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 7 of 10.
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister 's tenure has been marked by broken promises. Canadians want integrity. They want their government to keep its promises, and the Prime Minister has failed. The Prime Minister promised us the fastest-growing economy but has given us the fastest-shrinking economy, the second-highest unemployment and the worst household debt in the G7. It is true. The Prime Minister promised that he could be judged by food prices at the grocery store. Meanwhile, prices are rising faster today than when he became Prime Minister. The Prime Minister promised to “Build, baby, build”, but all he has done is block, baby, block. “Elbows up”, he said. He also said that dollar-for-dollar tariffs were coming. Instead, he has removed tariffs without getting anything in return. He says one thing; he does another.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I have had the pleasure of meeting my colleague across the way. In case we have, I apologize, but I do welcome him to the chamber. Under the Criminal Code, I believe under section 486.3 or something like that, there are witness accommodations that are available in the civilian system. I am not a military expert, so I do not know if those accommodations are available there, but I would support those accommodations being available. There are things like screens, or testifying from a separate room by CCTV. Victims should have access to those, so I would agree.”
“Mr. Speaker, I believe I know the case my colleague is referring to. Obviously, I am not going to justify any appointment of any wrong person, period. I am not sure who made what appointments. I do not want to presume that we are referring to the same person. I know there have been cover-ups. I believe there have been cover-ups, frankly, by the Liberal government. Those cover-ups are completely unacceptable, and those cover-ups should end. We should be appointing good people. I thank my Bloc colleague for raising that.”
“With all due respect, I will accept the proposition that we, as members, believe that sex offences need to be dealt with appropriately. I will not believe the contention that the Prime Minister has made it a priority, because he has not made it a priority.”
“Mr. Speaker, I know we are all concerned. I would never say that we are not all concerned, but I am troubled by the fact that I have been here for an hour and it has only been that member who has asked questions on behalf of the Liberals when there are many talented Liberals sitting in the House who can talk about it. Let us take the member's logic here to its end point. The Prime Minister is so concerned about sexual offences that Bill C-11 has been put forward. Well, correct me if I am wrong, but was this not already discussed in Parliament on a past occasion? If the Prime Minister is going to be such a leader on this issue, where is the legislation to punish sex offenders writ large? The Liberals have washed their hands of it.”
“If there is one thing we should be prepared to do, it is to send people to jail when they hurt people sexually, especially in the military. My commitment to victims is this: For anybody who touches a kid, if I am in a position to legislate on it, I will not take my foot off the gas pedal until those offenders see the inside of a jail cell for a very long time.”
“These are the issues we are dealing with, and that was from a member of a police force that was not a military police force. We need widespread education, but if I can underscore one thing in this speech, it is that this House has failed when it comes to sex offences. We should all be ashamed. We as Conservatives have faced push-back because we want mandatory minimums for an offence for which the victim is serving a psychological life sentence. People will say that it failed in the Harper era. It failed in the Harper era because all we needed was a safety valve to say “except in exceptional circumstances”. That is it. I implore one of my Liberal colleagues, Conservative colleagues, Bloc colleagues or anybody else to put that forward.”
“I challenge the Liberals across the way. I will try to look each and every one of those who are here in the eye and question what we are doing here. Why are we sitting here? We are talking about a really nuanced subject. We are talking about transferring investigative authority and prosecutorial authority to civilians in the prosecution service. That is something we have to recognize as an issue. Prosecuting sex offences is not easy, and I do not say that to pat myself on the back. I say that because it is something I had to learn to do. Investigating sexual offences is even harder. I came across something recently. A police officer said that a victim had not said no. For those watching at home, it is not “no means no”. It is only “yes means yes”; that is it.”
“When I get up here to speak about the military and sexual offending within the military, and when I get up to speak about sex offences generally, I am appalled at what we have done, or failed to do. It is actually even worse when we know of a problem and sit idle in Parliament. I put forward Bill C-299 to add life imprisonment to sexual offences and put most sex offences on par with property offences. I was heckled when I introduced that bill. Then we wonder why we are in the state we are in where this insidious offending happens, completely under-reported. If we think it is under-reported in the military, I am sure it is just as under-reported in society. Myths and stereotypes abound: “Who will believe me?” These are the problems, and they have been perpetuated in the military by this House's inaction.”
“(1045) Perhaps I am getting animated, but if there is something to get animated about, it is that there are victims each and every day who walk with demons they do not see but that they feel and hear. They carry this pernicious offending, particularly against children, although it happens to adults too, for the rest of their lives, and the Liberals have not legislated on it. Someone can still commit a sex offence against a child and serve house arrest. Robbery is the taking of property by force. The maximum sentence is life imprisonment. Sex assault is the taking of dignity and consent by force. The maximum sentence is 10 years. If someone takes a child's innocence, it is 14 years, but not to worry, house arrest is still an option.”
“Most of those involved the Internet, but I also prosecuted a number of sexual offences, and I will say this: Victims who experience sexual trauma, at whatever age but particularly at a young age, live a psychological life sentence. Let us make no mistake about this. The fact that the Liberals have not legislated on this is on their hands. The Harper government legislated on sex crimes, drugs and guns. The Liberals have repealed legislation on guns. We saw that in Bill C-5 . The Liberals have legislated with respect to drugs. We saw that extensively with conditional sentence orders. They have not legislated on sex crimes. If the Liberals are so ideological, why will they not address sex crimes?”
“I thank them for what they have done for the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola and for their tremendous contributions and assistance to me. We are speaking here to Bill C-11 . The crux of Bill C-11 is about sexual offending in the armed forces. The bill has two elements of the debate that I would love to raise. The first element of the debate is the colossal failure when it comes to sexual offences, particularly sexual offences in the military, but that is actually just symptomatic of the tremendous failure of the current Liberal government when it comes to sexual offences, period. The other issue, then, is, what do we do with it? At the outset of this speech, I spoke about my experience prosecuting sexual offences against children.”
“Before I begin, I want to recognize Walter Behnke of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, an exceptional individual who has given so much. I appreciate all that he has done. I thank Walter for his tremendous contributions to our democracy. I also want to highlight Daniel Martin and Karen Martin, two people who have contributed tremendously to the vitality of the democracy that is Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Daniel is a navy veteran, somebody who cares deeply for the flag, deeply for his country and deeply for others. The same goes for his wife, Karen, who I know volunteers as a lawyer. People think that lawyers are just there to make money. She actually retired at a relatively young age and still gives back to young lawyers. She still volunteers in any way she can.”
“In 2021, when I was running, I said my first order of business would be to change that law. I stood on doorsteps saying we would change that verbiage. When I gave my first speech in the House, I spoke about that. I spoke about a number of other things, but I called upon this House to do it. With my colleague and friend, I drafted the bill and he presented it. He sponsored the bill and, together, it navigated through the House of Commons and the Senate, and it received royal assent on October 10, 2024, one year ago today. That means that today the term “child pornography” disappears from the Canadian legal lexicon. It is called what it is: child sexual abuse and exploitation material. I am profoundly proud of that today.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Today is a particularly important day. No, it is not my birthday, and it is not my mother's birthday. This is a day that so many of us have looked forward to. Over my right shoulder is the other member of Parliament from Kamloops, the member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies . I stand before this House with tremendous pride. For those who do not know, I was a prosecutor before I was elected here. Most people have heard that far too many times, I know. One of the things I mostly prosecuted was Internet offences against kids. The term “child pornography” disgusted me. Children cannot consent. It is sexual abuse. Pornography depicts consenting adults.”
“Mr. Speaker, if the legislation is so weak, why are the Peel, Halton and, minutes ago, Toronto police associations endorsing our legislation? The reality is that bail is out of control. In Kelowna, 15 people were responsible for 1,335 police calls, with one person responsible for 223 of those. He is alleged to have violated bail 31 times and has not showed up for court 32 times. The Liberals tell us what they are going to do. What have they done in the last 10 years? It is diddly-poo. Will they pass our bill, yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, Liberal policies like Liberal bail have caused a bloodbath of crime throughout Canada. So much of this comes back to the Liberal bail provisions of Bill C-75 . Canadians should not have fear, because we have a jail not bail bill that we will be voting on today. In fact, Peel, Halton and, minutes ago, the Toronto police associations endorsed our jail not bail bill. When the justice minister says that our bill is deficient, will he tell those police associations they are wrong?”
“Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the minister just said that. I just tabled a bill that would protect Canadians and victims of intimate partner violence. Instead of debating it next week, Liberals should vote for it right away. So many Canadians have realized that the Liberals have broken their promise. They say what they are going to do. Why do they say what they are going to do? It is because they have not done anything. They have done jack squat when it comes to bail. They want to consult. They should read the newspapers. Liberals need to get out of the way or support Bill C-242 so that we can get rid of Liberal bail. Will the Liberals support us, yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have unleashed crime and chaos on our streets. Bill C-75 said that repeat offenders need to be released at the earliest possible occasion on the least onerous conditions. Just this week in Kelowna, it was reported that 15 offenders were responsible for over 1,300 police calls. The Liberals promised we would get bail reform. We have seen nothing. Talk about a bait and switch. Conservatives have a common-sense plan to scrap Liberal bail reform. Will the Liberals get behind us or let us do it for ourselves, yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. These are the types of things that bring us to the House. On the one hand, we recognize there is an issue. Cybersecurity is of concern to all Canadians. We do lag behind our Five Eyes allies in this regard. On the other hand, we have to balance that with civil rights, the charter, which sometimes the Liberals want to talk about, except when they are alienating charter rights from people as often happens. Can my hon. colleague speak about that balance: the need to address a problem and to do so while also respecting rights?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Just yesterday, I had a phone call from a constituent who talked about crime. This is somebody I have known for a long time. He said that after a worker was assaulted, he literally cannot find workers. The member talks about speaking to students about my bill, which he referenced, on intimate partner violence and says that it should be passed quickly. I agree that it should be passed quickly. I want a yes or no answer to this. I will pay for the member to come to my riding. We will go to a law school and discuss it; we will walk in the streets of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola to look at crime, and he can tell us whether it is out of control. It is my time, my dime: Will he take me up on it, yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member just accused the Conservative Party of promoting hate. That is reprehensible. We should be able to debate in here. We should be able to debate the issues, even if we disagree, without resorting to that. He should withdraw that and apologize.”
“Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member full well knows that he cannot accuse another member, or a party, for that matter, of intentionally misleading the House. He knows that he cannot do that. He should withdraw that statement.”
“I have a bill on intimate partner violence, Bill C-225 , which would recognize it and save lives. Are the Liberals prepared to support it, yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Before I begin, I want to give a shout-out to one of our staff members, Stephanie Rennick, and wish her a happy birthday. She did not tell us, but it was revealed nevertheless. I listened with great attention to my colleague's speech. I have never heard so many Liberal talking points that, with all due respect, say absolutely nothing. To say we are aligned with the Liberal government on justice could not be further from the truth. Former ministers of justice Arif Virani and David Lametti told us that we, as Conservatives, are out to lunch. They said, “You don't get bail. The system is working.” That is what they told us, so it is wrong to say that we are aligned. We wanted to act years ago, but they stood on faith and stood on their heels.”
“Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, and it is an honour to contribute in questions and comments to my hon. colleague from the Okanagan. I really appreciate what he had to say. He built on what my colleague from the Bloc had to say. I have been fairly clear, and I will speak as the chief critic for the Conservative Party. This will go to committee. When it goes to committee, Conservatives will engage in vigorous scrutiny in order to ensure that we have the best bill possible. Just because the bill passed in the form of Bill C-26 does not mean that we rubber-stamp it through in the 45th Parliament. We need to be committed to always making every bill the best it can be. Does my colleague agree?”
“Madam Speaker, I believe that parliamentarians, particularly on our side as opposition, should have the opportunity to voice their concerns. Does that mean Conservatives are going to put forward 140 speakers to the bill? No. At the same time, the reality is that the member is asking me whether I promise. I promise to do so as long as he concedes I am right on Bill C-2 . We are here in our democracy, and I spoke about the honour of being here as members. At the end of the day, I think the people who have concerns about Bill C-2 or want to endorse it from the government side should have their opportunity to speak. I believe we should afford them every opportunity to do so. At that point, we can look at the bill's going to committee.”
“No, Madam Speaker, that is wrong. It says Canada Post may open a letter when its employees have reasonable grounds to suspect; a warrant is issued on reasonable grounds to believe. I cannot be any more clear. No, the member is wrong. I am sorry, he is wrong.”
“Madam Speaker, we come back to mail every time. The hon. member is a lawyer. To be candid, I would have to give that some thought. My law enforcement brain is thinking that there may not be candour from somebody who is saying, “Yes, please open up this envelope that has drugs in it. Go ahead.” I do worry about that. In terms of other measures, though, whenever somebody looks at something in which a section 8 privacy interest, the right to be free from arbitrary search and seizure, is engaged, I think the easiest mechanism is to get a warrant. I would love to talk more with this member and the member for Winnipeg North about what the technical briefing told me, because it was completely different from what I thought I was going to hear. I am happy to discuss that further. Let us just put a warrant provision in the bill and be done with it.”
“Madam Speaker, that might be the biggest softball I get today. My hon. colleague will often say when he is there that the people of the Nicola Valley got an upgrade when I started to represent them, but I would joke that it was a downgrade because he is such an exceptional member. One of the things I appreciate about the member, and realized as I was talking to a newer member just yesterday and relating stories about “the member told me this, and this is what I learned from it,” I have not even had a chance to tell him this, but it was at that moment I realized how much wisdom he had imparted to me. This is very critical. We should be prepared to impart wisdom across the aisle, but also across our benches. I thank the member for his mentorship, example and leadership in this place.”
“Madam Speaker, I am practising my French with my hon. colleague, and I thank her for her patience. When it comes to the provinces and Canada, what I would say to my hon. colleague is this: cybersecurity attacks do not distinguish. An attack on a city, as my colleague mentioned, like Hamilton, an attack on the province of Quebec or British Columbia, an attack on this legislature or on the Government of Canada, any of those is an attack that we as federal legislators have jurisdiction over and should be addressing. I am not going to say that any attack should be delineated by jurisdiction. We, here, should be prepared to stand up against every cyber-attack, and I hope to work on legislation that would do that.”
“Madam Speaker, the House will get no argument from me that we have to prevent cybersecurity attacks and the catastrophic outcome of those cybersecurity attacks, which often cannot be measured. Obviously, we do need to do that. Yes, as a councillor, the member would have experienced this. There was a vulnerability, and it was attacked. We live in a world where hostile actors will attack us. With that being said, as Conservatives, and, I think, as legislators in this place, we should seek both. We should say that we do not have one at the expense of the other; we should seek to have excellent cybersecurity defence while maintaining the rights of Canadians.”
“There is a time to be secret and there is a time not to be secret, obviously. As Conservatives, we want to ensure that we are not being secret when we do not need to be and that we have an open and accountable government. One of my greatest criticisms over the past 10 years is the lack of accountability and the obfuscation. I cannot say how many times I have sat in this House when questions were asked and there were absolutely no answers to them. We cannot even figure out how many trees were planted some days. I note the government said it would plant two billion, and it could not do that. I do not know how it is going to build houses, but that is a different speech on a different day. I know I am coming to the end of my time. I can see the member for Winnipeg North is really wanting to get up and ask about Bill C-2 .”
“I come from a criminal law background, and I know that in certain cases, those doing investigations would say, “Look, we are asking for something voluntarily. We will destroy it so that you know this will never be used again.” When people give information to the government compelled by legislation, it is my position that people need to know to what extent that information will be used or shared and with whom. When we are talking about digital information, something that, let us face it, the expertise of which is beyond so many of us, as a legislature we need to be extremely careful and concerned about the extent of that sharing. What does “personal information” mean? This is building on what I just said, the information that can be used, which could leave Canadians' privacy vulnerable. This bill is often about operating in secrecy.”
“We as Conservatives want to review this legislation and ensure ways it would stand up for the security of Canadians, but not at the expense of privacy and charter rights. The Liberals will often say they are the party of the charter, and yet so often we will see pieces of legislation, and I see it in Bill C-2 , that I think certainly offend section 8, the search and seizure provisions of the charter. We need to ensure that any such provisions are subject to Canadians' rights and, at the same time, reach our goals. Some of the Conservatives' key concerns are transparency and accountability. The bill could be stronger when it comes to oversight measures with respect to retention limits. When we give the government our intellectual property and information, meaning the collective “we” as Canadians, what happens to that?”
“Madam Speaker, the member is still fighting it. His own departmental officials have said a warrant is not needed. I can tell the member for Winnipeg North that a warrant is not needed, and I will leave it at that. It had better be a good coffee. Conservatives fully recognize the importance of cybersecurity as part of our national defence strategy. We can all be united on that. There is no doubt about it. Unfortunately, it is the Conservatives' position that the government has lagged behind when it comes to recognizing the importance of cybersecurity as part of our national defence strategy. The government is slow to address cyber-threats, over a number of serious incidents to occur, with no substantive legislative response in 10 years. That means that when this legislation comes before us, even for a second time, we have to get it right.”
“The bill enables opening of mail without a warrant on a standard of reasonable suspicion. If something is found there, a warrant will then be needed. (1045) I did not mean to go off on this tangent, but for those who are unaware, the member for Winnipeg North and I have jousted, sometimes being more friendly than at other times, on this very issue. I think he owes me a coffee, and I will end it at that.”
“Anything under 500 grams cannot be opened, so let us make sure that letters under 500 grams can be opened so that 499 grams of fentanyl and fentanyl precursors cannot get through. That is the goal. Great. Now how do we go about achieving that goal? In Bill C-2 , we go about achieving that goal by saying that if Canada Post, not a peace officer, has reasonable suspicion, then it can open a person's mail without a warrant. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Frank Caputo: Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member from Winnipeg is laughing. What he does not know is that I actually had a technical briefing yesterday in which I asked the minister 's own people about this. I see the member from Winnipeg is listening intently. I am so glad he is. They told me I was right.”
“This results in vigorous debate, which is actually wonderful. We should have vigorous debate in this place, but at the end of the day, the government will often hear from stakeholders, as they did with Bill C-26 formerly, and then it is walked back. There were so many amendments. I believe all but one or two of the Conservative amendments that were put forward for Bill C-26 were adopted. I do not understand that. I can see the same thing in Bill C-2 as I see here in Bill C-8 , for example, with respect to the mail provisions in Bill C-2. The government can open a person's mail. Why is that? The whole purpose of Bill C-2 is to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act, as I believe it is called. This is because the government is worried about fentanyl being sent through the mail, which is a notable concern, a laudable concern.”
“I understand the notion of confidentiality. I worked as a lawyer for many years, and I know that confidentiality has to happen, but far too often what I see in the House is something that is a laudable cause, a cause that we should be embracing, going further. Sometimes secret things have to remain secret. The problem is that, far too often in the House, what I see is the Liberal government going further. Yes, we have to keep some things secret, but it is just keeping everything secret. Yes, we have to do this in this regard, but we are going to go one step further. That puts the opposition in a really awful place; we might agree with the goal of the legislation, but we do not agree with the mechanism by which we get to the goal. That is when we have protracted debate and then sometimes go to committee for a committee meeting.”
“It took until May 2022, when the decision was finally made to ban Huawei and its 5G networks for national security reasons. Our Five Eyes allies, which are the United States, the U.K., Australia and Japan, had already acted on this. One has to wonder why we took so long. Australia, as well, acted on cybersecurity. What does Bill C-8 really do? What are some of the issues? The bill does not include some of the proposed amendments to the Canada Evidence Act. Bill C-8 makes the judicial review process more transparent by removing the government's ability to make confidential submissions to the court and refuse to disclose information. For those people who are watching Bill C-2 , it is a parallel piece of legislation. It is also a piece of legislation that has been sponsored and put forward by the public safety minister .”
“The first part of the bill would amend the Telecommunications Act and bring about changes to ensure that we can counter cyber-threats, and the second part would enact the critical cyber systems protection act, imposing new cybersecurity measures on federally regulated entities operating in sectors that are considered vital to public and national safety. I will not get into the response to a number of government reports, but when we look at the Telecommunications Act, one thing that was a really big issue, which I think the government took far too long on, was the issue of Huawei. (1040) For context, I was elected in September 2021. When I first got here, there was this issue of Huawei. Unfortunately, the government dithered when we needed decisive action on whether to ban 5G.”
“The first part would amend the Telecommunications Act and aim to strengthen the resilience of Canada's critical infrastructure. There is no doubt that our critical infrastructure is vulnerable. Any expert, I am sure, would come to committee or to the House and tell us that. There is absolutely no doubt about it. The need for the bill is not disputed. I would never say, “Wow, why are we bringing the bill forward?” I would say that on a number of other bills, and the Online Streaming Act would be one of them, thinking, “Why is the government doing this other than to further an agenda that a number of Canadians disagree with?” As I stated earlier, Bill C-8 is largely a reinvention of Bill C-26 .”
“This tells me that there was a fair amount of contention around many of the bill's provisions. I really look forward to scrutinizing the bill. It addresses an area in which Canada lags behind. After 10 years of Liberal government, I can say that we lag behind our Five Eyes intelligence partners greatly. It feels as though there is an undertone when we hear from international media that Canada is no longer trusted, that Canadian intelligence is no longer well regarded. I remember Justin Trudeau saying, “Canada is back”. No, we are not, if we are not trusted by our allies or respected by our allies. The government had 10 years to bring this forward; we are now seeing it done, and we will scrutinize it. As has been stated, the bill has two parts.”
“However, as much as we can be told by the government that this is the be-all and end-all, that we should pass the bill quickly and that there are no concerns, we are part of His Majesty's loyal opposition; we should be scrutinizing the bill, especially a highly technical bill, with a fresh set of eyes. I have no problem saying that the bill, with the Conservative vote, will likely go to committee, but at committee we will be scrutinizing it closely, particularly as it relates to privacy concerns. My colleague, the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong , just asked the hon. minister about privacy concerns and about the Privacy Commissioner. When I reviewed the proceedings, I found that the previous bill was at committee for about eight meetings, which is a fairly long time.”
“We are grateful to the Senate, because it found a glaring hole in the bill, which was ameliorated by the Senate's work. However, the bill died on the Order Paper. For history, Conservatives voted for the bill at second reading, and I anticipate we will do so again. My position as critic is that, yes, the bill passed third reading, on division, here in the House, and then went to the Senate and passed there on third reading over the votes of the Conservative senators. However, at the end of the day, as my Bloc colleague pointed out, as the commentary in the Library of Parliament report stated and academic discourse has stated, we should not be content to just accept the bill, to take a bill that previously passed and not make it better. The concerns remain alive. Obviously, the public safety minister has been quite embattled of late.”
“I was not in the House at all yesterday, so I wish my mom a happy day-late belated birthday. Happy birthday, mom. Let us get into the crux of this. My hon. colleague from the Bloc raised a critical point. I have actually got the Library of Parliament report right here. My Bloc colleague mentioned the exceptional work, and this is great work when we are dealing with a highly technical bill. I do not know how many people in this chamber out of the 343 of us can say, “I am an expert on cybersecurity.” We have a very technical bill. The work that was done and that was distilled into this report is incredibly helpful. (1035) By way of background, Bill C-8 came before Parliament as a renewal of Bill C-26 . It is virtually identical to Bill C-26, which made it to third reading but did not make it to royal assent.”
“I always used to make fun of Thorp and how small it was, because I had some friends who grew up in Thorp, and Derek's mom also went to high school there. I wish great condolences to the family, and may perpetual light shine upon her. The minister , in his opening comments, talked about Orange Shirt Day and September 30, and that is something very important. For those who watch the news, Kamloops is a very important centre when it comes to the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. In fact, I moved a unanimous consent motion a number of years ago that spoke about bringing the flag to half-staff on every September 30, so I appreciate the minister's highlighting that. Last, before I really launch in, I would be remiss if I did not recognize that yesterday was my mom's birthday.”
“At this point, I also want to highlight the life of Dana Evans. I was saddened to read this obituary. Ms. Evans was the mother of a friend of mine from high school, Derek Luce. I can recall staying over at Derek's house when we were about 15 or 16; Ms. Evans would make us pancakes in the morning and then send us on our way. I never forgot that hospitality. I know that her son Derek, whom I run into sometimes in the Kamloops area, has gone on to do wonderful things. He is certainly a reflection of her stewardship and the maternal influence that she had on his life. My deepest condolences go to her siblings, who are left to mourn her memory and their loss, and also to her sons, Derek and Louie. I noticed that she went to Thorp high school, which is in a tiny community.”
“I am grateful for those around me and for this opportunity. Before I begin, I want to recognize a life very well lived. It is my great sadness to say that a pillar of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, Chris Rose, recently passed away. Those in the community will know that Chris Rose was an exceptional humanitarian. In fact, the Chris Rose Therapy Centre for Autism is a centre on the north shore, about six blocks from where I grew up, that helps children with autism. It is a school that they can attend, with resources that it provides. Those who know me and my family well will know that autism is a cause that is close to my heart. Chris passed away just this week, and I express my deepest condolences to Mr. Rose's family. I wish them all the best in this difficult time. May perpetual light shine upon Chris Rose.”