Sean Casey

[October 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, this is actually the second consecutive night that I have had the opportunity to participate in the adjournment proceedings. I am pleased to see my colleague from the veterans affairs committee, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, here for the second night in a row as well.

Last night, I perhaps made an error using my four minutes to pose four questions because I did not get answers to any of them. So I posed them again in my one minute segment and still did not get answers.

I am going to try it a little differently tonight. I am not going to need the four minutes. I have a straightforward question.

Will the parliamentary secretary confirm that she intends to vote on Thursday at committee to kill public hearings on the budget cuts at Veterans Affairs, and explain to veterans and Canadians why?

[October 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent speech outlining the programs that the government has set out but there is still no answer to my question.

It is a fairly simple question. Will the government equalize the amount that is afforded for funerals of veterans with Canadian Forces members? The parliamentary secretary indicated that they work with the last post fund. What she did not indicate is that the government provides $3,600 to the last post fund as compared to the $13,000 for Canadian Forces members.

Could I please have an answer to my question? I have now asked the minister twice. The parliamentary secretary had four minutes and did not given me a yes or no answer.

The other three questions remain unanswered, as well. Will the minister show up to the committee? Will the committee obstruct the motion that has been passed? Does the government believe in transparency with respect to the cuts to the Veterans Affairs' budget?

[October 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs for being here this evening for what will no doubt be a completely non-partisan and transparent response to my question.

The issue brought to the House this evening for debate relates to the glaring disparity in support for our veterans when it comes to their funeral costs. For the record, a veteran receives about $3,600 to help cover the cost of a funeral, while a member of the Canadian Forces receives about $13,000, a very significant gap. I have written to the minister about this issue and have asked questions in the House in both official languages. The minister has not responded to my letter. The response from the minister in question period has, unfortunately, been evasive and dismissive and I, perhaps naively, hope for a more direct response this evening.

The government likes to talk about patriotism and wrap itself in the flag, and it loves to attend ceremonies honouring veterans, but consider this. I would ask the parliamentary secretary to reflect on this: her government spent millions of dollars last year on communications, photo ops, backdrops and the like, all the while contemplating massive cuts of about $226 million for the department. There are millions for the spin machine and propaganda, yet the Conservatives refuse to commit to fixing the funeral cost inequity between our veterans and the Canadian Forces.

Last Friday, late Friday afternoon in fact, the government announced that there would be $226 million in cuts to Veterans Affairs. Upon receiving that news, I immediately gave a 48-hour notice of motion to the Veterans Affairs committee that it suspend its work on commemorating veterans and immediately begin an examination of the impact of the cuts on veterans and those who provide those services.

That notice of motion was provided to the committee. When I arrived at the committee meeting, I found that the notice of motion had been pushed to the bottom of the agenda without me knowing about it and was scheduled to be in camera. I advised the chair upfront that was not acceptable. At my first opportunity in the meeting, I presented the motion and it passed. Unfortunately the story has been that the motion passed because some Conservatives came late. The story should be that the Conservatives tried to defeat a motion that called for transparency with respect to veterans' benefits and failed.

My question for the parliamentary secretary is fairly straightforward. It is the same one I asked, in both languages, of the minister. Will the department commit to treat veterans fairly and on level ground with members of the Canadian Forces? Given that the question will simply require a yes or no answer, perhaps she could take the time to address the other questions arising out of the motion before the committee. Will the minister show up, will the committee neuter the effects of the motion, will it limit the study and does the government believe in transparency within the Department of Veterans Affairs?

[Veterans, October 20th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are shortchanging our brave veterans by cutting more than $200 million from their budget.

Today at committee the Liberals fought back and won a small victory for the vets. Our motion to study these massive cuts passed because Conservative members did not show up to the veterans affairs committee on time today to defeat it.

Would the minister commit to appear at committee and explain why he is cutting support to our veterans, and will he be on time?

[Justice, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, however, even the toughest anti-crime advocates in America say that this strategy is just plain wrong. Even the staunchest Conservative Republicans in Texas are repealing mandatory minimums and increasing drug treatment programs because they slash crimes at a tenth of the cost.

Why is the government ignoring the evidence and wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on a crime strategy that just will not work?

[Justice, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government's crime bill adds longer sentences for drug offences, increases mandatory minimums and cuts conditional sentences.

[Veterans Affairs, October 17th, 2011]

Why did Veterans Affairs spend almost $3 million on photo ops while gutting the department by $200 million? Why are there millions for PR stunts but nothing but cutbacks for the people who really matter, our veterans?

[Veterans Affairs, October 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is about to defend the gutting of $200 million from Veterans Affairs. I can see that he has his PMO script all ready to go. Why did Veterans Affairs spend $3 million on backdrops--

[Business of Supply, October 4th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the hon. member relates to the effectiveness of the programs in place. I appreciate his listing the services that are available, but in an environment where there have been 696 suicides by members of the armed forces who have served between 1972 and 2007, clearly there is a problem. Veterans tell me that yes, there are services, but there are not enough.

I appreciate his candid comment that we can do more. My question is a repetition of the question I asked the minister in question period. Are there new strategies and programs, or alternatively, is this a case where the government will commit further resources to the excellent programs the member has outlined and ensure that these programs do not come under the austerity knife?

[Veterans Affairs, October 4th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, there is a great need to enhance suicide prevention programs in Canada. With respect to our veterans, the data is alarming. The suicide rate in the armed services is nearly three times that of the general population.

According to a departmental study of all males who enrolled in the regular forces after 1972 and were released before 2007, a total of 2,620 died and almost 700 of them were suicides.

Could the minister outline new steps or strategies that his department is undertaking to tackle this crisis among veterans?