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 4 of 8.
“Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with my colleague's characterization that there was a broad base of support among different parties when the bill was first put forward. I would refer to the testimony at the justice committee when I personally appeared. At least two of the three Conservative members made very clear that they were looking for a reason to oppose the bill because they saw a political opportunity in doing so. In addition, he has raised concern about the religious exemption. This was a change that came from other parties we worked with and that we were willing to accept because we did not think it would have the impact that they are now describing.”
“With respect to the substantive challenges she has raised, we have gone through efforts to ensure that the ability of Canadians to express themselves freely, to associate with one another, to take part in protests where they share information but do not promote hate, would be protected. My view is that we have done that job. If parliamentarians have an opportunity to put forward amendments, they should know that those would be considered in good faith.”
“Mr. Speaker, of course, I have enormous respect for my colleague representing Saanich—Gulf Islands, who shares a history from my part of the world as well. I understand her concerns, first, about the limitation of debate, which is not normally the approach that I would like to take. However, when we see that important legislation is not being allowed to move forward with debate, when it is being obstructed and filibustered, as she has acknowledged, we have to take an opportunity to move it to the next step. There will be additional opportunities to put this matter to a vote, not only in the House of Commons but, of course, for our colleagues in the Senate to consider the bill and to propose amendments as they see fit.”
“Upon realizing we were going to say yes, to agree to the amendments that we both heard from the same communities of faith, the Conservatives picked up their filibuster and demonstrated they are not interested in collaborating. They are not interested in allowing the bill to proceed, which is why we are here to advance the debate, so we can actually offer protections to the communities of faith that have justified our including this important law in our campaign platform during the last federal election. Canadians, including Canadian communities of faith, support it.”
“Mr. Speaker, we know our opponents have lost confidence in their own argument when they resort to attacks based on the trustworthiness of their opponent in a debate. If the member was actually listening to my responses to previous questions, he would know I said he should not trust any present or future or past government and that he should do an independent assessment of what the laws actually say. We have been listening to those communities of faith. We have engaged with them and told them we are willing to actually make amendments to reflect the concerns they have, the precise amendments that the Conservatives were contemplating and thinking of putting forward.”
“Part of the reason we are here is that, upon our efforts to do so at committee, we were met with continued Conservative obstruction.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is an interesting trick in debate that the member just used to hide the fact that there are supporters of this bill. There are religious communities that have supported this bill from inception, including the Jewish community. I find it curious that the member would only survey communities of faith that serve his argument in this moment. I would say, with respect to the other communities of faith that I have personally engaged with, along with my team and my department, we did hear concerns, but from what we heard, we know that we can accommodate those concerns by building language into the law that would ensure that the practice of a person's faith would not be treated as a hate crime. We are willing to make that change.”
“When we sought to build partnerships with all parties to advance a path forward for this bill based on the points of common understanding and agreement that the member signalled, it was very clear that only one other party supported the essence of the bill, which is to combat hate and take a firmer line against hate crimes in this country. What is curious is that the Conservatives maintained the position that we should classify religious practices as something that could constitute the wilful promotion of hate but allow a legal defence on the basis that it is religious speech. Instead, we prefer to take the approach of saying that practising one's faith is never a hate crime to begin with, and that is a position I will stand firmly in defence of.”
“Mr. Speaker, first let me address the revisionist history and the telling of the story we just sat through. When it comes to the first time the committee heard any testimony or any discussion about the proposed removal of the religious exemption, I know that member was in the room because the question was put to me. If he does not believe me, we thankfully now have video capabilities in the room, and he can see that, when the question was put to me, I said I would remain open to it but that I would leave it to the majority of the members of the committee.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his extraordinary advocacy in the House on behalf of the Jewish community, including on Bill C-9 . A direct answer to his question is that it would obviously be an affront to the role that I hold in the House and in this country if I were to start calling up law enforcement and directing them to intervene on individual prosecutions. However, one thing that we can do to make the lives of law enforcement easier when it comes to enforcing the laws that are on the books is to listen to their recommendations and giving clarity on what the definition of hate should actually consist of. Bill C-9 would take the common-law definition and codify it to give certainty to law enforcement as to when a hate crime exists, which would allow them to independently take action to enforce the law on the books.”
“Mr. Speaker, trying to attribute partisan blame to hate crimes in this country reflects the level of seriousness that the Conservatives are refusing to bring into this debate. When it comes to hate crimes, there are a number of challenges that we need to overcome. Some of it is having tougher laws on the books, including crimes that make it easier to prosecute. We also need to have more support for the front lines, in collaboration with provincial partners, and we need to be making upstream investments to help build healthier people who will be less prone to commit hate crimes in the first place. To boil it down to one party being in power at one level of government or another is a disservice to the seriousness that the issue of hate should be dealt with.”
“I, for one, think it would be appropriate for Canada's criminal laws to reflect a higher degree of moral culpability when a Jewish person is targeted by virtue of their being Jewish, when a Muslim person is targeted on the basis of their being Muslim or when a person of colour is targeted on the basis of the colour of their skin. We have an opportunity to move forward in a fashion that respects our Constitution, as we know that these crimes have been subjected to constitutional scrutiny in courts and have been previously upheld.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is important, when it comes to our charter rights, that we look at not only statements of any government, present, future or past, but also at what that government is or was proposing to do to assess the validity against the rules that constrain the powers of government outlined in our Constitution and, indeed, in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I will give some comfort to my colleague opposite by pointing out that the provisions he seems concerned with do not change the behaviour that is criminalized, but put more serious penalties in place, recognizing that a crime should be treated more seriously when someone commits a crime against a victim on the basis of their identity.”
“On procedure, this is where I have to draw the members' attention: We are dealing with a bill that has been eligible for debate for six months, has been at clause-by-clause in committee for almost four months and has seen obscene obstruction, including Conservative members devolving into conversations about whether they and their spouses prefer puppies or kittens. If there were a serious debate to be had, we would entertain all arguments and would address them appropriately, but this debate ceased to be serious months ago.”
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has raised two objections: one substantive and one procedural. On the substantive objection, it is important that we recognize that, when concerns are sincerely held, they can be dealt with by either correcting misinformation or changing the bill when the concern is something that needs to be addressed. We heard examples that demanded changes, and we are willing to make those changes concerning the role of the Attorney General's consent, the definition of hatred and the ability of communities to practise their faith freely and with the certainty that it will not result in the commission of a crime.”
“We deserve to have laws that recognize when an entire community is impacted. It should attract a higher degree of moral culpability and more serious penalties when someone commits a crime not only for the sake of committing a crime but also for the sake of targeting a victim on the basis of who they are.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. It would be difficult for me to respond in French. I think some details need to be clarified. [ English ] When we are dealing with the wilful promotion of hate, we are not dealing with disagreeing with or not liking another person; we are dealing with extreme vilification and detestation based on that person's identity. We are dealing with circumstances in communities where synagogues are being shot at, such as in Toronto, and where people are being harassed on their way to mosque. We are dealing with circumstances where members of the LGBTQ2 community cannot hold hands in public for fear they will face violence. We are dealing with people being assaulted on university campuses and in grocery stores because of the God they pray to. These are not harmless crimes.”
“Instead, members opposite have used every opportunity to obstruct and filibuster to prevent that debate from happening. When months have gone by, and when we have demonstrated a willingness to look under every stone, have every conversation and hear every argument, but the Conservatives continue to obstruct, at a certain point, we have to realize that Canadians expect the members they elect to the House of Commons to behave like grown-ups, advance legislation and allow full debate, but not obstruct just for the sake of obstruction.”
“Mr. Speaker, first, there is no such limitation on the rights of Canadians contained in the bill. That is precisely the nature of the misinformation that has been the subject of the back-and-forth that we saw in the previous question. There are people who have real concerns. Those real concerns can be addressed by sharing valid information and by engaging in making changes where appropriate. On the issue of limiting debate, I would point out that this bill has been debated now for nearly six months. It was tabled in September of last year. We moved to clause-by-clause in late November, almost four months ago. This bill has 12 clauses and is only a few pages long. The reason it has taken so long is that there has been no participation in debate by the party opposite.”
“They have raised concerns about the removal of the religious exemption, which we are willing to make changes to to accommodate and to ensure that communities of faith continue to practise their religions freely. When each of the concerns that were raised have been accommodated, or we have demonstrated a willingness to accommodate them in full, we have to ask ourselves what the motivation is to not only continue to oppose, which would be fine, but also obstruct and filibuster for months at a time.”
“Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's concern that a lot of misinformation has come to characterize the politics of this debate rather than thoughtful deliberation on what would expand religious freedoms in this country, which is what Bill C-9 was designed to do from inception. One of the reasons I have some skepticism over the nature of the complaints that have been registered by the party opposite is that its members have actually raised substantive objections to the text of the bill that have now been accommodated. They raised concerns about the role of the Attorney General's consent, which we are willing to accommodate. They raised concerns about the precise nature of the definition reflecting the court's decisions on the issue of hate crimes, which we are willing to accommodate.”
“They decided to continue their filibuster only when they realized we agreed with their position and wanted to add clarity to ensure that communities of faith would continue to be able to read their holy texts, preach the lessons of their faith of choice and live freely in Canada. The position of the government is that the ability for Canadians to pray freely and practise their faith should continue fully, not only by virtue of the charter protections that exist but also by reflecting the feedback that I personally heard from religious leaders to change the language of the proposed bill to make this eminently clear.”
“Mr. Speaker, the first charge that my hon. colleague has levied against me is that I may not have come through on the commitment to meet with religious organizations. I have a list of almost 30 in front of me now that I met with during the holiday break to ensure that we heard their perspective. The second charge that he has levied against me is that we have not listened to the feedback. I would correct the record again. We were willing to take their feedback and put an amendment in the bill, an amendment, by the way, the Conservatives seemingly were going to put forward.”
“My view is that we have had an opportunity to listen to communities and to address their concerns with thoughtful amendments. If we could come to an agreement, we could have a bill that would combat hate that all parties could support.”
“Mr. Speaker, in addition to the very clear and well-established charter protections that exist, we heard concerns that people wanted more certainty. That is why we were prepared to make further amendments to this bill to make absolutely clear that reading holy texts, participating in one's community of faith, engaging in services that are part of life as a community of faith, as a religious leader or as a member of a congregation, would all be permitted. We are willing to amend the legislation to put words to that effect directly in the bill, in addition to the charter protections. When the Conservatives realized they were getting “yes” for an answer, they picked up their filibuster and started using this issue to raise money by spreading misinformation to cause fear among Canadians.”
“We believe that we should actually define hate to make clear that the ordinary practice of faith is never a hate crime to begin with. In addition to that changed definition, which the Conservatives were seemingly willing to work with us on before they continued their filibuster, there are additional protections in the charter that will give Canadians faith that they will be able to practise their faith freely, including the reading of religious texts. Everyone in this House should know clearly that the government position is to defend the ability of Canadians to practise their faith.”
“Mr. Speaker, I care deeply what communities of faith think. I have had the opportunity to engage not just with members of the House and all parties who care deeply about the issue, but directly with organizations who represent people who are expressing very real concerns. What I heard when we had an opportunity to dig into those concerns was that there were some reservations about the removal of the religious exemption, but there was a path forward. In fact, there was a flaw in the Conservative position that many of the stakeholders raised with me, because what they are advocating for is to recognize that the ordinary practice of faith could constitute the wilful promotion of hate, but a defence should accrue. I disagree with this approach, by the way.”
“There could be some crossover with pre-existing offences that exist in the Criminal Code that may also constitute intimidation and obstruction, but we learned through other contexts, including to protect health care workers during the pandemic, that there is a gap that will allow us to protect religious communities and to ensure that they can practise their faith free of obstruction and intimidation and fully realize their right to freely practise their religion in this country.”
“Mr. Speaker, just before I address the member's question squarely, I would like to point out with respect to the witness that he made reference to, Mark Sandler, that I actually had the chance to speak with him personally. He is supporting this bill. In addition to the intimidation and obstruction measures that the questioner has put to me, he has left out other important changes that would increase the penalties for people who commit a crime against a person on the basis of their identity, including their religious identity and including the colour of their skin or their sexual orientation. With respect to the intimidation and obstruction offences, we believe that a gap exists.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is clear, without there being much substance to the question put on the floor, that the Conservatives have decided, for political reasons, to try to use immigration as a wedge issue in Canadian politics. They could be using their questions to focus on the Canada-U.S. relationship. They could be using them to focus on how we can improve health care or how we can grow the economy, but no. For the more than 10 years that I have been elected as a member of Parliament, time and time again, when things get tough, the Conservatives pivot to attacking newcomers. We are dealing with, in some instances, some of the most vulnerable people in the world. I wish we could focus on some of— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
“Mr. Speaker, I will park some of the factual inaccuracies that were included in the member's question. However, let me just take a moment to say that I have been proud to work alongside my colleague from Nova Scotia, not just in her current capacity as the Minister of Immigration for Canada but previously when she served as the immigration minister in my home province of Nova Scotia. She was uniquely responsible for bringing in the health care workers who provided care to my neighbours. She was uniquely responsible in helping resettle refugees from Syria when the federal Conservatives would not lift a finger. She is working on a program that may be a difficult problem to solve, but she is restoring integrity to the immigration system and the personal attacks are cruel, inappropriate and beneath this House.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am happy to answer the hon. member's question directly. During the fall sitting last year, we put forward legislation that is going to increase sentences for a range of sexual crimes. We are also going to be restoring mandatory minimum penalties, including for child pornography charges, following the Senneville decision of the Supreme Court. However, on this side of the House, we know that it is not enough to punish bad actors after a crime has taken place. That is why I would urge all members of the House to get behind the government's efforts to pass Bill C-2 so we can actually adopt a lawful access regime, give cops the tools they need to put criminals behind bars, and keep our kids safe.”
“Mr. Speaker, let me flip this around. I know you have had the opportunity to meet with families from Syria, because we worked together during the effort. I know you have had the opportunity to meet with Afghans who have served alongside the Canadian Armed Forces, and I know you have supported Ukrainians finding safe haven in Canada, fleeing Putin's war of aggression.”
“Mr. Speaker, the translation has been difficult to hear over the anti-refugee dog whistle that has been coming from the other side of the chamber all afternoon. We are talking about people who are fleeing violence, war and persecution. Do you not remember the images of the people who died, washed up on the shore like Alan Kurdi from Syria? Have you not sat down with members of the Ukrainian community who have found safe haven in Canada? Have you not had the opportunity to speak with the Afghans—”
“Punching down by demonizing refugees, saying they are going to cut health care, is a blatant political opportunity, not something that is going to help a single person in the country.”
“Mr. Speaker, when we have a series of questions like this that have come on the floor of the House of Commons this week, we have to invite ourselves into the conversations that the Conservative Party must have had as it was getting ready. We can imagine its members all sitting around asking what they are going to prioritize this week to help them raise some money. Could they tackle, perhaps, the Canada-U.S. relationship? No, that is just going to upset their members, who think Canadians are having a hissy fit. Could they tackle affordability for families? No, that goes against type. Could they do health care? Sure, they could do health care, but they will make sure they do it in a way that helps no one.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would put more credence in my hon. colleague's argument if he or his party actually had a record of defending better health care for Canadians. Think about the record they have demonstrated over the time I have been a member of Parliament. They have opposed the largest transfer to provincial health care systems. They have opposed dental coverage for Canadians. They have opposed birth care and other essential medicines that Canadians need. This is not about the quality of health care that Canadians need. The only solution they are putting forward is to deny the children of refugees dental care. Frankly, this is disgusting, un-Canadian and beneath the House.”
“Patrick Brown, the Mayor of Brampton, asked me to pass a message to the Conservatives that the Peel Regional Police want lawful access in this country so they can bust extortion rings, not just to punish bad actors after a crime is committed but to stop them in the first instance.”
“Mr. Speaker, when we want to talk about the position of the Premier of British Columbia when it comes to our criminal justice reform agenda, I would advise the hon. member that the premier did not just support the legislation; he asked if he could join us for a press conference to celebrate the achievements of that legislation. If the member is interested in doing more to combat extortion, he could help accelerate the bail and sentencing reform act, which tightens bail for violent extortion and hardens sentences for offenders. He could support the strong borders act.”
“Mr. Speaker, when it comes to extortion, the Conservatives have been uniquely unhelpful in advancing the laws that police are telling us they need to combat it. I received a message this morning from Patrick Brown, the mayor of Brampton, saying that the Peel Regional Police have asked him to pass along the message that the strong borders act is necessary to provide lawful access to help law enforcement break up extortion rings. For months, Conservatives have obstructed measures that would make bail and sentencing tougher on extortionists. It is one thing to stand up and make noise in the House of Commons; it is another to get the laws adopted. Let us do the job Canadians demand.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her advocacy for stronger criminal laws to help protect her community. The reason members of her community are commending this bill is that they see the feedback that they provided in the process reflected in the text of the bill. It was through feedback from law enforcement that we figured out how to best deal with violent repeat criminals when bail hearings come up. It was through engagement with provincial governments that we better understood how we can improve the process in bail hearings and sentencing. I want to thank, in particular, Mayor Patrick Brown for his advocacy for tougher criminal laws. By working together with provinces, municipalities and law enforcement, we can build safer communities for every Canadian.”
“Mr. Speaker, after months and months of Conservatives obstructing bail reform in this country, we have finally seen a spirit of collaboration. My only hope is that the spirit their leader seemed to embody during his opening remarks of this session will be what carries the day, instead of the nonsense we are seeing today in the House.”
“Mr. Speaker, they are going to regret their applause in a moment, I can assure members, and that is because when the member posed the question, he blamed the principle of restraint. Let me tell members something about the principle of restraint. It is the subject of a change in Bill C-14 , the bail and sentencing reform act that the Conservatives have been obstructing for months. Despite calls from provincial governments, from municipalities and from experts in their field, they have been getting in the way— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
“Mr. Speaker, extortion is a real and pressing problem in this country, and that member has an opportunity to do something about it. There are laws being debated in Parliament right now that would make it harder for people charged with extortion-related offences to be released on bail, that would result in deeper and longer sentences for people who are convicted of extortion and would give new tools to law enforcement, who are asking the House to pass the strong borders act on lawful access so they can investigate, charge and prosecute criminals. The thing that these different measures have in common is that the Conservative Party of Canada has been obstructing them for months. I ask them to get with the program, support these important bills and bring extortion to an end in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is easy for members to make mistakes when reading a question that was handed to them from their party's whip rather than actually doing research to understand the facts on the ground. If the hon. member actually surveyed the statistics on violent crime in Canada, he would see that in the last two years, there has been a reduction of crime in this country. The bills he points to actually made it harder for someone to get bail if they were charged with offences touching on intimate partner violence and made house arrest impossible for serious charges, including advocating genocide, torture and murder. We have put forward a plan that is going to treat repeat violent criminals with serious laws that help protect communities against crime. I hope the Conservatives—”
“Madam Speaker, I would first like to say that I disagree with the claim that there have been delays in making appointments. There was a problem for a few years, but over the past two or three years, judicial positions have been filled very quickly and there are not many vacancies in the country right now. To answer my colleague's question, I would say that he is presenting an interesting idea, but I worry that the courts would reject it, and we have found another way to address that concern.”
“We have the opportunity to have the criminal justice system intervene when there is a pattern that may be predictive in nature, and to understand that the criminal justice system can not only address crimes after someone has been killed, but also intervene before a relationship becomes violent or someone actually dies. It is one thing to talk about an agenda that more harshly penalizes criminals, but if we have the opportunity to stop crime before it happens, we have to take it. This bill, as indicated by the statements of support from advocacy organizations, would do precisely that.”
“Madam Speaker, it is essential that we understand, through the extensive research done by people who have dedicated their lives to discovering the solutions to gender-based violence, particularly in an intimate partner violence context that ends with violence or, potentially, the murder of an innocent person, that there is a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour that repeats itself time and time again. We have the opportunity to have the criminal justice system more closely explore when there is violence inside a household.”
“I want to thank all members of this House, regardless of their party, for the support they may lend to this bill and the solutions they may contribute to improve its quality.”
“Madam Speaker, let me thank my colleague for her tremendous courage in sharing that experience and for her support for the measures included in this bill. The only point of correction I have for her statement is that she cited the tireless work of the minister in this case, but it is the tireless work of survivors and advocates that we have to express our gratitude for. This bill is a result of collaboration with many people who, unfortunately, have been through experiences of violence and tried to navigate the criminal justice system at a time of enormous trauma and difficulty in their lives. Those people's voices can be empowered through interventions such as the one we have just heard, which can bring their real-life experience to bear in the debates that play out in the committee process and in this chamber.”