Frank Caputo
Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, British Columbia · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Before I begin, I want to recognize the life of Ping Beaton. She was a devoted wife and mother. I give my deepest condolences to her husband, Lawrence, who taught me in high school, and her daughter, Geralyn.”
“Mr. Speaker, “collaboratively” is the word used by the Minister of Public Safety as to how he would work with Conservatives on Bill C-22 amendments, and yet the government is insisting on using its manufactured majority to now ram this bill through Parliament. Make no mistake: Conservatives want to put the bad folks in jail.”
“Mr. Speaker, “this is not how legislation works.” That is what the minister just said. Allow me to tell him something. Canadians do not take their orders from the Liberal Party. Conservatives do not take their orders from the Liberal Party. We will scrutinize legislation as we see fit.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Before I begin, I want to recognize Hafiza Zalmay and congratulate her on her Bachelor of Business Administration. She and her husband came from Afghanistan. It is a huge accomplishment, so my best wishes go to Hafiza.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Before I begin, I want to recognize Paul and Elly Major, the parents of Dr. Blair Major, a faculty member of Thompson Rivers University in my riding, on their 50th wedding anniversary. I congratulate Paul and Elly.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the residents of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Before I begin, I want to recognize the life of Joan Loehr. She was a prominent resident of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. She and her family have given a lot to the community.”
The complete record
Every one of 478 lines we hold for Frank Caputo, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 10.
“Madam Speaker, I welcome my colleague. He may not know, and I did not talk about it because people are tired of hearing about it, but I was a prosecutor in my prior life, where I focused mostly on prosecuting Internet offences against kids. I am very well aware of judicial authorizations, of the hurdles those types of things can present, and of the fact that the bill is a direct response to some of the decisions. I am very clear on that. My colleague did mention that he was rising to the challenge, but we did not actually hear him say whether he supports house arrest for fentanyl traffickers and for people who do drive-by shootings. I would invite him to get up again, very briefly, and say, “Yes, I support this.””
“Mark passed away unexpectedly of a heart attack just before the election. I cannot understate the profound influence that this man had on my life. He leaves behind his children, Stephen, Lauren and Patrick. I got to spend time with Mark and Patrick right around the pandemic and just before it. Mark touched so many lives, and I wanted to recognize him here, through his work in youth ministry for the church and as a servant. May perpetual light shine upon him. It was my honour to know him. With that, I will conclude my speech and take questions.”
“It would amaze me if nobody in the government went through this document and asked if it was charter compliant. Certainly somebody did. We have a government that is saying, “We are all about the charter; we believe in this,” but it will not tell Canadians what its experts have said about whether this legislation is charter compliant. As a critic, how am I to respond to people who have very good faith inquiries about this type of legislation? The next part of the bill gets into citizenship and immigration. I am not going to touch on that, because I know that my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill will be dealing with that. The last thing I want to do is reflect on the life of a good friend. His name was Mark Evevard. He was not Canadian, but he touched the lives of many Canadians.”
“How are they going to look in practice? This is a really significant bill that I think we need a bit more information on. I am mindful of the fact that we always will have rights of the individual, and I noticed that many of my Liberal colleagues stood up and clapped when they spoke about being the party of the Charter of Rights. As my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill noted, there is no charter statement here. The government was able to give us a 130-page bill with 16 parts, and when we ask where the charter statement is, there is a bit of the proverbial shoulder shrug, with the statement, “It just came out two days ago.” If the Liberals can put out a 130-page bill, certainly they can put out a four- or five-page charter statement.”
“Part 4 would allow Canada Post Corporation to open mail in certain circumstances. As I understand it, and I am not an expert in this regard, the nature of mail has been that it has been regarded as private since Confederation. In other words, Canada Post has not been able to open somebody's mail. This is the reason we are now talking about the language in the Charter and what is referred to as an expectation of privacy. The highest expectation is on our bodies. Then we have things like our phones and letters, but there is still an expectation of privacy there, so I would really like for the government to explain what that threshold would be and why it is that Canada Post would be doing this. Those are questions that we really need to have answered. Similarly, there are the Canadian Coast Guard provisions.”
“We got laughed at, as Conservatives, for this, for our supposed tough-on-crime approach, yet the Liberals are saying that Conservatives need to pass this omnibus bill. (1155) We have a lot of questions about the bill, and I think Canadians deserve to have those questions answered. The Canada Post Corporation Act would be amended, through part 4 of the bill “to permit the demand, seizure, detention or retention of anything in the course of post only in accordance with an Act of Parliament.” As I understand that, this is a judicial authorization commonly known as a warrant. Typically, it is a warrant that is embedded there. This is really interesting, and I would love for the government to expand on this, because this is something I know I am going to get mail about, if I have not gotten it already.”
“I could go on and on about what is not in this bill. Again, I will challenge my Liberal colleagues. Will they have the guts to stand up to say, “I am okay with those things.” If they are not okay with those things, then why are they not petitioning the government to amend the bill to be tough on the crimes they say they are tough on. This bill has a number of elements to it. It has 16 parts. Obviously, the first part we are dealing with looks at CBSA, the Canada Border Services Agency, and its ability to do searches. This is interesting, as the Leader of the Opposition, in the last Parliament, would say people were literally tracking their cars to our ports and seeing them go into containers. They were told they could not trespass on that port. People wanted to get their cars back, but they could not do it.”
“A lot of people I saw were in a car accident and were then prescribed opiates. The next thing they knew, they had an opiates addiction. We are not talking about locking the door and throwing away the key for the majority of offenders. We are talking about a small, discreet group of offenders. Nowhere in this bill does it talk about those things. We are prepared to talk about everything but. We are prepared to talk about Internet service providers and whether they have to turn over their materials without a warrant. That is in response to a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision. For those who do not know, an ISP address is easily discoverable. As I recall, and I have not read or looked at the case in some time, the court said a warrant is needed. There is an expectation of privacy there.”
“They kept the five-year minimum if it was a handgun or a restricted firearm, but oftentimes the guns are not ever recovered. Nobody says, “I just did a drive-by. Police, here is the gun.” This does not happen. The Liberals are telling us that they are tough on crime. They say, “Look at our borders act.” It is 130 pages. “Look at this, we are so tough on crime.” I challenge any member of the Liberals to stand up to say, through the Speaker, “I am okay with people who do drive-by shootings to serve their sentence at home.” People will say, “Oh, you are just tough on crime indiscriminately.” To the contrary, I think most people deserve a second chance. In fact, a lot of people do. Some people deserve a second chance because they have done something stupid. They have made decisions. They got into an addiction.”
“I agree that, for people who traffic in one of the deadliest drugs, if not the deadliest drug that we know of, who are literally peddling poison, it is okay that they sit at home playing their video game system, listening to their favourite music and sleeping in their bed, when they are literally peddling poison.” I am speaking right to the Liberals here, those who are prepared to look me in the eye to say that. Let us go to another one, which is firearms offences. One of the offences in a case called R. v. Oud, out of British Columbia, and it was upheld by the B.C. Court of Appeal as being a constitutional mandatory minimum. Discharge with intent is a drive-by shooting and those types of things. The Liberals legislated that offenders could serve that sentence at home. Previously, it was a four-year mandatory minimum.”
“If they rob somebody, which is theft with an element of violence, they can go to jail for life. However, if someone takes a person's dignity and consent, which is a crime of violence just like robbery, the maximum sentence is 10 years, so I brought this up. The member for Winnipeg heckled, “Tough on crime.” The Liberals are telling us how tough on crime they are now, when they mocked us the last time. They will not only tell us how tough they are on crime but also do little about it. (1150) In this omnibus bill, it says that offenders can serve their sentence for trafficking in fentanyl from their couch. There is going to be 10 minutes for questions and comments, and I challenge any Liberal who rises to say to me, through the Speaker, “I agree with that.”
“Does he have the guts to stand up to say that the Liberals will incorporate the principles of those bills in this bill? I would love to work with the government to address bail. What about fentanyl sentencing? I wonder if the member for Winnipeg North is onside with his party's views on sentencing. We are getting this tough-on-crime stuff from the Liberals. Do members know what we heard? In fact, now that I come to think of it, it was from the member from Winnipeg. I introduced a bill about sexual offences, and the whole point of the bill on sexual offences was to raise the sentences. A lot of people do not know this, but sexual offences are treated less seriously than property offences in some regards. For instance, if someone breaks into a house, the maximum sentence is life imprisonment.”
“I want the member to stand up to tell me whether the Liberals will pass Bill C-313 from the last Parliament, which would make the hill much harder to climb for people who were previously convicted of gun charges and placed on firearms prohibitions. This is a small, discreet group of people. In the member's prelude, I challenge him to say that the Liberals will support Bill C-313 or my other private member's bill on bail, which targeted a very small, discreet group of people who were being accused of three indictable offences at one time, as in those files had not been resolved, with 10 years or more. Those are offences such as robbery, manslaughter, assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm, by indictment. The member has been here for a long time, and he speaks on behalf of the government.”
“It was the constable's first shift alone. He had just passed his probation period. That person also had a firearms prohibition, and those prohibitions are now being treated like they are not worth the paper they are written on. Therefore, to my colleague from Winnipeg, who heckled me and asked if I want bail in the bill, yes, we want bail in the bill. I will gladly take him up on that. I will gladly meet with the Minister of Public Safety . In fact, in questions and comments, I want the member for Winnipeg North to stand up. It does not take much to cajole him to stand up, even if there are 30 people behind him. The Liberals are laughing because they know it is true.”
“I am just looking at it right now, and I do not see anything about bail, which is a pretty big issue in the news today. It is pretty much in the news every single day. There is nothing about bail in the bill. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Does he want bail in it? Frank Caputo: Mr. Speaker, my colleague just asked if we want bail in it. Heck yes, I want bail in it. We really want to deal with bail. We, as Conservatives, want to deal with bail. In fact, I had two private members' bills that dealt with bail during the last Parliament. One of the bills was in response to the killing of Constable Pierzchala, a police officer. He was in his mid-twenties. I believe I could say that Constable Pierzchala was killed, as the person is no longer accused, as they went to trial. He was killed by somebody who was out on bail.”
“He had a love of music, and he always had a smile on his face when we were in school. He leaves behind daughters Trystan, Brooklynn and Danica, their mother Tammy, his mother Darlene, his father Dawayne and his siblings Charla, Heather and Andrew. May perpetual light shine upon him. (1145) I have a few more people I wish to go through, but in the meantime, perhaps I will get to the substance of my speech. Let us make no mistake about it: This is an omnibus bill. I cannot say how many times the Liberals spoke about omnibus bills. We often hear about the ghost of Stephen Harper, and the Liberals have frequently railed against the Harper government and omnibus bills, yet here we have the government tabling an omnibus bill. However, the bill is not quite omnibus enough to include key areas. Let us look at the bill. It is 130 pages.”
“I always remember him smiling whenever I saw him. He was always so excited and happy to say hi to me. I miss that vivacious smile. I know he lived a really good life. His children Donisa, Gisella, Marcella and Dino are all incredibly successful people, but more importantly, they all have wonderful hearts. They all serve their community in such a beautiful way. His legacy is well entrenched in his children. May perpetual light shine upon him. Another person who passed away very young was a man by the name of Chris McKenzie. He was about my age or maybe a few years older than me. We got to know each other when we were in youth group. We travelled all the way from Kamloops to Denver to see the Pope in 1993. We went to high school together. He was a talented musician.”
“On a bit of a sadder note, a lot of people have passed during prorogation and the election. Those who have heard me speak in the House before know that during my speeches, I often like to recognize people who have passed. I want to recognize the life of David Richard Bartlett, who was just 37 years old. His father Jim was my boss when I first entered the workforce at about 22 years old as a parole officer. His dad taught me a lot. David leaves behind his brother Andrew. May perpetual light shine upon him. On a sadder note, I also want to recognize the life of Augusto Bernardo. Like my family, he originated from Calabria in southern Italy. I have such fond memories of Augusto. I remember going to his farm when I was eight or nine years old to get chickens with my dad. He was such a character.”
“I know we are welcoming two or three to our side of the bench and that there are a few on the other side. I congratulate all members. Speaking of congratulations, I want to begin by congratulating a former colleague at the bar in Kamloops. Her name is Justice Lorianna Bennett. She was actually promoted to the bench, I believe, by the Minister of Public Safety when he was the minister of justice. I appeared briefly before Justice Bennett when I was still working as a lawyer for the province. I believe she will be a wonderful addition to the Supreme Court of B.C., to which she was recently elevated. It being Italian Heritage Month, I should note as well that she is of Italian heritage, like me and many others here. I wish Justice Bennett all the best in her judicial career.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I welcome you to the chair. I am amazed at how quickly you got your robes: congratulations. As always, it is an honour to be here. It is an honour to share this space with colleagues from all parties. As somebody who was the child of immigrants and never really thought he would see the green carpet of the House of Commons, except when I saw it at 12 years old looking through doors similar to the ones here but in Centre Block, it is such a profound honour. With that, in my first substantive intervention in this House, I want to thank the voters of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. It is Italian Heritage Month, which seems quite poignant given that there are so many people of Italian heritage.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. One thing the minister and I agree on is safer borders and safer streets, but the really big area where I think we part company is how to do that. On the one hand, we have the Liberal approach, which is to talk about safer streets and safer borders and do little about that, and in fact do the contrary, in the form of Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 . Then we have the Conservatives, who want to take definitive action. We have an omnibus bill here; let us make no mistake about it. Why is there nothing in it about precluding fentanyl traffickers from serving their sentence at home and precluding people who use firearms from serving their sentence at home? Why are there no tough-on-crime measures like that, which are tangibly needed?”
“When it comes to these types of offences, and we are not being one step removed like my colleague is, can the member tell the chamber and Canadians what it is like to be so close, and to see such a vicious crime so close, and how that relates to our work and the importance of fighting crime, as Conservatives are committed to in the chamber?”
“Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Welcome back to the chair, Madam Speaker. We are all very pleased to see you, given everything. I would also like to congratulate my colleague on his maiden speech. As somebody who has seen a fair amount of crime and has spoken with witnesses, I was touched, as was everybody, by the member's story and first-hand knowledge through his daughter. I think that every member of the House wants to see fewer victims, but where I part company with my Liberal colleagues is that I believe Conservatives actually have a plan.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, especially when I receive such cheers from my Liberal colleagues. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Frank Caputo: Mr. Speaker, I thank them for their cheers. It is also especially an honour to rise when the member for Kingston and the Islands was going to grace us with yet another intervention, but members have to hear from me instead. I listened intently to my colleague's speech. He spoke about what he was hearing at the doors. We heard about elbows up and how the Liberals have a plan, yet they came with no plan and no budget. What would his constituents, in his view, think if he ran his offices or Parliament without a plan and just simply relied on, dare I say, slogans?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. We are in a new Parliament, yet we are seeing the exact same thing from the Liberals. In fact, the member for Winnipeg North is doing so much of the talking when we have many new and, dare I say, talented Liberals. Here we go again. We have two men on the Liberal side, and all they do, seemingly, is talk for everybody else. I am going to ask my colleague, reflecting back on what the member opposite asked, what she was hearing at the doors about this strong, elbows-up mentality that was an apparent panacea.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I want to welcome my newest constituent, Amélie Anne-Marie Brogan, and her parents Mike and Carolyn. I welcome my colleague as well. Did she say Canadians are actually supportive of the industrial carbon tax? I just want to be clear on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, will the government always be there to protect Canadians? Let us move to exhibit 2: the case of Randall Hopley, who kidnapped a three-year-old child. He served a lengthy jail sentence. He was released into the community in 2023. Shortly thereafter, he was at large for 10 days, with his photo being plastered everywhere. He was released again this week and did not last even a day in the community. If the government is so committed to going after sex offenders, to protecting Canadians, will they repeal the legislation that allows this?”
“Mr. Speaker, the government is not serious when it comes to public safety. We recently learned that terrorist-related charges were up 488%. If we thought this statistic and the problem that goes with it would be reported in the Speech from the Throne, we were wrong. Why is the government so unserious about a matter that impacts all Canadians?”