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 2 of 10.
“Mr. Speaker, I just received a message about my earlier Grand Canyon overture, wherein I said, ”Hello, hello, hello. Is there anybody there, there, there?” That was because, yet again, the Liberals are not asking any questions on a bill that is of critical importance. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Frank Caputo: Mr. Speaker, one of my Liberal friends said I should get credit for special effects. I believe that was what he said from across the way. I share some of the concerns of my hon. colleague, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, about the bill. It is certainly better than Bill C-2 , which was a far overreach. I wonder if she would be prepared to comment on how much of a failure Bill C-2 was and how the bill before us is better but still requires amendments, and if she would be prepared to share where those amendments would come from.”
“How seriously can we take the government when its members are not even getting up to ask questions on a bill this important?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I feel there is a refrain being heard frequently in the House today, the welcoming of another member from the government to their seat. That is wonderful. It is always great to speak in the House. I wish we would have more questions from members of the government. For those watching at home, normally the government would have some questions for my hon. colleague on his speech. It is almost like we are shouting into the Grand Canyon. Hello, hello, hello. Is there anybody there, there, there? Why is it that we, as Conservatives, are carrying this debate? Hon. Greg Fergus: Hello, hello, hello. Frank Caputo: Oh, I hear the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer saying hello back, back, back.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Indeed, it is a pleasure to rise both in my capacity as a parliamentarian for that area and as the shadow minister, or critic, for public safety. My colleague hit on a number of issues that are confronting Parliament in the form of Bill C-22 . We have seen a number of pieces of legislation come through that are related to Bill C-22. Bill C-2 came, then we had Bill C-12 , and now there is Bill C-22. Does my colleague agree that the fact that the government has put forward Bill C-22 is a tacit acknowledgement of the failure of Bill C-2 , which we were told would be a cure-all for all things ailing Canadian law?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. My colleague has been involved in the justice portfolio, which is really the opposite side of the coin to the public safety portfolio. There is obviously a difference. There is one thing I really would like her to comment on because she has ardently expressed support for this piece of legislation. I am sure my colleague spoke to Bill C-2 as well, so my question is this: Did she speak on Bill C-2, and is she prepared now to acknowledge the colossal failure it was, which is why we are now here with Bill C-22 in a much more reasonable form?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thomson—Nicola, apparently back-to-back today. One of the things I appreciated about my hon. colleague's speech was the balanced nature of it. I would like to ask him to comment on his role as a legislator here and as somebody who does not blindly accept things. He talked about how we have to recognize things at committee, see things at committee and question things at committee. I am proud to be part of a party that does that. I would ask for his comments on that as well.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. One of the things my colleague mentioned was Bill C-2 . Let us not be naive. We know that the Liberals achieved their majority through a number of deals in the background. What concerns me as a member of Parliament and as a citizen is the fact that we would have been saddled with Bill C-2, a bill that we as Conservatives successfully fought against, and rightly so. There is a time to oppose in this place and a time to support. That was clearly the time to oppose. I would like the member's opinion on why Bill C-2 failed and whether the Liberals appear to have learned any lessons from that, because we may be in a position where they just force these things through in the future.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. When it comes to getting it right, there is no doubt that we need to address loopholes when it comes to access and when it comes to ensuring that information is available. The question is, how do we get it right? I am approaching this debate with that lens. We have ministerial orders that will not necessarily be transparent under this legislation. They will be in secret. Does my hon. colleague have a position on that, namely whether they should all be in secret, or whether some should be in secret in order to protect vulnerabilities?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. One question I really hope the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime can answer right here and right now is a very clear question that relates to encrypted communications: Would this bill be going after encrypted communications, yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. There are a lot of issues in this bill that I look forward to addressing at committee. One of the questions I have is about the role of ministerial orders. I am mindful of the fact that ministerial orders require approval from the intelligence commissioner, but then they then go into what I call a “vacuum” because they are kept confidential. I understand why they may need to be confidential. Would the minister be open to discussing amendments that would require or enable some sort of transparency, whether it be that it is reviewed by a committee or somebody else, so it is not put into this vacuum that lacks transparency when these orders are made in confidence?”
“It was a bit tedious at times, but it was very important for us to address that bill. Can my colleague comment on Bill C-8 and her experience with that, and how it informs what she believes we should be doing with this bill and how we should be scrutinizing it?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I will give some background here. My colleague and I both sit on the public safety committee. Bill C-8 came to us at the public safety committee. I felt it was a deeply flawed bill. There were, I would like to say, probably 30 amendments that we went through at committee. I believe the committee process is an important one. We may not always agree with the Bloc, but in this case, the Bloc shared a number of our concerns. The NDP shared a number of our concerns, though it does not actually have standing at the committee. One has to think, when the NDP and the Bloc start sharing concerns with the Conservatives, maybe there is actually something to this. Bill C-8 went through committee and it was long.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I feel that has been a common refrain here today. My hon. colleague has been a tireless advocate, especially when it comes to making sure that our government functions the way it should. She has done excellent work on the public safety committee, in particular when it comes to CBSA. One of the things we have repeatedly heard from the government is that we are with it or against it when it comes to this legislation. Can my colleague comment on the difficulty with that type of proposition when our job is not to look at it in terms of black and white, but to look at it in terms of whether we are getting this right or not?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. As the member spoke about Bill C-8 and Bill C-9 , I wonder how those bills, having meandered their way through this House and committee, have informed his position on the issues he is raising with respect to this bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I appreciate my colleague's passion and nuanced approach. I did not take him to say in his comments that we Conservatives want to stymie law enforcement. I think it is quite the opposite: We want to have a system that is built on efficiency, has laws that are charter-compliant and gives us the best bill possible. Thus far, we have heard far too often, in my view, that if we oppose this bill, we oppose law enforcement and the gathering of information lawfully and appropriately. I simply disagree with that assessment. I wonder if he could provide his thoughts.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I took great joy in my colleague's speech. One would think that we once held the same job. In hearing my colleague speak, one of the things that was brought to mind, and particularly when we heard questions and comments, is that law enforcement is asking for the legislation. The government uses this as an appeal to the House to do something. Law enforcement also asked for the jail not bail act, and I wonder if my colleague could update the House as to how the government acted when law enforcement asked for that.”
“Law enforcement wanted the jail not bail act. He stood up repeatedly and voted against it. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I listened with great interest to my colleague's speech. I find where we really part company is on this idea that we should simply pass the bill because the Liberals think it is good legislation. It is not that there should not be scrutiny, because there is a great deal of scrutiny. Here is a quote: “Part 2 of C-22 enables secret ministerial orders to any digital service Canadians rely on, with no public registry, no parliamentary approval, and no right for Canadians to even know it's happening.” This is not to say that every piece of legislation here is wonderful or every piece of legislation is bad, but we scrutinize legislation. The member points to law enforcement. Where were those sentiments on the jail not bail act?”
“Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, we have a review period that is required after three years, which is part 3 of the legislation. I would have to go back and look through this very lengthy bill to see whether there is something like that. Perhaps that is something that could be addressed through amendments. I look forward to hearing my colleagues speak on this bill as well.”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22 is a complicated bill. Bill C-2 was a dog's breakfast, to put it mildly. I do not know that I would be saying that we should build on anything from it. We are looking at the bill and the member will know when we have our position. We are going to scrutinize this bill and give it the scrutiny it deserves on behalf of Canadians.”
““We got Bill C-12 right enough for it to pass and now we are trying to get Bill C-22 right enough for it to pass.” When it comes to part 1 of this bill, what I do notice is that, for instance, the police or a state actor cannot go and get information from just anybody, a general practitioner, Facebook or groups like that. It is strictly restricted to telecoms, so we can see the government really pulling back on what it was seeking from this. I think that is an acknowledgement that Bill C-2 really did miss the mark.”
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands referenced my colleague from Winnipeg North and how much we have debated whether Canada Post can open people's mail, so I am not going to get into that for what would probably be the 32nd time or so. I do agree with my colleague on the point of Bill C-2 morphing into Bill C-12 and now morphing into Bill C-22 , and this tacit acknowledgement of, “Wow, we really got it wrong. Not only did we get it wrong on one thing, but we got it wrong on multiple things because we are not even pursuing Bill C-2 as a government.” This is the Liberals' point of view.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for this very important question. Evidence is required in any sort of prosecution. What my colleague is asking about, in my view, is how we deal with the gaps in evidence that exists now but may not exist tomorrow. That is essentially what I take his question to be. NSICOP has said there is a gap. For instance, I just mentioned that 30-day gap between ISP addresses and how long they go. This is clearly something that Canadian law has to address. It is an issue that we often have to overcome in prosecuting anything: Where is the data or the evidence now? It is crucially important for us, as a House, to consider that. What is the correct form, though?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would agree. Sometimes we get legislation before us in the House and we say that we can all agree to it or that some tweaks need to be made. This Parliament has worked a lot better than the last Parliament did in terms of moving forward things on which we can all agree. In specific response to my colleague's question, there are certainly a number of questions that arise within this bill, particularly on part 2. If we are going to address this and develop our positions, I do not think it is a bad thing to ask the questions in debate and to develop our positions from there.”
“Mr. Speaker, we always need to modernize in law. I actually spoke about it this morning when I was speaking to my private member's bill. The moment we stop pushing here and are complacent, in any law but especially in the criminal law, we have an issue. The law is often years behind when it comes to technology. The member will have heard me reference Spencer, which was a decision from 2014. As Conservatives, we will always be open to the modernization of law. Right now, what we are doing and what we are evaluating in debate with respect to this bill is whether this is the right way to modernize the law. There is no issue that we all want less crime and that we all want the police to be able to do their jobs. The question that I have, and that we have, is whether Bill C-22 is the appropriate mechanism to do so.”
“Before I end, I want to acknowledge three people: Kelly Hunter, a baseball and softball umpire who was inducted into the Kamloops Sports Hall of Fame this weekend; Jessica Hewitt, a speed skater who was inducted into the Kamloops Sports Hall of Fame this weekend; and Glenn Armstrong, a football coach who was also inducted into the Kamloops Sports Hall of Fame. These three individuals have made dynamic contributions to the Kamloops area in sport, and I congratulate them. With that, I will enjoy any questions.”
“I am not saying we should not be looking at that. We should absolutely be looking at that, but perhaps there should be limits. If we are going to impact privacy rights, maybe that should be based on the offence. If we are looking at a sexual offence, perhaps the terminology we could look at is “an offence against the person”. All sexual offences are, by their very nature, violent, and I do not mean to dichotomize there. However, with respect to sexual offences, sexual offences against children or investigations into violence against the person, if there are concerns, perhaps there could be a narrowing so there would not be simply a fishing expedition to try to find an offence. Rather, we would be looking at all offences. I see my time is coming to a close.”
“I think somebody could read Bill C-22 three times and think they are starting to get a sense of what it actually says. When we deal with pieces of legislation that are quite intricate, obviously we need to develop our positions not only in a careful way but in a way that is sound. That is what I hope to do and what we as Conservatives hope to do. Is there a mechanism by which web browsing history can be captured under Bill C-22 ? I think a lot of people would be alarmed if that were the case, from a privacy point of view. The issue of data retention is not a new one. One of the principal issues that I went up against, as somebody who prosecuted Internet offences against kids, was data retention. I was speaking with police officers today, and ISP addresses, in some cases, can actually disappear within as little as 30 days.”
“That is my reading of the bill. I think this needs to be closely scrutinized, and I look forward to asking more questions in the next two days of debate here on that very issue. First, I would love to hear about the constitutionality of the requirement to have a third party keep something so the government can access it. I am not going to stand here and say whether that is or is not constitutional as it is not something I have studied thus far, but I think it is a question Canadians may have. Second, on the idea of the requirement that a person's location be kept, who is going to keep that? Where is the data going to be stored? In my riding, we have a huge data storage facility. Are there going to be requirements as to how and where that data is stored and things like that? This is a very complicated piece of legislation.”
“One of the key areas that part 2 of Bill C-22 impacts is that it compels third parties to keep information. I want to be very clear here that the information, in my reading of the bill, would still require a warrant. I believe the way the minister explained it was that the information would be kept and then could be accessed. That is, the government does not simply receive the information, but it is present in order to be accessed. (1245) It is my view that whenever the government tells anybody, including electronic service providers, that they must keep something, including metadata, it is something we need to ask questions about. This is probably one of the biggest issues. As I understand it, the bill's intent is to require that metadata be kept. That can include location services, but it is not meant to include the content.”
“The thing that I think we need to look at or that I would want more information on, as I craft my position and Conservatives craft our position on this, is that when there is a ministerial order that is secret, the government should be prepared to substantiate why it is secret and if it should be secret in every single instance. For instance, we spoke about NSICOP recently and how everything that is about national security will be top secret. There may be a place to say yes, if it is going to impact national security, but does that mean that every single ministerial order is going to be secret or should be secret? Furthermore, when it comes to the Intelligence Commissioner, precisely what role would that person play, and how would their independent oversight impact a number of the concerns?”
“These are all issues we are dealing with right now, within the current framework, that part 1 would address. As well, let us not forget that these are often offences against children and terrorist offences. Those are the two offences that are probably of the most interest to the legislators in the House, as in how we address those things. Let us get into part 2 a little bit. I have skipped over some of part 1 because I want to give part 2 what it requires in terms of debate. Part 2 talks about ministerial orders. I am mindful of the fact that the Intelligence Commissioner now has a role to play within these ministerial orders.”
“Whenever there is an expectation of privacy, then we need a search that is authorized by law through a court order. That meant a court order was required to get an IP address, even though finding an IP address was essentially akin to finding a phone number in the phone book. That was the analogy, as I recall. Most of us in the House will remember phone books. The member for Kenora—Kiiwetinoong probably does not, but he is probably the only one. The rest of us remember what it was like to get phone books. Let us face it, phone books were everywhere. Anybody could find anything. Anybody, as I understand it, with some semblance of digital acumen would be able to get an IP address, but nonetheless, the courts said there is an expectation of privacy.”
“I am just talking generally here, not with the legal precision that I would in court. We are looking at getting production orders for just about everything for which a subscriber may have an expectation of privacy. That would change with Bill C-22 . Bykovets was another really key decision of the court, 10 years after Spencer. I believe Bykovets was about the expectation of privacy in a person's IP address. This was significant because most people do not know their IP address. A lot of people do not even know that they have an IP address. If they do know they have an IP address, they might not even know how they get it. When Bykovets said there is an expectation of privacy in that, I believe some legal scholars said, “Okay, that's interesting.” I am not here to take potshots at decisions. I am here to recognize what the issue is.”
“(1240) Every time somebody has to go and get a court order, somebody has to write up that court order. They have to swear an affidavit in support of that court order. That takes time. As Conservatives, we recognize that when there are inefficiencies in the law, we need to address them. That is something that I do not think people take a great deal of issue with, but sometimes the devil is in the details and we need to ask further questions about those things. The current process in regard to subscriber information is informed by the decision of Regina v. Spencer. Now, that decision came out in 2014. Spencer impacted the obtaining of production orders, just to put it colloquially. I am sure somebody is going to be looking at the headnote of Spencer and will compare my words.”
“What are some of the things in Bill C-2 ? There are three parts. The first part we are looking at is on tools for law enforcement to access digital information. I do not believe this is going to be a controversial part of the bill. Right now, based on decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada over roughly the last 12 years, law enforcement has to write a great number of court orders, which is how I would put it. Another way to put it is “judicial authorizations”, and some people call them “warrants”. They often take the form of a warrant or a production order, such as an order to a business saying, “Is Frank Caputo your subscriber, yes or no?” Then it would say, “Please produce all the Frank Caputo subscriber information.” Those might be two distinct questions. The problem is that this takes time.”
“Previously, a question from the government was about how the Conservatives could have just passed this in Bill C-2 . Well, no, Conservatives would not have passed this in Bill C-2 because Bill C-2 is a poorly written piece of legislation. If Conservatives should have passed it in Bill C-2, then the government should have put forward a better piece of legislation, and I would go so far as to say that the government is admitting such because it has put forward Bill C-22 . If Bill C-2 had no issues, if it did not, in the eyes of experts throughout the country, take significant liberties with privacy rights and things like that, then we would not be here today. The fact that the government has put forward Bill C-22 is itself an admission that Bill C-2, in its omnibus form, is, unfortunately, poorly drafted. That is what brings us here today.”
“As Conservatives, we will always take the position that initiatives to help law enforcement, initiatives that allow those in law enforcement to do their jobs more easily, is something we will always be open to, but we have to make sure that those revisions to the law are both charter-compliant and consistent with the rights of privacy that we believe all Canadians should enjoy. In my view, the government has, in the past, tried to overstep its boundaries at times. Bill C-2 , in parts 14 and 15, is an example, as it goes so far as to use language like any threat or “any action”. We saw that in Bill C-8 as well. Bill C-2 essentially wants the government to have access to “any information”. Well, that goes quite too far. I was happy to see that the government, at the very least, went back to the drawing board.”
“My hope is that the government will take these concerns legitimately and that we can proceed in the spirit of open and constructive dialogue. My colleague for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound asked a question. He sits on the national security committee, commonly known as NSICOP, which provides secret and confidential advice to the Prime Minister . Those who are on the committee are not permitted to speak about anything that is discussed in committee, and would be subject to very significant penalties under criminal law if they did, but one thing my colleague and friend for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound spoke about was not only the necessity, from NSICOP's point of view, of lawful access, but also what should be in that legislation.”
“(1235) One of the things that always strikes me is how, in the past, Conservatives heard criticisms of omnibus bills. Bill C-2 is about as omnibus as it gets. I think it would have impacted something like 11 pieces of legislation. I do not want to be quoted on that because I cannot remember, but it would have impacted so many pieces of legislation and created pieces of legislation. It is well over 100 pages. It is an omnibus bill to the point where we now have two bills that have stemmed from it, and I think we probably have three or four distinct subject matters that are contained within Bill C-2 that still have not been addressed. The part of Bill C-2 we have before us now is the notion of lawful access. I am going to focus on what is in Bill C-2 , but I will also focus on some of the concerns I have.”
“If there was a rush, then why was Bill C-2 so clumsily drafted? We are here because of Bill C-2 . In fact, if we look at portions of Bill C-2, we can see that we now have two bills that stem from it: Bill C-12 and Bill C-22 . Both of those bills have dramatically remodelled what was contained in Bill C-2. In fact, Bill C-12 renovated so much of the text of Bill C-2 that it underwent further amendments at committee. I believe that my colleague, the shadow minister for immigration, the member for Calgary Nose Hill , did a great deal of work and produced a number of amendments at committee that were supported by the government or the Bloc and ultimately made it into the bill. That bill was a substantially better version of portions of Bill C-2. What do we have in Bill C-22? We have parts 14 and 15 of Bill C-2.”
“For years, we were told there were no issues with bail and sentencing, yet here we are now with a so-called new government, with many of the same cabinet ministers as the old government, and we are still dealing with the same issues. I believe the minister referenced Commissioner Carrique talking about this type of legislation going way back to 1997. In fact, Conservatives put forward legislation on lawful access and were roundly mocked by Liberals. There is a famous quote, which I will not repeat here today, that stemmed from that very debate, and now we hear there is a rush to pass this legislation. I understand why lawful access is so important, but if there was a rush, then why were the Liberals opposed to it in the last decade? If there was a rush, then why has it taken the Liberal government 11 years to bring this bill forward?”
“I would like to wish Phil all the best in the upcoming year. I also want to recognize two people from Kamloops who accomplished something really significant. Johnny Hicks and Brady Milburn are part of the Denver Pioneers hockey club. That club is part of the NCAA. This weekend, the team was crowned the men's NCAA champion. I congratulate Johnny and Brady, who are both Kamloops products, and the whole Denver Pioneers team. Winning the NCAA championship is a tremendous accomplishment. What brings us here today is Bill C-22 , but we have to look at the past to inform how we got here. Bill C-2 was heralded as a cure-all, a panacea, if we will, to all the things that ailed the justice system. If only we could pass Bill C-2, everything would be fine. Unfortunately, we have heard that before in the House.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. We are only about an hour and a half into today, and this is my third time rising. What an honour it is to speak in the House of Commons, not only so frequently but also on matters of such import. We are dealing with really important issues today. Sometimes we deal with things that are quite performative in the House, but I can candidly say that, today, this is an issue of fairly significant importance. Before I start, I want to recognize one of my very good friends, who is celebrating a birthday. Philip Lee is 48 years old. He is somebody I went to high school with and have known for the past 36 years now. We have had the opportunity to travel together, and he has been a wonderful friend.”
“Does he think that this is constitutionally compliant? How do we know that the government simply is not going too far here?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I take great interest in this subject matter, both as a lawyer who practised in this area and as the chief critic for the bill. One of the things that is very important, I think, to the people who are looking at the bill, to the people who are scrutinizing the bill and to the people who have looked at the bill from an expert point of view is part 2. That is with respect to the retention of data. I am coming at this from a legitimate point of inquiry. This is not meant to be a gotcha or anything. What I would like the minister to explain is this. The bill would require third parties, as in businesses and service providers, to retain certain information and to do things with that information.”
“Mr. Speaker, I extend my deepest condolences to Bailey's grandmother. I actually was not aware of her being present for Bailey's first and her final breaths. That is very difficult to hear. In answer to the member's question, the first thing that we have to address is that there is a problem. If we are unprepared in the House to say that intimate partner violence is a problem, and if we are unprepared to say we have to deal with this, then we have an even bigger problem. This is the first step in addressing that.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is actually a very important question. The House voted, I believe unanimously, in the last Parliament on a bill from former NDP member Laurel Collins with respect to coercive control, but I believe it died on the Order Paper when the election was called. Coercive control is part of the cycle of violence that I just referred to. It is something that goes on and on. It is a part of that violence. Intimate partner violence generally does not just come out of nowhere. There are precursors. There are antecedents that happen, and coercive control is central to that. It is part of the dependence, often financial dependence, that we see, as well as psychological manipulation. Therefore, it is very important that the House recognize the role of coercive control in criminality.”
“I believe it was two and a half or three meetings that the committee met for such a lengthy piece of legislation. Normally, private members' bills are a lot shorter. The committee process went as it should: smoothly.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his contribution. Obviously, sometimes we do have our disagreements in the House, and that is actually healthy. Therefore, in direct response to the member's question, I will say that the committee process was actually very meaningful. For people who might not know, committee is where we study a bill. When we got to committee, we as Conservatives had agreed to a number of amendments. There were a number of stakeholders who had spoken loudly and clearly on the issue. I know that my Bloc colleagues had thoughts and that my Liberal colleagues and my NDP colleagues had thoughts. However, the fact that we were able to synthesize all those thoughts so quickly into amendments was very meaningful.”