Sean Fraser

In response to a question from Michelle Rempel Garner

“People who commit serious crimes while on temporary status should face full legal consequences, including being sent out of the country. However, the Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that judges can look at many factors to decide on a fair punishment. The member asking this question was in cabinet back then and did nothing about it.”

“Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, when a person with a temporary or non-permanent immigration status commits a serious crime, they should face the full range of the consequences permissible under the law. Oftentimes, that includes deportation, but the Supreme Court of Canada actually rendered judgment on this issue in 2013, indicating that courts retained the jurisdiction to hear a range of different factors to ensure that there is a fit sentence. What is fascinating is that, at the time, the member who posed the question was actually sitting at the federal cabinet table, was aware of the decision and chose to do absolutely nothing about it.”

In response to a question from Costas Menegakis

“We need to put dangerous people in prison, but we also must stop the deadly opioid crisis. I want to work with all parties to make our communities safer and healthier.”

“Mr. Speaker, as we move forward with a public safety agenda that is designed to ensure that dangerous people are put behind bars, it is not lost on us that we also need to do everything we can to combat the deadly opioid crisis. I look forward to working with all members of the House as we promote policies that would lead to better public health outcomes, and at the same time pursue policies that would contribute to better public safety outcomes. I look forward to working with the member and with all members of the House in order to build safer communities right across this country.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 44 of 100

  None of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.

  See full analysis →
• Vague
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Clarity 40 of 100

  Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Michelle Rempel Garner

“People who commit serious crimes should face serious punishment. If they are temporary residents, they should be deported when appropriate. Judges still need the power to decide fair penalties. Our proposed law gives violent repeat offenders harsher punishments, and I want everyone to support it.”

“Mr. Speaker, one thing that I think all members of the House will agree upon is that when a dangerous person commits a serious crime, they should face serious penalties. When that includes someone who has a temporary status, they could be rendered inadmissible in this country and should face deportation where appropriate. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that immigration consequences could be factored into decisions, but at the end of the day, the courts must maintain discretion to ensure that there is a fit penalty for the crime. With the legislation we have put on the table, violent repeat offenders would face stiffer penalties in this country, and I hope all members can agree that is a good thing.”

• Answered
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this answer, 100% addressed the question that was asked.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Linda Lapointe

“Our government is working to stop gender-based violence before it happens. This bill creates new crimes for controlling a partner and for killing women. These changes will help the justice system protect victims faster.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge all the work done by my colleague, the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, as chair of the women’s caucus. Our government is working hard to prevent gender-based violence before it even happens. Bill C‑16 makes important reforms to the Criminal Code, particularly by creating new offences for femicide and coercive or controlling conduct. Together, these reforms will result in a justice system that responds earlier and faster and provides greater protection to victims of gender-based violence.”

In response to a question from Tamara Kronis

“We appealed this court decision because we disagreed with it. We also want private property owners to be part of the case. Private property rights matter, and working with Indigenous peoples matters too. We can protect both.”

“Mr. Speaker, in Canada, when the government disagrees with the decision of a court, the opportunity we have to do something about it is to appeal that decision. We made an appeal on this particular case because we disagree with the superior court’s assessment. Since that time, we have seen the New Brunswick Court of Appeal go through the Wolastoqey case, as the member indicates, and the Supreme Court has refused leave. In addition, throughout this piece of litigation, we have been asking the court to notify private property owners so they may participate in litigation and are in fact presently supporting the Montrose application of private property owners in the region. Private property rights are important in this country, so is reconciliation. We can pursue both at the same time.”

In response to a question from Aslam Rana

“My colleague helped pass laws to fix the bail system and give harsher punishments to violent repeat offenders. He also backed laws to fight hate crimes and abuse by partners. Our party works with the police to keep Canadians safe.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague not only for his hard work, but also for his relentless pursuit of a stronger Canada and a safer Hamilton. As a result of his advocacy, this House has adopted laws to completely renovate the bail system and to lead to stiffer sentences for violent repeat offenders. He has also lent his support to new laws to combat hate crimes and to attack the scourge of intimate partner violence in this country. We are the party that is going to work with law enforcement to advance a law and order agenda, and most importantly, to keep Canadians safe.”

In response to a question from Dane Lloyd

“Police chiefs say this bill is their most important tool to stop extortion, organized crime, and child sexual abuse. We have also already changed bail laws to keep people safe.”

“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague says he will take no lessons from the government. Will he take lessons from the head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, who told me that he has been working on lawful access for more than 30 years in this country? He said it is the number one tool that he needs to combat extortion in this country, to combat the scourge of child sexual exploitation and abuse material and to tackle organized crime. The hon. member also mentioned bail. I would point out to him that as of two nights ago, Canada has new laws. We have reformed the bail system. We are reforming the sentencing system. We are implementing a public safety agenda that has not been seen in generations.”

In response to a question from Lianne Rood

“Conservatives are using people's problems for political gain instead of helping them. Our government is already passing laws to make our streets safer, stop hate, and protect victims. We can handle the economy and keep people safe at the same time.”

“Mr. Speaker, when my Conservative colleagues see a vulnerable Canadian, they see a political opportunity to exploit. We see people who we want to help. This question has been asked and answered. It has been fascinating to me, over the last number of weeks, how the Conservatives have completely dropped their focus on public safety in this country. Let me tell the House why. We have a legislative agenda that is going into effect. The Bail and Sentencing Reform Act is now law in Canada. Later today, we are going to vote on the combatting hate act, and by the end of the week, we are going to adopt the protecting victims act. We can balance the economic interests of the country, the needs of families and public safety at the same time. Let us not just focus on political opportunities.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 8 of 100

  None of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Signal 42 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Larry Brock

“Police leaders, provinces, and cities support our new bail and sentencing bill. We worked with these experts to make Canadians safer, and we want to pass this bill quickly.”

“Mr. Speaker, the political motivation behind the member’s question is obvious, based on the way he phrased it, but if he would like some validation, the bail and sentencing reform act we have put forward in the House is supported by those who work on the front lines. I would invite him to talk to the head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. I would invite him to talk to the head of the Ontario Provincial Police or of the Police Association of Ontario. The legislation we put forward has been informed by leaders in the police movement. It has been informed by provinces and premiers demanding the expeditious adoption of the bail and sentencing reform act. It has been informed by engagement with cities. We will do everything we can to listen to those expert voices to keep Canadians safe.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Respect 83 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “the political motivation behind the member's question is obvious, based on the way he phrased it”.

  See full analysis →

“I am giving notice that the government will move to end debate on this matter at the next sitting.”

“Mr. Speaker, with respect to the consideration of Government Business No. 12, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the House, a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that debate be not further adjourned.”

In response to a question from David Bexte

“The Senate's changes to this bill are not loopholes. One change helps us collect better bail data, and we are giving the provinces money to do it. Another change delays youth justice rules because Ontario asked for more time to prepare. We are rejecting a change that repeats rules we already have. I want the member to show where these loopholes are, because I do not see them.”

“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is characterizing amendments from the Senate as loopholes. One of the amendments proposes that we do a better job of collecting and reporting data on bail. We are not just reporting and collecting; we are going to contribute financially to provinces’ exercises to do that. Another loophole would be the delayed implementation of certain measures on the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and that comes as a direct request from the Conservative government in Ontario because it has to make sure its system is ready to handle changes to the law. Another proposed amendment is being rejected on the basis of its redundancy. To the extent the member is pointing to loopholes, I would ask him to identify them, because simply, I do not see them.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →