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 4 of 10.
“This was in private email; for the people at home, I will explain that we have a back channel for private emails, which members communicate with but we do not make public. However, not once has he even given the courtesy of a reply. In fact, I asked him whether he even got my emails, to which he gave what I would call a lame excuse. How do we trust a government on criminal justice, when we cannot trust them on the basics like housing? The people of Sun Peaks are wondering when they will get their answer. What about the people of Merritt? Again, we talk about trust in the government, and the Liberals say to trust them on justice, but they would not respond to my letter about Merritt, which experienced tremendous, catastrophic, flooding prior to becoming part of my riding. The provincial government pledged well over $100 million.”
“May perpetual light shine upon her. I have a lot to say. Far be it from me to have a lot to say; I am sure a lot of people do, and I often do have a lot to say here. (1250) So much of what the government is doing comes down to trust. I was reflecting on trust in criminal justice, and I do not have a lot of trust in the government when it comes to justice. I do not have a lot of trust in the government, period, and I will give the following example. In pre-budget consultations, I sent the Minister of Finance nine letters about Sun Peaks, a community in my riding that has tremendous housing issues. I sent the minister a letter about the housing. In fact, I have sent three emails to the Minister of Housing .”
“In fact my best man was named Desmond Sanesh after Alice Desmond and the Desmond family. May perpetual light shine upon her. I extend my deepest condolences to her family. I was deeply saddened to learn of the death of “Dar” Hastings in the 100 Mile House area. She was 83 years old. She gave so much work to the public and to democracy, and she was a great help. She delivered on what she believed, standing up for her values in so many ways. I cannot overstate all that she did. I had the opportunity to visit her in hospital some time ago, which I am grateful for. She really contributed to the life and vitality of the 100 Mile House area, which was part of my riding when I was first elected. She leaves behind her partner, Al Smith; her children, Paige and Tom, as well as Wade and Brian; and her sisters Candice and Jane.”
“If legacy is demonstrated based on what we see following someone's death, following a tremendous life well lived, then we can say that Antonio lived a tremendous life and will be missed. I extend my deepest condolences to Antonio's family. May perpetual light shine upon him. I was saddened to learn over the holidays that Alice Desmond passed away. The Desmond family members were pillars of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. In fact in Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola there is a street called Desmond Street. I actually worked as a prosecutor with one of Alice's children, Lynett, before she was elevated to the bench. She is now Judge Jung. The family legacy of Alice and her late husband, Pat, cannot be overstated. Alice leaves to mourn her sisters Evelyn, Edith and Brenda; and her daughters Nola, Tannis, Lynett and Shannon and their families.”
“Helen was somebody I got to know when I worked at my first law firm after articling, where I worked with her husband, Francis. Helen gave a tremendous amount to the city of Kamloops, sitting on council and school boards, and working with all sorts of community organizations. She had a vivacious personality, and I am so grateful to have known her. May perpetual light shine upon her. I was saddened to learn over the holidays of the death of Antonio Spada at 97 years old. Antonio leaves behind to mourn him his wife, Serafina; his children, Joseph and Angie; and his sister Felicia. I have gotten to know the Spada family through the Potestio family, and I can say that Antonio leaves behind a tremendous legacy.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. This is my first time rising substantially in the House since the winter break, so before I begin, I do want to recognize a number of people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I want to recognize a life well lived by Rocco Russo, who recently passed. He was a member of my Italian cultural centre, known colloquially as the Colombo Lodge. Left to mourn him are his wife, Cheryl; his children, Christopher, Michael and Robert; and his siblings Sam, Aldo and Sylvia. Rocco gave a great deal to the Colombo Lodge and to the community. He was beloved in the community. May perpetual light shine upon him. I also learned that, regrettably, Ms. Helen Barnett passed away over the Christmas break.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I want to dispel the canard that is coming from the Liberal side. The Liberals say the Conservatives want to filibuster bills. However, when the Liberals were debating Bill C-9 in committee, a highly divisive bill, the Conservatives said no fewer than 20 times that we wanted to talk about bail. The Liberals have the audacity to stand up in the House and say that we are filibustering crime legislation, when we begged them to talk about crime legislation, not just in December in committee but for the last 10 years. When will the hypocrisy end? What does my friend think?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I heard the member for Winnipeg North question my colleague, who is a lawyer, about these things. I could not agree more with my colleague about the problems we have. This government took away mandatory jail time, and jail time, period, potentially, for people who do drive-by shootings. Does my colleague agree that it was not only negligent but also reckless, given the problems we have with guns, to allow people to serve their sentence on the couch when they shoot at other houses and endanger Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion: Motion That, notwithstanding the order made Wednesday, December 3, 2025, Bill C-225, an act to amend the Criminal Code, be withdrawn from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and referred to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.”
“Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I thank my hon. colleague from Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations for his very compelling intervention. The question I have for my hon. colleague is the same one I asked the Minister of Justice , but I do not feel we got a satisfactory answer. In their 10 years of government, with Bill C-5 , the Liberals legislated that people who do drive-by shootings and extortion with a firearm can serve their sentences on house arrest. Why is it that we are not addressing the ferocious gun crime? We have seen extortion go up over 300%. Why are we not addressing this? That is what is killing people, among other things.”
“Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola and, in this context, the greater Canadian public. I want to wish a warm welcome back to this chamber to everybody. I have a question that relates to firearms. We have seen the Liberals preside over an unprecedented proliferation of firearms usage. I checked the bill; I did a search of it. There is one provision that would deal with extortion, and it mentions an aggravating factor. The government in Bill C-5 said that people who extort with a firearm, people who do drive-by shootings, in fact, can serve their sentence on house arrest. Does the minister not agree that people who do drive-by shootings should be subject to the previous mandatory minimum of four years for that offence, or for extortion with a firearm?”
“Mr. Speaker, for a decade, the Liberals have dismantled criminal laws, gutted jail sentences and allowed gangs and extortionists to rule our streets. Since 2015, violent crime is up nearly 55%. Sexual assaults have surged over 75%. Gun crime has skyrocketed 130%, and extortions have exploded 330%. Conservatives have put forward many solutions, among them reversing Liberal bail and bringing in jail, not bail; listing the Bishnoi gang as a terrorist entity; taking urgent action on extortion from Surrey to Brampton; firing the embattled public safety minister , whose gun buyback scheme will only punish law-abiding hunters and farmers; using all legislative tools to ensure that child sex predators are receiving the worst punishments possible; and properly punishing intimate partner violence once and for all.”
“I could probably have a long conversation about the immigration portion, and I am sure my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill is going to talk about the issues that we sometimes have there. However, for people arriving as legitimate asylum seekers and people who are legitimately seeking to arrive as refugees, in my view, and on behalf of the Conservative Party, there is absolutely no issue with legitimacy in immigration in those regards.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. [ English ] When it comes to refugees and asylum seekers, I do not think anybody in the House says that there is a problem with people coming from another country who are fleeing persecution. Some of the greatest Canadians I know fled persecution. There is somebody who, with redistribution, is no longer in my riding, but he fled Afghanistan with a backpack. I believe he actually watched a family member be killed. I do not take issue with that person. He has come here for a better life, fleeing persecution. I want to be very clear when I talk about the Conservative standpoint. When we refer to refugees, under international law, and asylum seekers, under international law, we must be welcoming to these people. I could talk about this for hours.”
“I really wish we could have heard from the member from Vancouver, but hopefully we will have more time for that, because I do not think he would be mocking us on our immigration policies.”
“Madam Speaker, can someone tell me if the filibuster that the Liberals were doing at transport committee is still going on? When the Liberals filibuster, it is A-okay, but it is not when the Liberals cannot get their house in order or figure out how to pass their own legislation. They sat on bail legislation for 10 years. They told us that there was no problem, and then they have the audacity, after mocking our party on immigration, to waltz in here to say that they will not pass bail legislation. This is after they told us, for 10 years, that there was no problem. Now they are saying we should turn on a dime and do it, when they cannot figure it out for themselves. That is their fault and their problem. They sat on their hands. Now they have to navigate it through.”
“That member can be quiet. I am making a point. That member can be quiet. We can joke around about different things, but that member says that we are “meh” on immigration, when our front bench has people who came to Canada for a better life. Our front bench has people who I would get behind and who would get behind me, and who would fight for families like Bailey McCourt's. They say that we are “meh” on immigration. My family did not have two pennies to rub together, and I am darned proud of my immigration legacy. I am proud of the legacy of every member in the House, whether they were born here or they came here for a better life.”
“It was common sense, like when someone lies about their application, when they commit fraud to get into Canada, they should not then be able to resile from that fraud and still expect the same treatment as somebody who did not commit fraud. I am saying this as a child of immigrants. I owe everything in my life to immigration. The night of my first election, my mom asked me if I could imagine what my nonno Pasquale, my grandfather, would say if he were observing this. He had to borrow money to buy a chicken on Christmas Day when he first got to Canada. (1600) When we think about these things, nobody on this side of the House is opposed to immigration. Nobody is. The member for Winnipeg seems to disagree. He says that it is true, but it is audacity to say that, when we have members on this bench who immigrated to Canada.”
“I guess the fact that justice officials said they can open mail without a warrant according to Bill C-2 was not good enough for the member for Winnipeg North. He just wanted to repeatedly say that they needed a warrant, even though they did not, not that I am counting or anything. Be that as it may, there are a lot of amendments, and there has been a lot of hard work that has gone into this. I recognize the member for Calgary Nose Hill for her exceptional work when it comes to immigration. I was at the table when I believe something like 48 amendments were moved. It was a number along those lines. I was actually quite surprised because, in some cases, the Bloc voted with the Conservatives on these things.”
“We should be patting them on the backs because they finally listened to the Conservatives. On one hand, they do not want to tie the hands of judges. On the other hand, they are expecting people to praise them for doing that very thing. This is just unbelievable. We have the colossal failure that was Bill C-2 , which has gone so far in the form of Bill C-12 . I will be candid. When Bill C-12 came to the SECU, colloquially known as the public safety committee, there were not a lot of amendments because the controversial stuff had been taken out, such as the stuff like Canada Post being able to open our mail. I will note the member for Winnipeg North still cannot wrap his head around this even though it is plain as day, and his own official said, yes, they can open mail without a warrant.”
“They say they do not want to do that. The cherry on top of that was that they said they do not want to tie the hands of judges. We do that all the time. In fact, we do it in bills that say they must get a warrant or the parameters of what a warrant can be. In one case, we are tying the hands of peace officers. In the other case, we are telling judges what they can and cannot do. A murder conviction, for instance, has a mandatory life sentence. We are okay with tying judges' hands there. What about house arrest? What about house arrest for sex offences? For years, they told us that was not the case and that it was okay. I brought this up to many ministers at committee, and we were told, nope, they would not tie the hands of judges. However, just yesterday Bill C-16 came out and, look, the Liberals say we should be giving them high-fives.”
“I was mocked by people like Minister Lametti and Minister Virani. Minister Virani and I had a good relationship, but he would literally defend the lack of mandatory minimums. They would say, “No, we do not want to tie the hands of judges.” In fact, just the other day, my colleague from Lethbridge was giving an impassioned speech, and I could not believe what I heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice . This was about making sex offence sentencing consecutive. I mean, who is against that? Apparently, the Liberals are against that. She talked about the unconstitutionality. We cannot make this up. She said that it would not be constitutional. What? There is an analogous provision for sex offences against kids, but they do not want to talk about that. This is the cherry-picking of the charter that we often see.”
“They bury lawful access, a critical legal element in this bill, Bill C-2 , and then expect everybody will turn a blind eye to what may at least be, and are potentially likely, breaches of section 8 of the charter, which says that Canadians have a right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The Liberals love to wield the charter when it suits their purposes. However, when it does not suit their purposes, they say that it is okay because it is charter-compliant, as though we are supposed to take their word for it. We have seen where it goes when we are supposed to take the Liberals' word for it. (1555) In fact, we just had the justice minister table Bill C-16 yesterday. I cannot say how many times in committee I brought up the issue of mandatory minimum jail sentences and was laughed at.”
“It sounds good. Warrants or judicial authorizations can come in many forms; a warrant is one of them. When a person has an expectation of privacy and a search is not prescribed by law, as in there is no law saying someone may search something, then a warrant is needed. Search warrants are the most common ones, but other authorizations might include a production order or things like that. The Liberals roundly mocked the Harper government when the Harper government introduced lawful access. They said to the Harper government that it was going too far, yet what do they do?”
“We had a legal expert appear, somebody who was an expert in, I believe, constitutional law, and she was asked about lawful access. Lawful access is something lawyers debate. It is not an easy topic to comprehend. I would not disregard anybody in the House if they said they were having trouble wrapping their head around lawful access. What the expert said is that lawful access requires its own bill, yet we had a bill that essentially was forced on us. The Liberals, to this day, are attempting to shame us into passing a bill on lawful access that throws everything and the kitchen sink into a bill. They expect us to produce a shining, gleaming bill when the privacy commissioner, I believe, was not even asked for input. For those at home who are watching and do not know, lawful access is about what the government can do without a warrant.”
“When lawful access, for instance, is put into parts 14 and 15 of a bill that touches on the sex offence registry, puts the Coast Guard under the authority of the Minister of National Defence, talks about cash transactions over $10,000, requires mandatory reporting from all sorts of financial agencies and has dramatic immigration reforms, we are going to end up with a bill that is a hodgepodge of policies. Lo and behold, we dealt with a bill that was largely unworkable at the end of the day. We know it was unworkable because the bill was originally tabled in the form of Bill C-2 . It is now Bill C-12 . The Liberals can claim that this was a good thing, but the reality is that they had to, word for word, take various parts of Bill C-2 and hive them off into another bill. In fact, I was at the public safety committee not long ago.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, and this is certainly no exception. Bill C-12 , which was originally conceived of as Bill C-2 , has really had a very long journey. Let us be real. The election was in April. We came here in May, and Bill C-2 was the first substantial bill. I had not really dealt with a lot of omnibus bills, and I still remember when the Liberals came to power and talked about the effect of omnibus bills on democracy. They talked about the use of parliamentary tricks, omnibus bills, time allocation and things like that and how they would never, ever do that. We now see the Liberals, to be very candid, have put way too much in one bill. They may have, so to speak, bit off more than they could chew.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Conservatives have been asking for bail reform since I came to the House, which is almost five years now, and the member consistently told us, like the Liberals, that there was no problem. The justice committee meeting was cancelled last week. Last week we voted on Bailey's law, Bill C-225 . Should we not be doing some work? Will the member support discussing intimate partner violence, rather than having the Liberal chair cancel the committee meeting again?”
“When we allow stuff like this to be said in this House and do not stand up for victims in this House, we should all hang our heads in shame. I hope every single Liberal goes back to caucus and asks why that speech said what it said. Why are we allowing this to happen? I say shame on every parliamentarian who does not fight for victims of sexual offences in this country.”
“Contact every Liberal and tell them there should be proportionality in sentencing, because for far too long, we have measured sexual assault sentences in months instead of years. I was obedient to the rule of law and the rule of precedent as somebody who practised law. I may not have agreed with them, but I was obedient to precedents. Does anybody here know, speaking rhetorically, about the range of sentences for a sexual assault involving intercourse in British Columbia? It starts at two years. The Liberal position says that if it is done again to another victim, it should not necessarily be consecutive. It is two years for the violation of somebody's sexual integrity. Yes, there is a bit of awkwardness in the House right now, because there should be.”
“We are debating whether people should serve an appropriate sentence for sexual assault. I am thinking to myself, “Well, duh.” Of course they should. I do not care if I am heard on Wellington Street saying this. We have come to the point where people serve more time on a maximum sentence for property crimes. Robbery is taking property by force, and the maximum sentence is life imprisonment. Sexual assault is taking sexual dignity by force, sexual inviolability by force, sexual integrity by force, and the maximum sentence is 10 years. What do we hear from the Liberals? They did not say whether they would vote for or against this bill. To those watching at home, I say to contact my office.”
“Is that what I heard, that they do not want to tie the hands of judges when it comes to consecutive sentences for sexual assault? Did I hear that? Are the Liberals okay with it? I ask because victims are going to be watching. That speech will be dissected. Let us not forget that our words in here mean something. If we cannot agree on that, what the heck can we agree on? What I find even more reprehensible is that somebody said we should not throw the full force of the law against sexual offenders. Those victims are serving a life sentence, a psychological life sentence, and I just heard someone say why we should not apply the full force of the law to offenders. However, the Liberals want us to support Bill C-14 because, boy, is it tough on crime. What a joke.”
“Are the Liberal members okay with this? Are they okay with signalling and getting behind the content of that speech? I challenge every single one of them to go back and reflect on that in their caucus. (1855) I texted an advocate for sexual assault survivors, somebody who herself was sexually assaulted and speaks about it publicly. Sometimes I joke around in this House and have more fun, but I have always believed politics is about timing. There is a time to have fun, there is a time to be righteously angry, there is a time to be serious, there is a time to be loud and there is a time to be quiet. If ever there was a time to be loud in this House, this is it. This is the time for the Liberals present in the House to ask if they are sure they want to say they do not want to tie judges' hands.”
“This is graphic, so if anybody does not want to hear it, please beware. That offender, a Canadian, was paying mothers to offend against their children. Yes, it is uncomfortable, but this is what is happening. He pled guilty to several charges, and because of that, there were consecutive sentences. Now, based on that speech, one would say that that was wrong, that he should have concurrent sentences. The totality principle still applied. How is it possible that anybody in this House could disagree that if somebody sexually assaults one person and sexually assaults somebody else in 90 days and sexually assaults another person in 90 days, and so on, they should serve consecutive sentences? Those sentences can be fashioned in accordance with the totality principle to reflect the overall moral culpability of that person.”
“member on this bill, and I reflected on my life prosecuting sex offences against kids, also teaching a sentencing class at our local law school, and about the totality principle that the member spoke about. The totality principle says that somebody's overall moral culpability should not exceed the length of the sentence, that it should be proportional, yet somehow this is said to offend the totality principle. What? If this offends it, then what about the provision that this was designed on, to say that everybody who hurts a kid should serve a consecutive sentence? If anybody wants a real-life example, I will talk about the first case that I undertook that really taught me about this. It was a case on Internet luring. The offender was located in Canada, and the victims were in the Philippines. I will just give a warning here.”
“They talked about the unconstitutionality of this provision. Well, if this provision is unconstitutional, then the provision that is identical to it, the one around consecutive sentences for sex offences against kids, is unconstitutional itself. I cannot believe that. Yes, I am raising my voice, and yes, I am speaking with passion, because victims serve a psychological life sentence. The Liberals are communicating to this House and to all Canadians that this does not need to be changed and that it is okay for sex offences to be cheaper by the dozen. It is wrong. The Liberals can scoff and snarl under their breath, or they can do something. They can ask the person who wrote that speech or the person who delivered that speech what they were thinking about in regard to Bill C-14 , a bill on bail? I consulted with the hon.”
“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 someone who has worked in my office since I was elected, Stephanie Rennick. This is her 32nd anniversary of working on Parliament Hill. I am profoundly indebted to people like her. We all are. Most of us are nothing without our staff. I want to thank Stephanie for everything, all the sacrifices, all the help and all the late hours. People like me are nothing without people like Stephanie. Normally I have a couple of notes, but I am going start without notes. I am going to speak directly to the Liberals here, because I cannot believe what we just heard from the parliamentary secretary. In fact, whoever wrote that speech should be ashamed of themselves, because they just got the law completely wrong.”
“Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I would like to recognize George Marchese for 40 years with Western Roofing, a Kamloops institution. George is a huge fan of the Kamloops Blazers. He helps out with the Scouts and the Kamloops Rugby Club. I thank him for his devotion. I listened intently to my colleague's speech. He spoke about the impacts on the cattle industry. I wonder if he would like to elaborate on what he has heard directly, on the ground, in that regard.”
“Mr. Speaker, I actually wrapped up my colleague from Mission's answer very quickly, because I wanted to hear from my colleague for whom I have a great deal of time. I am by no means an expert on fisheries, but I do have 29 first nations in my riding. I understand the importance of fishing, particularly when it comes to economies on the island, and first nations economies at that. From what I have seen, I have seen a government that has been unserious on this file based on its rhetoric, but also based on who it is appointing. I could go on, but I hope to talk to my colleague more in the future.”
“Mr. Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly. We do not always agree with the Bloc, but I agree wholeheartedly. This is not a generational budget. This is generational spending, where $5,400 is being added for every single family. That is how much our deficit is. This is why people are getting rich. Certain people are getting rich: consultants, Brookfield shareholders and probably a few others. There are people who are lined up at food banks in my riding in record numbers. I agree with that member.”
“Mr. Speaker, I see so many Liberal backbenchers who are not allowed to speak because this member wants to make baseless accusations. Why is another member not standing up right now? The community of Merritt was promised money for the flooding. All these Liberals talk about is how they are going to have our backs. The Prime Minister and cabinet ministers went to British Columbia and said they would have its back. They did nothing. This member can stand up here while backbenchers after backbenchers get to say nothing. Where was he for the community of Merritt? Where were these Liberals for the community of Merritt? Where are they for Canadians when they need them most?”
“The First Nations' Emergency Services Society of British Columbia also put something forward. I have not heard back on that one. What about Merritt? I was overwhelmed to be in Merritt recently. The government promised money to Merritt for the flooding and the dikes. It got none. The province contributed. The federal government was there for the photo ops. It has done nothing.”
“The community serves a number of outlying areas in addition to the community itself, and the collective tax base cannot cover critical infrastructure. The village needs upgrades to the sewer plant and water reservoir for a sustainable future. I wrote to the Minister of Justice on this. We will see. It looks like crickets so far. The Thompson-Nicola Regional District has a number of needs, especially when it comes to housing. There is also water and waste-water infrastructure for rural communities, which is central to building houses, and the government is silent. There is emergency preparedness and ongoing streamlined funding to support emergency operations, fire halls and things like that. We do not see smaller communities being supported in this budget.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to again rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Where I parted ways with my speech was when I was talking about things that people in my riding and communities in my riding had asked for. For instance, one of the things I wrote to the finance minister about, which I do not believe was addressed, as none of these things were addressed, was the Village of Clinton struggling with housing. Imagine that. The government tells us about how much it is building, yet the Village of Clinton continues to struggle with housing. Where is its support? It is absolutely non-existent. What about consultations for the Village of Ashcroft? Ashcroft has critical infrastructure challenges.”
“Again, we will probably hear that we have never had it so good. I am quite saddened with the budget. There were a number of asks in my riding. The District of Clearwater is estimating a population boom, with an increase of 60% to 80% in the next six to 10 years, if an expected mine goes through. I look forward to having more truth and more light shed after question period.”
“Mr. Speaker, we hear about debt to GDP, and we have a debt-to-GDP ratio, but we have two levels of government in this country. When the government says that we have the lowest debt to GDP, is it actually counting the provincial debt in there? What about Crown debt? Is it counting that? I will be honest with members. I have not done the calculations, so maybe I am completely out to lunch on this. If I am out to lunch, the Liberals can feel free to let me know. However, I would love for a member of the Liberals, who are so gleeful to tell us about our debt-to-GDP ratio, to tell us that they are factoring in provincial debt, Crown debt and federal debt as opposed to just the national debt that countries without our two-level government system have. I challenge any member from that party to do so.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member from northern Saskatchewan said, “Hear, hear!” I wonder if that member will stand up, give a speech and talk about the provincial debt, the federal debt and whether the provincial debt and the federal debt, if combined— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Frank Caputo: I am striking a chord now, Mr. Speaker. This is good—”
“I am going to wait here for question period, because we are going to probably hear, since we hear it so often, that Canada has the lowest debt to GDP in the G7. An hon. member: Hear, hear!”
“Mr. Speaker, if we ever had to have an example of someone in an ivory tower, it is the minister from northern Saskatchewan here, who will not even listen to what my constituents are telling me. The Liberals say that Canadians have never had it so good. I would say that young people have never had it be so challenging. We have people who do not have a house. My parents came to Canada without two pennies to rub together. Now their son is a member of Parliament. They lived the Canadian dream. Hard work paid off for them, but I do not see that dream being fulfilled. In fact, I see that dream being the opposite for new Canadians and for young people, with the Prime Minister telling us that people have to make more sacrifices.”
“I was stopped in the airport two days ago by people in my riding of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola who talked about how low housing starts are. If we listen to any of the ministers on the front benches, we would want to do cartwheels based on how great the economy is, but I do not listen to the people on the front benches. I listen to people in my riding. If we want to know whether something is working, we talk to the people on the ground. Frankly, I think I can speak for my Conservative colleagues when I say we have had enough of people in ivory towers telling us that we have never had it so good. People in my riding are lined up at the food bank. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Frank Caputo: Mr. Speaker, the minister said that our leader lives in an ivory tower.”