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 8 of 10.
“Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, and it is an even greater pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola as a critic for a bill. I have been fortunate to be a member sitting in this House, which is itself one of the greatest honours that a Canadian could ever have. Let us bear in mind that there are 38 million or 40 million Canadians, and only 343 of us get to sit in this chamber and to walk on this green carpet. That in itself is an honour, but I am just so grateful to be a critic as well. It is a job I absolutely love, and I thank my leader and my party for that and for the support I receive, whether it be on this bill, Bill C-2 , or on the private member's bill I just put forward on intimate partner violence last week.”
“Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. My colleague gave a speech and spoke about increasing cybersecurity. It is no secret that everything has increased under the Liberals, whether it be the cost of living, the amount of tax we are paying or the cost of groceries, which the Prime Minister said we should judge him on. It has gone up. Right now, we have a cost of living crisis. Small businesses are the engine of the Canadian economy. How will these regulatory burdens impact small businesses when it is death by a thousand cuts already as a result of Liberal inaction on so many different fronts?”
“Mr. Speaker, if he wants a point of disagreement, how about this: house arrest for people who do drive-by shootings. The minister voted for it. That is a point of disagreement. The minister has one job, and that is to keep us safe. There is $742 million going toward a program that he does not even believe in. How many RCMP officers could that get us? How many border security officers could that get us? This whole thing is an absolute mess. The question is this: When will the Prime Minister fire him?”
“Mr. Speaker, the public safety minister 's number one job is to keep Canadians safe, but he has failed at that job. In a secret recording, he said, “Don't ask me” about “the logic”, and I agree. I do not see the logic either. Gun crimes are up 130%, bail across the country is perceived as a joke and the Liberals, in Bill C-5 , voted to lower sentences for gun crimes. Everything in this file is a mess. Why does the Prime Minister not fire his public safety minister ?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member politicizes just about everything, so the member for Lethbridge should be able to start from the top. In my view, that was a deliberate attempt to interrupt. She was not able to say what she needed to say to the Canadian public in one stream of thought, and she is entitled to start again.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always somebody else's fault. What this minister fails to mention is that in Bill C-5 , he voted so that people who do drive-by shootings can serve their sentence on house arrest, people who do robberies with guns, house arrest. Nobody wants a part of this program. Canada Post does not want a part of it. Local law enforcement does not want a part of it. The OPP does not want a part of this $742-million boondoggle. The minister told us he just has to put it to an end. Why are the Liberals still intent on having this program go forward when all he wants to do is end it?”
“Mr. Speaker, the public safety minister told the truth. It is true. He spoke about how this confiscation buyback is an incredible boondoggle. Let us actually hear what he had to say: “This is the mandate I was given by [the Prime Minister] to complete this...and not revisit this.” It sounds like he does not even believe in this. If the public safety minister does not believe in this program, why are we spending 742 million taxpayer dollars to keep it going?”
“Mr. Speaker, 157 kilograms is the amount of cocaine that was recently seized by Alberta police. This type of drug is often laced with fentanyl and carfentanil and goes on to kill thousands. The reality is that there is a lack of incentive for drug dealers not to do this because of soft-on-crime policies by the Liberals, so the question is this: When will they stop obstructing and start repealing their soft-on-crime agenda?”
“Second, it would create a presumption that intimate partner violence that results in murder is first-degree murder. Third, it would create a mechanism by which a judge can order somebody into custody for a seven-day risk assessment in order to protect the intimate partner. Last, it would make a new stream for evidence to be streamlined and for the detention of evidence to be considered in a more appropriate way. I ask that the House streamline the passing of this bill as quickly as possible. We have seen, far too often, examples like that of Bailey McCourt, which happened just a couple of hours from me. Intimate partner violence has gone on for far too long. We have sat idle for far too long. This is about giving voices to the voiceless, names to the nameless and faces to the faceless. Let us pass this bill right away.”
“Bill C-225. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-225, An Act to amend the Criminal Code . He said: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, but today I also rise on behalf of all Canadians, as this bill would make the most substantive changes on the subject of intimate partner violence in history. Intimate partner violence is an insidious crime that often occurs behind closed doors. It affects all socio-economic groups and is vastly under-reported. Most homicides involve an intimate partner. For far too long, we as parliamentarians have sat idle. This bill is a monumental change. First, it would create the unique offence of assault of an intimate partner, harassment of an intimate partner, and so on.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. It is so great to be here in the House of Commons every day, but when we have the member from Edmonton closing it up Tom Henke style tonight, I just cannot help but commend him for not only his impassioned speech, but the truth that reigns supreme. It was like a deluge of truth that fell on this House of Commons. If only the Liberals would listen to my hon. colleague when he provides them with numbers. In fact, I know we are getting to the end of the night, but his speech was so good that I would seek unanimous consent for him to continue until 8:02 p.m.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I really thank my hon. colleague for talking about sentences for robbery versus those for sexual offences. It is something I brought up on Bill C-299 the last time. In fact, the member for Winnipeg North was in the chamber when I brought that bill forward, and I was heckled while bringing that bill forward. My hon. colleague is so passionate about this. I do not have a question. I want to commend and thank her for standing up for the most vulnerable.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. My colleague gave a local example about how things are going. I am wondering, though, about firearms. Firearms are killing our people. There is nothing in here about them. What does she say to that?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I have a question for my colleague, but I would be remiss if I did not respond to a previous question by a Liberal member about conspiracy theories. When Conservatives actually put forward a bill that tried to respond to many of the issues that this bill responds to, we were mocked by the Liberals. Back then, it was okay for us to try to do this and for the Liberals to say it was not okay. They have gone, in my view, much further, and are they now saying that we are putting forward conspiracy theories? It just does not equate. We cannot make this stuff up. This is the type of thing that makes me think the Liberals are tripping over their own agenda. My colleague talked about an emergency order by the mayor of his city.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. My colleague from the Liberals, the hon. secretary of state , asked about lowering crime in my hon. colleague's riding. I am just wondering whether my colleague shares the sentiment that the Liberals often state, which is that the Liberals have done enough to fight crime. Certainly, on this side of the House, we do not believe that. Does he share the Liberals' belief?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. The minister just mentioned something when she asked my colleague a question about fentanyl. The Liberals talk about tackling fentanyl, yet under the Liberals, people who traffic fentanyl can serve their sentences at home. Guns and drugs go hand in hand, and with Bill C-5 , the Liberals allowed people to serve their sentence on house arrest for drive-by shootings. I wonder if my hon. colleague would agree with me that it is a bit rich for the Liberals to now want to tackle fentanyl through the mail with these measures when they will not get hard on the issues that are killing people today, the drugs and guns.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I know that my hon. colleague has a legal background. There is a critical point that I would love her point of view on, both as a former lawyer and as a parliamentarian. In part 4 of the act, under “Inspection of mail”, it says, “The Corporation may open any mail if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that”. Then it goes on and the legislation is the exact same. A warrant is obtained generally on reasonable grounds to believe. This is on reasonable grounds to suspect, which is a lower legal threshold. I do not see any requirement for a warrant here. I wonder if the member would agree. Perhaps I am missing something.”
“Many volunteers have made immeasurable contributions, such as Danica Wilkinson, who is always helping out, or Bryce Herman, who has been present since the first Ribfest in 2012. I thank them for over a decade of service.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize exceptional philanthropy in Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. First, the Gur Singh Memorial Golf Tournament raises thousands for the Kamloops Brain Injury Association. This year, I joined Dr. Singh's wife and son, who, with the many volunteers involved, have given so much to the community. Next, I highlight the work of Zainab Oladipo of Afrofusion in Kamloops for her cooking marathon, which broke a world record. All food prepared was donated to the community. Zainab shattered the previous record of 140 hours, 11 minutes and 11 seconds. I want to say congratulations and well done to Zainab. Lastly, I am grateful for the work of Rotary Club of Kamloops Daybreak for putting on the annual Ribfest since 2012.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Before I begin, I want to give a shout-out to someone who has given me a great deal of help, and that is George Marko. I thank George for everything. To my hon. colleague, one thing I have been struck by is that the Liberals seem to be tripping over their own agenda. They say they want to strengthen our border, and then they put all of these superfluous things in the bill, things that do not seem to be constitutional or, at least, are marginal at best. I wonder if my colleague would agree that if the Liberals really wanted to get something done quickly, they would look at what is reasonable, balancing law and order and balancing human rights, civil rights, as our charter guarantees.”
“Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. The Liberals often talk about the Harper years, and they talk about where we legislated, especially with respect to minimums: drugs, guns, sex offences. The Liberals have legislated on guns; they actually weakened sentences on guns in Bill C-5 . They have legislated on drugs. They have not touched sex offences once. They have not touched sex offences. They have refused to legislate on sex offences, the most pernicious and often the most insidious type of offence, with victims serving psychological life sentences, and now they are going to tell us about how they are dealing with sex offences here and that this bill is a panacea? Give me a break. What does my hon. colleague think?”
“I would love to see why it does not say that a warrant is required, but the government is saying that a warrant would be required. Perhaps I am missing something.”
“Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I want to build on the intervention by my colleague from Winnipeg North . He talked about a warrant being required. I am going to read this section, which is a proposed amendment to section 41 of the Canada Post Corporation Act. It states, “The Corporation may open any mail if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that”. I do not see a warrant requirement there. I have read the charter statement, which says a warrant is required, but I do not see a warrant requirement there. Perhaps that provision is in the proposed amendments to section 40.1, but I do not read it there. Does the member agree that it does not seem to be present there? If anybody is watching and knows this, I would ask that they contact me.”
“Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I just want to reflect on a question my colleague from the Liberals just asked about the fact that Conservatives have been asking for this type of thing for four years. The reality is, in my view, that Conservatives have been asking for changes to bail, changes to sentencing, changes to how we deal with fentanyl and changes to how we deal with firearms. Is there anything here the member can point to as to why it took so long and what is really missing here?”
“In summary, the assistant warden of the Fraser Valley Institution, at the instruction of the warden, who would not talk to us, if not more senior management in Correctional Service Canada, obstructed and interfered with my ability to prepare fully for proceedings in Parliament this autumn. That amounts, in my view, to a breach of the established privilege to be free from obstruction, interference, intimidation and molestation. Should you agree, Mr. Speaker, I would propose a motion to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.”
“I have watched the work of Commissioner Anne Kelly, who did not even respond fulsomely to the letter, and we have seen that we have been stymied, that I have been stymied in doing my job as a critic and, more concretely, as a member of Parliament, just as anybody on the government bench would be permitted to do. At the end of the day, we need to do our job without harassment and without anybody following us and watching what they can see so that the government, be it the Minister, be it Commissioner Kelly or be it Mr. Szafron, can know what we are up to.”
“The reality is that we, as members of Parliament, have to know what is going on, and the presence of management, especially when there is an acrimonious relationship that is well documented between guards or correctional officers and their managers, or with inmates who may not want to be anywhere near a manager, inhibits my ability to speak with that person. We need to be able to do that completely in private and to completely respect it. The uniformed correctional officers have always been completely respectful in that regard, giving us the ability to do our job. It is no surprise that Mr. Szafron acted the way he did.”
“(b) the presentation or submission of a document to a House or a committee; (c) the preparation of a document for purposes of or incidental to the transacting of any such business; (1550) More recently, New Zealand also legislated on parliamentary privileges, following a court decision that related to the extent of parliamentary privilege available to public servants supporting ministers with question period preparation. New Zealand mirrored Australia's statutory definition at subsections 10(1) and 10(2) of its Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014.”
“What are they trying to get in front of or deal with? Elsewhere, Australia has legislated its parliamentary privileges and assigned the following definition to proceedings in Parliament, in subsection 16.2 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act, 1987: ...all words spoken and acts done in the course of, or for purposes of or incidental to, the transacting of the business of a House or of a committee, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes:...”
“This principle must also apply to drafts of speeches, questions and the like which in the event are not used. A member cannot always catch the Speaker's eye, or he may change his mind. Many of the conversations I had hoped to have at Fraser Valley Institution on July 28 were or would have been directly connected to my potential parliamentary proceedings this autumn. The individuals I interviewed during my visit were providing me with assistance and advice in relation to matters I had under consideration at that time. I would pause here to note that even previously when I have gone to penitentiaries, when the management did not know I was there, through ATIP I found out that they literally followed me with their cameras to see whom I spoke with. What are they hiding? What are they so afraid of?”
“More recently, the UK Parliament's 1999 Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege wrote, at paragraph 12 of its first report, “Proceedings are broadly interpreted to mean what is said or done in the formal proceedings of either House or the committees of either House, together with conversations, letters and other documentation directly connected with those proceedings.” At paragraph 113 of the same report, the Joint Committee assessed that: Drafts and notes frequently precede speeches and questions, and members often need assistance and advice in preparing them. By necessary extension, immunity accorded to a speech or question must also be available for preparatory drafts and notes...for instance from a research assistant. It would be absurd to protect a speech but not the necessary preparatory material....”
“After considering the scope of the protection, the committee concluded: ‘cases may be easily imagined of communications between one Member and another or between a Member and a minister so closely related to some matter pending in or expected to be brought before the House that, although they do not take place in the Chamber or a committee room, they form part of the business of the House, as for example where a Member sends to a minister the draft of a question he is thinking of putting down, or shows it to another Member with a view to obtaining advice as to the propriety of putting it down or as to the manner in which it should be framed.’ The conclusions of the committee were later agreed to by the House.”
“Farther down in that paragraph, we continue to read that: On a number of occasions, the House of Commons or a committee has endeavoured to elucidate this very broad understanding. The Select Committee on the Official Secrets Act in 1938–39 argued that ‘proceedings' covered both the asking of a question and the giving of written notice of the question....”
“The primary meaning of proceedings, as a technical parliamentary term, which it had at least as early as the seventeenth century, is some formal action, usually a decision, taken by the House in its collective capacity. While business which involves actions and decisions of the House are clearly proceedings, debate is an intrinsic part of that process which is recognised by its inclusion in the formulation of Article IX [of the Bill of Rights, 1689]. Not all proceedings require debate: a motion for an unopposed return, on which there is no debate, is held to be a proceeding (see para 7.32). An individual Member takes part in a proceeding usually by speech, but also by various recognised forms of formal action, such as voting, giving notice of a motion, or presenting a petition or report from a committee.”
“My question of privilege, rather, concerns interference with my parliamentary work related to proceedings in Parliament. The concept of proceedings in Parliament lacks a clear-cut, black-and-white definition of its scope. Bosc and Gagnon, for their part, explain at page 90 that “there is no statutory definition in Canada.” (1545) In turn, the authors refer to how the concept has been fleshed out in our sister Parliaments. The United Kingdom's leading authority, Erskine May, explains at paragraph 13.12 of the 25th edition: The term ‘proceedings in Parliament’ has received judicial attention (not all of it in the United Kingdom) but comprehensive lines of decision have not emerged and indeed it has been concluded that an exhaustive definition could not be achieved.”
“(1540) As I mentioned earlier, I had hoped to inform my work this autumn in the House of Commons as the official opposition's lead spokesperson on issues related to corrections, among other topics, and as a member of the public safety committee of the House, work which, indeed, would lead to a proceeding in Parliament. I stress this point because it is an important aspect in distinguishing it from the matter which was before Mr. Speaker Lamoureux when he ruled on April 29, 1971, at page 5338 of the Debates, concerning members' access to penitentiaries, a subject which, at the time, was addressed only through directives of the commissioner of penitentiaries, as the position was then known, rather than through an act of Parliament as it is today. I had access to Fraser Valley Institution on July 28. That is not in dispute.”
“I would also address an earlier ruling on July 15, 1980, at page 2914 of the Debates, where Madam Speaker Sauvé ruled that a distinction must be drawn between the parliamentary work that members of Parliament conduct and the many political and constituency-related duties we undertake. To be sure, my visit and the interference I experienced fell squarely in relation to my parliamentary duties rather than other categories of an MP's work. Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , second edition, explains at page 222: For just as the Member is protected for what he does during a “proceeding in Parliament,” so must the Member's parliamentary work or work relating to a “proceeding in Parliament” be alleged to be improperly interfered with before the Speaker may find a prima facie case....”
“At page 1560 of the Debates, the Chair stated: A threat emanating from any government department or public corporation to withhold information or co-operation from a Member of Parliament would undoubtedly hinder that Member in the fulfilment of his or her parliamentary duties and therefore constitute a breach of privilege. By the same token, an offer of favourable treatment on condition that questions are first cleared with the office concerned would also violate privilege in an equally fundamental way. I believe that the circumstances in my situation are sufficiently analogous.”
“It is impossible to codify all incidents which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation and, as such, constitute prima facie cases of privilege. On February 20, 1984, Mr. Speaker Francis found a prima facie case of privilege concerning allegations that an official in the office of the president of Canada Post informed an employee of Albert Cooper, the official opposition critic for Canada Post, that questions about Canada Post asked in the House of Commons had to be cleared through the president's office or else any future assistance or co-operation with Mr. Cooper would be withheld.”
“Certainly, the presence of a senior institution executive during our time at the jail put a damper on the flow of conversations we had during that visit. In short, the assistant warden was there to mind us, and to inhibit and to intimidate the free and candid views of staff and inmates being shared with parliamentarians from the official opposition. That conduct amounts to obstruction and interference with my ability to fulfill my parliamentary duties. House of Commons Procedure and Practice , third edition, at page 111, explains that: A Member may also be obstructed or interfered with in the performance of his or her parliamentary functions by non-physical means. In ruling on such matters, the Speaker examines the effect the incident or event had on the Member’s ability to fulfill his or her parliamentary responsibilities....”
“The discussion with staff and inmates that I had hoped to have, among other things, would have informed my work as the official opposition shadow minister for public safety, including preparing oral and written questions for here in the House of Commons, developing motions for studies at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, and researching lines of questioning of witnesses appearing at committee. However, the assistant warden's unprofessional behaviour, aggressive tone, authoritarian demeanour and lack of co-operation seriously led me to believe there may well be something at the institution that Correctional Service Canada's senior leadership do not want us to see and did not want us to see on July 28, or they wanted to know what we might see so that they could get ahead of these things.”
“The fact that somebody did this, showing gross disrespect and unprofessionalism at such a high level, it was as if this person were being congratulated. I wrote a letter to the Correctional Service of Canada commissioner, which took a very long time to get a response, talking about Mr. Szafron's behaviour, and the commissioner did not even address it. It is as though this person did the right thing by being disrespectful to members. Mr. Szafron admitted there were no safety concerns posed by our visit that were not adequately addressed by the scheduled presence of two uniformed officers. In other words, the assistant warden's presence was surplus to requirements.”
“There was nothing going on in the jail that would have precluded this, and I have never heard of a warden unavailable to speak to two members of Parliament. I asked for a supervisor, and we were told he did not have their numbers. This is obviously untenable and just an inappropriate situation, and when I couple it with the disrespect, it does amount to an intimidating environment. (1535) The assistant warden dismissed our concerns and interrogated us about the purpose of our visit and what we were looking for. It is not for anybody to get in the way of what a member of Parliament is looking for, not looking for or wishing to see. We need to be able to do our jobs without encumbrance, without somebody shadowing us who could intimidate staff and inmates alike.”
“When people see an assistant warden, they do not necessarily want to talk to members of Parliament. They fear talking to somebody. This includes inmates, and this also includes staff members. We are there for the protection of those inmates. Some people may not believe it, but we actually are. We are there to watch first-hand, and somebody was claiming that they had to shadow us. Is this Wayne Gretzky in the playoffs in the 1990s, where somebody had to shadow him at all times? The reality is that the reason they wanted to do this, in my view, was so that they could get ahead of the next scandal that we would be breaking. I asked to speak to the warden to discuss this sudden unexpected development. I was informed that she was unavailable.”
“I have conducted dozens of penitentiary tours to date, and I have never been informed of a requirement to be escorted by a correctional service executive, and I will pause here to say this: As a member of Parliament, as a human being and as somebody whose job it is to supervise what is happening, which is why the power in section 72 is there, I have never been treated so disrespectfully by anybody in my time as a member of Parliament as I was by assistant warden Chris Szafron. I could not believe the level of disrespect he showed me and the member for Cloverdale—Langley City . I could not believe the condescension. He was questioning why we were there, what we would possibly have to do there and how he could possibly be getting in the way of us doing our job. I will tell how he was getting in the way of us doing our job.”
“However, on arrival, we were informed that we would be accompanied throughout our visit by one of the institution's assistant wardens, Chris Szafron. Mr. Szafron advised us that he was personally instructed by the institution's warden to accompany us throughout our visit. It is important to note here that Mr. Szafron actually told the member and I that he was not trained in security. He was not in uniform. In other words, he had no use-of-force interventions that could protect anybody, including a member of Parliament. He said he was there because he was told to be there. In fact, it came back that this was a security issue at one point, when we were speaking with the staff through my office. That was my understanding.”
“On July 28 of this year, my colleague and I attended the jail, a correctional facility operated by Correctional Service Canada, in the exercise of our rights as parliamentarians under section 72 of the CCRA, Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which provides that: Every member of the House of Commons, every Senator and every judge of a court in Canada has the right to (a) enter any penitentiary, (b) visit any part of a penitentiary, and (c) visit any inmate, with the consent of the inmate, subject to such reasonable limits as are prescribed for protecting the security of the penitentiary or the safety of persons. This tour, or visit, had been arranged with uniformed correctional officers who were representatives of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, though today I rise for the second time, in my time as a member, on a question of privilege. I do not know that members really relish rising on a question of privilege, because it means something has gone astray in the process. I rise based on an event that occurred on July 28, 2025. I was with the member for Cloverdale—Langley City , and I visited Fraser Valley Institution, which is a women's facility in the Abbotsford area. The interference amounted, I believe, to obstruction and interference in our ability to fulfill our parliamentary responsibilities. Therefore, a breach of parliamentary privilege ensued.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have been waiting for 10 years to help the Liberals create safe streets and the Liberals have brought forward next to nothing. I spent some time with Vancouver police officers this summer. What did we see in Vancouver? Guns, lawlessness and drug overdoses. I saw first-hand the 152% increase in overdoses. The Liberals promised safer streets and fewer overdoses, which was another bait and switch to go with their broken promises. When will the Liberals fix the justice system they broke?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said he would make streets safer on behalf of the Liberals. He promised to fix the broken Liberal justice system, yet an eight-year-old was killed while sleeping in the place he should have been safest. The justice minister said this is not the Wild West, and he is right. Eight-year-old children sleeping in their homes and getting killed did not happen in the Wild West. The Liberals say they are tough on crime, but they will not repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 . It is another bait and switch from another Liberal prime minister. When will the same old Liberals get tough on crime and fix the system they broke?”