job number one”.

Edward Whitehouse of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and an international expert on retirement and pensions said, “There is no pressing financial or fiscal need to increase pensions ages in the foreseeable future”.

Jack Mintz, the government's own research director for the working group on retirement income, said this past January:

The overall view that was taken about our pension system in total, when you look at Old Age Security, and the Guaranteed Income Supplement, as well as Canada Pension Plan, was that it is relatively financially sustainable.

Last April, the Prime Minister promised to leave pensions alone and now he is suggesting that old age security is unsustainable. We know that is not true. We now know that assertion is blatantly false.

The man he appointed as Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page, told the truth when he said that the OAS was in fact sustainable. Jack Mintz told the truth when he said that old age security was sustainable. Edward Whitehouse of the OECD told the truth when he said that there was no pressing need to increase the age for obtaining the OAS pension. Who is not telling the truth and for what reason?

The OAS is sustainable and will be sustainable into the future. Last April, the Prime Minister believed old age security was sustainable too. We know this because he told Canadians, “We're not going to cut the rate of increase to transfers for health care, education and pensions. That is job number one”. It really is disgraceful to give one's word and then break it and to do so based on manufacturing a crisis.

The Conservatives like to go on about its strong, stable, majority government but they did not seek a mandate to tear asunder a critical element of our social safety net. They did not seek a mandate to change the age of eligibility for old age security from 65 to 67 or maybe 69 or more.

The Prime Minister told Canadians last April that he would not touch their pensions but this coming Thursday, budget day, he will officially break that promise and fundamentally alter the covenant made decades ago to support Canadian seniors.

I am aware that I am not permitted to suggest that the government lied or that it acted dishonestly for those comments are unparliamentary. However, when a prime minister makes a promise during an election, a promise to seniors and to future pensioners, to leave those pensions as they are and then announces after the election that he will make massive changes to old age security, then one must simply leave it to Canadians to figure out the value of his word.

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, March 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am a lawyer by training and have practised law for most of my adult life. I served as managing partner in a successful law firm back home in Prince Edward Island. I have some experience as a prosecutor with respect to narcotics offences and election offences. That is something that will probably come in handy before too long in this country. Therefore, I understand the harm that crime can have on individuals. I know it hurts families. I know it hurts communities. I value a tough justice system, but not a vindictive one. I value proportionality and balance. I value the courts and their judgment. I value the Charter of Rights.

However, one gets a very strong impression that the Conservatives have a view of justice that is arbitrary, vindictive and disproportionate. We have certainly seen this manifested in Bill C-10, a bill that would most certainly be found to be, in whole or in part, unconstitutional. In effect, we also saw it last night in the debate on Bill C-316.

The bill before us today proposes to do something that in all my years of practising law I have yet to confront.

What widespread epidemic problem does the bill seek to fix? Are there thousands of incarcerated people in receipt of a judgment from Her Majesty where we have to divvy up the proceeds? Is this an epidemic in our country?

We know the answer to that. The answer is: very, very few.

I am not a cynic by nature, but the actions and the behaviour of the Conservatives really do cause one to question their motives. I am sure there are many members who like it when we oppose the myth-based crime bills. They perhaps want to be able to write fund-raising letters to their right-wing base, collecting untold amounts of money by suggesting that the opposition is soft on crime and that we do not care about victims. That is the type of divisive government we have in Canada.

The bill has already had a rough ride, primarily because it was initially ill-conceived and not well thought out. It was originally proposed and rejected because of jurisdictional problems. A non-partisan researcher and lawyer associated with the non-partisan Library of Parliament, Michel Bédard, said:

—I have doubts as to the federal government's power to pass provisions of this kind. It's important to understand that, according to the division of powers in Canada, property and civil rights fall within provincial jurisdiction. Under that head of power, the provinces have jurisdiction over contracts and all private law, including debt priority ranking. That includes debts owed to creditors, in particular.... It's important to realize that federal jurisdiction regarding debt priority ranking is limited to certain well-defined areas, such as bankruptcy, tax collection and banks.

This is obviously something that will have to be discussed at committee.

I would close by saying this. The Criminal Code is not some pet project to be tinkered and played with by Conservative backbenchers looking for reasons to appear tough. The Criminal Code is not supposed to be used and amended by backbenchers in order to send out a press release, or to be used as an opportunity to put something in a householder or newsletter. That is not how we make laws in Canada. In fact, I should say, that is not how we used to make laws in Canada. That is the sad part of what is happening in Canada under this fact-free Conservative government.

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, March 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as the Liberal critic, the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, has already indicated, we will vote to send this bill to committee to ensure that it makes sense and to hear from experts as to whether it is even constitutional. I have serious concerns as to its constitutionality.

I am really troubled by what has transpired in Parliament since the Conservatives obtained their majority government. As I have said many times in this House, I am amazed by the obsession of the Conservatives with crime. Against all evidence, members of the Conservative government continue to propagate the myth that Canada is a hotbed of criminal activity.

This obsession and fixation with creating and then communicating this erroneous notion of rampant crime is really offensive to many Canadians. I will tell you why it is so offensive: Crime is on the decline in Canada and has been for some time. These facts matter. In any real democracy, laws are based on reality and evidence.

However, that is not the case in the Conservative world. Facts do not matter. Scaring Canadians seems to be their goal, and it is a goal without merit or honour.

However, facts do matter. The truth matters. Evidence matters.

Canadians expect their government to be honest. Canadians expect their elected members of Parliament and senators to enact laws based on facts and evidence. Canadians do not want law founded on feelings or ideology. Canadians do not want their laws to be reduced to a tool to fundraise from a small, narrow right-wing base.

I do find it very troubling that we have a government that essentially says to Canadians, “Facts are just facts and are really a nuisance, because they get in the way of our feeling that deep down, crime is rampant. So let us just proceed on that basis”.

That is the foundation on which the government operates, and by extension, it is how the members of its backbench operate. It is offensive to those of us who value facts and evidence. Yet what we have witnessed since last fall when Parliament got into full swing is a government and its members practically climbing over themselves, looking for any opportunity to look tough on crime.

Since Parliament has returned, over 90% of all private members' bills presented by the Conservative Party have contained some crime initiative or amendment to the Criminal Code. Again, this absurd obsession with manufacturing a crisis is very troubling.

Crime is not rampant in Canada. People are not roaming the streets in large gangs, causing widespread unrest. Police are not, as we speak, in riot gear throughout the country. However, to listen to the Conservatives, one would think there is an armed insurrection in Canada. These notions are false.

I understand that from time to time Parliament does need to make adjustments to our Criminal Code. However, the actions of the government and its members in tinkering with the Criminal Code through private members' bills will have long-term effects on the coherence of our criminal law.

The Conservatives, though, find themselves in a majority. This majority provides them with the opportunity to legislate their ideology, to do as they please, and facts be damned.

[Veterans Affairs, March 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Veterans Affairs had a letter in the Charlottetown Guardian, praising the employees of his department. However, last Saturday he had a letter in the Chronicle Herald calling them a bloated, inefficient bureaucracy.

Why is the minister speaking out of both sides of his mouth? Is he not aware that we have Internet on Prince Edward Island? Why is he is calling the employees in his department inefficient, bureaucratic and stupid?