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 6 of 10.
“Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I am just wondering what my colleague thinks about the remainder of Bill C-2 . Does she have any advice for the government on what is clearly a flawed bill, a bill that Canadians have spoken out against in droves? What are her thoughts as to what should occur with the remainder of Bill C-2 , given the concerns regarding privacy and civil liberties?”
“They are often difficult questions to ask because we have to consider the RCMP, which currently has the mandate. How far are they from the borders? There are going to be borders where they might have a 15- or 20-minute response time. That is unacceptable in my view. I think the time has come for us to have a robust discussion on that. My colleague pointed out that CBSA members are armed. That was done under the Harper government. They are well trained, and I thank them for all they do to keep us safe. They do not always have the tools or the resources to do that, but let us give credit where credit is due. These people put their lives on the line for us every single day, and we as Conservatives and Canadians ought to be grateful.”
“Madam Speaker, I have had a good experience working with my Bloc colleague, who is the critic for public safety. I hope we can maintain a good relationship working together to create the best possible legislation. We should not shy away from asking the hard questions in this place. Sometimes they will be contentious. Sometimes the answers will be very easy and sometimes they will be difficult. I know somebody had an idea in mind when they restricted the CBSA's border mandate to not go beyond the port of entry, but we should not shy away from discussing these things. In answer to my colleague's question, I would be happy to include this in a study. I think it is something we should be debating. We should not shy away from it. There are sometimes very tough questions.”
“When it comes to the member's comments on Bill C-2 , I could agree more. It remains on the Order Paper and we need to scrutinize it. I wonder if the Liberals will pull back from it. They have obviously shown some willingness to do that given that Bill C-12 is now before us.”
“Where should I start, Madam Speaker? My colleague proved his intellectual fortitude one more time with that brilliant intervention. On the issue of enforcement at ports of entry, my colleague raises a very important point, something that I do not believe gets enough coverage in the House. If somebody commits an offence, despite the fact that border officers with the CBSA are police officers, which grants them specific powers under the Criminal Code, their mandate does not permit them to go beyond a port of entry. Let us say somebody had a kilogram of cocaine and it was dropped outside a port of entry. Even if it was in sight, the CBSA could not get it. This has been stated to the government time after time. If it wants to make meaningful changes, that is something we should be debating in this House.”
“Morale is low, and these people want and need change. They are working on the front lines to do their best. We need to support them to the best degree possible.”
“Madam Speaker, I have heard my colleague very often. My French is not the best, but I will say this: [ Translation ] He has a great voice. [ English ] I love hearing his voice because he speaks with such power in this House. I really appreciate that. I have had several meetings with the union leader from the CBSA, and I will be meeting with him very shortly. This is a concern. The border officer issue is quite vexing to me because the minister made an announcement, which was reannounced and then maybe reannounced twice more, about having 1,000 officers, but then just the other day, the minister caught himself and said “personnel”. What does that mean? I stand with the union in saying that our border is porous and we need more people there. I had the opportunity over the summer to visit the border and see this.”
“Madam Speaker, what I find very despicable is that the Liberals, an hour ago, refused to support my private member's bill, Bill C-225 . I hope they reconsider that. On the mail issue, I hope the member reconsiders it. I am going to read the bill one more time in hopes that he will concede. We have had our back-and-forths in this House many times. Perhaps some of them have been draws when it comes to debate, but I will not concede this one. Let me just say it one more time: The Corporation may open any mail if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that The member made my argument for me by wondering whether a mail carrier would be able to do this. Obviously, Canada Post has a policy, but the legislation as written would actually allow it if that person were part of the corporation. I commend him for helping me with my argument.”
“I am starting to have serious questions about the fact that people can repeatedly commit crimes and believe they are untouchable. I saw this happen on so many occasions in my employment before I was blessed to be present in the House. When we let somebody operate with impunity when it comes to the criminal law, we will invariably have an outcome that they repeat the behaviour, because they have learned that there will be no consequences from it. Bill C-12 is silent on that. I hope the Liberals will give credit where credit is due as to how Bill C-12 came here. We will scrutinize this legislation and we will go from there.”
“There used to be a four-year mandatory minimum, which was constitutionally upheld in a case called Oud, I might add, for the Liberals who say that everything was always struck down under the Conservatives. However, it went from a four-year sentence to potentially house arrest. Now the Liberals are tough on crime, but not tough enough to put this into an omnibus bill to keep us all safe. The Liberals have created what I would call a porous border, and that porous border is allowing firearms to get in like never before. What should we be doing? People will say to me that denunciation and deterrence do not work. They have been our sentencing principles in the Criminal Code from time immemorial, but they will say they do not work.”
“I am worried that I am going to wake up with a stiff neck tomorrow based on the whiplash I am getting from the government, which is now tough on crime. What else do we not have in the bill? There is no mandatory prison time for gangsters who use guns to commit crimes. A person can get house arrest for a drive-by shooting. What is worse is that this was not the court's doing; it was the Liberals' doing. For Bill C-5 , Mr. Lametti, then a minister, said he did not think that somebody had to go to jail for popping off a couple of shots into a bar after having a couple of pops. Intending to discharge a gun, if done in a car, is called a drive-by shooting. If it is done otherwise, it is a called a shooting with intent.”
“I would think the House would support a bill on intimate-partner violence, but that remains to be seen. I am told the legislation has good stuff in it and speaks about sex offences and people who committee sex offences no longer getting house arrest. I have probably raised this issue 15 times in the House, and the Liberals have openly mocked our views when it comes to justice. I actually raised this issue with the minister of justice at one time, and I heard, “Do not worry. When somebody commits a serious crime, they will get serious time.” What happened to the mentality of trusting judges? The Liberals told us we should trust judges; they are appointed. Now they say, “Wait a minute. There is no more house arrest for sex offences.” They do not trust judges any more; they are tough on crime. It is something they mocked us for.”
“(1240) We have spoken about the mail provisions, and we have spoken about Bill C-2 generally and how we got here. Now let us focus on Bill C-12 , what is in it and what is not. I know that my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman will be giving a speech today. I am sure he will give it with his characteristic zeal and great detail, as he is so often known for in the House. What is not in Bill C-12 ? There is no mandatory prison time for fentanyl traffickers. I believe we heard from the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime that the Liberals are “tough on crime”. That was actually said in the House. Really? Apparently, now the Liberals are going to come out with legislation. We have not even seen the legislation yet, but we are being told that we should support it.”
“I admire his passion for the rule of law and what is right, and I want to thank him for his contributions to democracy. He is somebody with a deep conscience, a deep desire to do what is right. I thank him for his work. I would also like to thank somebody else, another prosecutor, Alex Wheele. He works out of the Kamloops Crown counsel office in Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. He is somebody I had the pleasure of meeting when he was in law school and was just thinking about becoming a prosecutor, and we spoke. I taught his now wife in the faculty of business back then. I am very proud to call Alex a friend. I am so grateful for his work in contributing to democracy. I am also proud of his work in contributing to public safety. I want to recognize that formally in the House of Commons.”
“In Bill C-12 , what the Liberals will not acknowledge is that it was robust opposition that led to elements that should be debated in Bill C-2 's forming Bill C-12, as well as other very questionable issues in Bill C-2's remaining in Bill C-2. It also begs this question: What is going to happen in Bill C-2 ? Perhaps we can have another debate on Bill C-2 , and the member for Winnipeg North can stand up and speak about warrantless searches of mail. The Liberals could also discuss cash transactions, how much money should be permitted, and whether we should actually be telling Canadians how much cash they can or cannot use. I just want to pause to acknowledge somebody who has done tremendous work when it comes to democracy and participating in democracy. That person is named Dawson McKay. He is a Crown prosecutor in British Columbia.”
“They did not want a lack of law that said that extreme intoxication is an excuse for a general intent offence, that is, when someone does not legally have the ability to commit the offence. I believe it goes to the actus reus defence, but it has been a while. In any event, the Liberals responded with legislation very quickly. The Liberals did not really care so much about bail, but now they say they are tough on crime. This is after former ministers of justice Virani and Lametti stood just across the aisle in the House to tell us there is no problem with bail. The Liberals have no problem responding when it is consistent with their agenda.”
“I do know about the Bykovets decision very well. I think I was still practising law when it came out. That decision said there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in an IP address. As parliamentarians, we have to remedy the problem. We have actually seen that when the Liberals want to remedy an untenable decision for the House, they have no problem doing it quickly. I will note that they have failed to do that on the issue of bail. There were three or four decisions on bail that they actually codified. That means they took the language from the decision and put it into legislation. They did not push back on it. Section 33.1, the defence of extreme intoxication, was struck out. There was legislation before the House within weeks of that happening. The Liberals did not want a law on the books.”
“I take great pride in what we have done, because that is what an opposition does. An opposition scrutinizes, considers and opposes, when and where it is appropriate to oppose. (1235) Lo and behold, part 4, which speaks about the inspection of mail, is no longer in Bill C-12 ; it remains languishing in Bill C-2 . It is by no coincidence that occurred, because we as Conservatives consistently raised the plain language in Bill C-2, which I think I will quote again: The Corporation may open any mail if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that Then it goes on to the regulations. What other things are missing? Conservatives raised substantial questions about privacy concerns, parts 14 and 15, what is colloquially called lawful access. People have said I should know about the R v. Bykovets decision.”
“In fact, perhaps a page can run the document over to him, because it says it right in it, and the member can tell us whether he still believes this, or acknowledges perhaps that Conservatives were correct on the issue. This leads me to Bill C-2 generally. Bill C-2 was a mess. The government went very far. We can all acknowledge that border security is an issue, but the legislation went very far, and we heard about it from Canadians. The Liberals have said that we need the legislation and need it done, and they have asked how we dare stand in the way of border security and things like that. However, as Conservatives, we played our role as opposition, and we did so very clearly. We took issue, and people will notice that the matters with which we took issue are not matters in Bill C-12 .”
“Let us go back to the plain language: The Corporation may open any mail if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that Wait a minute. That is not reasonable grounds to believe, as is needed for a warrant, yet the Liberals have repeatedly stood up in this place and said that Conservatives are full of conspiracy theories and that a warrant would be needed, when it says right in the bill that a warrant would not be needed. The member for Winnipeg North is very active in questions and comments, and God forbid that any member of the House would misspeak, so I really look forward to his addressing the issue in questions and comments.”
“The words are so clear that a warrant would not be needed, so let us just go through it one more time for clarity. Bill C-2 states: The Corporation may open any mail if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that It does not state that the corporation may apply for a warrant. It does not state that the corporation shall apply for a warrant. It says that it “may open any mail”. Here is the real kicker: reasonable grounds. I have not practised law for about four years, but my recollection is that a search warrant is issued by a judge when there are reasonable grounds to believe, based on oath or affirmation, than an offence has been committed, that there is evidence of that offence and that the place to be searched will yield evidence of the offence. Those three characteristics are needed with reasonable grounds to believe.”
“The corporation legally has personhood, but the corporation is made up of people. Those people, generally, are not going to be peace officers. In fact, I do not know whether Canada Post has any peace officers in its employ. The legislation would not even require a peace officer, so theoretically it could be somebody in the mail room who has no training. We hear all about RCMP training and things like that. Somebody with no training could open up mail; they may, not shall, do so if they have reasonable grounds to suspect. The member for Winnipeg North has told us so many times that a warrant would be needed. I went to a briefing with top officials from the government, and they told me that based on the provisions, a warrant would not be needed. Imagine that.”
“In other words, we want to make it so that anybody shipping something that is 499 grams or less could be subject to a warranted search, a search that is authorized by a judge. I admire the member's zeal for sticking with this position, which is a position I thought was untenable, so let us go through that again. Bill C-2 states that the corporation may open any mail, so that includes letters, parcels or anything. I think we are all on solid ground and know what “any mail” means. It states that it “may” open it, so it would not be compulsory. The government would not have to open mail, but the legislation would be permissive; the government could open any mail if it had reasonable grounds to suspect. The bill refers to the “Corporation”, which is very interesting.”
“They have a number of lawyers on the Liberal side. We have a number of lawyers here. However, the legislation actually speaks really clearly, so I am going to read the legislation into the record just so that we are really clear on this, and then I will speak about what we have been through with a number of bureaucrats. (1230) Bill C-2 , in part 4, proposes to replace subsection 41(1) of the act with the following: The Corporation may open any mail if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that The reasonable suspicion part relates to regulation, so if any regulation is suspected to be breached, Canada Post could open our mail. If I am understanding it clearly, the intent of the legislation is to cover up a gap, in that mail cannot not be opened with a warrant.”
“Bill C-2 , if memory serves, would enact or alter 15 pieces of legislation. It is about 120 pages long, if memory serves, and the Liberals told us to just pass it, just trust them. Given some of the rhetoric in the House today, it is somewhat comical that the Liberals would use this type of language: Just pass this, just trust them. As members of His Majesty's loyal opposition, our job is to listen to Canadians and to closely scrutinize government legislation. In a 120-page bill, there are problems. I am going to highlight one of those problems, and I really hope that the member for Winnipeg North is listening closely to this one: the warrantless search. The member has spoken to the House ad nauseam, no fewer than five or six times, about the fact that Canada Post could not open up mail without a warrant.”
“Among those organizations was the Canucks Autism Network, an organization that is very close to my heart, for those who know me. I thank Mr. Consenheim for all he has done for the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Let us start at the beginning. Bill C-2 was tabled as what I would call a panacea. It was meant to be a cure-all, a reaction piece and something to contain a number of Liberal promises or not so many promises, requests, bureaucratic lingo and things like that. I can still remember, even though I was not here, how the Liberals spoke about omnibus bills and how bad they were. They spoke about the big, bad Conservatives' passing big, bad omnibus bills, and they said that the Liberals would never, ever pass omnibus bills, yet here we are: One of many omnibus bills comes to us in the form of Bill C-2, with a number of problems.”
“I have distinct memories of sleeping over at the house and of Ms. Evans being up early to make us pancakes and send us on our way, making sure that her sons and their friends did not get into too much trouble. I would like to express my deepest condolences to the Evans family, Louie Luce and Derek Luce, and all others who are impacted by her passing. May perpetual light shine upon her. I also want to acknowledge Les Consenheim, a resident of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, for his outstanding contributions to democracy. He has been a huge help to me, and I am so grateful that people like him are so involved. He recently sponsored an event that I was at this weekend, where people bid on art based on volunteer hours. If somebody liked an art piece, they could volunteer, say 100 hours, to an organization.”
“Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Before I begin, I want to acknowledge a few people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I want to acknowledge the life of Dana Evans. I was very saddened to read about Dana's passing. She was mother to one of my friends in high school, Derek Luce, and his brother, Louie Luce. I did not know this, but she was born in Yakima, Washington, a place where I spent a great deal of time, and attended school in Ellensburg. I have a good friend from Ellensburg. However, what stuck out to me most was that Dana Evans graduated from Thorp High School. I have a couple of friends from Thorp. It is basically a postage stamp in Washington; I always used to make fun of, to my friends, how small it is. Lo and behold, my friend's mom was born there.”
“Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I listened with great interest to the minister's speech. Bill C-12 is obviously a reiteration of some portions of Bill C-2 . Conservatives have been very vocal on problematic aspects of Bill C-2. The minister framed it as “we have listened to Canadians”, as in the Liberals have listened. Will the minister admit that the Liberals simply got it wrong with Bill C-2 , based on Conservative pressure and otherwise from Canadians, and that this is their attempt to salvage a very flawed piece of legislation?”
“Madam Speaker, the member for Waterloo does not seem to want to give me the chance to speak today. The member spoke about my conduct and what I said as “bogus”. Indirectly or directly, he cannot impugn another's character like that—”
“Madam Speaker, I will tell the House that my 10 years as a Crown prosecutor was a substantial base to start with. I spoke with people from women's groups, victims of intimate partner violence, police officers and countless people. I am at a loss right now. This is quite possibly the most non-partisan bill that could have been authored. There is nothing partisan about the bill. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Frank Caputo: Madam Speaker, the member for Waterloo said that I should keep drinking it. Shame. An hon. member: That is not what she said. Frank Caputo: Then what did she say, “Keep thinking it”? Madam Speaker, it is the most non-partisan bill that could have been authored. The member from Winnipeg heckled when I introduced the bill on sexual assault. The Liberals are saying that this is American-style politics.”
“Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's thoughtful intervention. I do not see this as a doubling up of efforts. At the end of the day, calling an offence what it is, the assault of an intimate partner, is not the doubling up of effort. Allowing the court more tools to bring somebody before it in order to perform a risk assessment is not the doubling up of effort. I appreciate all that has been done. Obviously, I do not know every single thing or mechanism that has been done in the member's home province of Quebec, but I appreciate the words. I look forward to working with the members of the Bloc in the hope that they will support the bill as well.”
“I would like to continue if the hon. member would give me a chance to speak about this. Madam Speaker, there is nothing partisan about the bill. It is the most significant intervention on the law of intimate partner violence ever, yet the Liberals want to stand up and accuse us of partisanship. Good grief. This is so wrong. I asked if the Liberals would support this. There has not been one word out of the member's mouth about whether they will support this. There has not been one word out of the member's mouth as to whether this debate would collapse. I say shame on the Liberals for not answering those questions.”
“Madam Speaker, I cannot believe the member just referred to partisan politics with respect to the bill. I will look her right in the eye and say that there is absolutely nothing partisan about the bill.”
“Will they agree to let debate collapse so that this can get to a vote and get to committee? Those are my questions because I know we have to address this and address it now.”
“People from that organization attended the UBCM conference in Victoria to push for these actions: having a municipal, gender-based violence task force to stabilize frontline services; standardizing risk assessment, and this bill actually has a risk assessment built into it, a mechanism by which the court can bring somebody before it; launching a province-wide prevention campaign; and appointing a gender-based violence lead. I am grateful to our deputy leader, the member for Thornhill , for seconding this important bill and speaking to this important bill. I reiterate that this bill should be passed. It should be passed quickly. It should go to committee as quickly as possible. Victims are watching. Let us get Bailey's law passed. Will the Liberals do that?”
“We are expected to reflect that in the laws we pass. Often, in the laws we pass, there are poison pills that are put in, wedge issues and such things. There is no wedge here. There is simply a desire on my part and a desire from the people on this side of the House, and I can speak only for my colleagues, to get the bill passed as soon as possible. The Union of BC Municipalities is not specifically asking for this, but it is asking for action when it passes a resolution of this sort. I have spoken with Angela MacDougall from Battered Women's Support Services.”
“It does not matter whether someone is low income, working class or rich. They are at risk for intimate partner violence. Fifty-five per cent of women who experience physical or sexual intimate partner violence feared a partner at some point. Being afraid of a partner can indicate intimate partner violence that is more coercive, more severe and more likely to reflect a pattern of abusive behaviours. In my home province of British Columbia, the Union of BC Municipalities, also known as UBCM, had its convention in Victoria from September 22 to 26. The Union of BC Municipalities endorsed a motion for B.C. to declare gender-based violence, intimate partner violence and human trafficking an epidemic in the province and to update its action plan to combat human trafficking. In this House, we are expected to hear from the people on the ground.”
“They are the people who are most likely to die at the hands of their partner. Intimate partner physical assault has increased 14%. I may sound like a broken record. It feels as though we could hear a pin drop in this place. Why are we waiting? Will the Liberals allow debate to collapse? If the Liberals are not prepared to do that, are they prepared to support the bill? Are they prepared to address this on a consent motion so that we can make the bill law as quickly as possible? Most of my adult life has been spent in the justice system. I cannot tell members how many victims I have dealt with on this issue. There are people who live very good lives otherwise; everything appears perfectly normal, yet behind closed doors, these people are repeatedly victimized. This offence spans every socio-economic group.”
“When it comes to intimate partner violence, in 2023, there were 123,319 victims aged 12 years and older, and firearms were present in over 1,000 cases. The year 2014 marked the lowest rates of IPV since comparable data became available. I wonder what happened in 2015. I am trying to remember. Since then, from 2014 to 2022, police-reported IPV rates increased 19% for women and girls and 21% for men and boys. In that period, intimate partner sexual assault increased 163%. (1110) I introduced a bill previously, Bill C-299 , that would have raised the sexual assault maximum to life imprisonment. I was actually heckled by two members of the Liberal Party when I did that. How do we stand in the way of this? How do we stand in the way of the bill when we have an increase of 163% of sexual assault against intimate partners?”
“I do not know why we would prolong the current law of intimate partner violence, or the lack thereof, for another day. Why would we let the status quo exist for another day? This House can resoundingly denounce the current state, where women far too often see intimate partner violence, period. There are men who experience intimate partner violence, although it is disproportionately women. This House can denounce it right here, right now. If we allow debate to collapse, we can get this bill to committee forthwith. To whoever stands up for the Liberals, I invite them to take the first five seconds of their question to say whether they will allow debate to collapse and whether they will be supporting this bill. As I said, Bailey McCourt's family is watching; Canadians are watching.”
“I have been told this is the biggest time-waster that police experience in British Columbia. If somebody's computer is seized with child sexual abuse and exploitation material and the review takes 15 months, an officer will have gone to court four times, served the application four times and written four affidavits. In rural policing, they might be travelling two hours to deliver them. These are common-sense and non-partisan issues. I have a rhetorical question. I am not sure who is going to be speaking on behalf of the Liberals or the Bloc, but I invite them to say at the outset whether they be supporting this bill. In fact, they can go one step further today and can allow debate to collapse. What that means is that we would vote on this bill forthwith.”
“Doing this for seven days, I understand, is a deprivation of liberty, but in the grand scheme of things, based on the number of victims we are seeing, we have to intervene. This bill would permit a court to independently say, at the request of a victim or the prosecutor or through the court's own volition, that it is concerned about the safety of a victim and will make a determination on whether a victim will be safe pending trial, even if the person was granted bail. Fourth, this bill would update the law of detention. Most people do not know much about section 490 of the Criminal Code, which was written probably 30 or 40 years ago, when people went to trial within three to six months. Right now, a police officer has to go to court every three months to renew the detention of something seized until charges are approved.”
“We have to deter and denounce this conduct, and more concretely, this House has to speak out about the killing of intimate partners, with a loud voice. This bill would do that. (1105) Third, this bill would create a risk assessment. Right now, generally, the only mechanism to bring somebody before the court who is accused of intimate partner violence is when they breach their conditions. An accused person may be escalating to the point where they are a risk to their intimate partner without having breached their conditions. This bill would allow a judge to compel a person to go to court for an up to seven-day risk assessment so we can intercede before there is another victim.”
“When it comes to intimate partners, they are the most likely to experience a homicide, yet we in this House have stood idle, despite time after time this being brought up in the House. The second thing this bill would do is create a charge of first-degree murder when somebody kills their intimate partner. Right now, first-degree murder is colloquially called “premeditated” in the United States and “planned and deliberate” in Canada. The other aspect of first-degree murder is that someone can be found guilty of first-degree murder when they commit a predicate offence, as in they kidnap somebody. The third is the killing of a peace officer. This bill would make a fourth category, which is the killing of an intimate partner.”
“I have received countless emails, correspondence and feedback from women's organizations. Why is that? It is because this bill would create the distinct offence of assault on an intimate partner. Right now, in the Criminal Code, assault does not distinguish between who someone assaults. The only distinguishment is if someone assaults a peace officer. We distinguish between assaulting a peace officer and assaulting someone in the general public, but we do not distinguish between punching somebody out at the bar and punching out an intimate partner, two very different things. One is a relationship predicated on trust, intimacy and sometimes dependence, as in financial dependence or the commingling of assets. The other happens randomly.”
“Along with her was one of her friends, a relatively new friend, who survived. Bailey's family reached out to me a couple of weeks ago, and they asked that this law be known as Bailey's law. As politicians, we will sometimes attach a name to a law. I did not feel it was my place to do that, but when a victim's family reaches out and asks that this be done, it is not something we should easily ignore. I know Bailey's aunt Debbie is watching today, being the spokesperson for the McCourt family. I also had the opportunity to meet with Bailey's father Shane and stepmom Trish this past week during the break week. I hope I'm not paraphrasing inappropriately, but they provided unequivocal support for this bill. People are watching. Canadians, victims and women's organizations are watching.”
“I have spoken with a number of stakeholders, a number of people who have experienced intimate partner violence. I received those notes, and to anybody who is watching or listening today, please know that we hear their heartfelt words. When a victim pours out their heart to us in a note, saying that they were a victim of intimate partner violence and feel heard in a bill, it is my view that we should heed these words and pass that bill expeditiously. I know watching online today is the family of Bailey McCourt. For those who are unaware, Bailey was a young woman, a mother and a survivor of intimate partner violence. This summer, her former partner was convicted of abusing her, and within hours, he left the courtroom and murdered her. That allegation is before the court.”
“moved that Bill C-225, An Act to amend the Criminal Code , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-225. Second reading He said: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, but today it is a particular pleasure, a distinct pleasure, because today I believe I rise on behalf of all Canadians to report on an epidemic, something that touches all Canadians, which is intimate partner violence. This is a non-partisan issue. In drafting this bill, I deliberately made it as non-partisan as possible. I know sometimes things get quite partisan in the House, but this bill, in my view, and I say this with the greatest of sincerity, is a non-partisan bill to address the epidemic of intimate partner violence.”
“The Prime Minister 's corporate buddies at Brookfield are making out like bandits, while Canadians live cheque to cheque, lined up at the food bank. That is wrong.”