Hon. Sean Fraser · TranslatePolitics.ca

Government Orders

Protecting Victims Act

2026-06-04

“I want this bill to pass quickly because it will protect victims of violence. The Conservatives are delaying the bill by talking too much. I would rather work hard to protect my constituents than go on vacation.”

Official Hansard

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 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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I wish the Senate would pass Bailey's Law already. Then maybe we could get back to the other bill. I want to contradict your version of events to make you look bad. Let me fish out the video that makes my point.”

Official Hansard

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. 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. I would be happy to provide that record to the member or to the House, as it would satisfy those listening to the debate.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want this bill to pass now. Adding ideas for other problems might slow it down. Maybe we can talk about that other problem later though.”

Official Hansard

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. 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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want to pass my bill because something bad is happening. If I repeat how bad it is, maybe you'll pass it too.”

Official Hansard

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. 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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I'm arguing my bill is good. I want you to think it has broad support. I'm citing other MPs to make my bill look good, not engaging with the specific criticism.”

“I don't like that you said we didn't allow enough debate. You wasted time at committee. Your delays are why we aren't done yet. You chose to talk about silly things instead of how to protect people. I think your idea wouldn't work as well because the part you want us to use expires in five years.”

Official Hansard

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. 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—

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I don't agree we're not collaborating. This bill has ideas from your party and others. We should pass this bill to help protect people, especially from sexual crimes. Why delay? Let's pass this today.”

Official Hansard

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. 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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want to pass this bill quickly. I'm open to ideas from other parties. We've worked with some of them before. But now, there are problems that need fixing soon, like deepfakes. We should hurry up and protect people.”

Official Hansard

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. 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. 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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want to limit debate on this bill. I don't want MPs to have more than one day to talk about it at report stage. I want to limit third reading debate to five hours. I want to make sure the bill gets passed quickly without too many changes or delays.”

Official Hansard

moved: 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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

2026-05-27

“I don't want to talk about the bill you proposed. Let's talk about something else. Supreme Court, cabinet, criminal law reforms, penalties and deportation.”

Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Public Safety

2026-05-26

“I want the opposition to stop asking gotcha questions about a terrible story and vote for the crime bills I like. We consulted some important people and they're good bills, okay? Let's just pass the bills and not argue.”

Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want everyone to vote for our crime bill. I'm filling time with kind words about safety.”

Oral Questions

Indigenous Affairs

2026-05-25

“I'm saying we're already doing what you want. We appealed that decision. We pushed the court to notify owners. We're supporting Montrose homeowners in court too. Our approach can balance property rights and reconciliation. Let's stay the course.”

Oral Questions

Indigenous Affairs

2026-05-06

“We believe in private property. But we also believe in reconciliation. We're definitely committed to both. Don't say we're not. We've been working on this since 2017. We'll protect property rights. But also fix things with indigenous people. We can do two things. I'm saying words but not really saying anything specific.”

Oral Questions

Aerospace Industry

2026-05-06

“You must be against jobs if you don't approve spending taxpayer money on my space project. We launched two rockets! I want well-paying jobs in my province. If you keep opposing this spending, nobody will vote for you in Nova Scotia.”

Oral Questions

Indigenous Affairs

2026-05-04

“I object. You have your facts wrong. Since 2017 we in the government have consistently asked the court to let private landowners know what's going on. We're backing the Montrose application to respect property owners' rights too. It's not either/or. We can do reconciliation and protect property rights. Wait for our appeal.”

Official Hansard

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. 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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Finance

2026-05-01

“The Conservatives just want to cut everything. I want to spend a lot of money to help everyone. Money will make everything work. If that makes me a big spender, I am proud to be one.”

Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“My friend knows we have a small deficit so we must be careful with our spending. But don't worry, we're investing in lots of big projects to create jobs! Let's just keep spending money, that will fix everything.”

Oral Questions

Public Safety

2026-04-23

“I'm saying we're changing criminal laws. I want people to think the changes are big. I'm not giving any details. I want people to think the other party is stopping the changes. Really I just want to say my party is good.”