Sean Casey

[Petitions, November 23rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by about 100 residents of Saskatoon. They call upon Parliament to request that the federal Minister of the Environment consider bringing in legislation to require all unsolicited admail and flyers to be produced using easily recyclable hemp paper; phasing in of the use of only hemp paper in the production of all flyers; and, especially in the distribution of flyers, compliance with all “no flyers” signs at private residences at all times, with the exception of election material during elections and material from charities and local community events.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, November 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the comments of my colleague with respect to the gas tax. He went on at some length about how the gas tax is now a guaranteed amount. In actual fact, this budget has capped the gas tax transfer to municipalities.

What I found interesting was how he put it into a conversation. The conversation was, “Oh, we're not going to balance the budget on the backs of municipalities”. I just wonder about the conversation he had with veterans, considering that $226 million is being cut out of the Veterans Affairs budget and hundreds of jobs are being lost. If that was the conversation with municipalities, let us hear about the conversation with veterans.

[The Environment, November 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to believe that in 2011 many of our harbours, including Charlottetown's, are still receiving raw sewage. New federal environmental rules force municipalities to treat raw sewage and we welcome that. However, these regulations mean additional costs to communities that are already strained with aging infrastructure.

The government has known for years that these new regulations would force municipalities to spend enormous dollars to fix their treatment plants, but it has yet to come to the table to assist.

Could the minister indicate when he plans to announce an infrastructure plan to clean up Canada's harbours?

[Preventing Persons from Concealing Their Identity during Riots and Unlawful Assemblies Act, November 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to Bill C-309, but I want to begin by confronting the Conservatives on their obsession with crime. We have before us a bill ostensibly produced by the folks in the Prime Minister's Office or the Conservative House leader's office. I think we need to be clear about this. Their so-called crime agenda is in full swing, predicated on ideology and not evidence. They do not believe in evidence or facts.

The Conservatives want to continue creating fear among Canadians and to perpetuate the idea that there is rampant crime on the streets, that there are riots everywhere, that the government, in response, must be brave and take decisive action to breathe life into that particular bogeyman. On the rare occasion that Conservatives might actually propose something that appears worthy of some consideration, they wonder why Canadians are suspicious.

The Conservatives' record of ignoring evidence and perpetuating fear is well-known. The fear agenda gives me rise to questions about their sincerity. One only has to look at Bill C-10, safe streets and communities act. As far as I am concerned, it should be called “keeping the myth of out of control crime alive so we can fundraise to our right-wing base act”.

For the Conservatives, repeating a myth often enough convinces them that it must be true. It is a classic right-wing Republican tactic; that is to say, the Conservatives operate not unlike a pack of hyenas. They see an opportunity to feast on the fears of Canadians, fears which are often of their own creation, and then they pounce. As part of the bullying tactics, they are always ready to attack anyone who disagrees with them, then issue a fundraising letter containing more myths. This behaviour, now firmly rooted in their political DNA, is a again not unlike the hyena, opportunistic and completely natural. Then they call it tough on crime. I call it tough on facts and evidence.

When I meet people around the country and in my riding, they are not running up to me and talking about crime or crime rates. They are more concerned about jobs and the economy. They are concerned that my riding of Charlottetown is losing 500 jobs as a result of cuts to Veterans Affairs. They are worried about the cuts to Service Canada and the closure of EI processing centres.

They do not understand why the federal government is the only level of government that will not participate in the funding to clean up a sewage problem in the Charlottetown harbour. They do not understand why the Conservatives have cancelled a cable that would ensure energy security to Prince Edward Island.

Here we are with another crime bill. Why did the member not introduce a bill to reduce poverty in Canada, a bill to help the poor, and to bring them in from the margins of poverty? Why did he not do that?

It is as if the Conservatives lie awake at night dreaming about ways to put more and more people in prison. It is an obsession rooted not in science or evidence, or even reason. It is irrational.

I want to assure the member that none of us on this side will stand by while Conservatives proffer myths or slogans. None of us on this side will tolerate the idea that because we disagree with the Conservatives on matters related to crime, that somehow we do not care or we are soft on crime. It is a falsehood and the members opposite know it. To disagree with the government is not a crime, at least not yet, but who knows?

With respect to the bill, we all witnessed what happened in Vancouver last year during the Stanley Cup. We know that the behaviour of far too many people was deplorable and criminal. None of us who sat around watching the hockey game that night and the news stories thereafter were thinking, gee, we wish there were more destruction and violence. None of us said, “Gee, I hope that guy who just set fire to the car gets away with it”. Listening to the Conservatives though, one would think that members from this side were there and involved.

I wonder what the member thinks about his own government's behaviour with respect to the G20 in Toronto. What does he think about what occurred, when at the G20 peaceful protesters, yes, peaceful protesters, were summarily denied their constitutional and charter rights to freely assemble?

What does he think, when protesters, acting peacefully, not violently, were kettled, rounded up and detained in violation of their charter rights? Why is the member not proposing a bill about protecting the rights of legitimate protesters?

What is his position on those well-documented violations of constitutional rights? Does he believe that citizens have a right to peaceful protest? Why is it that he and his government have refused thus far a public inquiry into the behaviour of the police and his own government with respect to the serious and rampant violation of constitutional rights at the G20?

The right of Canadians to assemble, and to do so peacefully, is a right protected by the charter, a document that many on the other side deep down really do detest. Rioting is already a crime, as the member knows.

The bill before us is deliberately framed in a way that if anyone were to disagree or to suggest amendments, he or she would automatically be designated as a traitor to a Conservative crime cause. Conservatives call that debate?

No one wants to support any Canadian engaging in activity that destroys property, encourages violence and rioting. None of us wish to support the deliberate concealment of someone while engaging in a riot. However, if this government were truly serious about this issue, this proposal would be on the government agenda. If it were brought in by government, it would have been open to have been tested, as required by statute by the Department of Justice, to ensure that it was constitutional.

This is a government bill in disguise. The suggestion that a backbench MP, in this environment, in the controlled and contrived Conservative government, such as the one we have now, would produce a bill without the consent of the PMO and its House leader's office is quite frankly a stretch.

If the government were serious about amending the Criminal Code to deal with aggravating circumstances, such as those contemplated in this private member's bill, it should have introduced a government bill. At least that would have allowed for greater and wider debate. The Conservatives are not interested in debate, nor facts, nor evidence. We see a sad example happening right now in the justice committee.

We will review Bill C-309, insist that it receive a thorough analysis, and if necessary, propose amendments. Until we are convinced that the bill meets the test of the charter, we will not and cannot support it.

Members should listen to this because what I am about to say will probably send shivers up the spines of the Conservatives. If we can be convinced by evidence and facts, and the testimony of experts that this bill is constitutional, then let the debate begin.

[Preventing Persons from Concealing Their Identity during Riots and Unlawful Assemblies Act, November 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, my concern with the legislation also relates to the wide breadth given to the phrase “lawful excuse” by the hon. member and the fact that this bill to amend the Criminal Code has been brought forward as a private member's bill.

It strikes me that with the government's preoccupation with law and order and the fact that there have been substantial amendments to criminal legislation already, the breadth of the term “lawful excuse”, which causes me great concern from a charter perspective, would be subject to much further and better scrutiny from the perspective of whether there would be a charter violation if this had come in as a piece of government legislation. There would also be the opportunity for much more debate.

On this side we have very serious concerns about the constitutionality of the legislation and we do not share the narrow reading that he does with respect to the “lawful excuse”. I would invite his comments on that.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, November 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments and emphasis on job creation. There are a couple of specific initiatives in my province related to job creation that I would like to raise, specifically as it relates to the discontinuance of the various infrastructure funding programs.

In the Charlottetown harbour of my province, the oyster fishery has been decimated because only the city and the province are prepared to cost share in a solution. The federal government is not. We are missing opportunities with respect to green energy and the diversity of our economy because successive campaign promises have been made by all parties, except the Conservatives, to share in the funding of a cable to the mainland for green energy.

Would my colleague comment on the discontinuance of infrastructure funds and their impact on the ability to create jobs in our country?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 14th, 2011]

With respect to the considered cuts to Environment Canada: (a) which specific departments and programs are affected, and what was the process taken to determine whether or not to make cuts to a specific department and program, (i) what, if any, Environment Canada Research Scientists were consulted regarding the considered cuts, (ii) what scientists outside of Environment Canada were consulted, (iii) for each department and program specified in (a), what is the number of current full-time, part-time, and contract scientific positions, (iv) the number of full-time, part-time, and contract scientists who have been given “workforce adjustment” letters, (v) the number of full-time, part-time, and contract scientists who are going to be moved out of their current “job function”, (vi) what, if any, consideration has been given to shutting-down the Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network (IADN), and, if so, has the United States been consulted, as Canada has commitments under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, (vii) specify all programs run by a single scientist who has been given a “workforce adjustment” letter, and for each program identified, what, if any, concern was expressed regarding the ability of the program to continue, (viii) the process that will be taken to place scientists in appropriate research areas, (ix) what, if any, consideration has been given to the fact that many scientists are highly trained in very specialized fields, and that an appropriate replacement position may not be possible; (b) specify all national and international environmental commitments to which Canada is subject, including, but not limited to the Global Climate Observing System, the World Meteorological Organization/United Nations Environment Programme Scientific Assessments of Ozone Depletion, which are mandated by the Montreal Protocol to occur at least every four years, and hosting the World Ozone and UV Data Centre, (i) what, if any, environmental commitments are affected by “workforce adjustments”; (c) what, if any, consideration was given to the possible impacts of cuts to ozone research on (i) Canada's environment, (ii) the health of Canadians, including, but not limited to, non-melanoma and melanoma skin cancers, cataract, immunosuppression, and vitamin D, (iii) if so, what are the predicted environmental impacts, (iv) what are the predicted epidemiological impacts for each of non-melanoma skin cancer, melanoma, and cataract, and if not, (v) why not; (d) explain the advantages and disadvantages of both ozonesonde and Brewers, (i) whether or not the two technologies complement one another; (e) specify why ground-based ozone networks, and especially the ozonesonde component of this network, are critical for monitoring long-term changes in ozone, monitoring vertical profiles and tropospheric ozone, and assessing the link between climate change and ozone; (f) what, if any, research has been undertaken to assess what the loss of Canadian measurements might mean to the global ozone network, and the continuity, reliability and stability of the record; and (g) specify whether the oil sands monitoring plan announced in July was to include aircraft measurement, air quality measurements, and ozonesonde measurement, (i) whether any of aircraft measurement, air quality, air toxics, and ozonesonde programs is being considered for cuts, (ii) how many scientists run each of the specified programs in (i), and how many scientists have been given a “workforce adjustment” letter, (iii) how proposed cuts might specifically affect the oil sands monitoring program?

[Veterans, November 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, when a veteran makes a complaint, the response from the Conservatives is to check and access his personal medical information. It is an abuse of power whose clear goal is to threaten anyone who dares question or challenge them.

The minister suggested last week that he had taken steps to protect veterans' privacy. What are those steps and when will he table them?

[Veterans, November 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's political staff had access to a veteran's personal medical information. Ironically, the minister cannot discuss individual cases, precisely because of privacy protection concerns.

Can the minister explain why and under what circumstances political staff had access to the personal medical information of veterans?

[Purple Day Act, November 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by commending the member for Halifax West for introducing this important bill, Bill C-278, the purple day act.

The member, as we know, has served his constituents very well over the years, having been an MP for much of the last two decades, and has also had the distinction of serving as a senior member in the federal cabinet of the previous Liberal government.

His efforts here today reflect his passion to make the lives of others better, and his initiative to mark March 26 as a day to create awareness for epilepsy in Canada is welcomed.

It is also heartening to see that the bill appears to have support on both sides of the House and that it will proceed through the normal parliamentary process and receive royal assent in due time. I say this because it is important that this issue not be viewed as a political one, but rather as an opportunity for the House to express an opinion on a matter that affects so many Canadians.

As we have heard from the member for Halifax West, it is motivated by one of his constituents, Cassidy Megan, who chose the colour purple after the international colour for epilepsy, lavender.

The lavender flower, as we may know and as has been mentioned, is a flower that is often associated with solitude, with being alone. It is that feeling of isolation that many people affected by epilepsy and seizure disorders often feel. They often feel that no one understands.

However, we do want to understand. This bill would help.

Epilepsy affects over 300,000 Canadians and over 50 million people worldwide. Many of us here today can only imagine what it must be like to be afflicted with epilepsy. We can only imagine what it must be like to be at work, on a school playground, in a classroom, perhaps on a date, or in any other number of situations when a seizure occurs. We can only imagine what it would be like to be young like Cassidy and looking to obtain a driver's licence, or perhaps wanting to embark on a career in the trades, to operate heavy equipment, to be a medical doctor or a dentist, but being unable to because of the possibility of a seizure and its attendant consequences. A young person's life choices are limited because of this unfortunate condition.

Far too often, people who suffer from epilepsy feel embarrassed and worry what others might think. That is why this bill is important. The bill from the member for Halifax West is designed to create awareness about epilepsy for Canadians like me, who may not fully understand what happens when a person has a seizure and what we can do to perhaps assist when one occurs.

Today is a first step in our efforts to create awareness. We hope that with passage of the bill, each March 26 this House and all Canadians will focus on this important issue.

There is much to be learned. For those watching--and I realize that the member for Halifax West has recounted some of these measures--I wish to point out a few things that one could do to assist someone who is having a seizure. I would like to read them into the record today, because it is important that Canadians have as much information as possible.

If we witness a seizure, we cannot stop it, so please do not try.

People should not shake or hold the person who is having a seizure.

Nothing should be put in the person's mouth. People do not swallow their tongues during seizures. Even trying to give medicine could cause choking.

Something soft, such as a pillow or a rolled-up coat, should be placed under the person's head. This action would help to protect the head from injury.

The person may be rolled onto his or her side to keep the airways clear. Ties or shirt collars should be loosened. Any nearby hazards, such as hot beverages, should be removed.

When the person regains consciousness, he or she may be dazed or tired.

It is important to stay calm, provide reassurance and stay beside the person until he or she feels better again. If the seizure lasts less than five minutes, inquiry should be made about a hospital evaluation.

It is important to call authorities, such as 911, if the following conditions exist: if the person having the seizure is pregnant, injured or a diabetic; if the seizure happens in water; if it lasts longer than five minutes; if a second seizure begins before the person regains consciousness; if the person does not begin breathing normally or does not return to consciousness after the seizure stops; or if this is a first seizure.

I want to thank all organizations and volunteers who work to improve the lives of people who suffer from epilepsy. It is important that we create awareness, and I believe this bill does just that. I am honoured to have had the opportunity to second it and speak to it.