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 2 of 8.
“Mr. Speaker, I hope, regardless of political affiliation, we can refrain from accusing one another of hating democracy. I think each person, regardless of their community, the language they speak, the community they represent or the party to which they belong, is a defender of democracy. I hope they would align themselves with the protections of the institutions that uphold that democracy, including the rule of law. We have the opportunity to move forward with protections. It is clear that Conservatives have moved on from making substantive arguments and debates. They clearly just want to label the government with accusations that I do not think are grounded in reality, instead of actually advancing the protections in the bill. We will do this with them or without them. It would be my preference to have them with us.”
“The member is talking about bills that were adopted a number of years ago in previous parliaments, which, by the way, he is objecting to despite the fact that it made it harder for people to get bail when charged with intimate partner violence complaints or made house arrest ineligible for people charged with advocating genocide or attempted murder or torture in this country. My own view is that we have an opportunity to offer protections to victims. It seems the Conservative Party has made a decision for political reasons that they wish to delay the implementation of these protections. I find that disappointing in the extreme. I hope that they will put their money where their mouth is and actually place their vote behind this bill to accelerate its expeditious adoption into Canada's laws to offer protections for communities.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have never seen a clearer example of a straw man argument. He is making allegations about my position in this argument that I did not suggest. My criticism of the Conservatives in this debate was about their behaviour at the justice committee, not for decisions taken under previous governments during different parliaments. It is ironic that the Conservatives are arguing that there has not been enough time to debate this bill, but the questions they have on this debate are not even talking about this bill.”
“When the complainant is forced to live in the same community as a perpetrator who is walking free in their community, not because they have defeated the charges but because time ran out, that does not feel like justice. We have an opportunity to correct things. This bill provides that opportunity. Let us vote for it today.”
“Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Brampton Centre for her advocacy on this issue. She is right to point out the magnitude of this issue. It is 16,000 people from her part of the country, so 16,000 lives changed forever. We have an opportunity to have the legal system intervene more forcefully and with a greater effect. In addition to some of the new infractions and more serious penalties that we put in place, we are also making significant changes to how courts deal with some of these changes. Let us think about the fact that nearly 10,000 cases have been thrown out of courts for delay, including many sexual assault cases.”
“In all honesty, we have judges from the bench crying for some of the protections that this bill would afford to Canadians. We see femicides taking place at an ungodly rate in this country, and we have an opportunity to help prevent those with stiffer penalties, and importantly, upstream investments as well. I do not see this process as being a function of democracy breaking. I view the inappropriate behaviour to stop the work of the justice committee previously demands that democracy be allowed to work and that the House adopt the important reforms included in the bill.”
“Madam Speaker, I do not agree. The facts in this situation are very different from what my colleague is describing. For example, a few months ago, the Conservative Party prolonged the debate at the Standing Committee on Justice. [ English ] The Conservatives were talking about a preference between puppies and kittens, wasting time for the sake of wasting time, and carrying on meaningless debates outside the scope of the criminal laws that we are seeking to implement. There was an opportunity to advance these protections in a timely way with full debate. I would point out to the member the fact that we are seeing people from across Canada calling for these actions, and there was a debate at the justice committee. We have had an opportunity to debate this bill in the House. The Senate will have an opportunity to debate it.”
“The protections contained in this bill, though penalizing crime after the fact, can in fact have some preventative nature. I mentioned coercive control and intervening before violence becomes deadly. However, we should not delay the important work in this bill until the work around affordable housing, mental health and addictions and the at-risk youth prevention programs is done, because that work is going to continue in perpetuity for many many years. We have an opportunity to take action today to strengthen Canada's criminal laws to offer protections. I think we should avail ourselves of the opportunity.”
“They may be outside the scope of this bill, but they are moving forward in parallel. This includes investments through Build Canada Homes to build assisted, supportive and affordable housing for people at risk in Canada. This includes working with the Minister of Health and provincial governments to advance services and treatments for mental health and addictions. It also includes long-term investments, particularly in at-risk youth, including through the youth employment and skills strategy, as well as investments in infrastructure that builds safer and stronger communities. If we want to end violent crime in the long term, we need to take a holistic view of how we build safe communities and healthy people. Part of that equation also demands reforms to the criminal law.”
“Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for a thoughtful intervention, which is very important if our goal is to not only penalize bad actors after they have committed a crime but also prevent violence in the first place. Each time I have introduced a bill to reform Canada's criminal law in the House and spoke about it publicly, I begin by laying out the public safety strategy that the Government of Canada is moving forward with. The first pillar is to strengthen Canada's criminal laws, but we recognize that, largely, this has an impact after a crime has taken place. We also want to give tools to law enforcement and community organizations on the front line to support victims and to investigate and prosecute crime, but the most important pillar of our strategy is those upstream investments.”
“We have been forced to move forward, despite the fact that there has been a robust study, by the way. This is the question that is central to this debate: Do we think it is acceptable to wait a few months to implement the protections that victims are demanding we put in place, that judges are calling for from the bench and that law enforcement are demanding, or do we want to implement them today? The Liberal Party of Canada wants to implement them today. It is a shame the Conservatives want to kick it down the road to the fall.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague makes an excellent point. I wish I could say that this is a surprise. Realistically, when we had members of the justice committee filibuster for months a study on a previous piece of legislation that had been adopted by the House, we warned them. We told them that their antics were going to delay the implementation of protections that would be embedded in Canada's criminal law, and that it would delay for victims the beneficial impact of the laws that we are putting forward in the House. Did the Conservatives listen? No, they did no. They continued to filibuster for hours upon hours, talking out the clock and preventing the work of the justice committee from advancing. We are now exactly where we said we would be because of that delay.”
“I would suggest all members of Parliament, regardless of party, are here to work, but let us stop the charade of pretending there has not been an ample debate on this issue. Let us move forward with the protections that victims so richly deserve.”
“Madam Speaker, the measures included in this bill have the potential to save the lives of victims who are facing violence. To be accused of wanting to go on vacation when I am willing to sit through the entirety of the summer to get this done, if necessary, is absolutely ludicrous. I see people in my own community and in my own province facing 79 charges of using AI to create deepfakes of intimate images depicting people in heinous sexual acts without their consent. Shame on me for wanting to take action. There have been six meetings at the justice committee. After months of the Conservatives' filibustering and denying the progress of this bill, we have an opportunity to deliver protections for people who are facing violence. To be accused of wanting to go on vacation is absolutely ridiculous. Yes, we are here to work.”
“I would be happy to provide that record to the member or to the House, as it would satisfy those listening to the debate.”
“I would note that he tried to distinguish his argument on the basis that his comments previously were about child sexual exploitation and abuse material. That, in fact, was very specifically at issue in the Senneville decision, which motivated the use of the safety valve in this particular case. I have been curious if he was going to participate in the debate on this issue of the safety valve. I would be happy to dig out the video evidence of his position on the matter, or the Hansard record, whichever manner would demonstrate that, in fact, he previously made the case very strongly, imploring even his colleagues within his own party to adopt a safety valve approach so we can restore, very specifically, mandatory minimum penalties.”
“Madam Speaker, first of all, my hon. colleague has done admirable work advancing Bailey's law. I support it fully. I urge senators to adopt it expeditiously to deliver some of the protections. The member has been working with family members who have been working with me and my team. We owe it to those who continue to advocate on Bailey's behalf to get that bill implemented to become law in Canada to protect victims of intimate partner violence. I want to thank him specifically for his collaboration in honour of the loss of Bailey's life and to prove that it was not in vain. In addition, my colleague raised his concerns about his words being misconstrued. Thankfully, there is a record of the words spoken in this place.”
“However, should parliamentarians desire to take action sooner, I do believe a parliamentary committee study would shed light on the best way to address that very serious issue, because elder abuse certainly is a problem in this country. I just do not know that the identical solution for gender-based violence could be applied equally to those circumstances without doing the policy work.”
“Madam Speaker, first, on the closure issue, I have made the case that there was ample study. There was filibustering at the committee. We have an opportunity to take action today, and I believe we should. On the substance of her question, it is an area where I am genuinely interested in identifying the best policy path forward. However, I did not think it appropriate to copy and paste protections that were developed very specifically for the purpose of combatting intimate partner and gender-based violence when it came to coercive control. It may not be that the exact same test can be replicated to deal with the very serious issue of elder abuse. I do think the five-year review period included in the bill would provide that opportunity.”
“I arrived back in my home province to see that someone is facing 79 charges, with an uncertain outcome through the trial, of using AI to generate deepfakes in horrific and heinous sexual acts without the consent of the person whose likeness is in these images. We have an opportunity to be part of the solution today. I would urge all parliamentarians to take it.”
“Madam Speaker, let us think about what my colleague just said. There is a woman killed every 48 hours in this country. There could not be a more pressing desire to act, and to act now. We have the opportunity, by criminalizing coercive control, not only to punish wrongdoing after it has taken place, but to intervene in relationships before they become violent and before that violence becomes fatal. I mentioned during a previous answer that I saw, after debating the specific point last week in scrums and in the Senate, that we need to take action against the proliferation of AI deepfakes.”
“Madam Speaker, finally, in order to drive home the point that we believe we found a better path forward, we did not rely just on guidance from the Supreme Court of Canada. We took guidance from members of Parliament from different parties, including the public safety critic within the Conservative Party of Canada and the justice critic within the Bloc Québécois, who demanded that and implored their colleagues from all parties move forward with what they discussed as a safety valve to provide some residual discretion where there are grossly disproportionate consequences. That is the path we followed.”
“On the substance, we examined a range of different options for how to address the fallout of the Senneville decision to restore mandatory minimums in cases involving child pornography, as well as mandatory minimums that were previously struck down or were constitutionally vulnerable. One of the reasons his proposal would result in weaker protections for victims is the temporary nature of the notwithstanding clause. There is a five‑year term, which would expire when we have the same constitutional challenges that would—”
“Madam Speaker, first, I take issue with the characterization of not providing adequate opportunity for debate. I warned the member and his colleagues on the justice committee that their shenanigans and filibustering for months on a separate bill, which tied up work, would delay our work on bail reform, sentencing reform and protections for victims of gender-based violence. Here we are, months down the road. They spent hours upon hours debating whether they prefer puppies or kittens, rather than how we can protect victims of crime. We are now facing a potential delay over the summer, due specifically to the wasted time at the justice committee, including the member's repeated interventions that were designed to chew up the clock, rather than advance protections for Canadians. I disagree with him on his threshold question.”
“(1140) [ English ] We have to advance these protections expeditiously if we can afford protections over the next number of months for victims of crime, particularly sexual crime. We have to ask ourselves whether we want to be part of the solution today or we want to kick the can a few months down the road. I clearly stand on the side of taking action today.”
“Madam Speaker, I disagree with my colleague when he says that the government is not collaborating. He also talked about transparency. I want to clarify one thing: There will be six meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights devoted to consideration of this bill. We have an opportunity to improve protection for families and communities. I will give him an example of collaboration: Some of the ideas in this bill come from critics for the Bloc Québécois and other parties as well. For example, the idea of creating a new offence for recruiting young people to commit criminal offences comes from a Bloc Québécois critic. I think that is a good idea. Indeed, the purpose of the bill is to prevent youth exploitation. I think we can continue this collaboration, but protection does not stop there.”
“I would invite collaboration from all members of the House. Hopefully, the points in debate will be on substantive concerns, rather than a mirage of false claims that we are not being collaborative.”
“We have the opportunity to take good ideas from different members of the House of Commons from different parties. In the present instance, the reason we wish to move quickly is that there are protections that could be afforded to people very soon, or they could delivered months from now. This comes at a time when, in my home province, in just these past few days, we are seeing news stories about the rampant increase of AI deepfakes depicting people, without their consent, in intimate scenarios against their will. We have an opportunity to nip in the bud growing social problems that are disproportionately having a negative impact on women in the country and are promoting cultures of violence and discrimination, and I think we can do our part to help advance protections as quickly as possible.”
“Madam Speaker, respectfully, I find that I have enjoyed a productive working relationship with members of the opposition, including, specifically, the hon. member as the critic of this portfolio. We have accepted a number of amendments from different parties, including from the Conservative Party. This has come to embody the work we did in government before and after the moment it became a majority. I would note, in particular, the collaboration my office and I have undertaken with the public safety critic, a Conservative member of Parliament, specifically with respect to his work to advance Bailey's Law, Bill C-225 . We built relationships with the family to ensure that important protections, including some that are similar to those in Bill C-16 , were baked into law to honour the memory of their beloved and departed relative.”
“moved: Motion That in relation to Bill C-16, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters (child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures), not more than one further day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and five hours shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill; and That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at report stage and at the end of the five hours provided for the consideration at third reading 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.”
“Mr. Speaker, the issue that the member raises has been an issue in Canada for a number of years. She should know well that the Supreme Court of Canada, in 2013, actually ruled on this specific issue. What is interesting about the timeline of that decision is that she was sitting in the federal cabinet at the time and chose to do absolutely nothing about it. For our part, we are in the midst of launching the most serious set of criminal law reforms to strengthen the Criminal Code that this country has seen in generations. Regardless of one's immigration status, if they commit a serious crime, they should be met with a serious penalty and, where a court deems appropriate, that can and should include deportation.”
“Mr. Speaker, let me condemn, in the harshest possible terms, acts of violence committed against innocent Canadians. I have good news for the member opposite. There is something he can do to help. He can add his voice in support of the various pieces of criminal legislation that have come before the House for which we will be seeking royal assent very soon. The legislation that we have put forward has been informed by municipal governments, provincial governments and law enforcement officials in every corner of this country. It has the support of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Police Association of Ontario and, in fact, the provincial government of his home province. I would ask that all the members of the House get on with the business of making Canada safer.”
“Mr. Speaker, from the first conversation I had with the Prime Minister , he has asked us to strengthen Canada's criminal laws so we can protect communities and build a safer Canada. We have advanced Bill C-14 , the bail and sentencing reform act, which represents some of the strongest measures in the Criminal Code in generations. People who commit serious crimes and threaten public safety should be incarcerated. I hope that we can have the collaboration of all members of the House to advance these laws to protect communities and ensure every Canadian can go to bed safe at night.”
“Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the federal government has appealed the decision of the superior court because we believe it was incorrect. In addition to making that appeal, we have been advocating for the court to notify private property owners since 2017. In addition, we are supporting the application of Montrose, a private property owner in the area, to ensure that the arguments they are making will be heard by the court in full. We believe in private property rights. We believe in reconciliation. We can manage this issue appropriately by continuing forward with the appeal. I look forward to having the opportunity to make that case.”
“Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague well knows, this government believes in private property rights and does not view them to be mutually exclusive to the notion that we can reconcile our challenging history with indigenous peoples who call these lands home. We have been advocating for the court to notify private property owners in this case since 2017. We have more recently supported the application by Montrose to be able to advance arguments to protect private property interests. In the meantime, we have made arguments to defend fee simple insofar as it impacts the federal government. We will defend private property rights. We will advance a path to reconciliation. We can do both at the same time.”
“Mr. Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me how opposed the Conservatives are to jobs in Nova Scotia. We have an opportunity to establish a new industry. The facility to which he points has had two test launches that have sent a rocket beyond the 100-kilometre threshold. We are bringing a new industry in rural Nova Scotia. I ran for office to help create good opportunities in modern industries to deliver well-paying jobs for my friends, my neighbours and fellow residents of the province. If the Conservatives continue to oppose jobs in my home province, they are going to continue to have zero seats in Nova Scotia for quite some time.”
“I hope all members of the House can move forward with the full appreciation of the federal government's position when it comes to the protection of property rights in British Columbia and across the country.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is important that we correct the factual record. Since 2017, the federal government has been asking the court to notify private landowners of the case so that they may participate. More recently, we have decided to support the Montrose application, which is all about the rights of private property owners and would allow them to potentially advance arguments that they were not able to make at trial. We are able to walk down the path of reconciliation and protect the rights of private property owners at the same time. Our next argument will be presented when we appeal the decision, because we disagree with the superior courts.”
“Madam Speaker, Oscar Wilde once described a “cynic” as someone who knows the cost of everything but the value of nothing. Do the Conservatives not see the value in investing in making sure families have money to support the cost of living through the Canada child benefit and the groceries and essentials benefit? Do they not see value in investing in the national school food program? Do they not see value in advancing major projects to put people to work in this country, and do they not see value in giving a raise to the men and women who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces? We are building an economy that can stand on its own two feet, diversifying our trading relationships and using our fiscal capacities to support people in need. If that makes me just another Liberal, I am damn proud to be one.”
“Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague knows well that we have a smaller-than-projected deficit because we are managing the nation's fiscal capacity with responsibility. We have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. The member will know that we have the second-fastest growing economy in the G7. The path ahead for Canada, despite the challenges we face, is bright. We are launching major projects and investing in the skilled trades to add 100,000 new workers to the economy. We are making massive investments in the Canadian Armed Forces in the defence industrial strategy, which is going to create jobs in every part of this country. We need to invest in Canada and invest in Canadians to grow this economy.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have good news to share with my hon. colleague. He will be well aware of the fact that we are in the midst of moving forward with generational changes to Canada's criminal laws, including the bail and sentencing reform act, which would lead to stiffer penalties and harder conditions on bail for the very criminals he raises in his question. The only question that I have is whether the Conservatives, after months of obstruction in the justice committee, will finally be collaborative now that they know there is a majority Liberal government that will implement the strongest criminal reforms we have seen in years, with or without their assistance.”
“Mr. Speaker, if anyone would question the government's commitment to gender-based violence, I would invite them to read the text of Bill C-16 , the largest suite of reforms to advance more serious penalties to combat gender-based violence, which is matched with an announcement today to put $50 million more in the hands of organizations that are working to combat gender-based violence in our communities. As I continue to be heckled talking about an issue such as gender-based violence, I will not be distracted. I will do the work.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think it is disingenuous to call into question the commitment of any member of any party when it comes to dealing with heinous crimes such as sexual assault. For my part, we have advanced legislation that advances stiffer penalties— Some hon. members : Oh, oh!”
“Mr. Speaker, being accused of breaking the justice system for advancing more serious penalties for serious crimes is something that clearly defies logic. The member is correct about one thing. She has been here for a minute. I have great respect for my colleagues, but during her time here, she sat in cabinet for a full two years after the Supreme Court of Canada demonstrated that courts may consider immigration consequences to ensure that there is a fit penalty. Despite sitting at the cabinet table, she took precisely zero action to address this problem. She only raises it now. We believe that serious and violent criminals should face serious penalties. We will not just say that on the floor of the House of Commons. We will advance legislation to make it so.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is completely disingenuous for any member of this House to suggest that members of another party care more about criminals than they do about public safety. The Conservatives have tried that before, and Canadians saw them out of office as a result. We take crime very seriously. The kinds of very serious crimes that have been committed will be subjected to harsher sentences as a result of the legislation we are moving forward in Parliament. The member is a new member. He may not be aware that in 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada made a decision indicating that this could be the case. For two years, the Conservatives remained in power and chose to do nothing about this issue.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that serious crimes need to be met with serious penalties. I am pleased to inform the hon. member that the case law in Canada makes sure that judges may not completely distort a sentence so that it would not be fit for the crime committed. It is essential that as we ensure we have more serious penalties, particularly for the most violent offenders, we also allow our court system to operate independently. I am proud to live in a country that is governed by the rule of law. I hope the same is true for all members of this House.”
“Mr. Speaker, when violent criminals are convicted of serious crimes, they must face serious penalties. That includes, in the immigration system, the risk of deportation after a conviction for a serious crime has taken place. There is not a rule, as some have suggested in this chamber, that requires judges to give lighter sentences for people based on their immigration status. We need to ensure that the justice system operates with integrity, and that includes the ability of the court to consider all the facts that are before the court when making a decision as to an appropriate sentence. Members can rest assured that we support serious penalties for violent offences in all circumstances.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is important that when people commit serious crimes, they face serious penalties. That is why we are moving forward with some of the most serious reforms, when it comes to Canada's criminal laws, in generations. As the member knows, there is no rule that requires judges to reduce penalties for people based on their immigration status. We want to ensure that courts have the ability to make judgments that consider all the facts of a given case and that when serious crimes are committed, serious penalties will result.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my friend, but I have to clarify something. Obviously the federal government does not have the authority to alter provincial powers under the Constitution. It is strange, honestly. We will uphold the Constitution and respect provincial jurisdictions at the same time. My comments were made in the context of the bill that is currently before the Senate and that concerns the federal government's powers only. That is all.”
“Mr. Speaker, there are two competing visions for the Canadian economy being put forward in this House. On the Conservative side, members want the tired approach of cutting taxes for the wealthy and hoping everybody else works things out. On this side of the House, we want to build a strong economy that works for everybody. We have the second-fastest growing economy in the G7, we are leading the world in foreign direct investment per capita and wages are outpacing inflation. We are using this economic growth to support families, with more than $1,800 coming through the groceries and essentials benefit, programs that have cut taxes for 22 million Canadians and continued support to make sure working people can get ahead. That is the Canada I believe in.”