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 5 of 10.
“A lot of people do not realize the income is not as high as one might expect. We were making money sufficient to pay our bills and we bought our first house in 2008. That house is now double the price it once was as an entry-level home. When the Prime Minister talks about young people making sacrifices, it is very easy for somebody who is fortunate enough to be an MP, to be very wealthy or to be even marginally wealthy to say they have to sacrifice. It reminds me of when the former prime minister, Justin Trudeau, said veterans were asking for more than we could give. It was awful. We need to be taking care of the people who take care of us. It is not lost on me that we have first responders here, yet we send our money everywhere but to the people on the ground. Where are the houses?”
“The budget implementation act has not passed, so if the money is earmarked for those officers and the government has not brought the spending authority forward, I am not sure if any of them have. It is obviously something to look at. Generally, when we have the president of the CBSA or the commissioner of corrections come to committee, we expect them to know their numbers, so I was disappointed at that. I was also disappointed when the Prime Minister told young people they would have to make sacrifices. I have children. They are still young; they are not adults yet. I worry about their futures. I still remember when I bought my first house and thought about how far stretched I would be for that house. My wife and I had both just graduated law school. We were making first-year lawyer incomes.”
“If someone were to ask how the budget implementation act works as opposed to the budget, I would say the budget is a forecast but then we have to actually implement it. Interestingly enough, I was at the SECU committee, which is colloquially called the public safety committee. There, we were talking about CBSA officers because the government promised 1,000 new CBSA officers in April. They said elbows up and that they were going to get them. I have asked many times where those officers are. Have the Liberals hired any of them? The answer is always no. Today, we heard 57 officers were hired. I asked how many of those 57 officers were hired pursuant to the promise and I was told to look at the budget.”
“Mr. Speaker, I was having such a good day until you told me I would be interrupted for question period, but democracy cannot wait. It is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Being in the House, I see many people in the gallery. I am not allowed to point out the firefighters and fire chiefs who may be present, so I just thank them for being present in Ottawa. This includes my own fire chief, though I would not be able to say whether I see him. I met with Mr. Ken Uzeloc earlier. Whether Chief Uzeloc is watching or not, I thank him and I thank all of the fire chiefs who bravely keep us safe. Today, we are talking about the budget implementation act, Bill C-15 .”
“I really hope we can get this through as a united House, to protect intimate partners and take one small step towards ending the very large scourge of intimate partner violence.”
“If there is an issue whereby the law would compel somebody to be found guilty of second-degree murder, then I challenge the House to address it right now, because that has been the state of the law for decades. Why are we not addressing that? I am happy to address it. Frankly, I will lead the charge to address that. Nobody wants to see a battered spouse who is acting in self-defence serve a life sentence. I am optimistic and hopeful today. I am open to amendments. I would like to acknowledge the fact that this has been, in the last few weeks, a very collaborative exercise. I have met with the Minister of Justice with members of Bailey's family. I know other people in Bailey's family have also had time with the Minister of Justice.”
“I could point out so many things. The member for Victoria wrote to a constituent with words almost identical to the ones we heard. I was incredibly frustrated by reading that. Somebody I want to acknowledge is Kelly Favreau, who was with My Voice, My Choice and is now with a group called Beyond the Verdict, which advocates. Her work is so tremendous on this. What a tremendous supporter she is. We come from opposite sides of the political spectrum, but we are united on protecting victims of intimate partner violence. I will say this very clearly: If there is an issue whereby intimate partners who are abused may be liable for self-defence, then we as the House have to address it now.”
“We hear things like, “This bill sounds tough on crime, but it is not, because of issues with defence.” When it comes to the murder provisions, that is about sentencing. Self-defence operates at the trial level, so if there is a valid self-defence claim, that occurs at trial, and the claim is either accepted or rejected by a judge or jury. If it is rejected, then there is a conviction. In the current case, if there is a murder charge, the current state of law would mean that if self-defence is rejected, a person is liable for second-degree murder. When members say things like, “This could complicate it,” it actually does not complicate it at all. Self-defence is a trial issue that is a decision for a judge and jury. What this would do is impact the sentencing. I get very frustrated when I hear these things.”
“I also want to acknowledge that we have several members of Bailey's family here in Ottawa. We are not allowed to point people out, so I will not, but at the end of the day, Bailey's father, her stepmom and her aunt are all present. I thank all of these people, whom I will collectively refer to as “Bailey's family”. I thank them all for their support and offer them my deepest condolences for what they have endured. I thank the member for Lethbridge , the member for Oshawa and the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley , who rose on very short notice. In my last two or three minutes, I want to address something. I had a good conversation with my colleague from Spadina—Harbourfront . I am quite frustrated with some of the talking points the government has put out, and here is why.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. This is a profound moment for me. This is the first time I have been able to rise on my own private member's bill, as in within both the first and second hours. In the last Parliament, we had Bill C-291 , which changed the name from “child pornography” to “child sexual abuse and exploitation material”. I drafted that bill and worked through it with the member who now represents Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies , but this being a bill that I both drafted and am hoping to usher through the House, it is very meaningful. I want to acknowledge a few people: Karen, who is Bailey's mom, and Carrie Wiebe, who suffered in the attack that took Bailey McCourt's life.”
“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 Ray Hebert. Ray was a 45-year-old corporal with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. He recently died of brain cancer. I offer my condolences to him and to his children. He was the son of Karen and Martin, the husband of Kate, brother of Adrian and father of Alice, Heather and Ben. I had the opportunity to work with him. I thank him for his service. May perpetual light shine upon him. People like Ray, people who serve and work hard, expect that the government will be there for them. How is the government failing in that regard? I see so many ways in which it is.”
“I do not know that I would be gleefully telling anybody that when I am laughing about mill closures. These are people's livelihoods. Forestry fed my family. My dad came from Italy with nothing and forestry fed us. Does the member agree that the Liberals have to not only take it more seriously but also show us that they are prepared to take it more seriously?”
“Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Before I begin, I was recently approached by a member of the community who informed me that his mom had passed away. I would like to express my condolences and respects to the family of Kamaljit Cheema. I know that Kamaljit will be very much missed. I extend my deepest condolences. May perpetual light shine upon her. I do not believe the Liberals take the forestry industry seriously. In question period yesterday, the President of the Treasury Board laughed and suggested we were lying about mills that were shut down. When I raised that during the take-note debate yesterday, the member for Calgary Confederation laughed. I asked what his riding is, and he gleefully told us Calgary Confederation.”
“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 the life of Ziya Gul Zalmai, mother to Alex. Alex came to Canada from Afghanistan and settled in Kamloops because it reminded him of Afghanistan. He witnessed so much in Afghanistan. I was really saddened to learn that his mother recently passed away. Therefore in recognition of a life well lived, I will say, “May perpetual light shine upon her.” I listened to my colleague's speech. He spoke about the credentialing of doctors. A couple of medical students have reached out to my office. They are training overseas in other Commonwealth nations, and they say that they cannot get residencies here. What do we do about that?”
“Mr. Chair, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I would like to thank my learned colleague for an excellent speech. In fact, if anyone wants to know the Liberal attitude toward this, I was sitting in the House during question period, and the President of the Treasury Board laughed when we were speaking about mill closures in B.C. He essentially said that we were making it up. Shame on him. He should be made to apologize. I wish every single Liberal here who has their head down in shame would acknowledge and denounce this, but they will not. One of them is laughing right now. What riding is he from? It is the member for Calgary Confederation . I welcome him to the House. He has certainly made a name for himself in a short time, laughing at mill closures. Shame on him.”
“Mr. Chair, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. My colleague has been in Parliament for only a short time, but I believe he has really distinguished himself in that short time as being a very competent, capable and conscientious member of Parliament. We have been without a softwood lumber deal for literally thousands of days. When Conservatives were in power, we got a softwood lumber deal very quickly. What does it say to Canadians that the Prime Minister is more worried about jet-setting than about saving Canadian mills and Canadian jobs?”
“There is not one member of the House who should be voting against the bill. The Liberals need to vote for it on December 3.”
“Mr. Speaker, next Monday, December 1, we will have the second hour of debate on my private member's bill, Bill C-225 . The bill would address the scourge that is intimate partner violence. Thus far I have been very disappointed with the Liberals' response to such a bill, which is needed right here, right now. In attendance, I anticipate and hope, will be some of Bailey McCourt's family members, who have asked that the proposed law be called Bailey's law. Debbie Henderson, for instance, Bailey's aunt, has been fighting non-stop to get the justice minister and the government to move on the issue. Not a day has gone by without her advocacy. I would like to thank the McCourt family for the honour of asking for the bill to be named Bailey's bill. Let us not forget the other victim who was with Bailey, Carrie Wiebe, and Bailey's mother, Karen.”
“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 a very special birthday for a resident of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, and that is the 40th birthday of my friend and a wonderful lawyer, Greg Thompson. I wish him and his family all the best on his 40th. I listened to my colleague's speech, and I do not believe we have had the opportunity to have an intervention with one another in the House. We talk about the budget; the budget is adding a tax base of $5,400 of debt for every family. How is that tenable? When are we ever going to dig out of this debt, which will cripple future generations?”
“Mr. Speaker, talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words. That minister needs to look in the mirror. That member voted against a Conservative bill to put extortionists in jail. That member voted for house arrest for people who do extortion with a firearm. That member voted to repeal mandatory jail time for extortion with a firearm. Talk about being out of touch. Talk about missing the boat on justice. When will the Liberals get on board and tackle extortion across this country? When?”
“Mr. Speaker, since the Liberals took power, extortion is up 330% in Canada. There have been 100 reported extortions already in Surrey, Abbotsford and Delta. The Prime Minister recently visited British Columbia, and he said nothing about this pressing problem. The question is this: Why are these Liberals allowing extortions to run rampant, whether it be in Calgary, Windsor, Surrey or Brampton? Why?”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-14 has nothing to do with mandatory minimum sentences for people who possess and produce child sexual abuse and exploitation material. I have looked far too many victims in the eye to feel comfortable giving the answer that the secretary of state just gave. Victims do not want excuses; they want action. We often hear about charter rights for accused individuals, including pedophiles, but we do not hear about rights for the victims. If the minister has ruled out using the notwithstanding clause, what is his plan to take sex offenders off our streets?”
“Mr. Speaker, I spent much of my legal career prosecuting Internet offences against children. This included possession of child sexual abuse material. Let us be clear: Victims often serve a psychological life sentence. Last week the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the mandatory one year in jail for possession of child sexual abuse and exploitation material. The minister said today that he will not use the notwithstanding clause on this ruling. The question is this: Why are the rights of victims second and the rights of sex offenders first?”
“Mr. Speaker, my friend's question about the Jordan principle is an incredibly critical question. The Jordan principle will delay charges. We are waiting far too long to institute charges because the clock starts ticking. A sexual offender who offends against a woman may not be charged until day 365 so that the clock does not start ticking. What happens on that day? That delay is critical to protecting people. I agree with my colleague that we must address Jordan in the House. It is time.”
“Mr. Speaker, when somebody is convicted, the presumption of innocence is gone. I have no problem talking about the Conservative position on bail, which is generally that bail has become too loose, and I believe this bill could actually go much further. I also believe that, when the presumption of innocence has been displaced, as my colleague just mentioned, we need to act in a different manner. The principle of innocent until proven guilty has been displaced. The principle of restraint is still on the books in such situations. I understand and recognize that Bill C-14 addresses the principle of restraint to a certain degree. It does attenuate it, but it does not remove it. I would go so far as to say that the principle of restraint needs to be reworked. It was common law. It needs to be readdressed.”
“Mr. Speaker, I see the Liberals are clapping. I wonder where that type of urgency was when we had our jail not bail act. That bill was endorsed by many of the same organizations that are endorsing this bill. The Liberals are content to say that we need to pass the bill right away because these law enforcement bodies are telling us that they need it. Where was that urgency from the Liberals when the MP for Oxford put forward his bill, when the police association said it needed the bill? Where were the Liberals then? They voted against it, so it is quite hypocritical of them to say that we need to pass this bill right away, or by the same token, that we do not need to pass things the police chiefs say unless it is Liberal legislation. We will scrutinize this legislation and do our best.”
“This is something I really hope the Liberals deal with. The last thing missing from Bill C-14 is Bailey’s law. Let us hope the Liberals do not heckle us on this, this time. The reality is that we need to pass legislation on intimate partner violence. We need to create a specific offence on intimate partner violence. We need to recognize the scourge and the plague that is intimate partner violence. I exhort the House, in the strongest language possible, to pass Bill C-225 with the urgency it deserves.”
“There is no issue there, but what that means is that the Crown will proceed by indictment. For those watching, if they do not know the difference , it is felony versus misdemeanour and summary versus indictment. Then we have hybrid offences; the Crown can elect which is which. The whole point was so that the Crown would elect summary. The reverse onus says that, if somebody has committed an indictable offence, they are in a reverse onus. What about somebody who has 80 convictions, but the Crown expects to seek 18 months of jail, which is fairly serious jail? If they elect to proceed summarily, that person, according to my information, in certain provinces and depending on the jurisdiction, will no longer be subject to the reverse onus provisions. We have a stymying of legislative intent there.”
“Reverse onuses typically have their place, but, again, we have heard from the Liberals so often about them. Here is the issue with the reverse onus: Typically, though not always, when an accused person is in a reverse onus, in my experience, they are actually in two, three, four or five reverse onuses. We could have somebody who is subject to literally 10 reverse onuses, so we have to recognize that. The second issue with the reverse onus is that, oftentimes, it will apply to indictable offences only. When the issue was changed in sentencing to say that just about every summary conviction offence could get two years less a day, I believe the motivation behind that was to put more things in provincial court, which operates in a more streamlined manner. Okay, that is fine.”
“We have it figured out.” Former minister Virani and former minister Lametti actually told us there was no problem. Yes, I am speaking with a great deal of passion, because I cannot say how many victims have suffered as a result of that inaction. The Liberals will say that the provinces are responsible for the administration of justice. Yes. However, Mr. Speaker, do you know what? The provinces interpret the laws we make in the House. Those ministers, along with many of the people in the House right now, told us we were out to lunch. Hopefully, one of them will be permitted to get up on a question. This is on sex offences against children and house arrest. This is absolutely nuts. Another aspect we need to look at for clarification is in the reverse onus provision itself. I will be candid.”
“I am trying to think of how many times I have said this in the House. I rose in the House and questioned former minister Lametti about this very issue of house arrest for sex offenders. In fact, I put it to him in committee that there was a mother who offended against her own child. She facilitated an offence. It was absolutely disgusting. Thankfully, it was overturned on appeal. That mother got house arrest. I have said it no less than, probably, 20 times. I gave a speech on this very issue of house arrest for sex offenders two weeks ago. Every single time, the Liberals looked the other way. “There is nothing to see here. There are no issues.” We were constantly told it is the provinces' fault: “Look this way. Look that way. There is no problem with bail.”
“They have a bail hearing at day 81 of detention, which can happen. Counsel can just put it off. The person says they want to apply for bail at day 81. If that person is detained at day 81, by virtue of the operation of section 525 and how it has been interpreted in British Columbia, I am told, that person can then have a review of their bail nine days later. Obviously, this is completely antithetical to what we intend. If they want to have a review of bail, it should be an appeal of bail. A review and an appeal are two very different things. An appeal is saying that the judge messed up. A review is meant to address this ongoing languishing that we do not want people to do when their matter has not gone to trial yet. To me, this is something that needs to be addressed. (1350) I will go on to sex offences.”
“The principle is that nobody should be languishing in custody after charge approval. Back in the day, for instance, in my prior career, I saw a murder file from 1984, I believe. The file was about this thick, which is what a theft file now looks like. Trial dates were set, I think, on the third or fourth court appearance. In other words, people got to trial. It got done. Now people do not get to trial, oftentimes, for a year and a half or two years. It was this mentality that beckoned the Jordan decision. I am not here to give a discourse. I am here to raise this issue. We have this antiquated law that says there should be a bail review after 90 days in custody. This is assuming a person has only one file, because section 524 operates this way: Let us say somebody is in custody on an indictable matter, such as robbery.”
“My deepest condolences go to Fred's family. May perpetual light shine upon him. I would also like to take this time to recognize Ari Jyrkkänen, a young man from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola who contributed tremendously to democracy. In the last year, he was someone who was of great help to me. I want to give him a shout-out. His father, Ken, is a veteran of our Canadian Forces. We thank him for his service. We thank the family for all they have done. I wanted to give him a shout-out. I was on the phone with a prosecutor not long ago. One thing they said is deficient in this bill, and perhaps the member for Winnipeg North already knows what I am going say, is regarding section 525 of the Criminal Code. This varies from region to region, but section 525 is on a review of bail.”
“I love not only how often he says something but also the fervour with which he says it. Unfortunately, the problem is that his officials contradicted this very thing. We spent literally days in the House of Commons debating about mail. I hope that, when the member gives us exhortations on the legal front, he has done his homework this time. The member tells us he was right the first time. I do not want to say someone is wrong, but I would say he is wrong. I will go on to something a bit more serious. I learned that a person from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, Fred Sawada, recently passed away. He was an uncle to one of my friends, someone I went to kindergarten with, Kristy Sawada. He was a brother to her father, Jack. They did a lot for the community. They ran service stations, one of which was a few blocks from where I grew up.”
“Mr. Speaker, I just saw two Liberals stand up. It appears they want to take up time here. Actually, one of them was the member for Winnipeg North . I really enjoy his interventions on the law. We are talking about the law today. One of my favourite aspects of our banter in the House with the member for Winnipeg North is Bill C-2 . It was really interesting to hear him talk. He will often get up and, dare I say, pontificate on the law when it comes to these issues. On Bill C-2, he repeatedly told us, and let us call it pontification again, about how somebody needs a search warrant to get access to mail. However, in the legislation, it clearly says, “The Corporation may open any mail” to see if it contravenes the legislation. The member for Winnipeg North should be applauded for his zeal in this regard.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Before I begin my question, I want to recognize that 20 years ago my wife decided to date me and how blessed and fortunate I have been for those 20 years. I thank my wife for that. I did not forget. I wonder if my colleague is aware that at the Vancouver airport, for instance, up to 20% of people who are screening new immigrants or people coming into Canada are students with three weeks of training. That is it. Is this what we expect from the CBSA when it comes to screening in people who might have criminal or terrorist backgrounds? Does she have any thoughts on that?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals tell us all they are doing in Bill C-14 . They could be doing more by passing Bill C-225 . I spoke with Flo Bellman and Paul Henderson. Their daughter Darian was killed by her intimate partner. They support this bill. Trish and Debbie support this bill. An NDP premier, David Eby, supports this bill. I see that the minister is wearing a button. Why does she not swap that button for a purple ribbon and get behind this bill? Can she let the family know? Will she ditch the button, get the ribbon and support this bill, yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, I drafted a Conservative private member's bill, Bill C-225 . This is known as Bailey's law and is the most dramatic bill to address intimate partner violence in Canadian history. Bailey's family, Trish and Debbie, are present in Ottawa, and they are watching. They want to know, and victims want to know, will the Liberals back Bill C-225 , yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, the public safety minister ’s job is to keep Canadians safe, yet just today we learned that 32,000 foreign nationals have warrants pending their deportation. This means they are lost. They are wanted. There are 32,000 people, and the minister does not know where they are. We have him on secret recording saying his gun confiscation will not work. We have crime absolutely skyrocketing, and now he has lost 32,000 foreign nationals. The question is this: When will the Prime Minister fire the public safety minister for failing to keep Canadians safe?”
“Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I am hoping to work together with my colleague on a private member's bill that I put forward with respect to an area of mutual interest. It is interesting that the member spoke about immigration, because my parents, as I have spoken about many times, emigrated from Italy to Canada. Therefore, I owe everything I have to immigration. Standing on this green carpet was an immigrant's dream really, so that just caught my ear. With respect to Bill C-12 , the member talked about immigration. If she could have one amendment, sitting at the committee table, is there anything else that she sees in Bill C-12 that she would point to that must be addressed?”
“Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. My hon. colleague was just asked a question by the member for Winnipeg North . The member intimated that nobody wants safe injection sites next to schools. I think that we can all agree with that. Where I part company with the Liberal Party is on whether we will permit safe injection sites near schools. The problem is that under the current regime, there have been safe injection sites that are far too close to vulnerable people. Does my hon. colleague agree with this, and would he like to expand, because clearly these things are happening far too close to vulnerable populations and nothing is being done? It is not a matter of wanting it; it is a matter—”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I appreciate what my colleague just said, and I want to build on the question that was just asked. I recently met with the union for the CBSA. The CBSA can maybe get 700 people per year through training. It loses between 500 and 600 people a year through attrition. Job satisfaction is extremely low, potentially the lowest in the government. The max number of people it can get through training per year is 200. Furthermore, since there is no budget, when it comes to police, anybody who is doing an acting job cannot get paid, so delaying the budget has real consequences. Does my colleague see these things as concerns? To me as a Conservative, as a critic and as a Canadian, they are large concerns.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I want to pick up on what the member for Winnipeg North said. There is a resounding loyalty to the mess that is Bill C-2 . I still do not think he has given up on the warrant issue and on believing that Canada Post should be able to open our mail without a warrant. This is the type of verbiage we are hearing in the House when it comes to Bill C-2. We all agree on the overall aim of having a secure border. I wonder if my hon. colleague would agree that the government really missed the mark on that and that is how we got to Bill C-12 .”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I commend the member for Scarborough—Woburn for getting so many questions in. This is wonderful. We are hearing from somebody other than the member for Winnipeg North . This is just wonderful. Debate is to be encouraged in this place, and I love seeing that. I thank the member for his heckling and interventions today. At the end of the day, the government has promised 1,000 new border officers. Pardon me. I should not have said “officers”. It is “personnel” now, though we do not know what that means. It is clear that the CBSA does not have the capacity to turn out those 1,000 members based on its training abilities. I wonder what my learned colleague would have to say about this ostensible disparity.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. If we want to talk about relevance, I would remind the member for Winnipeg North that yesterday, when I introduced a bill on intimate partner violence, a bill that has been widely accepted by so many and is about as non-partisan a bill as we can get, he talked about its being “American-style” politics and performative. I question the member's talking about other people doing such things, when he did that very thing. My colleague, on the other hand, outlined what he called half measures, areas we need to improve. I wonder whether he could expand on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I know that my colleague comes to the House with great passion and a very rich sense of a desire to do well by his constituents, and Canadians for that matter. The bill we are debating here today is a rehashing of Bill C-2 . I wonder if my colleague could comment on what he saw as the issues of Bill C-2, as well as how we got here and why.”
“How can the Liberals say on the one hand that Conservatives do not want things to go to committee, but on the other hand, stand against a bill on intimate partner violence?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. My colleague, the member for Winnipeg North , just talked about how Conservatives do not want crime legislation to go to committee, which is completely misguided. However, I find it quite rich that, earlier today, I spoke to a bill on intimate partner violence, which would bring the greatest change for intimate partner violence that the House has ever seen. In fact, the aunt of an intimate partner who was murdered saw the member's conduct, and I am paraphrasing, but she was disgusted by what was said and the notion of the Liberal argument on this point also made by the parliamentary secretary.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I thank my colleague across the way for her intervention. She talked about blocking things on crime. Earlier this morning, we had second reading of a bill on intimate partner violence, the most groundbreaking change in intimate partner violence that this House has ever seen, and the Liberals will not signal support for it. Bailey McCourt's family was watching and was appalled by the behaviour of the Liberals. I know that because they told me. How, on one hand, can the member say they are listening to Canadians and, on the other hand, do something that is so blatantly contrary to Canadians' interests?”