Liberals don’t want hunting？
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
166.30746
Summary
In the final episode of the year, Conservative MP Larry Brock joins the show to discuss the Emergencies Act, and whether or not the government met the threshold to invoke it. Also, the Liberals are trying to sneak C-21 into Parliament.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Hello and welcome once again to The Blueprints. This is Canada's Conservative Podcast. I'm
00:00:19.580
your host, Jamie Schmael, member of Parliament for Halliburton Corps at the Lakes Brock with
00:00:22.860
new content for you every single Tuesday, 1.30 p.m. Eastern Time. We ask that you like,
00:00:27.360
comment, subscribe, share this program. There are ears that are not hearing this message in the
00:00:32.100
mainstream media. We want to get that message to them. We need your help to do that. Of course,
00:00:36.120
if you can't listen or watch the program in its entirety right this second, download, listen to
00:00:40.020
it on platforms like CastBox, iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, you name it, it is out there. Another
00:00:45.020
great show lined up for you just as we approach the Christmas break. We are talking about the
00:00:49.380
Emergencies Act, what it means, did we meet that threshold? Did the Government of Canada meet that
00:00:54.200
threshold to invoke the most serious, the most powerful piece of legislation the Government of
00:00:59.720
Canada has in its arsenal? Also talk about C-21. Amazing new developments in the firearms legislation
00:01:06.960
that the Liberals are trying to sneak through the committee process and into Parliament. We're going
00:01:11.180
to talk about that in just a second. To do that, bring on some amazing voices. Good friends of the
00:01:15.940
show, we have Glenn Motz, member of Parliament for Medicine Hat, Karsten Warner in the beautiful
00:01:19.800
province of Alberta. Also, Larry Brock, member of Parliament for Brantford Brandt, a good friend
00:01:23.820
of the show. And that stare he has, if you ever watch him in committee on social media, check it
00:01:28.600
out, his social media page, that stare. Okay, Dave Stewart, if you remember him, the Blue Jays
00:01:33.200
pitcher, he played for other players, I remember him as a Blue Jay. When he got into the zone,
00:01:37.360
that stare he gave the batters would run a chill through their spine. And Larry Brock has that stare.
00:01:43.640
So check it out. It is committee work. Thank you, gentlemen, for being here.
00:01:47.160
There's been a lot going on. Again, we talked about this on many shows before, Glenn, you
00:01:52.540
were on, Larry too, we had Raquel Dancho, the public safety critic, talking about did the
00:01:57.760
Government of Canada meet that threshold to invoke the Emergencies Act? And really, what
00:02:02.260
we're doing is, it's not a matter of whether or not you agreed with the convoy or not. It
00:02:07.480
was whether or not this government or future governments can use this tool for a process like
00:02:14.460
this. Right. And you know, Larry and I have the distinct privilege and responsibility
00:02:19.840
to serve on that joint, special joint committee with senators and members of parliament to
00:02:24.420
look at that and whether the threshold was met and to ensure that no government again can
00:02:29.820
invoke it under the same circumstance. And you know, as you look at it, the Act, the Emergencies
00:02:34.620
Act had some very specific requirements. It had to meet the threshold of a national security,
00:02:40.500
a threat to Canada security, as defined in Section 2 of the CSIS Act. And, you know, there's
00:02:47.460
legal pundits, there's many people who provided evidence on this committee, and I don't believe
00:02:53.560
that that threshold was met. And then, we've now been, since the commission, the Rouleau commission,
00:03:00.360
we've been given this new information that the government relied on a broader interpretation
00:03:07.560
of the legislation. It's like, well, the law is pretty clear. Here's the defined line.
00:03:13.440
As a government, you must follow the law. And they found a broader interpretation, which
00:03:17.520
they say, give them that authority to invoke it. However, Canadians, we haven't seen that
00:03:22.560
specific legal opinion that they relied on. And I think that's problematic. Canadians deserve
00:03:28.520
transparency. We haven't seen that through this process. But didn't the government try to change
00:03:33.560
the definition in their minds, kind of reread into that, that whole, it was there in print,
00:03:39.360
but they kind of put their own spin on things. You heard Mendocino and Lamedi talk about that.
00:03:45.080
As I explained to you on a previous podcast, Jamie, and thank you for your kind invitation to appear on
00:03:52.900
this special show. And the purpose behind this is really to educate those Canadians, in my view,
00:04:00.520
that feel that this was an occupation that had to end. Whether or not it ended lawfully, whether it ended
00:04:09.660
in a dangerous setting precedent, doesn't really matter to almost two-thirds of the Canadians that are
00:04:16.460
following this. And I want them to realize that there is a greater implication of having that
00:04:23.340
particular attitude. And this all goes back to the evidence that we have heard on this committee.
00:04:29.500
There is nothing so far that we have reviewed, nothing that we have heard by way of testimony,
00:04:35.900
that it would seem to indicate that there was a legal basis for the invocation of this particular act.
00:04:43.500
And that's important to me, given my legal background. And it was important, obviously,
00:04:48.540
to Justice Rouleau in the commission. If you recall, when Justice David Lamedi testified,
00:04:55.900
he was being less than transparent, he was being less than open, and in fact, wouldn't even admit
00:05:03.580
to the existence of a legal opinion. Now, this Liberal government in 2015 promised Canadians,
00:05:11.180
in fact, I remember watching Prime Minister Justin Trudeau look straight into the camera and promise
00:05:18.220
Canadians that his government would be the most open and transparent and accountable government this
00:05:24.940
country has ever seen. When you hide behind a legal opinion that your own lawyers were directed to
00:05:33.900
provide to the government to justify the invocation of the act, and you do not, so you do not supply
00:05:41.420
that to Canadians in support of what legal rationale there was, is extremely troubling to me.
00:05:50.140
It was troubling to the commission inquiry lawyers. It was troubling to Justice Rouleau.
00:05:56.780
And in fact, it was one of the inquiry lawyers who actually put it out there in a statement in the inquiry
00:06:02.700
that this is not about transparency when you hide behind a legal opinion that us Canadians don't deserve
00:06:11.180
to see. A just trust us attitude does not suffice when you are dealing with the most heavy-handed,
00:06:21.340
most powerful legal remedy that any government could have over its citizens. The suppression of civil rights,
00:06:31.100
the suppression of the ability to be secure, of unreasonable search and seizure with respect to your
00:06:37.580
bank accounts and investments, the right for peaceful assembly, the right to freedom of speech, were all
00:06:46.060
curtailed by this Liberal government's invocation of the act. And you got to take a step back to my view,
00:06:52.460
Jamie, and ask yourself, take a look at all of the, excuse me, all of the examples of some real life
00:07:01.260
emergencies, some dangerous emergencies that this country has faced in the last close to 40
00:07:07.500
years. And no government ever used that method of last resort. We heard our Prime Minister talking,
00:07:15.740
this was a tool of last resort. In our view, by lowering that legal threshold, it's no longer
00:07:23.660
a method of last resort. What other current or future emergency could there be where any future
00:07:31.660
government, we do not want to normalize it. In our view, it sets a very dangerous precedent.
00:07:38.060
Thank you, Larry. Well said. One of the things that this government has shown the Canadian public is they
00:07:43.980
can't be trusted. And the invocation of this act under these circumstances, I think, just create
00:07:50.060
further distrust and division in this country. And we need to, you know, we need to ensure that the
00:07:55.340
Canadian public has trust in our institutions again. And that is not something that this act is
00:08:00.540
providing comfort around the Canadians. Even we had at our last meeting several weeks ago, we had some
00:08:05.820
academics who were there and each of them said, listen, you know, without seeing this broader
00:08:14.700
interpretation that the government say they relied upon to understand it, they don't believe the
00:08:21.340
threshold was met as defined currently in law. And that's what the government is supposed to do.
00:08:26.220
They're supposed to follow the law. And here in this circumstance, I'm quite troubled that,
00:08:32.700
you know, the circumstances didn't quite meet the threshold, so they developed their own.
00:08:37.260
And that's what it appears. And until we see it, people are left to believe what, you know,
00:08:42.140
what they want. And, you know, that's, that is a, that is a challenge.
00:08:47.020
Yeah, to me, just looking from the outside, with not the backgrounds in law enforcement and
00:08:51.820
and the judicial side, you do, Larry, it, there's, there must be a reason why they're hiding it.
00:08:57.820
It must not be good, I would think, but I, you can't, you can't, I mean, the emergencies act was never
00:09:03.100
intended to be invoked because of an inconvenience. Right. Because of incompetence,
00:09:07.260
you know, no matter where that lied, because people didn't want to hear whether you disagreed
00:09:12.300
with a message. You know, like, as Larry said at the front end, whether you agree with the convoy or
00:09:17.740
not, the emergencies act is a measure that is last resort for the absolute security of our national
00:09:25.500
threat to our country. That did not exist, in my opinion. And we haven't seen any evidence to
00:09:29.820
suggest that it was. Anything else you guys want to add before I flip over to the C-21 bill?
00:09:34.460
I think our position is very clear. We touched upon it in an earlier podcast, Jamie. I just,
00:09:42.620
I just ask Canadians just to keep an open mind, really follow this podcast, follow the work that
00:09:50.860
my colleague and I, Glenn, are doing on the emergencies act committee. We all look forward
00:09:55.740
to the release of Justice Rouleau's commission report, and that may or may not continue or allow
00:10:02.540
us to continue with the work that we're doing on the committee. I agree. Excellent. All right,
00:10:07.500
let's move over to C-21. A lot of developments have happened in the past few weeks. Liberals
00:10:11.500
trying to sneak in an amendment during the committee process to circumvent parliament during the first
00:10:17.020
process and the first readings of it. And of course, you saw Carey Price, the Montreal Canadiens goalie,
00:10:23.020
who came out against these amendments. And of course, he committed the mortal sin,
00:10:27.740
which is to go against the left. And now the media and the pilers on are all over him. I think his
00:10:35.420
message was right. He's not a criminal. He loves his country. He loves the sport and the pastime of
00:10:41.260
hunting. And of course, he spoke up. And now the articles are, we should not retire Carey Price's
00:10:46.300
Jersey as a Montreal Canadian. This whole leftist pile-on is happening over an issue of the Liberal
00:10:53.740
government once again trying to sneak around and punish those who enjoy the sport of hunting.
00:11:00.140
You know, what's troubling about this particular bill on C-21, we all saw it and it was brought to
00:11:05.980
the House. And it was the Liberal government's attempt to improve public safety. We would all agree
00:11:11.340
that we would do and work with all of our colleagues in the House to actually improve public safety.
00:11:18.220
Excuse me, but Bill C-21, as was introduced and debated in the House of Commons, was about a
00:11:24.060
handgun freeze, about curtailing the use of handguns, red flag laws, all those things to try and keep the
00:11:31.180
public safe from handguns. It then got to committee a couple of weeks ago. And at committee, we were
00:11:39.020
prepared to do a clause by clause to wrap up and submit the report to government. And what did the
00:11:44.700
Liberals do? They put in 46 amendments to their own bill. And then they introduced a brand new
00:11:52.940
definition of what a prohibited firearm was to try and define, you know, a definition of a military-style
00:12:00.540
assault weapon that they had used from May of 2020, a handgun ban or a, you know, gun ban. They introduced
00:12:09.180
it at the 11th and a half hour as we're going through this. And it, you know, Section G of that
00:12:14.700
particular Amendment 4 was all about redefining prohibited weapons to include long guns, shotguns,
00:12:23.980
anything with a center fire cartridge, that is capable of firing semi-automatic, that can hold,
00:12:31.500
that the gun is capable of holding, a magazine that can accommodate more than five rounds. Well,
00:12:42.220
in Canada, most hunting rifles are, their magazines are pinned to five. It's illegal, it's a prohibited,
00:12:49.980
it's a prohibited device to have a magazine with more than five rounds in it. And again,
00:12:56.300
what are they trying to do? By adding this now into, into legislation, it has caused an uproar across
00:13:02.780
the hunting community. Before it was the sport shooters, it was the airsoft, it was the paintballers,
00:13:08.220
it was, it was those, you know, the Olympic shooters. Those are the people that were really
00:13:12.540
concerned with C21 and had huge concerns. There's also very many women's groups who said that the red flag
00:13:19.340
laws were useless because we already had laws to deal with it. So the liberals were already under the
00:13:24.700
gun from the previous iteration of C21. And now they throw in hunters and, and more sport shooters
00:13:31.260
and farmers under the bus. And it makes no sense. There is no evidence to show that this, this targeting
00:13:41.020
of hunters will have any impact on public safety. We've always said, and the government prides itself,
00:13:47.420
they say we are evidence-based decision makers. However, there's no evidence to support what
00:13:52.700
they've done. I think it's the other way around. It's decision-based evidence making. That's what
00:13:57.180
they're doing here. And it makes, it makes no sense. They rightly so. The Canadian, um, hunters in the,
00:14:03.660
in this country, uh, hunting groups, outfitters, uh, farmers and ranchers from across our country are very
00:14:10.620
concerned that they're going to be administrative criminals overnight because of miscadded approach to public
00:14:16.780
safety. And, um, you know, our, our colleague, uh, Raquel Doncho, our public safety critic has done an
00:14:23.020
admirable job of, uh, and those of us on committee and, and our, our colleagues of, of bringing this
00:14:28.620
issue to light. And, uh, Canadians just need to step up and, and, uh, you know, let their feelings be
00:14:34.060
known. You get, get ahold of Mendocino, get ahold of the prime minister and liberal MPs from across the
00:14:39.340
country and let them know what you really think about this bill. This is a full on attack to the
00:14:48.700
ability for hunters who've enjoyed this particular sport, who enjoyed this particular activity to
00:14:57.340
feed their families for as long as this country has been in existence. And what I find very disturbing,
00:15:03.900
given your portfolio and my portfolio as shadow cabinet ministers is that this is a full on attack
00:15:10.540
to indigenous communities. And I just read a report this morning in preparation, uh, for this podcast,
00:15:17.580
Jamie, that indicated that a spokesperson, uh, for a number of indigenous leaders across this nation
00:15:24.460
who are here in Ottawa last week for a three day conference, uh, indicated that the RCMP in some parts
00:15:31.420
of the North are already seizing before this has even passed, seizing rifles and seizing handguns
00:15:41.820
that many in the Northern parts of this country are using for traditional hunting purposes. This is
00:15:49.100
a full on attack to the treaty rights that indigenous leaders and hunters have enjoyed in this country for
00:15:57.020
decades. So it's not only impacting Canadians, it's impacting those relationships that we have with
00:16:02.860
our indigenous nations. Absolutely. I think this is, this is waking up people who normally don't pay
00:16:09.260
attention to this kind of stuff, don't care either way. But I think when it comes to actually, uh, going a
00:16:14.780
step too far, right? I think many people want the shootings by gangs to stop. Is this the correct
00:16:22.060
method to do that? We say, we have said for a long time, no, this is not going to stop one shooting.
00:16:26.780
It, it, it sadly is going to continue until you look at the criminals, but in the government sides,
00:16:31.740
it's easier to go after the law abiding citizen because they're going to follow the law regardless.
00:16:36.460
They might gripe about it. They might feel that they're being infringed upon, but they're going to
00:16:40.860
follow the law. It's lazy government. You look at, seriously, you look at, it is lazy government.
00:16:44.380
You look at, uh, the crime stats since this government has come in, come in to be in 2015,
00:16:50.220
have escalated. Uh, uh, violent crime is up, um, for a multitude of reasons. Gang crime is up.
00:16:57.260
The, the, the focus is misguided. Um, let's, let's target those who want to get into gangs and
00:17:04.060
there's great movements across the country that can, that can, uh, you know, work to keep kids,
00:17:08.620
uh, out of gang life. Uh, let's deal with the smuggled firearms. Our police services are telling us
00:17:13.660
across the country that the majority of the crime, crime guns being used are smuggled in from the United
00:17:19.020
States and they are not, you know, the, the, the legal firearm owners in this country are not,
00:17:24.460
have never been the problem. Let's focus on the holes in our border, get CBSA some resources and,
00:17:30.860
and, and, and some, some, um, you know, joint force work, uh, you know, and let's focus on our gangs
00:17:36.140
and those who commit crimes in our communities, not those who are lawful Canadians already.
00:17:40.300
It's important to remember that if you have a firearms license, specifically even a restricted
00:17:45.100
firearms, which allows you to, to, uh, possess a handgun, there's only two places you can take
00:17:50.940
it really. The range or home. Yes. Maybe the gunsmith. Sometimes they're the same, but also
00:17:56.940
your name is run through the police data bank every single day. And when I took my course,
00:18:01.900
I was told it's like being on parole. Yep. You're on parole for the rest of your life.
00:18:05.900
Yeah. I mean, it's a privilege to, um, I'm a pal and an RPAL, uh, a holder, uh, you know,
00:18:11.740
and I, I consider it a privilege to have gone through the course to learn about it, uh, and, and, uh,
00:18:16.940
then have a huge responsibility, uh, to be able to possess, uh, a non-restricted and restricted
00:18:22.220
firearm. And that's how Canadians are. Canadians who follow the rules will follow them already.
00:18:27.100
Um, you know, on those law abiding, but as, as you said, there is, um, there's a misguided approach
00:18:34.700
to target the wrong, the focus is wrong here. And, um, let's, let's focus on, on those who,
00:18:41.660
who cause problems in our, in our country, not those who don't. Well, let's talk to Larry about
00:18:45.660
the judicial side. C-75 piece of legislation. Many at home probably won't know that. Some might.
00:18:51.180
Other pieces of legislation, basically creating a revolving door style justice system.
00:18:57.420
To put it bluntly, criminals, the thugs, those individuals who on a daily basis jeopardize
00:19:05.820
community and public safety from coast to coast to coast are laughing in the face of this prime
00:19:12.300
minister and this woke liberal government, who on the one hand is trying to introduce legislation
00:19:20.060
that is designed to improve public safety, to increase our confidence that we can go out in
00:19:26.540
our community and not be, you know, hit by a stray bullet, things of that nature. And they do the
00:19:31.980
complete opposite with their policies. Bill C-75, a classic example. Bill C-5, which Justice Lamedi was
00:19:41.260
taking a victory lap and, and, uh, uh, applauding himself on, wrapping himself or patting himself on
00:19:49.420
the back and saying how great this is, uh, for this country, uh, is doing the complete opposite.
00:19:55.100
It's sending the wrong message to those individuals who will continue to put public safety at risk.
00:20:02.380
They are soft on crime. They've been soft on crime since been elected in 2015. This particular bill is
00:20:11.100
And there's some major offenses in some of this piece of legislation that just have house arrest
00:20:18.700
Bill C-75, who are talking about, uh, individuals who are importing, who are exporting, who are using firearms
00:20:25.900
in the commission of the offense, the drive-by shooters, those who are using weapons to commit
00:20:31.980
robberies. These individuals now have received a grace from the government that, despite whatever
00:20:41.260
criminal record they may have, sometimes it's very similar in nature, that a very crafty and clever
00:20:47.900
defense lawyer can now make an argument that a penitentiary sentence is no longer warranted in
00:20:55.420
the unique circumstances of this offender. Maybe they'll draw upon life experiences and some of the
00:21:03.260
struggles and challenges this individual had that notwithstanding the gravity of the offense
00:21:10.220
and the moral responsibility of the offender, which are key elements in a judge's mind when sentencing,
00:21:20.300
Um, we have, a classic example is, is the drug traffickers, the importers, the exporters,
00:21:28.460
the producers of very dangerous substances such as fentanyl, which is killing Canadians on a daily
00:21:35.260
basis. No community is immune from the dangers of fentanyl. And now they've been granted the luxury
00:21:42.300
of making an argument and depending on who your judge is, maybe convincing a judge that they ought
00:21:49.660
to serve their sentence, which is two years less one day, if a conditional sentence is granted,
00:21:55.980
to serve that in the comfort of their own home. Well, let's not forget what these traffickers were
00:22:01.980
doing. They were trafficking in their own home, right? So it simply allows them to continue the trade.
00:22:08.940
There's absolutely zero punishment. There's no deterrence. These individuals are laughing directly
00:22:16.780
in the face of this prime minister. And it's disgusting.
00:22:19.260
You know, Jamie, you mentioned that comment about the revolving door of justice.
00:22:23.260
And Larry is a former prosecutor and I in law enforcement. When we started our careers,
00:22:28.620
we looked at the Bail Reform Act and it was pretty simple. The Crown's responsibility, first offense,
00:22:34.540
was to show why the accused should be remandered in custody. And any offense thereafter, while they
00:22:41.180
were on a judicial interim release, the accused, it was the responsibility of the accused, the onus was
00:22:45.980
on them to show why they should be released. Well, that whole process is turned upside down. So that's why you
00:22:53.340
have people who get offense after offense after offense to keep getting out on bail. And it's like
00:22:59.740
it's a backward system. So the Bail Reform Act has failed Canadians and, you know, continues to
00:23:05.260
fail in public safety. So if there's an area where we think it can be improved, it's to make sure the
00:23:11.020
onus is back on the criminal, why they should be released from custody, if they continue to be a
00:23:15.340
danger to the public. Which opens up the possibility, and I'm toying with this idea of creating a private
00:23:21.980
member's bill to really seriously look at bail issues as it relates to those individuals who are
00:23:30.140
involved in serious gun crime. In much the same way that there are special provisions for those charged
00:23:37.340
with murder, treason, things of those nature, really serious offenses, given the frequency and the
00:23:44.860
severity of these crimes, I think it's time to relook at that opportunity of placing a very restricted
00:23:53.820
view of bail to ensure that it does not appear in front of a justice of the peace, but rather a superior
00:23:59.900
court justice to fully weigh the risk to the community. So that's something I'm going to be
00:24:05.100
looking at in the new year. Okay, perfect. We've run it over time. We do this on every show. I don't
00:24:09.820
know why we don't ask for more time. But final comments, as you know, we always give the guests
00:24:14.780
the final word. I guess Glenn, you're sitting next to me, so you go first. Well, sure. First of all,
00:24:19.820
it's great to use the blueprint as one of the vehicles we can to get a very strong public safety
00:24:26.700
message out there. And thank you for the work that you do. You know, it's been a privilege working
00:24:33.180
with Larry on this Emergencies Act Committee, and it's amazing. The focus that we want, as Larry
00:24:39.180
so eloquently articulated, was we want to ensure that the Canadian public understands what the role
00:24:46.380
of government should be, and that's to keep their citizens safe and to ensure that, you know,
00:24:51.500
on the Emergencies Act side, to ensure that there is no possibility for a government to use the
00:24:57.900
Emergencies Act in this circumstance again against its people. And on the C21 side,
00:25:03.500
Conservatives will continue to be the voice of common sense when it comes to to firearms and
00:25:08.460
keeping Canadians safe and going after those that, that, you know, continue to victimize in our
00:25:13.340
communities. Larry? I couldn't have said it better. The man a few words today. All right.
00:25:19.900
Fulsome. Canadians need to be informed. This is one avenue to do that. And we really thank you for the
00:25:26.140
opportunity of sharing our views on these two key issues. Well, thank you, gentlemen. I enjoyed
00:25:30.220
the conversation. So we have Larry Brock, member of parliament for Brantford Brant. We also have
00:25:34.060
Mr. The one and only Glenn Mott's medicine hat carster, Warner. We appreciate both of their time.
00:25:40.220
We appreciate your time as well. Did you like the message? It's probably something you're not
00:25:44.060
hearing in the mainstream media. So we ask that you like, comment, subscribe, share this program. New
00:25:48.380
content for you every single Tuesday, 1 30 p.m. Eastern time. Download, listen to it on platforms
00:25:53.020
of the CastBox, iTunes, Google Play, Spotify. It's all out there for you to enjoy and your friends
00:25:57.420
to enjoy. Have a great Christmas. Have a great holiday with friends and family. Happy New Year
00:26:01.420
as well. Until then, our next episode, low taxes, less government, more freedom. That's the blueprint.