Frank Caputo

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, and before I begin, I want to recognize someone from my riding who is getting married. Jodhbir Kang, who served as a school trustee in Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, is marrying Poonam Deol. I want to take this opportunity to wish them the best of luck in their upcoming nuptials, and a long, fruitful life together. I listened to my colleague's speech, in which he talked a lot about environmental issues, pipelines and things like that. I always wonder where the Bloc sees fossil fuels fitting into Canada. I have to fly here all the time. I drive an electric car. Where does he see that fitting in?

Mr. Speaker, Liberal parole is out of control. The family of Constable Todd Baylis and the Toronto Police Association recently asked for parole reform. The victim's family has to go to parole hearings every two years. A Conservative bill would have changed that to every five years, and yet the Liberals voted against it. Will the Liberals listen to the family of Constable Baylis and the Toronto Police Association and do right, when they have previously done wrong?

Mr. Speaker, what an out-of-touch answer. Unlike that minister, I was a parole officer. Unlike that minister, I attended Constable Baylis's killer's parole hearing. Unlike that minister, I voted to change the hearing interval from two years to five years. If that minister wants to put his money where his mouth is, I have a proposal. Why does he not join me, Constable Baylis's family and the Toronto Police Association? Let us have a meeting. He can look them in the eye and say exactly what he just said to the House. Will he have that meeting, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, and it is always a pleasure as well when it is a matter that is close to our hearts. Before I begin, I want to recognize a very special person from my community. Ron Popoff has given so much to Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. For about 25 years, he coordinated the Hot Nite in the City car show and shine. Ron has done so much work. This was a massive event that he led. In fact, we had a show and shine for A&W MS day, and he lent me his Ford Mustang, Bullitt edition. I told him I had not driven a stick shift in about 25 years, but he insisted I take his special edition Mustang on the highway and drive it all through Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola that day for multiple sclerosis awareness and fundraising. I want to give a very special shout-out to Ron because he has done incredible work. Also doing incredible work in Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola is Kayla Hermiston. I worked with Kayla's dad, Mark Hermiston, when he protected me as a lawyer and prosecutor at the Kamloops courthouse when he was with the BC Sheriff Service. Here we are talking about jury appreciation week, and it is very appropriate that I recognize him. More important, for the purposes of recognizing people who have contributed lately, is Mark's daughter, Kayla. Kayla started the Miles for Smiles project for fundraising for young children who have cancer. She is in her early twenties, and I am deeply inspired by Kayla's commitment to those who have cancer. She put on a bang-up fundraiser recently in Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, and I salute her for that. I am not sure how many people in the House have run a jury trial. I have run a few, so it is my pleasure to speak about jury duty appreciation week and to endorse the passage of this bill. I still remember the first jury trial I ever ran. It was about the homicide of a young woman named Taylor Van Diest. Taylor was an 18-year-old who was walking home on Halloween. It was about 6:30 p.m. in a small community called Armstrong, which is in Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, about 15 minutes or 20 minutes out of Vernon. Taylor was in a costume. She was 18 years old, but she loved Halloween. She was walking home when a sexual predator, someone who her mom said is the face of evil, approached Taylor. I cannot disagree with her mom, Marie Van Diest. We never did find out exactly what happened, but we do know that Taylor said no to this monster's advances and that he killed her. That was my first introduction to the jury system, fighting for the truth in that matter as a junior prosecutor. In fact, I am still occasionally in touch with Marie Van Diest. To this day, I still remember her phone number because this case had such an impact on me. The police did such an amazing job in that case. In fact, I told my wife that if something ever happens to me, I want the police who caught Taylor's killer to investigate the case, because they were that good. They found a tiny bit of DNA under Taylor's fingernail, which they then connected to an unsolved sex assault, which they solved and thereby found Taylor's killer. I am very happy to say that he was recently denied parole. Taylor was killed in, I believe, 2011. I remember the jury's receiving photos from the autopsy but not receiving certain photographs because, frankly, they were just too graphic. Juries, judges and police in our system do not get a choice about what they see, just as somebody who happens upon a scene does not get a choice in what they see. One distinction that I do not think always gets drawn is this: When somebody who is dealing with a case, such as in a jury room when juries have exhibits available, they can see those photographs or videos 20, 30 or 40 times. While somebody may see something in person one time, a juror, lawyer or police officer might see something 30, 40 or 50 times. From experience, I can say that seeing the photographs or a video repeatedly can really bring about vicarious trauma. I spoke with someone I know from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola who told me that after she sat on a jury, she went to the judge and said, “Well, what do we do? We have seen all this traumatic evidence. What do we do?” The judge was seemingly at a loss, because in Canada, up until my colleague from Alberta changed the law with his bill to allow jurors to speak about their experiences to health care professionals such as psychologists or counsellors, it could not be revealed what was said in the jury group. Even to this day, people cannot discuss it. When somebody sees something that is traumatic, it can be very difficult because there is nobody to talk to. Even to this day, jurors can talk only to their health care provider. They cannot talk to their spouse, partner or friends. This is an area that is unheralded in lots of respects. People also do not know that jurors do not really get paid. They just get a small stipend. A small business owner, for instance, or somebody who has employment that does not have a union contract or an employer who is prepared to pay them, is serving the public. In the House, we always like to think of ourselves as entering public service when we run. I always thank people I meet who are running for office. I just heard that we have an election coming up in B.C. I will reserve comment on that for another time. We also have municipal elections happening in B.C. Thank goodness there is no federal election happening at this time. People are actually giving a lot of themselves when they are prepared to sit on a jury. My experience is that most people do it and do it happily. My mom always wanted to sit on a jury. Then I became a prosecutor, and that kind of ended her dream of ever sitting on a jury, because Kamloops is a relatively small town. If someone has the same last name as a prosecutor, they are probably not going to sit on a jury. Instead, she just watched. I will say this. I have seen juries that have sat for three or four days of deliberations, and when we see the jurors, they look like they just want to go to sleep and have a good day off, because they have done a ton of work. People have a right to a jury trial in a certain number of circumstances in Canada, and I am grateful that people selflessly give what they give. I am happy to support the bill. I see my colleague across the way is here. I congratulated her outside the chamber, and I thank her for bringing the bill forward. It is always nice when we have legislation that all parties can get behind.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I welcome everybody back to Parliament. The first petition I wish to table is one that is very close to my heart. It is on the federal funding for the rebuilding and fast-tracking of the Red Bridge, a cultural and iconic landmark in Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola that was destroyed by arson. It connects the Kamloops mainland with the Tk'emlúps te Secwépemc territory. This is the first time I rise on this issue and I hope to rise many more times.

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize Diane Czyzewski and Celeste Fummerton, who have gotten behind the tin cup movement in Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Some 597 people have signed this petition asking for a livable pension above the poverty line of $25,252 a year. They sent me a lengthy document that I cannot read as I have limited time here, but I hope to incorporate it into a speech. I thank Diane and Celeste for their devotion, and I stand with the seniors of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

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. May perpetual light shine upon her. With the greatest of respect to my colleague, I have to say that sounded like a speech that was provided by a bureaucrat. He talked about the Canada investment summit. Can he tell us where that is taking place, please?

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. We would pass part 1 of the bill swiftly, but Canadians have questions and experts have questions, and we think those questions should be answered with respect to part 2. Why is the Liberal government insistent on ramming Bill C-22 and part 2 through when we would gladly pass part 1 swiftly?

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. We have heard from Canadians concerned about big brother aspects of this bill. We have heard from civil libertarians, experts, law professors who say we should be passing part 1 and scrutinizing part 2. Why will they not pass part 1 and study part 2?

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. First of all, I want to give a shout-out to Stanley Cup champion and Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola product, Logan Stankoven. We are so proud of Logan for winning the Stanley Cup. To my hon colleague, the member for Winnipeg North talked about playing games. Is this not the government that shut off the cameras in four committees the moment it got a majority? I ask my colleague, who is playing games?

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Here we have the same Liberal playbook yet again. There has been so much opposition to Bill C-9, and now the Liberals are insisting on using their majority to, again, ram it through. It is a majority they got not at the ballot box but through floor crossers. We have heard from so many groups, including from His Eminence Frank Cardinal Leo from the Archdiocese of Toronto. I am wondering what the hon. secretary of state would say when so many faith groups are opposing Bill C-9. Should the Liberals not be taking a step back on this?

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. We heard a member talk about people who cannot go to synagogues. There was actually a synagogue that was shot up, and that has now been tied to a terrorist who was then alleged to have been connected to a police officer who has been killed. We have had an unprecedented number of churches being burned with nary a word from the government. We have had people who cannot access their places of worship, and the government has not sufficiently denounced it. Forgive me if I say that the government's words ring hollow after 12 years of inaction.

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. She leaves behind her children Geoffrey, Regan, Kent, Joel, Jarett and Mary. May perpetual light shine upon her. The member for Winnipeg North just talked about religious liberty and not being worried about this impacting religious rights and speeches. My colleague talked about legislative intent. Well, the Supreme Court of Canada grappled with this issue of legislative intent, I believe it was this year, in a ruling, where Parliament specifically said it wanted the legislation to say this. It was in debate, and it was in an amendment, and the Supreme Court of Canada still went against that. With that in mind, the uncertainty that this bill would create is part of the issue. What does the member say to that?

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. My colleague is part of a government that is intent on bringing this bill forward. Everybody wants to protect people with their religious institutions, but as my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith just pointed out, as I was listening to the minister's speech, it is the exact same thing. Right now, nobody can obstruct someone from going into a place of worship and not break the law. Dare I say, I do not know that there is much in this bill that, if one were to do it, they would not already be breaking the law? However, there are so many controversial elements. Why are the Liberals insistent on this when free speech and civil liberties advocates have spoken about the potential dangers—

moved: That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security that, during its consideration of Bill C-22, An Act respecting lawful access: (a) the committee be granted the power to divide the bill into two pieces of legislation: (i) Bill C-22A, An Act respecting Timely Access to Data and Information, containing Part 1, (ii) Bill C-22B, An Act respecting lawful access, containing the remaining parts of Bill C-22; and (b) that Bill C-22A be reported back to the House no later than five sitting days following the adoption of this motion. Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I just learned that if I pause for a brief second before it is time to talk, my colleagues will clap. I feel like a professional wrestler who pauses for people to cheer them on. I thank my colleagues for clapping. I wish I had that power when I was out on the street. I would simply pause, wait and listen, and people would clap. I thank my colleagues for edifying me in that way. It is always a pleasure to rise in this House, but it is a particular pleasure to rise with respect to this motion. I am going to read my motion into the record and expand on it for the next few minutes, because I believe it is an important motion. The motion states: That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security that, during its consideration of Bill C-22, An Act respecting lawful access: (a) the committee be granted the power to divide the bill into two pieces of legislation: (i) Bill C-22A, An Act respecting Timely Access to Data and Information, containing Part 1, (ii) Bill C-22B, An Act respecting lawful access, containing the remaining parts of Bill C-22; and (b) that Bill C-22A be reported back to the House no later than five sitting days following the adoption of this motion. Before I begin, I want to recognize that my niece was recently engaged. I want to give a shout-out to my niece, Juliana Bradley, and her new fiancé, Dayton Vidovich. I wish them happy nuptials as they set a date. I am very proud to be an uncle to Juliana. We are very proud of the young woman she has become. She is a force in her world as she navigates adulthood, and she is doing so well. We are so proud of her and Dayton, and I wish them all the best in their engagement. I am going to begin my remarks by speaking to law enforcement and Canadians generally. Conservatives believe law enforcement has not had the appropriate tools to fight crime. I look back on Bill C-5, for instance, which was passed here when then Minister Lametti justified people getting house arrest for drive-by shootings. That was just last Parliament. The Liberals will come in here and say they are tough on crime, yet that law still stands. For extortions with a firearm, drive-by shootings and robberies with a firearm, a person can serve their sentence on house arrest. This narrative the Liberals are pushing about how they are tough on crime and the Conservatives are not is simply untrue. It has always given me great pleasure to speak in the House. Speaking for the next few minutes on a bill I have devoted substantial time to is something I have looked forward to. With that, I know there is another colleague of mine who has spent a fair amount of time on this. That is the member for York—Durham, with whom I will be splitting my time. Where does that leave us? It leaves us needing to have an appropriate lawful access regime that gives law enforcement the tools it needs and also, and this is the big also, respects the charter rights and privacy rights of Canadians. I believe that needle can be threaded. It is the government that drafts this legislation. It is the government that has to convince Canadians that the needle has been threaded. Thus far, when it comes to the committee, the government, to be very candid, has failed. For those who do not know a lot about this bill, there are two parts. Part 1 is not all that contentious. Part 1 looks at a confirmation of subscriber information and a streamlined mechanism to get production orders. There is a bit of controversy around whether that should be on the threshold of what is called reasonable grounds to believe or of what is called reasonable grounds to suspect. Reasonable grounds to believe is when a police officer has reasonable grounds to believe a crime has been committed and there is evidence present in the records or the place. Reasonable grounds to suspect is, I believe, above a hunch but below that belief, which we call a subjective belief in law. Witnesses have said there are charter considerations under section 8, and if we go to the reasonable grounds to suspect, it might be too low of a threshold. The government has attempted to make the case that there is a limited body of information that would be produced, hence the lower threshold. I believe we will get through this at committee. The Conservatives have put forward a number of amendments. My colleagues from the NDP and the Bloc have also put forward a number of amendments. That is not the contentious issue. I believe this would be very helpful to law enforcement. Law enforcement has told us this. Right now, law enforcement often has to go on a fishing expedition, going to provider after provider. I will be very clear. I will be sending a letter to the public safety minister very shortly, saying the Conservatives are prepared to pass part 1 once we get through clause-by-clause. I hope that is sufficiently clear. My exhortation to the government is to take what we have so far and give it to law enforcement, because part 2 is highly contentious. I understand that law enforcement has asked for part 2, but in the committee's clause-by-clause process of part 2, the government has failed to convince Canadians that the lawful access regime it has put forward would balance the tools that are required with the charter and privacy rights of Canadians. That is where we stand. In fact, the government thought it could just ram this through committee. One of my greatest issues with this is how little time there has been. The Liberals may say we have studied this for quite some time, but here is the problem. This is a very contentious and technical bill. We had panels of experts, sometimes with three experts per panel, who gave five-minute opening statements, and then we were all expected to question these experts over a one-hour period. We had literally 45 minutes with three experts. That meant we were not really able to flesh out the details. So far, the government has said we need this bill because it wants to catch people who are committing nefarious acts. No one will ever hear me saying we do not want to catch terrorists or child predators. I have spent much of my life on the latter issue. However, we need to catch them in a way that is constitutional, whereby the government does not ask us to give it this, “just because”. The government failed to come to the committee table, say precisely what we need and why, and tell us how it is going to balance those charter rights. Let us pass part 1 to give law enforcement those powers. At the end of the day, we have spent a great deal of time on this, but we need more time on Bill C-22. I think we should be recalling witnesses. The fact is that we had so little time. We often had three experts on a panel. I would maybe get six minutes, and I am the lead critic on this. That was not enough. I see my time has come to an end. I will now take questions and comments from my colleagues.

Oh, he is smarter than a lawyer. Okay, great. Thanks for that heckle from across the way. Madam Speaker, even the member does not agree. Anybody watching at home cannot hear this, but the member is saying, “I am?” The government members cannot sit here and say that they have been tough on crime. Someone could still get house arrest for a drive-by shooting, I will remind the member. What the member did not talk about is what is in the bill. This is exactly the trap the Liberals have fallen into: Give us this, and to heck with the charter and with concerns of Canadians. This is the arrogance of the Liberal Party, and that is why Bill C‑22 is where it is at.

Madam Speaker, let us talk about Bill C‑75. The member across the way from Winnipeg talks about being tough on crime as Liberals, but there is more. If someone is accused of an offence, Bill C‑75 says they get bail on the least restrictive conditions at the earliest possible opportunity. Why will the member not rise—

Madam Speaker, he said that was pre-this government. Who is in power now? It is the current Liberal government. Who is not acting on Bill C‑75? It is the Liberal government. Who is allowing the status quo to be maintained on Bill C‑75 with a majority? It is the Liberal government. Spare us the rhetoric on Bill C‑75's being tough on crime, until the government is prepared to deal with the least onerous measures bail provisions in Bill C‑75. The member should take a seat, because we put forward legislation on this, the jail not bail act. The Liberals voted against it.