Frank Caputo
- Born
- British Columbia
- Career
- Crown prosecutor, instructor at Thompson Rivers University
- Political Experience
- Elected to represent the riding of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo in the House of Commons of Canada in the 2021 Canadian federal election. Elected vice chair of the Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in the 45th Canadian Parliament in 2025.
- Notable
- Succeeded Cathy McLeod, a retiring MP from the same party.
Based on publicly available information — may contain inaccuracies
Business & Financial Interests
Before being elected to Parliament in 2021, Frank Caputo worked as a Crown prosecutor in Kamloops, British Columbia. He has also reportedly been a sessional law instructor at Thompson Rivers University.
Public Controversies
In 2022, Caputo's office sent a constituency mailer discussing residential schools that drew criticism from some Indigenous leaders. The chief of the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc described the mailer's content as revisionist and harmful. Caputo reportedly defended the mailer, stating its purpose was to inform constituents about his work on the issue in Ottawa and that he had consulted with some residential school survivors before sending it.
Where Frank falls on key policy spectrums
Your Money
People & Society
How We're Governed
Land & Community
Frank Caputo won with 32,008 votes (51.5%)
Total votes cast: 62,102
How does Frank Caputo's voting record line up with your values?
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. member We just heard from a B.C.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.
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
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?
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
Exactly. You said it much better than I could have; you said it so much more eloquently. C-16 The point is that nowhere in Billis “cruel and unusual punishment” defined. Is that correct?
All right. This is for the officials. One of the things I find very interesting in the bill is the importation of “cruel and unusual”, which has been defined in the jurisprudence. One of the things you said, Ms. Burt, is, “we can expect”. Is it a grossly disproportionate threshold? Is that still the threshold for cruel and unusual punishment?
You know? Oh, come on. It would be so insightful, would it not, Ms. Lattanzio?
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court in the land, as we all know, and it has taken a living tree approach to all sorts of law. In fact, in the Rodriguez decision—if memory serves, it was in 1993—the judges said there was “no constitutional right” to die, as in there was no constitutional right to kill oneself through what we then called euthanasia. Carter came along in 2015. That was
I agree with you that that's what they are saying, but they haven't said.... For instance, the bill doesn't say, “You will be subject to a mandatory minimum penalty unless the penalty would be grossly disproportionate in the circumstances.” They didn't say that. Do you get what I'm saying? It is a different.... They're using the section 12 language. They're not using the section 12 test. Do you
That's a really interesting one. I'm going to talk for a second here on outraging society and decency, because in the Senneville case, in the court's eyes, to impose a one-year mandatory minimum would outrage the sense of decency in society. That was the court's decision, whereas I think a lot of Canadians here...and I'm not assailing the court's decision. I'm speaking about what I think, what I
What Woodward said was about Internet luring and its minimum penalties. It talked about this insidious crime and how the range should probably be from three to five years. That was when Parliament had a 10-year maximum. C-16 I will make this point very quickly. Nowhere are we dealing with mandatory minimums on sex offences in Bill, the most insidious types of offences: production of child sexual
It's interesting that you say they've chosen to import the jurisprudence, because they haven't chosen to codify the jurisprudence. Isn't that right?
It's really great to back here at the justice committee. I wonder if I was missed. I just heard a “no” from across the way. Mr. Fortin says I was missed. The chair is giving me a hard time and I'm hearing—
When you say “gross disproportionality” and “we can expect”.... Obviously, there is some ambiguity whenever something is not defined in legislation. Is that right?