Caputo presses for criminal justice change: his Bill C-225 creating intimate partner violence offences received royal assent, and he keeps asking the government to reform parole and tighten bail. He opens most statements with pleasantries — “it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola” — and often pays tribute to people from the riding.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .
Average grade
B+
The average grade of 37 analysed statements. 2 more were analysed but were too short to grade.
84 / 100 over 37 statements
Signal65 / 100
Relevance94 / 100
Respect99 / 100
Clarity99 / 100
Loses points more than most for Greetings and pleasantries.9.3 times as often as most members.What the tags mean →×9.3Thanks and tributes.3.8 times as often as most members.What the tags mean →×3.8A story that illustrates instead of making a point.2.4 times as often as most members.What the tags mean →×2.4Loses points less than most for A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.Less often than most members.What the tags mean →Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.Less often than most members.What the tags mean →Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.Less often than most members.What the tags mean →
Averaged over the 37 of 39 statements graded so far.
“The government is rushing this bill through Parliament instead of working with us. We support the first part of the bill to put criminals in jail, and we would pass it quickly. But experts and Canadians have serious questions about the second part. Why is the government forcing the second part through without answering them?”
“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?”
Official Hansard
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?
“Canadians worry this bill gives the government too much power to watch them. Experts say we should pass the first part and study the second part more closely. Why will the government not do that?”
“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?”
Official Hansard
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?
“I want to know why the government is pushing this bill. Our laws already make it illegal to block someone from a place of worship. This bill repeats what is already illegal and threatens free speech.”
“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—”
Official Hansard
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—
“First, I want to honour Joan Loehr, an important member of my community who recently passed away. On this bill, the courts do not always follow what Parliament intended when they interpret the law. This bill creates uncertainty for religious freedom and free speech, and I want the member to explain how he will fix that.”
“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?”
Official Hansard
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?
“I want to congratulate Paul and Elly Major on their 50th wedding anniversary. Synagogues have been shot at and churches have been burned, but the government has done almost nothing to stop these attacks on places of worship.”
“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 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.
“The Liberals are rushing this hate crimes bill through the House. Many religious leaders and faith groups oppose it. I am asking the government to slow down and listen to them.”
“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?”
Official Hansard
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?
“I want to congratulate Logan Stankoven from my riding for winning the Stanley Cup. Also, the government claims we are playing games, but they are the ones who shut off committee cameras as soon as they had a majority.”
“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. 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?
“I sent three emails directly to the minister, and he has not answered any of them. Other ministers reply quickly. He is setting a bad example by ignoring messages from another MP.”
“Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Those watching at home may not realize this, but MPs have a mechanism by which we can contact one another directly. I sent the minister three emails directly. Candidly, I have sent notes to other ministers and they respond typically within 12 to 24 hours. It shows respect among ministers and members of Parliament to do that. Not once has he responded. What kind of example is the minister setting, as a minister of the Crown, when he cannot even respond to notes from another member of Parliament?”
Official Hansard
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Those watching at home may not realize this, but MPs have a mechanism by which we can contact one another directly. I sent the minister three emails directly. Candidly, I have sent notes to other ministers and they respond typically within 12 to 24 hours. It shows respect among ministers and members of Parliament to do that. Not once has he responded. What kind of example is the minister setting, as a minister of the Crown, when he cannot even respond to notes from another member of Parliament?
“I want to know if the member will support passing Bailey's law right away. It protects intimate partners from homicide, and I want it to become law by July 4.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I listened with great attention to my colleague’s speech, as the person who wrote the bill along and ushered the bill through to change the name of “child pornography“ to “child sexual abuse and exploitation material.” As somebody who prosecuted Internet luring and offences against children, I took a great deal of interest. One of the things the member spoke about was homicide of intimates, which was also addressed in Bill C-225, also known as Bailey’s law. Bailey’s law is at the Senate right now, and it was studied and amended substantially in the House at the request of the government. I wonder if that member would be prepared to provide an endorsement to state that Bailey’s law should be passed forthwith. Bailey McCourt, for whom the bill is named, was tragically killed in a similar situation to the Henderson murder the member spoke about. Her death happened on July 4 last year. Would the member support this bill coming into effect by July 4 this year?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I listened with great attention to my colleague’s speech, as the person who wrote the bill along and ushered the bill through to change the name of “child pornography“ to “child sexual abuse and exploitation material.” As somebody who prosecuted Internet luring and offences against children, I took a great deal of interest. One of the things the member spoke about was homicide of intimates, which was also addressed in Bill C-225, also known as Bailey’s law. Bailey’s law is at the Senate right now, and it was studied and amended substantially in the House at the request of the government. I wonder if that member would be prepared to provide an endorsement to state that Bailey’s law should be passed forthwith. Bailey McCourt, for whom the bill is named, was tragically killed in a similar situation to the Henderson murder the member spoke about. Her death happened on July 4 last year. Would the member support this bill coming into effect by July 4 this year?
“I want the Senate to pass Bailey's law right away, and I want the minister to help. The government has taken my words out of context to claim I support this bill. I do not support it. Finally, the government should use the term child sexual abuse material instead of child pornography.”
“Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, and it is particularly important to me to rise today on this point. Number one, Bailey’s law is languishing in the Senate. It should be passed by the Senate tomorrow or today, and I hope the hon. minister will help with that. Number two, I have been quoted on this bill, Bill C-16, more times than I can count. The funny thing is that it is on the issue of the safety valve, and I do not think I have given a single speech on the issue of a safety valve on this bill. The Liberals, for years, mocked Conservatives when we talked about constitutionality and said that we were out to lunch, so between 2022 and 2024, I spoke about these issues. I did not assert and support government legislation when it came to Bill C-16 and give my imprimatur of approval. I want that to be very, very clear. In my comment here, I want to say very clearly that I believe my words have been misconstrued. If my words are going to be stated, the whole context of it should be stated, particularly when I was stating it with respect to sex offences against children, which the government refused to legislate for years and years. The last thing is that I would remind the hon. minister that it is not called “child pornography”; it is called “child sexual abuse and exploitation material”.”
Official Hansard
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, and it is particularly important to me to rise today on this point. Number one, Bailey’s law is languishing in the Senate. It should be passed by the Senate tomorrow or today, and I hope the hon. minister will help with that. Number two, I have been quoted on this bill, Bill C-16, more times than I can count. The funny thing is that it is on the issue of the safety valve, and I do not think I have given a single speech on the issue of a safety valve on this bill. The Liberals, for years, mocked Conservatives when we talked about constitutionality and said that we were out to lunch, so between 2022 and 2024, I spoke about these issues. I did not assert and support government legislation when it came to Bill C-16 and give my imprimatur of approval. I want that to be very, very clear. In my comment here, I want to say very clearly that I believe my words have been misconstrued. If my words are going to be stated, the whole context of it should be stated, particularly when I was stating it with respect to sex offences against children, which the government refused to legislate for years and years. The last thing is that I would remind the hon. minister that it is not called “child pornography”; it is called “child sexual abuse and exploitation material”.
“Life is too expensive for Canadians. People cannot afford rent, mortgages, or food, and they are using food banks in record numbers. I am asking my colleague if he agrees that we must lower the cost of living by cutting taxes and government spending.”
“Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I listened to a question just a little while ago. Before I begin, I will try a bit of French here. I thank my colleague for his speech. I want to ask my hon. colleague from the Bloc a question. One question that is really central to what we are dealing with is tax and Canadians’ being bitten, so to speak, by death by a thousand financial cuts. If we were to listen to the member from Winnipeg, Canadians have never had it so good because the Liberals gave a tax cut to 22 million people. Unfortunately, people are still lining up at food banks in record numbers. They cannot pay their mortgages, cannot pay their rent and cannot afford a seven-dollar head of lettuce. Unfortunately, that does not get into the rhetoric. I wonder whether my hon. colleague agrees that we need to lower the cost of living, whether we are talking about digital streaming taxes or inflationary spending when it comes to the government. Does he not agree that we need to address what has become a cost of living crisis in this country?”
Official Hansard
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I listened to a question just a little while ago. Before I begin, I will try a bit of French here. I thank my colleague for his speech. I want to ask my hon. colleague from the Bloc a question. One question that is really central to what we are dealing with is tax and Canadians’ being bitten, so to speak, by death by a thousand financial cuts. If we were to listen to the member from Winnipeg, Canadians have never had it so good because the Liberals gave a tax cut to 22 million people. Unfortunately, people are still lining up at food banks in record numbers. They cannot pay their mortgages, cannot pay their rent and cannot afford a seven-dollar head of lettuce. Unfortunately, that does not get into the rhetoric. I wonder whether my hon. colleague agrees that we need to lower the cost of living, whether we are talking about digital streaming taxes or inflationary spending when it comes to the government. Does he not agree that we need to address what has become a cost of living crisis in this country?
“The government has not negotiated a trade deal with the United States since October. They are not trying to get a deal because they want to focus on politics instead of helping Canadians.”
“Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. What I appreciate about this member is not what he says, but with how much volume he says it. I just do not know. We heard 20 minutes of ranting, raving and nothingness, but one of the things that really caught my ear is when he talked about trade and how they are going to get the best deal. The government has not been to the negotiating table since October. The reason it has not been to the negotiating table since October is that it is scared of losing another MP or two and having to go to an election when times look good. The Liberals do not want to deal with the United States so that they can run against him rather than run on their disastrous record. Shame on that member. Shame on the government for not going to bat for Canadians. We need a deal. They are not trying to get one. He should be ashamed for that rhetoric in the House.”
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. What I appreciate about this member is not what he says, but with how much volume he says it. I just do not know. We heard 20 minutes of ranting, raving and nothingness, but one of the things that really caught my ear is when he talked about trade and how they are going to get the best deal. The government has not been to the negotiating table since October. The reason it has not been to the negotiating table since October is that it is scared of losing another MP or two and having to go to an election when times look good. The Liberals do not want to deal with the United States so that they can run against him rather than run on their disastrous record. Shame on that member. Shame on the government for not going to bat for Canadians. We need a deal. They are not trying to get one. He should be ashamed for that rhetoric in the House.
“The Prime Minister called China a huge security threat, but then signed a deal with them anyway. Foreign interference is worse than ever. I want the government to tell Canadians the truth about it today.”
“Mr. Speaker, if the minister wants to talk about history, let us talk about history. When in the past did a Prime Minister call Beijing Canada’s greatest security threat, and then within a year sign a memorandum of understanding? Never before had we heard stories of foreign interference to the same degree. Never before had a Prime Minister said exactly what he said. Why is he unprepared to shine the light? The Liberals do not want to shine the light and they do not want to inform Canadians. Will they do it today, yes or no?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, if the minister wants to talk about history, let us talk about history. When in the past did a Prime Minister call Beijing Canada’s greatest security threat, and then within a year sign a memorandum of understanding? Never before had we heard stories of foreign interference to the same degree. Never before had a Prime Minister said exactly what he said. Why is he unprepared to shine the light? The Liberals do not want to shine the light and they do not want to inform Canadians. Will they do it today, yes or no?
“The Prime Minister signed a security deal with China, even though he called China our biggest security threat. I have asked to see this deal for five months. When will the government release it?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister called Beijing Canada’s greatest security threat. That was during the election. Despite this, within a year, he signed a memorandum of understanding with Communist China as it relates to security matters. I have been asking for that memorandum of understanding for over five months. The minister and the Prime Minister have refused to disclose it. When will they produce the memorandum of understanding that was signed with Communist China?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister called Beijing Canada’s greatest security threat. That was during the election. Despite this, within a year, he signed a memorandum of understanding with Communist China as it relates to security matters. I have been asking for that memorandum of understanding for over five months. The minister and the Prime Minister have refused to disclose it. When will they produce the memorandum of understanding that was signed with Communist China?
“The Liberal member is just reading prepared notes instead of answering my question. The Liberals should talk to people in British Columbia who cannot afford their mortgages or home insurance.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. We just heard from a B.C. member from Surrey. I have to say that it sounded like a bureaucrat wrote the speech. The reason why I say that is that he read the whole speech. In fact, I asked him a question, and he read from a piece of paper an answer that had nothing to do with the question. My hon. colleague clearly wrote his own speech. I am wondering what message it sends when the Liberals are just reading talking points and accusing us of fearmongering. Why do they not go to the houses in Richmond and the places in Vancouver and ask how people feel about having a higher mortgage rate or not being able to get home insurance? Why do they not do that?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. We just heard from a B.C. member from Surrey. I have to say that it sounded like a bureaucrat wrote the speech. The reason why I say that is that he read the whole speech. In fact, I asked him a question, and he read from a piece of paper an answer that had nothing to do with the question. My hon. colleague clearly wrote his own speech. I am wondering what message it sends when the Liberals are just reading talking points and accusing us of fearmongering. Why do they not go to the houses in Richmond and the places in Vancouver and ask how people feel about having a higher mortgage rate or not being able to get home insurance? Why do they not do that?
“The member mentions legal options. I want him to give a simple yes or no answer about whether the rule of estoppel applies here.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. The member talks about all legal options. He is talking like a lawyer here. Why does he not tell us about the idea of estoppel and issue estoppel? Does that arise, yes or no?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. The member talks about all legal options. He is talking like a lawyer here. Why does he not tell us about the idea of estoppel and issue estoppel? Does that arise, yes or no?
“The government says we are just trying to scare people. But people are facing real problems, like higher mortgage rates and higher insurance costs. I want the member to admit these problems are real.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I have to say I am quite disappointed in the government’s response. In fact, I think it is going to have to resile from this response at some point. When I heard the minister say this was just fearmongering, to me, that was completely unbecoming. Is it fearmongering when somebody goes to renew their mortgage and they have to get a higher interest rate because the market is saying that their house is no longer worth the same amount? Crickets. Is it fearmongering when somebody cannot get insurance at the same rate? That has nothing to do with what is being said on this side of the House. It has to do with, really, what is happening on the ground. The only reason that the government is dealing with this is because it has been hearing about it. The government is hearing about it because of the reasons I just said. Does the hon. member not agree?”
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I have to say I am quite disappointed in the government’s response. In fact, I think it is going to have to resile from this response at some point. When I heard the minister say this was just fearmongering, to me, that was completely unbecoming. Is it fearmongering when somebody goes to renew their mortgage and they have to get a higher interest rate because the market is saying that their house is no longer worth the same amount? Crickets. Is it fearmongering when somebody cannot get insurance at the same rate? That has nothing to do with what is being said on this side of the House. It has to do with, really, what is happening on the ground. The only reason that the government is dealing with this is because it has been hearing about it. The government is hearing about it because of the reasons I just said. Does the hon. member not agree?
“A convicted child killer and sex offender is staying in a prison with no fences, nice housing, and tennis courts. Liberal laws made prison rules too soft. I want to know why a dangerous criminal is allowed to live in a place like this.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a surprising project to tell members about. Imagine this: no fences, beautiful townhouse-style living, tennis courts, and fishing in the Rideau River over the summertime. No, I am not talking about a new housing project. I am talking about a jail, a penitentiary in fact, that houses notorious sex offender and child killer Darren Scott Ray. That is right. This person was considered so dangerous that police had to follow him around everywhere he went when he was released for just 72 hours, yet he lives in a jail without fences and with a little slice of paradise, having comforts like a tennis court, a beautiful kitchen and all the freedom in the world. The Liberals bungled this with Bill C-83 and their “least restrictive” measure. Why is it that somebody who is a child-killing sex offender who needs to be supervised every single minute can live in a place without fences?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I have a surprising project to tell members about. Imagine this: no fences, beautiful townhouse-style living, tennis courts, and fishing in the Rideau River over the summertime. No, I am not talking about a new housing project. I am talking about a jail, a penitentiary in fact, that houses notorious sex offender and child killer Darren Scott Ray. That is right. This person was considered so dangerous that police had to follow him around everywhere he went when he was released for just 72 hours, yet he lives in a jail without fences and with a little slice of paradise, having comforts like a tennis court, a beautiful kitchen and all the freedom in the world. The Liberals bungled this with Bill C-83 and their “least restrictive” measure. Why is it that somebody who is a child-killing sex offender who needs to be supervised every single minute can live in a place without fences?
“I want the House to pass my bill against intimate partner violence. All parties now plan to vote for it.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Today I am especially honoured to rise in reply to Bill C-225, the private member’s bill that I put forward on intimate partner violence. It feels as though it was just yesterday, but it was around November when I was speaking about this bill and attempting to persuade this House to pass the bill. It is against that backdrop that I just had a brief conversation with one of my hon. colleagues, the Parliamentary Secretary to the government House leader, and learned the Liberals are going to support and vote for this bill. This is tremendous. This is how things are supposed to work. I want to thank some people. The member for Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake had a profound impact on this bill. He gave up his private member’s slot so this bill could move forward. I am profoundly grateful to him, and I think all victims of intimate partner violence and stakeholders are equally grateful. I am similarly grateful to the member for Cloverdale—Langley City, who gave up her spot in the private member’s bill rotation. As a result, this bill got to a vote on third reading in what I think is probably record time. It is not very often we see private members’ bills get to a vote within five or six months, and here we are at third reading. I am profoundly indebted to both members. I also want to recognize their service to Canadians and their recognition of victims of intimate partner violence. They are part of the solution by advancing this legislation. I want to thank all who spoke on this bill, particularly, at third reading. I want to thank Bailey’s family, Paige, Karen, Shane, Trish, Debbie, Bailey’s children and all others who I may not have mentioned who are part of Bailey’s family, her loved ones and those who continue to mourn her death. I want to thank my staff, Rofiat Agboola, Stephanie Rennick, Jesus Bondo, Clare Cyr, Tracy Gilchrist and Christine Savage, for putting up with and navigating through all the ups and downs of this process. There have been a few speed bumps, but, ultimately, we got here. My belief is that we will see unanimous support for this bill when we vote on Wednesday. I am mindful of the fact that the Minister of Justice’s office played a key role in meeting with victims. I mentioned my staff, who went above and beyond and liaised with Zoe Romeo and other members of the minister’s staff. There were extensive amendments at committee, and I want to recognize the collaborative nature of the status of women committee and all witnesses who appeared, too many to name in this short speech, but they know who they are. I also want to thank all those who emailed me and wrote letters saying they suffered in silence from intimate partner violence and those who stopped me on the street, which happens to members of Parliament more than those watching at home might think, and thanked me. A few stand out in my mind. This bill is for them. With the assurance that the Liberals will be voting for this at third reading, with my belief that all other members will be supporting this bill and against the backdrop of just having welcomed new members who will get to add their signature to this bill, I am incredibly honoured and profoundly grateful to stand as the sponsor of a bill that recognizes the scourge of intimate partner violence, but, more concretely, addresses the issue here where it should be addressed in Parliament.”
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Today I am especially honoured to rise in reply to Bill C-225, the private member’s bill that I put forward on intimate partner violence. It feels as though it was just yesterday, but it was around November when I was speaking about this bill and attempting to persuade this House to pass the bill. It is against that backdrop that I just had a brief conversation with one of my hon. colleagues, the Parliamentary Secretary to the government House leader, and learned the Liberals are going to support and vote for this bill. This is tremendous. This is how things are supposed to work. I want to thank some people. The member for Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake had a profound impact on this bill. He gave up his private member’s slot so this bill could move forward. I am profoundly grateful to him, and I think all victims of intimate partner violence and stakeholders are equally grateful. I am similarly grateful to the member for Cloverdale—Langley City, who gave up her spot in the private member’s bill rotation. As a result, this bill got to a vote on third reading in what I think is probably record time. It is not very often we see private members’ bills get to a vote within five or six months, and here we are at third reading. I am profoundly indebted to both members. I also want to recognize their service to Canadians and their recognition of victims of intimate partner violence. They are part of the solution by advancing this legislation. I want to thank all who spoke on this bill, particularly, at third reading. I want to thank Bailey’s family, Paige, Karen, Shane, Trish, Debbie, Bailey’s children and all others who I may not have mentioned who are part of Bailey’s family, her loved ones and those who continue to mourn her death. I want to thank my staff, Rofiat Agboola, Stephanie Rennick, Jesus Bondo, Clare Cyr, Tracy Gilchrist and Christine Savage, for putting up with and navigating through all the ups and downs of this process. There have been a few speed bumps, but, ultimately, we got here. My belief is that we will see unanimous support for this bill when we vote on Wednesday. I am mindful of the fact that the Minister of Justice’s office played a key role in meeting with victims. I mentioned my staff, who went above and beyond and liaised with Zoe Romeo and other members of the minister’s staff. There were extensive amendments at committee, and I want to recognize the collaborative nature of the status of women committee and all witnesses who appeared, too many to name in this short speech, but they know who they are. I also want to thank all those who emailed me and wrote letters saying they suffered in silence from intimate partner violence and those who stopped me on the street, which happens to members of Parliament more than those watching at home might think, and thanked me. A few stand out in my mind. This bill is for them. With the assurance that the Liberals will be voting for this at third reading, with my belief that all other members will be supporting this bill and against the backdrop of just having welcomed new members who will get to add their signature to this bill, I am incredibly honoured and profoundly grateful to stand as the sponsor of a bill that recognizes the scourge of intimate partner violence, but, more concretely, addresses the issue here where it should be addressed in Parliament.
