The Blueprint: Canada's Conservative Podcast - Liberals don’t want hunting？

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.

00:01:46.440 Great to be here, Jamie.

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 1.00

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, 0.95

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. 0.68

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

00:20:09.500 not going to improve it.

00:20:11.100 And there's some major offenses in some of this piece of legislation that just have house arrest

00:20:16.380 as a, as a potential punishment.

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,

00:21:17.020 now has the ability to argue for house arrest.

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. 0.79

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 1.00

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.

00:26:06.860 Merry Christmas.

The Blueprint: Canada's Conservative Podcast - December 20, 2022

Liberals don’t want hunting？

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript