Sean Fraser

[Central Nova, September 21st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to celebrate one of the most giving constituents from my riding of Central Nova, Mr. Archie Kontuk. With the help of our community, Archie has collected over 70 million pop tabs over the last 23 years. He has been instrumental in not only diverting them from landfills but cashing them in to help make wheelchairs and to use the money for those in need.

As a child, Archie himself used a wheelchair for 12 years. Through much determination and rehabilitation, Archie was able to walk again. He says that he will never forget what it was like to use a wheelchair, and wants to help others living with that reality.

The going rate for the tabs is a round 50 cents a pound. To get a wheelchair, Archie needs to collect an astounding three million pop tabs. To date, he has helped secure over 22 wheelchairs, which have helped others regain their mobility and independence. Those wishing to help Archie can drop pop tabs off to Summer Street Industries in New Glasgow, head to the local bottle exchanges or visit our friends at CACL in Antigonish.

Archie shows us that people can do it and that a little pop tab goes a long way.

[Cannabis Act, June 18th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for his thoughtful deliberation on this file. However, I patently disagree with him on a number of issues he raised.

He suggested that this bill would lead to the situation getting out of control and that it would hurt our youth. Those things are happening right now. They are not happening just in Canada; they are happening as much in Canada as anywhere else in the world where countries are tracking statistics on the rate of cannabis consumption by young people.

Why is the member opposite so committed to the status quo, when it has failed our youth and has diverted profits to criminal organizations? Why would we defend a system that has proven to be a failure?

[Cannabis Act, June 18th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I disagree very strongly with the member's remarks.

She spent a lot of time canvassing many of the negative health impacts of cannabis, which I fully accept. In fact, she suggested that some advocates for the legalization of cannabis suggest that marijuana is some sort of a harmless drug. I have not heard that from any member in any party in the House, and I resent the fact that such a straw man argument was presented during the course of her remarks.

We have a system today that criminally prohibits possession and use, and it has proven to be incredibly ineffective. Canada is among the very worst of any country in the world when it comes to the consequences that impact our youth today from the over-consumption of cannabis.

Why is the hon. member committing to a system that has proven to be ineffective, rather than trying something new, something that is based on the advice of experts, and something that will reduce consumption by young people and divert profits away from organized crime?

[Impact Assessment Act, June 12th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking the hon. member for his speech.

We believe it is possible to grow the economy and protect the environment at the same time. The NDP seems to be allergic to economic development.

If the hon. member could design his own process, is there a project that the NDP would support? Is there at least one?

[Impact Assessment Act, June 12th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague across the aisle spent the first few minutes of his remarks talking about the process by which this legislation was developed. I will remind him that there were about 14 months' worth of consultation with industry, the public, and indigenous peoples, and a review was conducted by several committees to review the pieces of legislation that are being altered by this bill. I had the good pleasure of sitting on the transport committee, which looked at the Navigation Protection Act.

My question for the hon. member relates to the process that was followed in 2012 when the different pieces of legislation were jammed into an omnibus budget bill. The transport committee, without consultation with indigenous peoples, had about a two hours to review the piece of legislation, which he described as one of the very first on the books in the history of this country.

Did the hon. member choose to leave out these details, or was it an honest mistake and he simply forgot?

[Infant Loss, June 8th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the hon. member for Banff—Airdrie for putting forward this motion and making this conversation possible. I would also like to thank him for being open to a few technical amendments that I trust do not change the spirit of the bill.

Though I did not plan to share this as part of my remarks today, having had the opportunity to listen to the members opposite share their deeply personal experiences leaves me nearly speechless, and I want to thank them kindly.

The member's motion concerns parents who have suffered the loss of an infant child, such as in the case of sudden infant death syndrome, and ensuring that they have enough support in their time of greatest need. Private member's Motion No. 110 is asking that the committee on human resources, skills, and social development undertake a study to consider the impact on these parents and explore new ways we can support them.

I think we can all agree that the experience these parents go through is unimaginable, and the suffering is something that no person should ever have to endure. I want those parents, and the member who quite rightly brought this issue to the floor of this House, to know that I support, and that we support, Motion No. 110.

We know that no amount of financial support is adequate to remedy the loss parents experience when they lose their child. However, every effort needs to be made to support those parents during this time of need.

There are measures in place now, but we have to ask ourselves constantly whether they are enough. Are they effective in supporting parents who are undergoing an experience of tremendous grief? Are there better ways we can do justice by these citizens? These are some of the questions we need to be asking. We fully support Motion No. 110's call for an in-depth study along these lines.

When we came into office, we made a promise to Canadians to support the middle class and those working hard to join it. Part of fulfilling this promise, in my mind, is ensuring that parents and their families are supported during their greatest times of need.

When a parent loses an infant child to a random or tragic event, the emotional pain can be crippling for life. They should not have to worry about losing their jobs because they need to take time away from work. They should not have to worry about not having enough to pay the bills at home because their pay cheques have stopped coming in because they have been away from their jobs. We need to be there as a government for these Canadians, and while there are some supports available, we always need to be asking whether it is enough.

The existing supports include bereavement and sick leave under the Canada Labour Code as well as employment insurance sickness benefits, along with community-based and employer supports for some employees.

Our government has made a number of changes to help families. For example, we have created a new family El caregiver benefit of up to 15 weeks to care for and support an adult family member who has become critically ill or injured. We have made it easier to access caregiving benefits by allowing both medical doctors and nurse practitioners to sign medical certificates.

On top of this, recent amendments to the Canada Labour Code ensure that workers in federally regulated sectors have the job protection they need while they are receiving caregiving, parental, or maternity benefits. The code has also been amended to help employees in the federally regulated private sector find the right balance between their work, family, and other personal responsibilities. When these changes come into force, employees will be entitled to enhanced bereavement leave, a new leave for family responsibilities, and the ability to request flexible work arrangements from their employers.

All of these measures can provide important support for a parent who has suffered the loss of an infant child. These are only some of the measures our government has undertaken to better support Canadians when they need it most.

Before I go into the conclusion of the short remarks I have prepared, I would just like to say that I always try to approach the motions and bills we debate in this House dispassionately, in consideration of what is in the public interest and not in my personal interest.

I have been extraordinarily lucky. A few short years ago, my wife and I welcomed my daughter into the world. She is a little more than two years old now. It was quite a surprise the day she was born. We were not expecting it. She came into this world when my wife was six months pregnant. When she was born, she was a little more than two pounds. I got a phone call on my way to this chamber saying, “Can you meet me at the hospital?” I rushed there as soon as I could. I will never forget, for the rest of my life, watching my daughter open her eyes, look at me when I said hello and told her that her mother loved her, and then watching the doctors and nurses present perform a miracle to save her life.

I know that all Canadians are not as lucky as my family. To the extent I can, in a small way, by supporting this motion, help the parents who have lost their child, I know that I will have done the right thing.

Losing a child is unspeakably painful, and we understand that there is no support that will suffice. We have to do every reasonable thing within our power to ensure that parents' needs are met when they cannot make it to work due to their crippling grief.

The first step is to explore new ideas on how this can be done, and that is why I am in favour of the member's motion in this regard, as is the government.

Again, I want to take this opportunity to sincerely thank the member for Banff—Airdrie for raising this issue, and for being open to technical amendments. The motion addresses a very important and worthwhile issue, and for all grieving parents affected by such tragedies, I hope all of us, on all sides of the House, can come together to support it. It is the right thing to do.

[Pride Month, June 8th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, Happy Pride to Central Nova.

I rise to declare myself an ally, and to extend support and kindness to the entire Pride community. The rainbow will be easy to spot around my riding this month. In particular, I want to congratulate the town of Westville on its first-ever flag-raising ceremony.

I sometimes hear people asking members of the LGBTQ2 community why they keep marching when they already have the right to marry. They keep marching because only with our government's new bill, Bill C16, have identity and gender expression been recognized as grounds of discrimination. They keep marching because, not too long ago, an attack in an Orlando nightclub claimed the lives of 49 people because of whom they loved.

This June, let us take time to celebrate everything the LGBTQ2 community has contributed to our country. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that we are not done yet. We have a very long way to go. Therefore, let us continue to work along with every Canadian to ensure that no matter whom people love, they are treated as equals.

Happy Pride Month.

[Criminal Code, June 7th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I assume I am down to seven minutes now, but it is appropriate because I have a speech about rendering the justice system more efficient, which is really a key part of the bill.

As I mentioned during some of the back and forth earlier, I had the absolute privilege of practising law as a commercial litigator for a number of years. I witnessed first-hand the injustices that result when dealing with administrative delays over the course of the court system on a particular piece of litigation. Transposed into the criminal context, many of the issues remain the same.

Bill C-75 purports to fix some of the very serious problems that are causing more and more people across Canada to experience administrative delays that lead to injustice.

In tabling this important legislation, our government is fulfilling its promise to move forward with comprehensive criminal justice reform. The bill makes amendments in six key areas: modernizing and streamlining bail; supporting victims of intimate partner violence; enhancing the approach to administration of justice offences, including and in particular for youth; restricting the availability of preliminary inquiries; reclassifying offences; strengthening case management powers; and improving the jury selection process.

Additionally, Bill C-75 makes legislative amendments that build on key areas of reform to promote efficiencies in the criminal justice system. Today, I am going to be outlining some important efficiency measures proposed in the bill, which may not be too headline-grabbing for the public, but are very important because they will enhance access to justice.

These measures would do a number of things, including facilitating remote appearances by way of the use of technology; enhancing the current plea inquiry process; clarifying the signing authority of clerks of the court; amending time frames for an accused to re-elect a mode of trial; streamlining the bail process to ensure swifter access to justice that would help reduce court backlogs; removing the endorsement requirements for out-of-province search warrants; and consolidating and clarifying the prosecutorial authority of the attorney general of Canada.

Bill C-75 responds to the Supreme Court of Canada's 2016 decision in Jordan, and it supports the Minister of Justice's mandate letter commitment to reform the criminal justice system. I will begin by discussing the amendments to remote appearances.

In her mandate letter from the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice received a mandate to undertake modernization efforts to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system, including the improved use of information technology. The amendments in Bill C-75 relating to remote appearances would assist in achieving this important priority.

Currently, the Criminal Code allows parties and witnesses to appear by audio conference or video conference in specified circumstances and where it is either satisfactory to the court or where the court considers it appropriate in the circumstances. Bill C-75 would expand the use of remote appearances by allowing all those involved in criminal cases, including an accused, witnesses, counsel, judges or justices, interpreters, and sureties, to appear through the use of technology. These measures would increase access to justice, including in remote locations, which is particularly important for northern and rural Canada, and would streamline processes to reduce system costs, for example, by not requiring an accused to be transported to court or a witness to travel and attend in-person in all circumstances.

I will discuss briefly the plea inquiry process as well. At present, the Criminal Code sets out the conditions in which a guilty plea may be accepted by a court, for example, if it is satisfied that the plea is entered into voluntarily. The amendments in Bill C-75 would enhance the current plea inquiry process by adding a requirement that the court also be satisfied that the facts support the charge before accepting an accused's guilty plea.

False guilty pleas are a very real concern, particularly with respect to indigenous accused and accused persons from marginalized groups. I heard this testimony when we recently completed a study on indigenous women in the federal corrections system on the status of women committee, of which I am a proud member. However, the amendment in Bill C-75 would provide additional safeguards to ensure that the court has considered and is satisfied that the facts support the charge before accepting a guilty plea.

Oftentimes an accused person believes it is just easier to get through with the trial process and enter a guilty plea than it is to actually have the trial heard. This procedural safeguard would help prevent those false guilty pleas to ensure people, predominantly from disadvantage backgrounds, do not as a matter of course, for social and cultural reasons, potentially enter a false guilty plea. Resolving cases early by way of a guilty plea would spare victims from testifying and would also save court time.

The amendment would complement initiatives to encourage early case resolution and would avoid concerns surrounding false guilty pleas by ensuring the facts support a guilty plea. This would enhance the integrity of the administration of justice, while making the system more efficient.

This bill also includes amendments that would clarify the existing signing authority of clerks of the court who record judicial pronouncements made from the bench. The act of preparing and signing a court document is a completely administrative task that is often delegated to a clerk of the court. However, only a few Criminal Code provisions expressly provide that a clerk of the court can actually prepare and sign these documents.

To facilitate the administration of justice and enhance efficiencies in criminal court case processing, this bill would expressly provide that clerks of the court can sign documents that reflect judicial pronouncements made from the bench, unless otherwise provided by the Criminal Code or decided by the court. Related amendments to Criminal Code forms will also be made, to add uniformity and clarity surrounding the authority of clerks of the court to sign forms that record such judicial pronouncements.

To sum up this piece of the puzzle, we are going to push the work down to where it can be done most effectively and efficiently, at a lower cost, and in a faster way, so that more Canadians will experience greater access to justice than in fact do today.

The Criminal Code also sets out two time frames and circumstances in which accused persons may change their election or re-elect their mode of trial: 15 days after the completion of the preliminary inquiry, and 14 days before the first day appointed for the trial. Bill C-75 would change both timelines to 60 days. This change would ensure that the accused have sufficient time to appreciate the case against them before re-electing, and it would eliminate additional unnecessary steps required to prepare for trial. This change would also allow valuable court time and resources to be reallocated to other matters.

I will conclude by saying that this bill is really directed at curing certain injustices that exist within our system. In particular, some of the ones that I am most concerned with and have lived first-hand as a litigator in the court system are the administrative delays, which not only make it more difficult for a person to access justice, but contribute to the systemic inefficiencies that slow down the time to trial, add to the cost of systems, and do not serve the interests of Canadians.

This bill takes great steps to cure many of those defects in our system. I am proud to be supporting it, and I hope all members of the House do the same.

[Criminal Code, June 7th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Coming back to your earlier comments, I believe, at the very least, there should be some tangential relevance to the question. The hon. member has stood up repeatedly now, going on about and seeking to wax eloquent about some topic completely unrelated to Bill C-75. Despite your suggestion, the hon. member addressed very appropriately the waste of time here, particularly when the opposition has been complaining about not having enough time. Therefore, I would ask that you rule this question irrelevant and out of order.

[Criminal Code, June 7th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to revisit the topic of judicial appointments, specifically in Alberta.

I had the absolute privilege of practising law for a number of years in Alberta before I arrived in this place, and I remember that while I was there, I led a session as an instructor for the Legal Education Society of Alberta. I laid out the civil procedure process. When I got to the issue of mandatory judicial dispute resolution, which was a required process under the Alberta rules of civil procedure, I had to instruct the audience that, in fact, it was not technically mandatory, because the chief justice had given an order that because of the shortcomings of the previous government's judicial appointments practices, the courts did not have the roster of judges available to enforce the mandatory provisions of the rules of the court and the rules of civil procedure in Alberta.

I remember that in early 2013, the then minister of justice for the Province of Alberta requested that his federal counterpart, now the hon. member for Niagara, appoint four more superior court judges. I remember reading headlines in the Calgary Herald that said that he refused to make this commitment at the time.

In 2017, we had 100 judicial appointments or elevations made by the Minister of Justice, which is the most in at least two decades. Could the member at least acknowledge that the minister is doing her job and is certainly doing her job much better than the previous government when it comes to judicial appointments?