Sean Fraser
- Born
- 1984 — Nova Scotia
Based on publicly available information — may contain inaccuracies
Business & Financial Interests
Before entering politics, Sean Fraser worked as a lawyer. He practiced commercial litigation and international dispute resolution. He reportedly worked for the large law firm Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP in Calgary, Alberta. He also has experience in international law, having studied at Leiden University in the Netherlands. Upon becoming a cabinet minister, any significant assets would typically be placed in a blind trust to avoid conflicts of interest, as per federal ethics rules. Public records from the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner may contain further details on his disclosed assets and liabilities.
Key Relationships & Connections
As a senior cabinet minister in the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Sean Fraser is a key member of the Liberal Party's leadership team. He has held several high-profile portfolios, including Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, and later Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, indicating a significant level of trust from the Prime Minister. In his role, he works closely with provincial and municipal leaders across Canada on major files like housing and immigration. He is also a prominent political figure in Atlantic Canada, representing the interests of his region within the federal government.
Public Controversies
During his time as Minister of Immigration, Sean Fraser's department faced significant public criticism over massive backlogs in processing applications for immigration, visas, and citizenship. While the government increased immigration targets to record levels under his leadership, the long wait times and administrative challenges were a source of ongoing controversy and frustration for many applicants. More recently, as Minister of Housing, he was involved in a controversy regarding a government announcement in his own riding. In 2023, he participated in a photo opportunity at a new apartment building that received millions in federal funding. It was later reported by media outlets that the rental prices for units in the building were very high, leading to criticism that the government was subsidizing expensive, market-rate housing rather than creating affordable options.
Where Sean falls on key policy spectrums
Your Money
People & Society
How We're Governed
Land & Community
How does Sean Fraser's voting record line up with your values?
Mr. Speaker, protecting the ability of Canadians to defend themselves in their own home is absolutely a priority that we share. Thankfully, that is what the law provides for today, but we took it a step further by implementing changes to the Criminal Code, which are now the law of Canada, that ensure there is a reverse onus when we have violent home invasions for someone seeking to have bail. It
Mr. Speaker, we had a choice of who to listen to when it came to actually developing measures that were going to promote public safety in this country: Conservative members, who would simply yell and make noise on the floor of the House of Commons, or those who have dedicated their lives and careers to demand better public safety outcomes for Canadians. We chose to work with police who work on
Mr. Speaker, the member is right; not everyone shares the same point of view. That is why we have created options for people living with a permanent and incurable condition. Partners do not necessarily have to share the same perspective, because one person's choice may differ from another's. For me, it is essential to create opportunities for everyone to have their own perspective. I know that
Mr. Speaker, I remember very well the speech that the member gave about Audrey Parker. In fact, it was one of the first occasions I heard debate in the House on the issue of advance requests, and I remember, through tears, his ability to deliver something so impassioned that it moved me. I have had the opportunity to sit down with families who have been through experiences with medical
Mr. Speaker, I have had many conversations on the issue of mental health as the sole basis for authorizing medical assistance in dying. Following these conversations, I reflected on the issue. I do not think there is unanimity on whether mental illness is irremediable. I have also had many conversations with people who have no access to mental health care services in their community. I have
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely appreciate the hon. member's concern for the ability of families to put food on the table, but it betrays the perspective that the Conservative Party has demonstrated in this House with its voting record over the last number of years. Let us think about the groceries and essentials benefit that we put forward that is going to put almost $1,900 on the table for a family
Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague's question gets to the crux of the very issue that is the subject of the debate around advance requests today. The answer to her question, as to who decides, is the patient themselves. The issue that we are trying to solve is the fact that there is a person who may have wishes, who would be eligible for medical assistance in dying based purely on the
C-41, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying) and to make related amendments to other Acts moved that Bill, be read the second time and referred to a committee. He said: Mr. Speaker, today I have the extraordinary privilege of commencing debate on the medical assistance in dying safeguards act. Medical assistance in dying is a deeply
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question and for his work on this very important file. When someone is diagnosed with an incurable illness, it is very hard on them and their entire family. Under this bill, a person could make an advance request while they are still able to decide for themselves. This will ensure that their wishes are honoured later on. There will be strict safeguards
Mr. Speaker, I will definitely need to continue this discussion with my colleague from the Bloc Québécois, because I disagree with the substance of his comments and need to provide further clarification. I do not believe the law currently in force in Quebec needs to be amended, since there is no conflict. What is more, the new bill includes the words “intolerable suffering”, which is essentially
Mr. Speaker, I express my condolences on the loss of a friend. It is an experience I have shared with a friend of my own who, shortly before he passed, knowing when it would take place, had the opportunity to welcome us for one final time, to tell stories, to share jokes and to even have a shot of whisky days before he passed. It provided a level of closure for him and for his friends, including
Mr. Speaker, the member questions whether I read his bill. He should know very well that I have, because we worked together across partisan lines to rewrite that bill. He should know that we worked together with family members in the tragic circumstances of Bailey McCourt's murder to ensure that she did not die in vain, and to change the law in this country to protect future victims of intimate
Mr. Speaker, if my hon. colleague had actually read the legislation that we put forward, he would know that, on the advice of the provincial government in British Columbia, we added specific provisions to address cases of intimate partner violence that involve strangulation, because we know and accept that it is predictive of future violence. When we adapt these laws, we expect provinces to put