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?
minister Mr. Speaker, if thewants 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
Prime Minister minister Mr. Speaker, thecalled 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. Theand the Prime Minister have refused to disclose it. When will they
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, 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. 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.
Again, I'll go back to my prior point. That falls to regulation and it falls to somebody else's decision where there is a consideration about the size and the cost. Ultimately, just because it is considered, that doesn't mean the core provider won't have to do what a ministerial order says. Does that make sense?
Who decides what type of metadata will be kept for how long? Say, this type of data, an IP address or whatever, only needs to be kept for six months. Who decides that?
If providers need to come up to that base level and they're not there yet, how do they not then have to create a key to come up to the base level that proposed section 5 says they have to come up to? Does that make sense?
Perhaps we're on different planes here, because my understanding of part 2, in reading it, particularly in proposed section 5, is that it talks about a base level that providers need to come up to. Am I making sense so far?
Thank you very much. It's been helpful to have the officials. One thing I will say at the outset is that I feel like we need three hours with you. I don't say this in jest. This is a highly technical bill. We can't rush this. I have a list of about eight things I want to ask you about. I'm looking up case law further to Madame DeBellefeuille's earlier point about the threshold of “reasonable
Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you to all of our witnesses. It's so great to have so many people here around the table for such a complex issue. We're going to get to know each other very well in the coming two parliamentary weeks. I never know who to direct my questions to, because there is a lot of expertise here. Whoever is best to answer this, please let me know. I've looked at the
Let's go along that line here. The one year is kind of the benchmark. Are you saying...? We could talk about this for the next 15 minutes—this is, again, very important—and I have 33 seconds. What you're saying is that one year is the maximum. It's not the minimum. It's not just the drop-dead date. It's only one year. Obviously, any date is arbitrary. Why is it a year? Why is it not nine months