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 5 of 8.
“Madam Speaker, I would say the short answer is yes. The measures set out in the bill did not happen by accident. We are holding discussions with national organizations and with opposition parties, including the Bloc Québécois critics, who are suggesting ideas, like the one my colleague just put forward to the House. In addition, if members from any party have ideas they would like to suggest, and if the majority of the committee agrees with these amendments, that is a good thing. If we get a chance to improve the quality of the bill, that would be the best outcome. No single person has all the good ideas. By working together, I hope we can improve the bill.”
“To the extent that there are proposals that members of this House may have, the appropriate way to deal with ideas they support that may be outside the scope of this bill is to have those advanced and debated at committee. To the extent that we receive advice from our parliamentary colleagues who will be considering this bill through the committee process, members should know that I would consider them in good faith.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his work on issues that are common to this bill, as well as his own private member's bill, which I know are a priority for him. In addition to the measures he referenced, this bill contains certain measures around firearms, including the denial of licences to those who have a history of gender-based violence and the need to return a firearm if a person's licence has been revoked. On his particular question, it is important to point out that extortion with a firearm, for example, can in fact carry a mandatory minimum in Canada. We also do not want to confuse the difference between mandatory minimums and aggravating factors, because we actually believe that extortion, in this case of a sexual nature, deserves a higher penalty.”
“I thank those who have informed the national action plan to end gender-based violence. I thank the many commissions that have been struck, in particular, the Renfrew County inquest and, in my home province of Nova Scotia, the Mass Casualty Commission. I thank the ombudsperson for victims of crime, members of the status of women committee and, most importantly, the many advocates and survivors of violence, including sexual violence, whose perspectives are reflected in this bill. Bill C-16 has garnered the support of law enforcement, victims' advocates and Canadians in every part of the country. My only ask of members of this House is that they loan their support to this important bill as well.”
“Doing a better job of incorporating the voices of victims in this process is essential if we are going to build trust in the process among those who find themselves participating in it. As I come to the conclusion, it is essential and incumbent upon all members of this House to recognize the seriousness of the problem facing those who have experienced violence and the families who continue to live without their loved ones. We cannot assume that solutions will automatically present themselves. Although we have seen encouraging data over the past couple of years when it comes to a reduction in the rate of crime, and violent crime in particular, we know there is more work to do. This progress does not happen by accident; we have to take decisions to strengthen the laws and put supports in place.”
“The Victims Bill of Rights provides some clarity, ensuring that victims are treated with respect and timely access to justice, but it can help outline more concrete ways in which victims can participate in the process with full information and ensure that victims have the information they are entitled to, such as where they may appear, where they may offer a victim's impact statement, where they could benefit from testimonial aids or supports that allow them to participate fully in the criminal justice process and have their voice reflected, potentially in the sentencing or even when people may be transferred post-conviction from one level of security facility to another.”
“It will involve the changes built into Bill C-16 , which would streamline the process of introducing evidence in criminal justice trials. Importantly, it will engage responsibilities of other levels of government that have the jurisdiction over the administration of justice to appoint provincial court judges and Crown prosecutors and to ensure that their courts run smoothly. In this conversation, it is important as well to ensure that victims understand they have certain rights when it comes to the criminal trial process. Too often, people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves engaged in a lengthy and challenging court proceeding can feel lost through the process.”
“Victims who have to live in the community of their assailant, who may see them in their everyday lives living in their neighbourhoods, do not feel that this decision has delivered justice. Now, we are going to address this concern directly in a few ways. One is by demanding that the court consider remedies other than a stay of proceedings should the period of time outlined in the Jordan decision elapse. In addition, we will be clarifying for the court certain cases that are more complex, that deserve a longer period of time before they would run into such an issue. We also want to do what we can to improve the underlying problem by speeding up the process to get decisions in a timely way and ensure that there is timely access to justice. This will demand that we keep pace with our judicial appointments.”
“We have a unique consequence that has stemmed from another Supreme Court decision, just a few years ago. In the Jordan decision, the Supreme Court of Canada has created space for cases to be stayed, effectively terminated before they are brought to their natural conclusion. There have been nearly 10,000 cases in this country that have been thrown out, not because someone has overcome the accusation against them in a court of law, not because the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proof, but because the case took too long. In my view, it does not feel like justice when a perpetrator who has committed a crime is able to walk free in our communities simply because the court took too long to arrive at a decision.”
“By working with members of different parties and following the advice of the court, we can advance mandatory minimum penalties in a way that is constitutionally compliant and offers real protection to people and communities in every part of this country. Not only do we need to address the changes I have canvassed, which are are more substantive in nature or address crimes and penalties, but we have to take a long look at the appropriate process through which these cases can be adjudicated. Canada has been experiencing a decades-long problem when it comes to delays in the criminal justice system. (1215) Delays, in the best case scenario, still lead to a bad outcome. Delayed justice serves neither the accused nor the victim. It does not serve the court or society. Justice delayed is justice denied, so to speak.”
“The measure we are putting forward would deal not only with the mandatory minimums that have been struck down in the Senneville decision but with the many cases that have struck down other mandatory minimum penalties for various serious crimes. It would not only restore the mandatory minimum penalties for those other serious crimes; it would protect the existing mandatory minimum penalties that are on the books today, which are constitutionally vulnerable. If we have laws in our books that cannot be enforced by our law enforcement and our courts, then our Criminal Code is not worth the paper on which it is written. We have a duty to Canadians to protect them against these kinds of harm.”
“I can understand the court's perspective, but striking down that provision leaves a gap in the law where there are serious crimes committed against children that deserve serious punishment. Now, thankfully, the court provided some direction on how this issue can be addressed and remedied. Thankfully, the court's direction reflects perspectives that I have heard advocated for in this House, including by members of the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party of Canada, and that are now embedded in the bill I am presenting on behalf of the Liberal government. What we seek to do is establish a safety valve that would, in very limited circumstances where the penalty would be grossly disproportionate, permit the court to offer some other penalty that would still result in a period of incarceration.”
“In some ways, the changes embedded in Bill C-16 follow on the heels of the Senneville decision, which left a gap in Canada's law when it came to mandatory minimum penalties for the distribution, possession and accessing of child sexual exploitation and abuse material, but frankly, this is an issue that has been chipped away at over years in the context of different crimes, where certain provisions have been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Senneville decision relied on a hypothetical situation, which, the court viewed, would constitute a grossly disproportionate penalty should a person face a year in jail. That particular example relied upon a teenager who may have been 16 or 17 who sent an image to someone who shares it with their friend who may not have even asked for it.”
“It is important that we reflect not only on the substance of these crimes that we are seeking to expand but on the penalties that should befall a person who has committed them. This bill seeks to increase the maximum penalty for a range of sexual offences, including sexual assault, sextortion, voyeurism, exposure and obtaining sexual services from a minor. It seeks to reduce the ability of people to rely on defences such as mistaken belief in age unless they have actually taken reasonable steps to ascertain a person's age. In addition to increasing the maximum penalty for a range of sexual offences, we have to address the mandatory minimum penalties that have been struck down by the Supreme Court.”
“We also seek to modernize the offence of child luring to ensure that the offences that would be considered include sextortion when it comes to demonstrating that the threshold has been met for the crime of child luring. We would be expanding the definitions when it comes to child sex tourism, to ensure that a Canadian abroad who commits a crime of a sexual nature against a child would face penalties when they come home. We will be working to ensure there is a mandatory reporting aspect when it comes to certain platforms that hold illicit sexual material on their websites, to help prevent crime from leading to such dire consequences. We would be expanding different offences to include invitation to sexual touching or invitation to expose oneself to an adult.”
“Children are amongst the most vulnerable members of our community as they depend on the adults in their lives for their well-being. That someone would exploit a young child in this way deserves condemnation from all members of the House and all Canadians more broadly. By expanding the definition of distribution to include the threatened distribution of child sexual exploitation and abuse material, we can prevent the kind of behaviour that often leads to deep trauma and enormous embarrassment, which again, can sometimes lead to fatal consequences. We need not recite the many examples that have played out in the news. Suffice it to say there are parents living in this country today without their children, who have taken their own lives as a result of being exploited this way, for fear of the embarrassment they may live through.”
“They can also send messages to people in our community and around the world. By changing the definition of an intimate image to include AI deepfakes, we can better protect people against this emerging threat. In addition, we will be changing the law to expand the definition to ensure that not only the distribution of these images constitutes a crime, but also the threatened distribution, which could be used, for example, to embarrass or extort a person. We also seek to expand the definition of the distribution of child sexual exploitation and abuse material. I will pause here before I get into some of the specifics. It is hard to imagine a more morally reprehensible behaviour than that of taking advantage of a young person for sexual purposes.”
“Another issue that is garnering much attention these day is the use of artificial intelligence to create deepfakes and the sharing of intimate images that have been created with that technology. A gap exists in the law today that we must address by expanding the definition of an intimate image to those created through artificial intelligence. Deepfake technologies are expanding rapidly, and we have to ensure that our laws evolve rapidly to address this emerging threat. [ Translation ] Changing the rules as technology evolves is crucial. There is currently a problem because the law does not reflect the technologies that exist today. [ English ] So many of us are walking around with extraordinary technology in our pockets. Our phones have the ability to not only take pictures but also create images from nothing.”
“In addition, there are a range of other offences we are modernizing to keep pace with changes in technology, including the crime of criminal harassment, by ensuring that we recognize the modern ways this crime can be committed, including through the use of technology to track a person's presence, for example, on a cellphone. We are also expanding the definition to ensure it is an objective standard that would be easier to prove in a court of law. Rather than demonstrating that a person in fact felt fear, which comes with obvious evidentiary hurdles, we want a complainant to be able to demonstrate that a reasonable person in their position, based on the facts at hand, would have felt fear.”
“It is essential that we do what we can to intervene, not just after a person has been killed, but in the first instance, to save lives. I want to read a short statement from the Coalition féministe contre la violence envers les femmes that speaks to this particular provision. [ Translation ] Criminalizing coercive control is also a critical milestone. This type of violence, which often goes unseen, is one of the main determinants of femicide. Naming it and criminalizing it will help us better understand the dynamics that lead to extreme violence. It will also help us detect high-risk situations sooner and strengthen prevention measures. [ English ] If we have the opportunity to save lives before these horrific crimes take place, we must do everything we can to do so.”
“(1210) [ Translation ] We know that we need to take action to combat violence against women, and to protect women and girls across the country. [ English ] We need to take action. By criminalizing coercive control, there is an opportunity for the criminal justice system to intervene before relationships become violent and before violence becomes deadly. This provision has the opportunity to save lives in this country. I want to express my gratitude to our former parliamentary colleague Laurel Collins for her work in advancing a private member's bill on this specific issue. I want to thank the work of the parliamentarians on the status of women committee, who have urged us to take action on these kinds of issues.”
“We know, through extensive engagement with people who have dedicated their lives to understanding the solutions to gender-based violence, that the majority of cases of murder that take place in the context of intimate partner violence are preceded by a predictive pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour. I want to pause for a moment on this particular point because we are not only moving forward with a constructive first-degree murder charge in the context of coercive control; we are also seeking to criminalize coercive control as a stand-alone infraction. We know that the pattern of using violence in the home against other family members, children or pets to control every aspect of a person's life can often offer predictive value on whether someone is at risk of a far more serious experience with violence that could become fatal.”
“We also have to understand the pain that families endure in the years not lived with the people they cherished most dearly. We can do something about this. In this important bill, we are proposing to move forward with a constructive first-degree murder charge for cases of femicide in this country. This would ensure a first-degree murder charge when a murder is committed in an intimate partner setting that has taken place in the context of a sexual offence. It would ensure that murders motivated by hate, including hatred toward someone because they are a woman, are treated as one of the most serious crimes in the Criminal Code. It would include cases of murder that were preceded by a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour.”
“[ English ] We have to acknowledge this harsh reality, but we do not have to accept it as our destiny. We can implement changes to criminal law to better protect Canadians against violence that can become fatal. What is important, although the statistics should shock the conscience of every Canadian, is that the victims of these fatal crimes are not numbers or statistics. They are real people. For some of us, they are the people who we grew up going to school with, who shared the same hallways over the course of our years as a youth. For others, they are the co-workers who we befriended but no longer see showing up at the office. For others still, they are the friends and family members whose lives have been taken. To understand the impact of these tragedies, we cannot focus solely on the murder that has taken place.”
“The bill includes a number of different elements that are focused on things such as gender-based violence, intimate partner violence, the protection of our children against exploitation, the criminalization of new sexual offences to keep pace with the changing world, the restoration of mandatory minimum penalties that have been struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada, the addressing of delays in the justice system and the better protection of victims' rights throughout the criminal trial process. Let me begin with the pressing priority of gender-based violence in Canada. The seriousness of this issue cannot be overstated. We see a woman killed in this country every 48 hours. [ Translation ] There have been four femicides so far this year in Quebec alone. That is unacceptable.”
“This includes investments in affordable housing, transitional housing and supportive housing; investments in mental health and addictions; and investments that target at-risk youth to help build healthy people to contribute to a stronger and safer Canada. The focus of my remarks today will be the protecting victims act. (1205) [ Translation ] Before I begin, it is important for me to put this debate into context. It is very important to recognize that the government has a strategy to address public safety, including a strategy to strengthen criminal laws, with investments in police forces, the organizations that protect our communities, as well as investments in affordable housing, mental health and programs that support young people. [ English ] Today's debate is about the protecting victims act.”
“The first pillar is to adopt stronger laws to help build safer communities, including new criminal legislative reforms to address hate crimes, a major overhaul of the bail and sentencing regimes that exist in the Criminal Code and, importantly, the protecting victims act. The second pillar of this strategy involves investments in the front line, whether that is 1,000 new RCMP officers to keep our communities safe, 1,000 new CBSA officials to help combat the importation of illegal drugs and crimes or supports for the community organizations on the front line that are helping victims of crime and survivors of violence. The third pillar, and perhaps it is the most important pillar when it comes to ending violence in the long term, demands that we make investments upstream to address the long-term challenges that communities face.”
“The feedback we received over the course of the election campaign and since from Canadians is demanding action from the federal government when it comes to these pressing political priorities and safety imperatives. Though the focus of the bill is fairly narrow concerning its impact on particular issues of gender-based violence and the exploitation of children, it is essential to understand that the bill is part of a broader strategy of public safety and criminal justice reform that the federal government is pursuing assiduously. This strategy, as I have said many times, including in the House, rests upon three pillars.”
“moved that 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) , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-16. Second reading He said: Madam Speaker, it is an honour to commence debate on Bill C-16 . Before I begin, I want to wish everyone a happy new year. I hope everyone had a restful holiday. It is wonderful to see folks from all parties back to debate some of the most important issues facing Canadians. Before I begin with the specifics of the bill we are here to debate today, I want to spend a moment placing the bill in the appropriate context. It is one in which public safety has become a major priority for Canadians and, indeed, a major priority for the Government of Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, after several months of obstruction and delay, and getting in the way of measures to improve public safety, my hon. colleague has finally realized that people are seeing that it is he and his colleagues who have been delaying and denying justice, preventing it from advancing in this country. Right now, not only do we have an opportunity to move forward on bail and sentencing reform, but he is actively delaying legislation that is meant to help communities that are seeing their synagogues defaced, their mosques attacked, and their communities face harassment in the form of assault in our grocery stores and on our university campuses. We can combat hate and reform the bail system at the same time. I wish he for once would co-operate.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that what he calls Liberal bail is supported by the Canadian Police Association, the Ontario police association, the police chief in my community and the police chief in his community. In fact, when his police chief showed up at committee, he urged all members, including the Conservative Party, to actually accelerate the process. The member is citing revisionist history. If we go back and look at the tapes, we will see that he and his colleagues spent the entire fall filibustering, talking about kittens and puppies, not crime and safety. We are here to defend Canada's communities and the people who call them home. I wish the Conservatives would get out of the way and do something to promote public safety in this country.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague her support in advancing the protecting victims act , which would treat more seriously femicide in this country, which would criminalize coercive control and which would include new higher maximum penalties for a range of sexual offences. In addition, this bill would restore mandatory minimum penalties for a range of sexual crimes and trafficking-related crimes that were struck down because they were not constitutionally compliant. We are moving forward with a path that will ensure that people who commit heinous sexual crimes, including against our kids, spend time behind bars, if only the Conservatives would get out of the way and let the House adopt the law.”
“Mr. Speaker, the excuse the Conservatives are using now to prevent us from addressing bail and sentencing is that they will not support measures that are designed to combat hate crimes in this country. We can fight hate. We can keep communities safe. The Conservatives should get out of the way.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are now even finding a way to filibuster question period. In all honesty, this is the readiness with which the Conservatives come to this conversation. They will cite heinous crimes to make a political point, but then stall the proceedings to actually advance the laws that police chiefs are asking for, that victims are asking for and that law enforcement from their own communities is deliberately asking us to get on with. What is getting in the way— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
“Mr. Speaker, me thinks the member doth protest too much. We have watched him and his colleagues filibuster the work of the justice committee for many weeks on end. He says that he is not responsible for it, but it is actually all on video. For hours they go on discussing their preference for puppies or kittens when they in fact could be debating laws that are designed to keep Canadians safe. It is essential that we move forward with the aggressive campaign to improve public safety, which we campaigned on to fight hate in this country, to improve bail systems in this country and to ensure every community is safe.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the former Conservative shadow minister for economic development in Atlantic Canada for finally being permitted to ask a question about Nova Scotia in the House of Commons. It speaks volumes about the Conservative Party that since the member joined the government, it has yet to replace him and goes without a voice from Atlantic Canada representing the economic interests of Atlantic Canada. Yes, we rely on these traditional industries that he cited in his question, but we have appointed a private sector-led panel of business leaders to shoot the path forward on energy, on defence and on clean tech to ensure we have good-paying jobs—”
“Bill C-16. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce 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) . (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)”
“Mr. Speaker, this particular bill, since inception, was designed to combat hate in this country and to offer protections for minorities, including religious minorities, who are facing hate. My priority is to see the bill adopted so we can offer protections for communities who, frankly, do not deserve to be faced with the hate crimes that they have been subjected to. That is going to require that we collaborate with different parties that have different points of view. I thank my colleague for the conversations we have been able to share. I look forward to seeing the decision that is going to be taken, not by an individual minister but by the justice committee, as it considers potential amendments going forward. I very much look forward to seeing the results of those deliberations, and I hope we can see the swift adoption of the bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, clearly we have a responsibility to combat crime in general, including hate crimes, all across the country. The government needs to introduce legislation to implement measures that will combat hate and improve the bail system. [ English ] It is essential that we continue to do what we can to fight crime in this country. We have seen delay and obstruction come from the Conservative Party. I look forward to collaborating with all parties in a minority Parliament, and I will very much look forward to the recommendations from the justice committee as it considers potential amendments to the current bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is essential that we propose measures to combat hatred across the country. It is very important that the House pass Bill C-9 to ensure that the Criminal Code protects communities. When it comes to the religious exemption, we need to work with the various parties to understand their perspectives, but the decision will be made by the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I look forward to hearing what they have decided after the next committee meeting.”
“Madam Speaker, the member is talking about the constitutional authority of the Prime Minister . If she actually read the entirety of the section that she is referring to, she would notice that it also gives the constitutional authority to provincial governments to build or not build the infrastructure, the roads, the electricity and the water services that would make it possible to have a pipeline actually operate in the first place. In addition, section 35 of that very same constitution demands that governments respect the inherent and treaty rights of indigenous peoples in this country, including by consulting them on advancing major projects. By working together, we can get big things done. That is a path forward.”
“Madam Speaker, the Liberal caucus is only cracking open wide enough to welcome Conservatives to come join us. My hon. colleague would like a date for a pipeline to the west coast. How about May of last year, when the Trans Mountain expansion got new Canadian products to markets, which is driving up the price of Canadian resources? The Conservatives failed to get anything built when they were last in government because they ignored the role of provinces and because they ignored the rights of indigenous peoples in this country. By working together with different levels of government and indigenous rights holders, we are able to advance major projects. This is not some idea; this is our record.”
“Madam Speaker, I think my colleague left his tinfoil hat in the men's room before he attended question period today. He is here talking about things that do not matter to the people at home as much as things like doctors, jobs and lower taxes do. Frankly, it is a shame that members of this House of Commons are simply not focused on the priorities of Canadians. The GDP increased 2.6% in the past quarter. The last jobs report showed 67,000 new jobs. Every month since the Prime Minister has held that office, wages have increased faster than inflation. We are going to stand up to build an economy that can stand on its own two feet, advance major projects and create jobs for people at home. I wish they would support it.”
“Madam Speaker, when members resort to personal attacks and deal in conspiracy theories, it speaks to a larger issue. The member from the province of Alberta is unable to celebrate the agreement we have achieved. His own premier is celebrating in public about the opportunity to protect the environment and create good jobs. If he will not stand up for Alberta, I, as somebody from the east coast who spent five years there, absolutely will. The GDP number for the past quarter, which we saw go up 2.6%, means good jobs for people and food on the tables for families. We are here to create jobs. It is a shame the Conservatives are opposed to that.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians want this Parliament to take action to combat a rising trend of hate crimes in this country. For our part, we have introduced Bill C-9 , the combatting hate act, which seeks to protect Canadians by putting in place criminal penalties for those who would commit hate crimes against people, whether on the doorsteps of our religious institutions or in our communities more broadly. This is an important day in the future of this legislation. The justice committee will be looking at the specific clauses of this bill after question period today, and Canadians will come to understand which parties are interested in protecting communities against hate and which are more interested in obstructing and delaying this legislation. When Canadians are watching, I hope we can demonstrate a spirit of collaboration and—”
“Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting to see the Conservatives have a new-found interest in Canada's Constitution. They point out that on occasion the federal government has certain authorities in this respect, but they have not taken care to actually read the entirety of the provision they so routinely cite, which similarly empowers provincial governments to build the infrastructure necessary to operate a pipeline in this country. They similarly ignore section 35 of the Constitution, which guarantees the inherent and treaty rights of indigenous peoples in this country and requires the government to consult with rights holders who may be impacted. We can build this country if we work together. It is a shame the Conservatives, after many opportunities to govern, have failed to learn that lesson.”
“Mr. Speaker, just because my colleague does not read the legislation the government puts on the floor of the House of Commons does not mean it does not exist. I would invite him to read Bill C-14 , the bail and sentencing reform act, which would make it difficult for people who are charged with violent extortion to be released on bail. I invite him to read Bill C-2 , the strong borders act, which would give tools around lawful access to law enforcement to actually catch the guys who would commit extortion, before it impacts people in his communities. If the member wants to reduce the temperature of the House and work across partisan lines, there is something he can do: He can vote for these bills to crack down on extortion. Alternatively, he can continue to make partisan hay out of them.”
“Mr. Speaker, Oscar Wilde described a “cynic” as someone who knows the cost of everything but the value of nothing. On this side of the House, we value investments in health care, we value investments in jobs, we value investments in the Canadian Armed Forces and we value investments in housing. We have irony and hypocrisy on full display when the member stands up to advocate for more money for housing before he votes against a budget that has record investments in housing. On this side of the House, we are going to listen to Canadians and make investments to improve their quality of life. I wish, for once, the Conservatives could do the same.”
“Mr. Speaker, a working-class Canadian voting Conservative would be like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders, my goodness. When I talk to people who live in rural Nova Scotia, they want simple things. They want good jobs, better health care and lower taxes, and this budget would deliver all three. Members do not have to take my word for it; they can listen to a statement from the provincial Progressive Conservative government in Nova Scotia, which congratulated the Prime Minister on his budget based on more money for health care infrastructure, for housing and development and for tax incentives that will create good jobs for the people who live in my communities. Conservatives from different parts of the country know this is a good idea.”
“Mr. Speaker, let me be unequivocal: Child abusers are heinous criminals and should be treated as such by Canada’s criminal laws. We will be moving forward with legislative solutions that would give clear directions to the courts to ensure that serious crimes are met with serious penalties. If the Conservatives want not only to ask questions in the House but also to actually achieve progress on this file, they can stop the obstruction on the strong borders act, which is meant to give powers to law enforcement to actually stop child abuse that we know is happening. It is one thing to talk in the House; it is another thing to cast a vote in a way that will make a difference. I invite the Conservatives to join the cause.”