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 3 of 10.
“I am indebted to every member who has spoken to the bill from our benches, who has supported it and who has met with the family. Let us get the bill passed right now.”
“Often in intimate partner violence what we call the cycle of violence continues on and on. In Bailey's case, there was a cycle of violence. As I recall, there were breaches involved. She had been previously victimized by the offender. It is time to stop the cycle of violence. We need a paradigm shift in this country on the issue, and I hope that Bill C-225 would do that. My colleague will be speaking on behalf of the party seconder, the member for Cloverdale—Langley City , whom I want to thank for giving up her spot in the order of precedence so we could speak to the bill sooner. Having a team effort like this and having members like the member for Cloverdale—Langley City, who gave up her spot selflessly in order to have Bailey's law advance sooner on third reading, is how we get things done. I am incredibly indebted to the member.”
“Maybe it is high time we address sentencing. One of the things I have taken issue with is the government's sentencing of sexual offences, particularly sexual offences against children. The way we as society and as Parliament reflect our difficulty or our issue with a crime should be based in part on sentencing: the more repugnant the crime, the stricter the sentence. In some cases we call that denunciation. That is what is talked about in section 718 of the Criminal Code. Sometimes we talk about deterrence, making a sentence so bad that people do not want to do the crime or will think twice before they do it. However, in a lot of respects, we just have to say it like it is. It is happening far too often that intimate partners are dying. This is flying under the radar far too often, unreported or under-reported, so we need to make changes.”
“A life sentence in Canada is imposed mandatorily for murder generally, whether first-degree or second-degree murder The question then becomes one of parole ineligibility, and we call that a minimum sentence for life. There is actually a maximum sentence for life. A lot of people do not know this, but a person can go to jail for life for breaking into someone's home. That is the maximum sentence a court can impose. The court does not have to impose that, but it can. A court can also impose a maximum sentence of life for manslaughter. I was a parole officer in my early twenties, and I worked in the justice system for a long time. The last time I saw a life sentence imposed for manslaughter was in 1972. That is a long time ago, yet intimate partner violence continues to be a scourge on our society.”
“This may be the last time I get to speak on this bill, so I will thank my staff, Stephanie Rennick, Jesus Bondo and Rofiat Agboola, for helping out and working with the minister's staff. I would like to thank the minister's staff, who have been more than accommodating in meeting with us in order to address this bill. (1110) What would the bill do? It would make major changes with respect to homicide of an intimate partner. If a homicide of an intimate partner occurs, that homicide would now be first-degree murder if there is a pattern of coercion or control, or if the homicide occurs during coercion or control. Manslaughter of an intimate partner would now have to be considered with respect to whether a life sentence should be imposed.”
“This is one reason why I often take such issue with time allocation, closure and things like that when we have barely discussed a bill. I am very proud to stand before Parliament on this issue. I was talking about the opposition and why it is important. One thing people may or may not realize is this. If they were to look at the bill before it goes to committee, at second reading and after it has gone to committee, they would see a substantially different bill, and that is okay. In fact, when we work together and make bills better, it is a good thing. I can say, as the sponsor of this bill, that I believe we have made it better. I believe that, in working with the minister's office and my staff, we have made the bill better.”
“I hope we will have all-party support at third reading to make the most substantial change to the law of intimate partner violence thus far in Canadian history. It is important that we work together. One of the things I often tell people who see us oftentimes as being pugilistic or combative is that there is a time and a place to be oppositional. I am a member of His Majesty's loyal opposition, a role I take very seriously. Without a meaningful opposition, I believe that democracy is imperilled. There is a time to protest. There is a time to debate. There is a time to oppose. There is a time to question. Questioning is fine. In fact, questioning is vital to a robust democracy. I hope if I am ever on the government benches that we have a meaningful opposition.”
“If we look at people like Flo and Paul, who appeared at committee, and we hear them speak about their daughter and her tragic killing at the hands of an intimate partner, it really crystallizes within me the necessity for us to challenge the status quo sometimes. The law evolves, it should evolve and sometimes it has to evolve more drastically. In fact, the last time I think the law evolved on the issue of intimate partner violence was likely in the early 1980s when an exception to the law of sexual assault with respect to one's spouse was taken out, and rightfully so. A person can sexually assault their spouse. It happens far too often. Therefore, I am very proud to be standing before Parliament today with I believe the support of all parties. We received all-party support at second reading.”
“Carrie Wiebe was present in the car when Bailey was killed. I sent her a message today giving her an update. We cannot forget Bailey's family, her mother Karen, her father Shane, her stepmom Trish, her sister Paige and her aunt Debbie. Sometimes we see things in the news and become detached from them. One thing I enjoy about this job that is challenging, and I think every member here feels this way, is that when we deal with somebody, whether with respect to an immigration matter, a taxation matter or, in this case, a matter of crime, they are touched by it personally. I can say that when we look somebody in the eye, it touches us personally.”
“It is not uncommon for one intimate partner to make vastly more money. At times of separation or at times of potential separation, that can really be exploitative. There is spiritual dependence oftentimes, and just general codependence. That was something that really bothered me, and that was why I had written a version of the bill in 2023 or 2024. (1105) The bill never got tabled. After Bailey was killed in early July 2025, the NDP Premier of British Columbia called for the killing of an intimate partner to be first-degree murder. I thought, as a Conservative, that if the NDP premier was asking for this, perhaps we could find a common ground. That is why I put the bill forward. I want to recognize a number of people who have been impacted by Bailey's tragic killing. Let us not forget her children.”
“For context, I had actually written the bill about two or three years ago. As most people know, I was a lawyer before I came to this place. I guess I will be a lawyer after I leave this place. One of the things that really bothered me was that we treat assault the same way regardless of context, mostly. For instance, assault in the Criminal Code is under section 266. Whether one beats one's intimate partner or beats somebody up at the bar, it is the same charge. There is one exception that we used to look at a lot, which was assault of a peace officer. Assaulting a peace officer was different. The law certainly recognizes that, sometimes, things should be different. I thought it should be different for assaulting an intimate partner. Intimate partners are within a relationship of trust and often of financial dependence.”
“I am optimistic and hopeful that debate could perhaps collapse so that we could be voting on the bill as soon as Wednesday or even today. Hope springs eternal, they might say. Colloquially, this is called “Bailey's Law”, Bill C-225 . This is the first private member's bill that has been brought forward in the Parliament for debate. It is my honour to stand here before us. Bailey McCourt was in her mid-30s. Her abuser was convicted of assaulting her, of choking her and, I believe, of threatening her. Three hours after he was convicted, free on bail, he killed her. That matter remains before the court, so he is obviously accused at this time. I do not believe that there is any dispute as to who the assailant was. The question of his guilt in a court of law will have to be for another day.”
“I experienced this first-hand last time, through Bill C-291 , which was an amendment to the Criminal Code in the last Parliament, to change the name of child pornography to child sexual abuse exploitation material. I wrote that bill. It was then shepherded by the member for what is now Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies . I have my Criminal Code here. I promise that I am not using it as a prop, but one of the things I can say about my 2026 Criminal Code is that this language has now been adopted to reflect the fact that we are no longer using that antiquated language. It is against that backdrop that I rise here today. I thank everybody here for allowing this matter to proceed past the report stage without the necessity for a standing vote, so that we could get to third reading now.”
“Whenever we have a job, we will have people who take different degrees of interest in their job. For me, I have the ability to stand here on the green carpet of the House of Commons, as somebody who grew up as the child of immigrants in a very middle-class home. My dad was a sawmill worker. My mom was a stay-at-home mom until I was about 10, the last child, when she went back to school to become a legal assistant. Ultimately, I became a lawyer. We see this going full circle. The ability to stand here in the House of Commons is not something we should ever underestimate, regardless of which side of the aisle we are on. If I could amplify that point even more, it is an even greater honour when we have what we call private members' bills or Private Members' Business.”
“Third reading moved that the bill be read the third time and passed. He said: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I must say, whenever we hear “when shall the bill be read the next time”, I think that this is the first time I have ever heard, in the House, that it be said, “Now.” I hear the member from Winnipeg chuckling. I think that he is probably a bit disappointed that he did not get that extra word in Hansard. If it was recorded, perhaps it could be attributed to him by the verification desk. We all know that he likes to speak in the House, just as I do. In fact, we should all appreciate speaking in this place. I was reflecting not long ago about this, about how much of an honour it is to be here. Let us face it.”
“The member for Winnipeg North says that these are tinfoil hat terms; no, these are apple pie when it comes to legal interpretation. The Liberals may not want to have those types of safeguards in the bill. I could say that we as Conservatives will always stand for clear constitutional laws. I invite comments.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I was the chief critic for the bill. I was the shadow minister as it was ushered through committee. One thing I want to say is this: The bill was overly broad. As a party, the Liberals say they love the charter. One thing that will get a bill struck down as unconstitutional is overbreadth, such as use of language like “may” or “any threat”. The bill was a dog's breakfast when it got to committee. I am proud of the people I sat with on the public safety committee, who looked at the bill, studied it scrupulously and added a proportionality test to it. They sought to add judicial oversight, which was ruled out of order yesterday by the Speaker, and sought to add things like “necessary” and “reasonable”.”
“The second point is that when the Liberals go along with a Bloc amendment talking about protecting religious people who speak and protecting their freedom of expression, that becomes an issue. Those are the concerns, not what he said. Those are all laudable concerns. How would he respond to that?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Even though my colleague and I are from different parties, we have often found ourselves in agreement on a number of issues. We worked on the justice committee together. I really want to address something he was speaking about at the end. I have two points to make, and I would love an on-point response or rebuttal from him. The first point is that he spoke about the promotion of hatred and what one of his colleagues said, who is now a cabinet colleague. When I see somebody saying something like reading from the Torah is hateful and then that person gets promoted to cabinet, that is a bit of a problem.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Not only is the member delving into misinformation, but he is saying things that will bring the House into disorder, by saying things that are patently untrue. He should withdraw and apologize. It is disgusting.”
“Mr. Speaker, he talks about the new cohort that is being hired. Is that part of the 1,000 who were promised, or the 3,400 we lost? The Liberals cannot distinguish between the two. Let us look at the stats. Violent crime is up 55%: failure. Sexual assault is up 76%: failure. Gun crime is up 130%: failure. Extortion is up 330%: failure. The only thing that is going down is the number of police officers in Canada. Why can these Liberals not get their act together and hire the police they promised?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals promised 1,000 new police officers in their last election campaign. Let us talk about a broken promise. Just today, we learned that not only have they not hired those 1,000 officers, they are down 3,400 police officers. That means we are down over 4,000 police officers from what they told us we would have in the last election. At a time when crime is skyrocketing, how can Canadians feel safe when these Liberals cannot even hire police officers?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians have compassion over world events. Sometimes those world events spill onto Canadian streets. Such is the case with the situation in Iran. Three synagogues in Toronto were shot up within the last few days. One Iranian dissident was kidnapped, and it is now a homicide investigation. Only one Iranian regime official has been deported. The question is this: Will the Liberals agree to table a plan within the next week to show Canadians how they will deal with this Iranian issue so that Canadians can walk their streets safely?”
“The front door may be locked, although I walked right in the one time I went there, and saw two young boys, but there is actually a side door as well that is not locked, and I confirmed that the door is never locked. I challenge the next Liberal speaker, whoever it is, to address this. Think about the Bernardo victims. Look into the camera and say, “I'm okay with Paul Bernardo being in medium security. I'm okay with Terri-Lynne McClintic living next door to children.” They will not do it. I am sure we are going to hear what I hope is not a prepared speech, but likely is, read verbatim. What does it say about us? We need to implement this bill, not only because it is the right thing to do and not only because Canadians want it, but because justice, with a capital J, natural justice, demands it.”
“The perimeter security is the same, two fences, but as somebody who worked in corrections, I can say that if a person goes to maximum security, there is door after door. In medium security, it is often an open concept. Terri-Lynne McClintic, and this is something that I hope the member from Winnipeg digests, killed an eight-old girl, Tori Stafford. Part of it was a sexual assault. Guess where she is: medium security. She lives in townhouse-style living, and guess what is next to her house in medium security? It is the mother-child program. We cannot make this up. A sex offender who killed a child lives next door to the mother-child program, but the Liberals will tell us, “Don't worry, the door is locked all the time.” I can tell members that I know it is not locked all the time, because whether there are kids or not, there are two doors.”
“When the Liberals say, “What's the big deal?”, I will tell them what the big deal is. Paul Bernardo, in medium security, has access to a hockey rink, tennis court and skates, which the government left out in its defamatory statements. I would challenge any of those members to say it outside of here. They would not say that I am lying. They just like to put 40% of the picture together, which is meant to mislead. What does it say about us as a society when one of Canada's worst people can go from maximum to medium security? If members do not think that there is a difference, and I believe Anne Kelly told one of the victims there was no difference, there is actually a substantial difference.”
“People can look this up on local media in Kamloops, because the correctional union official gave a statement to the media. The fact that Anne Kelly and correctional officials would seek to sully the reputation of a member of Parliament is disgusting, and it is wrong. It is the same thing with the hockey rink. Paul Bernardo has a hockey rink there. There were nets that were tilted up so they would not freeze against the rink. The government said that the hockey rink was not currently operational. What does that mean? One thing officials did not say was that the tennis court was not currently operational. For those who are not aware, the hockey rink doubles as a tennis court. I have a photo of it, if anybody wants to see. It has lighting of the kind that we would find at a local park.”
“That is not what we should expect and accept as members of this House. (1815) I actually visited the jail where Paul Bernardo was held, and Anne Kelly, the commissioner of corrections, on her way out, in my view, did not like what I had to say, because under her watch, the government put out information that was false about my visit, but I was there with a staff member and a union member who backed up everything I had to say. I went to Paul Bernardo's cell. He walked up, and we came eye to eye. What did the government say? It was that the MP and Bernardo had no interactions. Well, of course we had no interactions. I did not want to talk to the guy. I did not want to shake his hand. He is one of the most vile people in Canada. No, we did not have any interactions, but we actually did come eye to eye.”
“He asked why, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet, he did not deal with Paul Bernardo being transferred to medium security, which is what we are talking about in this private member's bill. It was because the law was different. The Liberals changed the law. With Bill C-28 , in the 42nd Parliament, they changed the threshold for correctional custody for all decision-making to what is called the least restrictive measure. That means a person must be incarcerated under the least restrictive measure. That means that if they can be handled in minimum security, they must go there, regardless of how heinous their offence is. The member told the House and Canadians that the Conservatives could have dealt with it and did not. That is completely wrong and, dare I say, very misleading. He was told it was misleading, and he doubled down.”
“May perpetual light shine upon him. I rise today as well to recognize the life of Dina Piva. I have gotten to know a couple of her sons quite well, especially her son Dennis. I also know Laura and Mario, the other children Dina leaves behind. Her family has done so much for the area, for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. They are a well-respected family. I know that her children will present her legacy in an amazing way. May perpetual light shine upon her. There are so many people on the Liberal benches who I wish could hear this speech. We were misled today by the member for Winnipeg North . In fact, if he disagrees with me, I wish he would rise in his spot right now and call a point of order stating that he did not mislead anybody. He did not state the facts. This is why.”
“On a more sombre note, I recognize the life of Giovannina Mercuri, wife of Vittorio and mother to Amedeo, Mirella, Rita, Giovanni and Pietro. She passed away, leaving behind many memories of a family who I am sure misses her deeply. I have for some time been hoping for the opportunity to stand to recognize a life well lived. May perpetual light shine upon her. I also rise today and recognize the life of Alfredo Caputo. Of course, sharing the same last name, we are related. He was pre-deceased by his wife, Fiorina, and his daughter, Luigina. Left to mourn him are Peter, Anna, Rosie and their families. He leaves behind many grandchildren. I was able to just make his funeral last week. He will obviously be missed. As a treasured part of the Caputo family, I wish his family all the best in a difficult time of mourning.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, but this is a particularly good occasion. Before I begin, I want to recognize the work of Anita Price, somebody who faithfully and diligently worked in my office at 100 Mile House, which is no longer in the riding, as well as in our Kamloops office on an as-needed, part-time basis. Anita has just been a stalwart. We thank her for her service to the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola and all Canadians. I also want to welcome to Canada Hunter Rose Friesen, the daughter of Mike Friesen and Brittany Matheson. Mike was a former staff member here on Parliament Hill, who also served a number of Canadians and a number of members of Parliament. We welcome Hunter, and we hope she and her parents are doing well.”
“Mr. Speaker, with respect, I did not say who was or was not here. At the end of the day, here is the problem: The member is talking about who on the Liberal side did not vote for this. As Conservatives, we take our instructions from the people who sent us here. The Liberals can say all they want about not supporting this and that it is never going to pass. Why should we be taking our instructions from the member for Winnipeg North and not the people of Canada—”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola on an issue about which I am very passionate. One of the reasons is that I actually worked in the federal correctional system, which is completely germane to the bill. I want to respond to something the member for Winnipeg North said. In all candour, I have not heard a single Liberal speak today apart from the member, and I have been in the House throughout the day. There are other Liberals here, six or seven of them in the House right now, yet we cannot—”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Before I begin, I want to welcome one of our newest constituents, Harper Alice Frang, born February 9 in Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. We wish her and her family all the best. I listened closely both to the speech and to the member for Winnipeg North and his question. In fact, he is the only Liberal I have heard ask a single question today. We have heard Liberal plan after plan, and every time it is the greatest housing plan. I am wondering whether my hon. colleague, also of Italian heritage, agrees with me when I say that Canadians and we, in this House on this side, have just lost hope because there is always a new Liberal housing plan and never any results.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. On this occasion, I rise to present a petition that cautions that the way Bill C-9 is proceeding, it would silence people when it comes to their religious texts and lead to persecution.”
“Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. The moment we stop discussing and stop debating and that this place is not where we have difficult conversations is the moment that we might as well pack it in. To listen to the member, one would think it was offensive that Conservatives and Canadians even question this. I invite him to my riding, and I would actually like him to address this and meet with faith-based leaders to talk about these things. I have met with faith leaders, as have so many of my colleagues. Will the member take me up on that? If he says nobody is opposed, he should come to my riding and talk about it, so he can hear the real-world fear that people have about this bill. Will he do it, yes or no? I will even pay his way.”
“Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I would say to my colleague from Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations that the Liberals talk about historical revisionism and things like that, and then the parliamentary secretary from Winnipeg had the audacity to say that people should not worry as it is all fine and they have nothing to worry about. I have had faith leaders from my community of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola come and speak to me about their concerns with respect to this bill. Where we hear the concerns is on the ground. Will the Liberals get out of their ivory tower and actually address these things, or are they just going to plow through with a bill that faith communities have serious concerns about?”
“Mr. Speaker, a man was recently sentenced to two years less a day for possessing over 2,600 images of child sexual abuse and exploitation material. Let us remember that it is Parliament's jurisdiction to set sentencing ranges. That is why I put forward a bill last Parliament to raise sentences for people who commit sexual offences against kids. Make no mistake: I believe that every member of the chamber wants to protect children, but if that is the case, will the Liberals commit today as to when they will introduce legislation that will strengthen our sentencing for people who possess these criminal and awful materials?”
“Mr. Speaker, Debbie Henderson, Flo Bellman and Paul Henderson are in Ottawa today. They did not ask to be here as advocates but have stepped up bravely to represent their family members, Bailey McCourt and Darian Hailey Henderson-Bellman, who were killed by intimate partners. Debbie, Flo and Paul are just some of the voices fighting for justice after their loved ones were killed by intimate partners. This was not a role they asked for, but they and many others have taken on advocacy to fight the good fight. They have turned their grief into education. They are part of the cries for change, pleading for all sides to listen. I say to them that they have been heard. It is now our duty, as legislators, not to fail them, Bailey, Darian or other victims.”
“Mr. Speaker, extortion is out of control in my home province of B.C., where the rate is up 482% since the Liberals took power. The Prime Minister about 10 minutes ago said that the Liberals are tough on extortion. Perhaps somebody should remind him that the Liberals voted to repeal a mandatory jail sentence for extortion with a firearm so people could serve their sentence on house arrest. That is the opposite of being hard on extortion. Will the Prime Minister support our common-sense solution to ensure that those convicted of serious crimes cannot claim refugee status, yes or no?”
“Madam Speaker, to say that Conservatives are trying to tarnish all immigrants, as the child of immigrants and somebody who sits with immigrants, that is reprehensible. The member should withdraw the comment.”
“Mr. Speaker, with profound sadness, I offer my sincere condolences on the passing of three junior hockey players from the Southern Alberta Mustangs. The families, teammates and coaches in Stavely, Alberta, who cared for Caden Fine of Alabama, and Kamloops' own J.J. Wright and Cameron Casorso, are in our thoughts as they grieve this heartbreaking loss. Kamloops Minor Hockey had the honour of watching J.J. and Cameron grow up playing in the organization for 14 and 13 years, respectively. Many in the Kamloops community knew these players as teammates and friends. The pain of this tragedy will be felt for a long time, and the memory of these young lives will remain with us always. They are gone from our sight but never from our hearts.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am not going to drop it. I would love to drop the bill, because it is thick, but it would make a thud, and I do not want to hurt the interpreters' ears. It is an expansive bill. The Liberals say we are filibustering. Should we not be talking about a bill of this substance? It is a bill that would do a lot of things, yet forgets a lot of things, like addressing parts of Bill C-75 with respect to bail and parts of Bill C-5 that say people who do drive-by shootings or commit extortion with a firearm or robbery with a firearm can serve their sentences on house arrest. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Frank Caputo: The Liberals are laughing at that, Mr. Speaker. Is it not wonderful that the Liberals think drive-by shootings, robbery with a firearm and things like that are funny? My time is up. Let us get this done.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Quebec for the question. [ English ] I actually have something here regarding Jordan. I have a great deal of time for my colleague. As somebody who practised criminal law for 15 to 18 years, my view is that the Jordan issue is a substantial one. It has to be addressed by the House of Commons for the reasons my colleague mentioned. The other reason is disclosure. In 1988, I think, when the Stinchcombe case came out, which is the leading case on disclosure, it was not addressed. The House needs to address disclosure, and it needs to address Jordan. Judicial vacancies are a huge problem, and something we discussed at our convention.”
“Just because somebody says it, and says it loudly, that does not make it true, Mr. Speaker. At the end of the day, there is a minority government. Its job is to put legislation forward that makes sense. God forbid that we in this place debate legislation. It is our job to debate legislation. What the member calls filibustering, I call the democratic process. How dare the Liberals accuse us of filibustering when we are doing our job? They think we should walk in here and give them their agenda without question. That is what the NDP did with Bill C-5 , and look where that got us.”
“Would Parliament itself legislate something about cruel and unusual punishment, to do exactly what we need to do, which is to say that mandatory minimums should apply 99.99% of the time, and this is what the other 0.01% of the time looks like? That is what we want to do. That is why the bill would go to committee. (1255) I really hope the Liberals stop with their rhetoric, because it is wrong and it is incorrect.”
“We could put up more speakers, because I bet no one else is going to rise to debate it, so again, why is there a narrative about filibustering? At the end of the day, we are actually saying that Bill C-16 has elements we are agreeable to and elements that we do not necessarily agree with. However, in a democratic society, it is so important to debate these ideas, such as mandatory minimum sentences, which I have been quoted on. It was quite complimentary to hear that, and I would love to further debate the idea of a mandatory minimum sentence with a safety valve for cruel and unusual punishment, and what that means. Would we adopt the common law definition of “cruel and unusual”?”
“Speaker, the member just said that I have been. Let us talk about that. Where was the member on Bill C-14 when we were at committee studying Bill C-9 , which is a highly contentious bill that I bet the government does not have the guts to bring forward again? It was so contentious and so divisive that we, as Conservatives, asked to shelve Bill C-9 so we could move to Bill C-14, a bail bill. We actually asked the government to move forward on that bill. What did the Liberals do? They stuck with Bill C-9. How are we filibustering bills, when we are asking them to bring forward bills? I am the last of four speakers today. We are debating the bill. Last time I checked, in the House of Commons, we debate.”
“The then prime minister and a number of ministers here, some of whom are ministers from Justin Trudeau's government, went there and told the people of Merritt that they would have their back. How much have the Liberals contributed? It is $5 million; that is it. They were going to have their back for the photo op, but when it came to giving money, they were nowhere to be seen. That is why, when we think about examples of the government and trust, there is an erosion of trust. I want to turn to something that has been mentioned in the House: the notion of filibustering the bill. In my view, this is the worst kind of politics, because it is actively misleading the public, and here is why. We as Conservatives have been accused of filibustering this and other crime legislation— An hon. member: Oh, oh! Frank Caputo: Mr.”