Sean Fraser
Central Nova, Nova Scotia · Liberal · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity, for the first time, to formally congratulate my recently elected colleague on her presence in the House of Commons. This institution is better for her efforts.”
“Mr. Speaker, in Canada, when the government disagrees with the decision of a court, the opportunity we have to do something about it is to appeal that decision. We made an appeal on this particular case because we disagree with the superior court's assessment.”
“Mr. Speaker, one thing that I think all members of the House will agree upon is that when a dangerous person commits a serious crime, they should face serious penalties. When that includes someone who has a temporary status, they could be rendered inadmissible in this country and should face deportation where appropriate.”
“Mr. Speaker, as we move forward with a public safety agenda that is designed to ensure that dangerous people are put behind bars, it is not lost on us that we also need to do everything we can to combat the deadly opioid crisis.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague not only for his hard work, but also for his relentless pursuit of a stronger Canada and a safer Hamilton. As a result of his advocacy, this House has adopted laws to completely renovate the bail system and to lead to stiffer sentences for violent repeat offenders.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge all the work done by my colleague, the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, as chair of the women's caucus. Our government is working hard to prevent gender-based violence before it even happens.”
The complete record
Every one of 382 lines we hold for Sean Fraser, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 8.
“Mr. Speaker, as we move forward with a public safety agenda that is designed to ensure that dangerous people are put behind bars, it is not lost on us that we also need to do everything we can to combat the deadly opioid crisis. I look forward to working with all members of the House as we promote policies that would lead to better public health outcomes, and at the same time pursue policies that would contribute to better public safety outcomes. I look forward to working with the member and with all members of the House in order to build safer communities right across this country.”
“Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity, for the first time, to formally congratulate my recently elected colleague on her presence in the House of Commons. This institution is better for her efforts. Through her advocacy, we have moved forward with reforms that are designed to tackle the scourge of intimate partner violence that is impacting women across this country. We know, when it comes to coercive control, that we have the opportunity to put rules in place that allow the legal system to intervene before a relationship becomes violent and before violence becomes fatal. We have worked with people who have dedicated their life and their career to understanding the predictive factors of what can lead to violence against women. With this codification of coercive control, we can make—”
“Mr. Speaker, one thing that I think all members of the House will agree upon is that when a dangerous person commits a serious crime, they should face serious penalties. When that includes someone who has a temporary status, they could be rendered inadmissible in this country and should face deportation where appropriate. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that immigration consequences could be factored into decisions, but at the end of the day, the courts must maintain discretion to ensure that there is a fit penalty for the crime. With the legislation we have put on the table, violent repeat offenders would face stiffer penalties in this country, and I hope all members can agree that is a good thing.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge all the work done by my colleague, the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, as chair of the women's caucus. Our government is working hard to prevent gender-based violence before it even happens. Bill C‑16 makes important reforms to the Criminal Code, particularly by creating new offences for femicide and coercive or controlling conduct. Together, these reforms will result in a justice system that responds earlier and faster and provides greater protection to victims of gender-based violence.”
“Mr. Speaker, in Canada, when the government disagrees with the decision of a court, the opportunity we have to do something about it is to appeal that decision. We made an appeal on this particular case because we disagree with the superior court's assessment. Since that time, we have seen the New Brunswick Court of Appeal go through the Wolastoqey case, as the member indicates, and the Supreme Court has refused leave. In addition, throughout this piece of litigation, we have been asking the court to notify private property owners so they may participate in litigation and are in fact presently supporting the Montrose application of private property owners in the region. Private property rights are important in this country, so is reconciliation. We can pursue both at the same time.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague not only for his hard work, but also for his relentless pursuit of a stronger Canada and a safer Hamilton. As a result of his advocacy, this House has adopted laws to completely renovate the bail system and to lead to stiffer sentences for violent repeat offenders. He has also lent his support to new laws to combat hate crimes and to attack the scourge of intimate partner violence in this country. We are the party that is going to work with law enforcement to advance a law and order agenda, and most importantly, to keep Canadians safe.”
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague says he will take no lessons from the government. Will he take lessons from the head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, who told me that he has been working on lawful access for more than 30 years in this country? He said it is the number one tool that he needs to combat extortion in this country, to combat the scourge of child sexual exploitation and abuse material and to tackle organized crime. The hon. member also mentioned bail. I would point out to him that as of two nights ago, Canada has new laws. We have reformed the bail system. We are reforming the sentencing system. We are implementing a public safety agenda that has not been seen in generations.”
“Mr. Speaker, when my Conservative colleagues see a vulnerable Canadian, they see a political opportunity to exploit. We see people who we want to help. This question has been asked and answered. It has been fascinating to me, over the last number of weeks, how the Conservatives have completely dropped their focus on public safety in this country. Let me tell the House why. We have a legislative agenda that is going into effect. The Bail and Sentencing Reform Act is now law in Canada. Later today, we are going to vote on the combatting hate act, and by the end of the week, we are going to adopt the protecting victims act. We can balance the economic interests of the country, the needs of families and public safety at the same time. Let us not just focus on political opportunities.”
“Mr. Speaker, the political motivation behind the member's question is obvious, based on the way he phrased it, but if he would like some validation, the bail and sentencing reform act we have put forward in the House is supported by those who work on the front lines. I would invite him to talk to the head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. I would invite him to talk to the head of the Ontario Provincial Police or of the Police Association of Ontario. The legislation we put forward has been informed by leaders in the police movement. It has been informed by provinces and premiers demanding the expeditious adoption of the bail and sentencing reform act. It has been informed by engagement with cities. We will do everything we can to listen to those expert voices to keep Canadians safe.”
“Mr. Speaker, these kinds of heinous behaviours have no place in Canada, and the Government of Canada has an opportunity to do something about it. I am pleased to share that we expect, this week, we will have changes to Canada's Criminal Code. These include changes that will make it impossible for conditional sentencing orders to be tied to charges impacting crimes such as sexual crimes against children. In addition, last week the House voted on the protecting victims act, which would put in place a number of measures designed specifically to combat child sexual exploitation and child sexual exploitation and abuse material. My hope is that these measures will become law expeditiously, so communities benefit from these protections.”
“Mr. Speaker, with respect to the consideration of Government Business No. 12, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the House, a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that debate be not further adjourned.”
“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is characterizing amendments from the Senate as loopholes. One of the amendments proposes that we do a better job of collecting and reporting data on bail. We are not just reporting and collecting; we are going to contribute financially to provinces' exercises to do that. Another loophole would be the delayed implementation of certain measures on the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and that comes as a direct request from the Conservative government in Ontario because it has to make sure its system is ready to handle changes to the law. Another proposed amendment is being rejected on the basis of its redundancy. To the extent the member is pointing to loopholes, I would ask him to identify them, because simply, I do not see them.”
“I would ask that all members recognize the urgency with which communities are calling for these measures so we can implement them in law before Parliament rises for the summer.”
“Mr. Speaker, if we go back to the timeline the hon. member is citing, I raised with colleagues in different parties in the House my concern about the shenanigans being played out at justice committee that were preventing the advancement of this bill and the protecting victims act. We are now in a position that reflects precisely the advice we provided to the opposition at the time, which was that we would potentially see months-long delays in the implementation of these bills, which they claim to support. We have an opportunity to take action today to combat extortion, home invasions, auto theft and sexual assault. The only question is whether we are going to act today or months down the road. That kind of delay is senseless and would not offer an ounce of contribution to public safety. We are moving forward.”
“However, the measures proposed in this bill are far more reaching, more extensive and more clearly reflect the feedback of the Canadian Association of the Chiefs of Police, the Ontario Police Association, even in my own community, the New Glasgow Regional Police. We can look at communities across Canada, we can look at provincial governments across Canada, and see ideas from Liberal, NDP and Conservative Party members alike that found their way into this bill. This has been a model of collaboration through the process. I thank Conservative members for their contribution. I find it objectionable that they seek to now delay some of the advice they provided to me, in terms of the content of this bill that should be implemented.”
“Mr. Speaker, the private member's bill to which the hon. member refers did have some shortcomings, some provisions that I questioned as to whether they would actually promote public safety, other provisions that I questioned about their constitutional validity. However, where there were common ideas that we could collaborate on, we can actually see some of those ideas that came from Conservative members in this bill, one of which is the subject of a further amendment from the Senate committee involving a more restrictive use of sureties for people who have an indictment on their criminal record within the previous 10 years. There are other ideas that were of mutual concern that were reflected in both of our parties' platforms.”
“We are not always going to agree on everything, but she should not colour the historical record and say she voted for something when she voted—”
“Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform the hon. member that with her vote yesterday, she placed her objection to one narrow portion of the bill, which only deals with situations where there would be a grossly disproportionate outcome. She said with her vote yesterday that it was more important than dealing with AI deepfakes when it comes to non-consensual intimate images, more important than protecting the victims of child sexual exploitation, more important than the child-luring provisions, more important than the criminal harassment provisions, more important than the femicide provisions and more important than the coercive control provisions. Members may come to realize, as they spend more time in this place, that there is a range of different perspectives and that sometimes perfection can be the enemy of the good.”
“The Conservative position that we should delay action on bail and sentencing in the face of these calls for action from the parties I just listed is bizarre to me. They have been demanding that I take action, that I implement the very reforms they have an opportunity to vote for, which they supported in the past, and now they are saying we should kick the can down the road. This is a failure of logic in the extreme.”
“Mr. Speaker, I question the relevance of the member's question on a debate about time allocation for the bail and sentencing reform act. I have not been at the committee to which he refers, but it is important to recognize that we use a tool where it is appropriate for a particular job. The member suggested that I decried the use of this tool in other circumstances. If members check the record, I did no such thing. However, I recognize that sometimes people have to realize that a scalpel and a sledgehammer are appropriate for different items. When it comes to this particular use of time allocation, we are responding to the urgent call for action from premiers, mayors, law enforcement and concerned Canadians who care about public safety.”
“Mr. Speaker, in the preamble to the member's question, she drew into focus the importance of dealing with survivors who are faced with gender-based violence and sexual crimes. We need to move. However, it is hypocrisy in the extreme when the member yesterday voted against the protecting victims act, which deals specifically with the issues that she has just raised. The kind of action that she is asking for in her question is represented in the bill that she is now seeking to delay. We do not need to wait to implement the solutions that are widely agreed upon in this House; they come directly from police leaders, community organizations, mayors and premiers. It is extraordinary to me that the Conservatives have adopted the position, months after this debate has started, that we need to delay action on bail reform. I disagree.”
“The only question we have, as a House, is whether we want to take advantage of the opportunity to do that now, or whether we can kick the can down the road for several months. In my view, when we have an opportunity to make a difference that is going to serve the interests of Canadians, reduce crime in this country and promote public safety, we should take it at the first opportunity.”
“Mr. Speaker, let us just draw into focus what is at stake. We asked law enforcement leaders, community leaders and elected officials what the priorities are in their communities when it comes to public safety. They said, “We want you to do more when it comes to auto theft. We want you to do more when it comes to home invasions. We want you to do more when it comes to violent extortion and when it comes to sexual assaults. We want you to address specifically the challenges in the bail system and the challenges when it comes to sentencing for these horrific crimes.” We have listened to that feedback. This process has been a model of collaboration with provincial governments, with police leaders and with advocates for public safety. We have an opportunity to directly implement the solutions that we know communities are calling for.”
“However, I do not think we can afford to delay, potentially months, the implementation of the measures that I know our counterparts from different walks of life across this country are screaming for and demanding that this House take action on expeditiously.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the potential adjournment date the House may be looking at, but I do know that the sitting schedule, as broadcasted publicly, is set to expire at the end of next week. I have a responsibility, in my view, to make good on the commitments that I have made and to respect the feedback I have received from premiers, mayors and law enforcement leaders across this country, to implement the criminal law reforms that I believe will contribute to public safety. This is a key piece of the puzzle. We also need to support those on the front line, both police and community organizations, and make upstream investments in mental health and addictions, affordable housing and programs that support at-risk youth.”
“We should get beyond the political back-and-forth and realize where we have widespread consensus, supported by law enforcement, provincial governments, cities and parliamentarians in the House and in the Senate from a wide range of regions and political affiliations. I suggest we should take the opportunity before us to implement these measures today.”
“Mr. Speaker, there was not a question that I could observe in the member's statement, but he did cite that he has an obligation as a member of the opposition. I would ask him to talk to his colleagues on the justice committee, who, in my view, have failed to live up to that obligation. He says they should raise issues to improve the strength of the bill when they spent months filibustering, again talking about their preference for puppies or kittens, knowing they were going to delay the implementation of these measures. We have an opportunity to move forward with the measures the Conservative Party says it supports, but yet delays the implementation of them.”
“I would dare argue in this House that as a result of those delays, we have a limited choice. Do we want to move forward expeditiously using the procedural tools to implement these reforms this week or do we want to simply throw our hands up and say this can wait several months down the road? Canadians are telling us they cannot wait, and I agree.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a failure of logic to assume the same rule can be applied across a very different set of facts in every instance and result in the same outcome. One of the reasons we are forced to move forward with time allocation ties back to the issue that I raised months ago when the member's Conservative colleagues were filibustering for months at the justice committee. I warned them at the time that was going to delay the potential implementation of the bail and sentencing reform act and the protecting victims act. Despite the fact that there is widespread agreement on many of the measures included in both of those bills, the filibuster continued for months. We saw on the video clips members talking about their preference for puppies or kittens rather than how we can strengthen the criminal law response.”
“Whether we are dealing with home invasions, auto theft, violent extortion or crimes committed against our first responders, there is a very clear need to ensure that we strengthen the criminal law reform as part of the public safety strategy, which would also include more support for the front line and upstream investments to end violent crime in the long term.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her continued advocacy on behalf of public safety in the community she represents. She has been a tremendous advocate, saying that we need to ensure the bail provisions in the Criminal Code and the sentences reflect the seriousness of the crimes she has witnessed in her own community, with a view to improving public safety. Very specifically, we have an opportunity to ensure the Criminal Code treats more seriously violent and repeat offenders and gives courts the tools they need to ensure that when public safety is at risk, there are stronger grounds to detain a person so that we do not pass the risk on to the general public.”
“I hope we can use that as motivation to quickly implement the measures so families and survivors, as he has referenced, have the protections that this bill would provide.”
“Mr. Speaker, let me signal, as a sign of good faith, that it is not a partisan issue when we are dealing with something as heinous as sexual crimes committed against children. Though this bill is focused more squarely on bail and sentencing, I would point the member to changes that would be made in this act when it comes to conditional sentencing orders for sexual offences, including sexual offences against children, which would no longer be available should this bill pass. In addition to the issue that squarely addresses the member's concern, in this bill we are proposing a series of changes that would make it more difficult for violent and repeat offenders to receive bail and would result in harsher sentences. The spirit of his question is reflected in the text of the bill.”
“Given the widespread agreement among members of the House, and given the work that we have done in collaboration with the Senate, there is not a significant need to debate endlessly the narrow set of reforms that have been proposed. We need to move and we need to move quickly if we are going to ensure that this bill becomes law expeditiously.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have enormous respect for my friend from the opposite coast of this country. We have many issues of common concern. I am glad he recognizes the importance of the bill, but just as a matter of fact, I do need to correct the record. He suggested that the amendments are simply being dismissed. With respect to the amendment on the implementation of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, that is an amendment that we are accepting. With the proposed amendments impacting the role of sureties, that is something we are willing to accept. When it comes to doing a better job of collecting and reporting on bail data, we are not just accepting the amendment, but we are actually going to be funding provincial governments, which are the custodians of that data.”
“The kinds of things we are talking about are harms to first responders and tougher bail rules. I see I am running out of time, but I think the member gets the spirit of the response.”
“Mr. Speaker, the reason is that there is a heightened degree of anxiety on my part, given the procedural tactics we have seen play out in this chamber over the past number of days. I just cited an example, in response to the last questioner, of a very specific series of motions that in fact delayed the advancement of criminal justice reforms to the Senate in hopes that we can adopt them before the end of this sitting. I do think there is risk, depending on the level of collaboration that we see or do not see with other parties, but it is a risk that we can ill afford to take. There is no world in which I would feel good going home in the summer knowing that we did not do everything we could to ensure that we advance measures that protect against the harms from violent repeat offenders.”
“The Conservatives' argument has become self-defeating. What is most important, though, is not the procedural tactics at play. It is delivering protections to Canadians to make communities safer.”
“Mr. Speaker, let me be specific in response to the member's question, the spirit of which I agree with wholeheartedly. Over the past few days, we have seen repeated dilatory motions put forward in the House to adjourn the debate or adjourn the House for the day, knowing the limited amount of time that must take place before a piece of legislation can move forward. In particular, the protecting victims act was delayed by an entire day in going to the Senate, which further jeopardized the possibility that those protections would be in place before the House rises for the summer. We cannot, on the one hand, have the Conservative Party demanding that we take action, that we move more quickly, and, on the other hand, accept sincerely its position in this debate that we need to further delay the implementation of these measures.”
“We have an opportunity to make a difference, and we cannot let this narrow window of time before the House rises for the summer months prevent the protections for Canadians from coming into place expeditiously.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am finding it fascinating that the position the Conservatives have adopted in this debate is to delay the implementation of the bail and sentencing reform act. This is something for which they have been asking for many months now. It is something that premiers of all parties, including conservative parties across the country, are saying in public must be implemented right away. There is widespread consensus among many members of the House that the measures included in this bill would lead to a greater degree of public safety for Canadians. Communities are asking for this bill. I have no appetite to delay further after many months of filibustering at the justice committee.”
“Mr. Speaker, I agree. The recent amendments made by the Senate are, indeed, fairly easy to deal with. [ English ] It is my view that we can ill afford to risk the potential consequences of delays now. Even one or two days of delay in this chamber could lead to a months-long delay on the measures when it comes to violent repeat offenders. We just heard a petition read out in this regard. We have an opportunity to make a difference. The only choice that we have before us, given the seeming collaboration of different parties, is whether we are going to make the difference today, this week, or we are going to kick the can down the road and delay the implementation of the protections that Canadian communities are asking for and that every premier in this country has forcefully argued must be implemented right away.”
“I hope we will not waste this particular moment in time because as the House very well knows, given the remaining sitting calendar of the House, the consequences of delaying further the consideration of this bill would delay its implementation for many months, which Canadians and communities across this country cannot afford.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am not certain I heard a question in the intervention; however, I am happy to address the issue the member put forward. It is very clear, given the limited nature of the amendments, that there is no need for a multi-day, months-long debate that would extend into the fall the measures that every premier in this country is demanding the House take action on, that members of all parties in the House are asking us to expedite and that have been studied in depth at the committee. There are a small number of simple amendments that are easy to deal with. We have an opportunity to do something to promote public safety and to do it today.”
“moved: Motion That, in relation to Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing) , not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the stage of consideration of Senate amendments to the Bill; and That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration of the said stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.”
“Bill C-35. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-35, An Act respecting the prohibition of the importation of goods produced by forced labour . (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)”
“Mr. Speaker, with respect to the consideration of Government Business No. 11, I give notice that at the next sitting of the House, a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that debate be not further adjourned.”
“Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the consideration of Senate amendments to Bill C-14 , an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act regarding bail and sentencing. Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is clear, with respect to the individual circumstances that the member referred to, that all members of Parliament must condemn heinous and violent crimes, particularly when it comes to repeat offenders. Now we have to ask ourselves what we want to do about that. On this side of the House, we want to move forward with the most ambitious set of reforms when it comes to the criminal law in this country that Canada has seen in generations. That includes more serious conditions on bail. That includes stiffer sentences for violent repeat offenders and those tied to organized crime. That includes allowing the courts to make decisions about fit sentences. When someone commits a serious and violent crime, they should face serious penalties, including deportation—”
“Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to take seriously charges of not taking crime seriously with harms falling to victims from a member who, just a few hours ago, was opposing efforts to speed up the adoption of the protecting victims act. We have launched one of the most ambitious agendas when it comes to criminal law reform, when it comes to bail reform, when it comes to strengthening sentencing, and when it comes to protecting victims and combatting hate. With respect to the issue that the member mentioned, he knows there is no rule that requires sentences to be adjusted for immigration status. We support the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada and trust the judiciary to implement the law with fit sentences, independent of politics.”