The Blueprint: Canada's Conservative Podcast - July 12, 2022


Trudeau’s Government will use misinformation to suspend Canadian’s civil liberties


Episode Stats

Length

20 minutes

Words per Minute

158.2868

Word Count

3,251

Sentence Count

192

Misogynist Sentences

1

Hate Speech Sentences

1


Summary

In this episode, Conservative MP Larry Brock and Shadow Minister Frank Caputo join me to discuss the Emergencies Act, C5, and the information that has come forward in the last few weeks regarding the Liberals' soft on crime policies.


Transcript

00:00:00.000 Hello and welcome once again to The Blueprints. This is Canada's Conservative Podcast. I'm your
00:00:10.380 host, Jamie Schmael, Member of Parliament for Halliburton Corps at the Legs Brock with new
00:00:13.940 content for you every single Tuesday, 1.30pm Eastern Time. We do appreciate you being here
00:00:19.160 and if you can't listen to the entire program right this second, download it, listen to it
00:00:23.340 on platforms like CastBox, iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, you name it, it is out there. We have a
00:00:28.160 great show. We're going to talk about C5. We're talking about the Liberals' soft on crime.
00:00:32.760 We're also talking about the Emergencies Act and the information that has come forward in the last
00:00:36.640 few weeks. So with this content, we ask that you like, comment, subscribe, share this program.
00:00:41.420 Together we can push back against that ever-moving Liberal agenda. So today, two amazing guests.
00:00:47.160 We have two former lawyers, believe it or not. Don't hold that against us. We have Larry Brock
00:00:52.360 right here, Member of Parliament for Brantford Brant in the beautiful province of Ontario.
00:00:56.160 Also, the Shadow Minister, just so I get it right, the Attorney General of Canada. Of course,
00:01:00.120 we have Frank Caputo right beside him, the Member of Parliament for Thompson.
00:01:04.620 I knew I was going to mess up. Cam Loops, Thompson, Caribou. Also, the Shadow Minister
00:01:08.440 for Veterans Affairs and the Associate Minister for National Defence. But as I mentioned, former
00:01:12.540 lawyers as well. So last week, you probably saw it on social media. Larry Brock here had the
00:01:17.940 Deputy Prime Minister, the Finance Minister of Canada, Chrystia Freeland, in front of committee
00:01:22.800 exploring the Emergencies Act and how the government made that decision to get the Emergencies Act. So
00:01:28.400 Larry, if you haven't watched it, go on his social media platforms, listen and watch that speech. It is
00:01:34.760 telling how dismissive the government is towards questions by Conservative members. So Larry, what did
00:01:41.840 you get out of committee? What were you feeling? To me, watching that was actually shameful because we
00:01:47.460 need to know why the government invoked the Act. Thank you for that question and thank you for the
00:01:52.440 opportunity of being on this important podcast. I feel very privileged and honoured to participate
00:01:59.040 in this examination, a very serious examination of the government's role in the invocation of the Act.
00:02:06.140 We've taken a solemn oath that we would safeguard all confidential information, which on the surface
00:02:12.220 would presume then that we would have access to cabinet confidentiality documents, solicitor-client
00:02:19.460 documents, things of that nature. What has been happening over the course of several weeks is that
00:02:25.380 high-ranking senior government officials as well as ministers have been hiding behind those two
00:02:32.000 principles, solicitor-client privilege, cabinet confidentiality, in terms of blocking our ability
00:02:38.600 to dig deep into issues. And from my perspective, with my legal background, the biggest issue that I
00:02:45.520 want to be able to answer was there sufficient grounds, legally sufficient grounds, to invoke the Act.
00:02:53.640 So the focus of my line of questioning is to basically dig deep into that issue and explore areas
00:03:01.780 by asking ministers, by asking senior government officials questions that will help us answer that
00:03:09.100 question. So far, Jamie, it has been a stonewall effort by the government to hide behind those principles.
00:03:17.380 As a lawyer, I understand the principles, but this is a one-in-a-lifetime event. It's never been
00:03:23.860 used, the invocation of the Emergencies Act. And there are basically exceptions.
00:03:29.400 Government can waive cabinet confidentiality. The client being the government can waive solicitor-client
00:03:35.940 privilege. We want to get to the truth. So yesterday was extremely hopeful for me that having
00:03:43.420 two senior government officials, I would be able to address some of the false narratives that we've
00:03:49.700 been hearing, particularly over the last several weeks. For instance, in my focus of Minister Freeland
00:03:57.040 was whether or not there were sufficient legal grounds to invoke the economic measures to freeze the bank
00:04:05.160 accounts. Well, we all know that the talking point by the minister herself, as well as the prime minister
00:04:11.760 and other senior ministers, was that the funding for the platforms that funded the donations came from
00:04:20.940 outside the country. There was an element of terrorist financing or anti-laundering financing.
00:04:30.080 There was even a reference to Russian-backed influencers behind this convoy. So I wanted to dig deep into those
00:04:37.140 issues. Minister Freeland had her own agenda. She had her own narrative. I tried with a limited amount of time
00:04:44.800 that we have, which is frustrating anywhere, depending on the round, four to five minutes to keep her on track.
00:04:50.920 And I was accused of badgering the witness. All I did was remind the minister, this wasn't a question, period.
00:04:57.920 This was a committee who is expected to receive answers to relevant questions. And the questions I put to the minister,
00:05:06.800 in my opinion, were relevant. We did not get answers. Frustrating. Complete opposite to Minister Blair, who was by default
00:05:17.840 very responsive, very substantive in his responses. And I thanked him for contributing to a discussion and to aid us
00:05:28.160 in determining what transpired, what caused the government to invoke the act. So it's pretty clear at this point, Jamie,
00:05:35.640 with the narrative that we've been hearing, that the press is now picking up, is that Minister Mendicino
00:05:41.640 has purposely and deliberately misled not only the House, which is a very serious matter, but has misled
00:05:49.140 Canadians, that it was law enforcement who had asked for the invocation of the act, amongst other issues.
00:05:57.220 But that is a big takeaway that we are pursuing at the Emergencies Act Committee.
00:06:01.320 Well, Frank, last week in Question Period, you were up asking for Minister Mendicino to resign because of that fact.
00:06:07.320 I asked for Minister Mendicino to resign over everything that we've heard discussed, and it's something that I had no problem doing in these circumstances.
00:06:17.320 So his comments to the House of Commons, as Larry just mentioned, police forces asked for the Emergencies Act to come into effect.
00:06:26.320 Yes.
00:06:27.320 We just haven't found one that has said yes.
00:06:29.320 Yes, I don't have his exact quotes in front of me, but that was certainly the message that I felt was conveyed.
00:06:34.320 Yeah.
00:06:35.320 So, again, if you haven't watched that exchange, I urge you to go to Frank's social media.
00:06:42.320 There was a bit of a heated exchange.
00:06:44.320 You had called for the resignation.
00:06:46.320 He didn't really like that, and it went back and forth.
00:06:49.320 Yes, it's good to be passionate on both sides sometimes.
00:06:52.320 Yes, absolutely, absolutely.
00:06:54.320 So, as we continue this, we've got still the investigation to the Emergencies Act going on.
00:06:59.320 We're still working to, as mentioned, find the truth here, which it seems that it's very hard to find at this point.
00:07:07.320 On top of that, the Liberals introduced a couple of pieces of legislation that just completely goes, in my opinion, in keeping the criminals, the repeat violent offenders behind bars.
00:07:21.320 It just seems that this revolving door that we have at this point, C-75 passed in a previous parliament, reduced sentences.
00:07:28.320 We have C-5 now.
00:07:30.320 The list just keeps going on and on.
00:07:32.320 Like, what do people have to do to stay in jail nowadays under these Liberals?
00:07:38.320 That's a question to me, Jane?
00:07:40.320 It can be to whoever.
00:07:41.320 It can be both.
00:07:42.320 Well, I just want to clarify.
00:07:43.320 Not only are Frank and I both lawyers, we're both former Crown attorneys.
00:07:49.320 Yes.
00:07:50.320 And in that particular role, both of us have very passionately and professionally advocated for holding offenders accountable,
00:08:00.320 regardless of their infraction, from shoplifting all the way to homicide and everything in between,
00:08:08.320 while at the same time preserving the rights of victims and aiding them through the process.
00:08:13.320 So, it's been a very honorable path that I have chosen, and I'm sure I can speak for Frank as well,
00:08:18.320 that he's really enjoyed his public service to his ministry.
00:08:22.320 So, in my speech last week on C-5, actually two weeks ago on C-5, I started off by indicating how deeply ashamed I was,
00:08:32.320 not only as a parliamentarian, but as a former Crown attorney, that this soft-on-crime, agenda-driven,
00:08:42.320 liberal government has chose to put communities at risk from coast to coast to coast.
00:08:49.320 One of the driving factors for me to leave a 30-year career in law was I was tired of simply following the law,
00:08:57.320 and I was seeing victims falling further and further behind in their pursuit for justice.
00:09:04.320 And I felt what better way to actually contribute to changing that narrative by becoming a politician.
00:09:11.320 Right now, in my view, the criminal justice pendulum has shifted so far to the right in terms of favoring the accused,
00:09:18.320 giving rights to the accused.
00:09:20.320 We only need to take a look at the most two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions to really emphasize that particular point.
00:09:27.320 So, the thrust of my speech in the House was trying to achieve a balance.
00:09:32.320 C-5 doesn't even come close to that particular balance.
00:09:36.320 The narrative the government is using is not the details contained within C-5.
00:09:42.320 It is not legislation deemed to impact those low-risk, first-time offenders,
00:09:50.320 and we often heard that numerous times.
00:09:52.320 But more importantly, again, their ideological-driven agenda,
00:09:57.320 which I wholeheartedly agree to on this particular point,
00:10:01.320 that we have a problem in this country with the over-incarceration of Indigenous men, women, youth,
00:10:08.320 and other marginalized individuals.
00:10:11.320 So to that end, I agree, it is a problem.
00:10:15.320 And it's incumbent not only on politicians, it's incumbent upon various ministries,
00:10:20.320 various provinces, various agencies, and the judiciary to take active steps
00:10:27.320 to really address that issue without compromising community safety.
00:10:33.320 C-5 talks about that issue in general terms, but when you take a look at the crimes
00:10:39.320 that they've actually eliminated, mandatory minimum penalties,
00:10:43.320 the most serious gun offenses, the most serious drug offenses,
00:10:48.320 taking away now the ability of people to be precluded from conditional sentence considerations.
00:10:56.320 What the thrust again of my speech in the House, Jamie, was that it doesn't matter what sort of background you have,
00:11:04.320 what race you have, what ethnicity that you may have, whether you have a criminal background or not.
00:11:11.320 You get convicted of drive-by shootings.
00:11:14.320 You get convicted of trafficking in fentanyl or production of car fentanyl,
00:11:19.320 where a grain the size of a grain of salt of car fentanyl can kill an elephant.
00:11:25.320 You get convicted of that.
00:11:27.320 It doesn't matter whether you're indigenous.
00:11:30.320 It doesn't matter whether you're a marginalized individual.
00:11:33.320 The default position is going to be jail.
00:11:36.320 There is sentencing principles of denunciation, deterrence, and separation from society that are at play.
00:11:44.320 So on the one hand, I agree with the principle that we need to take active steps to address that.
00:11:50.320 C-5 does the opposite.
00:11:52.320 Well, also in C-5, they changed a few things and made a bunch of pretty serious crimes into what amounts to house arrest here.
00:11:59.320 The one I find just kind of laughable is the one where you can break out of jail and then get house arrest for breaking out of jail.
00:12:06.320 How does that make any sense?
00:12:07.320 No, that's quite a serious offense.
00:12:10.320 The one that really strikes me, Jamie, is section 244.2, if memory serves,
00:12:15.320 which is discharge with intent or reckless discharge.
00:12:19.320 Now, discharge with intent is with intent to maim, wound, or endanger life.
00:12:25.320 In other words, you are shooting at somebody to cause a final outcome.
00:12:29.320 Very, very serious.
00:12:31.320 So it's probably one of the most serious gun crimes that you can have that you don't actually have to prove a resulting outcome of death or bodily harm or anything.
00:12:42.320 Commonly a drive-by shooting or reckless discharge shooting at a house that you're indifferent as to whether it's occupied or not.
00:12:48.320 I believe with a prohibited firearm, it used to be a five-year mandatory minimum.
00:12:52.320 I don't believe that one was touched, but I believe that a non-prohibited or non-restricted firearm,
00:12:57.320 now there is no mandatory minimum on that, if memory serves Jamie.
00:13:01.320 And that's really, it's a serious offense that you could have something like that.
00:13:06.320 Now, what I advocated for, and I think it's a middle ground, because I agree, we need to deal with the over-representation of certain groups in jail.
00:13:14.320 You will never, ever get an argument from me on that.
00:13:18.320 We have principles like Gladue, Gladue being a case in the Supreme Court of Canada in the 90s.
00:13:24.320 I took great pride in upholding Gladue and applying Gladue whenever I was dealing with an offender for whom Gladue applied.
00:13:33.320 I had no issue with that whatsoever.
00:13:35.320 So what I advocated for is this.
00:13:37.320 I said, why don't you have a mandatory minimum with what's called a safety valve or an exceptional circumstances provision?
00:13:44.320 What that means is, is that you can have the appropriate middle ground.
00:13:48.320 Because what the government is saying is, we're avoiding these outcomes of over-representation.
00:13:54.320 And I said, well, you could still do that by having this exceptional circumstances.
00:13:58.320 What you do is you impose a mandatory minimum, but you say, if somebody meets these exceptional circumstances based on socioeconomic status,
00:14:07.320 Gladue principles, things like that, then a judge has discretion to not apply the mandatory minimum.
00:14:15.320 So we can, the people for whom this minimum was designed for, people who really are a danger,
00:14:22.320 they will go to jail for a protracted period of time to protect the public for the reasons in Section 718 of the Criminal Code.
00:14:29.320 But those people, that narrow group that the government is saying, look, we need to address this group,
00:14:34.320 then the judge would have discretion because the government kept on saying, Jamie, we need to give judges the discretion.
00:14:40.320 And I said, well, you will give judges the discretion with that so we can accommodate both things.
00:14:44.320 Obviously, the government didn't act on that. I had hoped that they had.
00:14:48.320 But that would be my choice.
00:14:50.320 That would be very reasonable.
00:14:51.320 I would have been selling that to caucus instantaneously if we did.
00:14:54.320 Because when you look at the reasons why some of these previous offences, like Section 95 of the Code,
00:15:00.320 were struck down, that's having a prohibited or restricted firearm loaded or with readily accessible ammunition,
00:15:06.320 they were struck down for these potentially narrow reasons.
00:15:10.320 Somebody who forgot to have their gun license renewed, their possession acquisition license.
00:15:15.320 These are really, really narrow things.
00:15:17.320 And the other thing, too, that the government didn't talk about in their talking points,
00:15:21.320 is that we're only talking about indictable offences,
00:15:23.320 that there's a discretion to proceed what we call summarily for a lot of these offences,
00:15:27.320 not for reckless discharge, things like that, but for other offences.
00:15:30.320 There is that discretion to proceed summarily, which means that the Crown is treating it as less serious,
00:15:36.320 versus indictable, more serious, similar to misdemeanor felony in the United States.
00:15:40.320 Final point to add to Frank's commentary on that point of giving judges discretion.
00:15:46.320 I framed it as a constitutional exemption within Section 718 itself.
00:15:52.320 I proposed that at the committee, Justice Committee for which I sit on,
00:15:57.320 and it was welcomed by committee members as far as the Conservative members were concerned,
00:16:03.320 as well as the Bloc, but the Liberals flat-out refused to even consider it.
00:16:09.320 In fact, it was dismissed summarily by the chair, so there was not any consideration whatsoever.
00:16:14.320 So we've had a conversation around misleading Parliament, misleading Canadians.
00:16:18.320 It went into soft on crime and where the Liberals are taking the justice portfolio.
00:16:23.320 Then I think we transition, and probably our last topic, we're running out of time, would be C21,
00:16:28.320 a piece of legislation where at the same time really clamps down on legal, law-abiding firearms owners,
00:16:36.320 where we've just let the violent repeat offenders get house arrest in some cases, or lenient sentences,
00:16:43.320 but yet those following the law are getting clamped down even more.
00:16:47.320 And I'll give you both time to comment if you want.
00:16:50.320 Well, very briefly, if I may, C21 does not deal with the proverbial elephant in the room.
00:16:59.320 And the elephant in the room is the illegal smuggling of guns across our porous,
00:17:05.320 and I highlight that term, our porous borders.
00:17:09.320 Criminals are always two or three steps ahead.
00:17:14.320 They know that perhaps when the government is putting more resources into border agents,
00:17:20.320 giving them greater search powers, putting in more money for a concerted intelligence operation with the American authorities.
00:17:29.320 We hear stories of criminals using drones to bypass the borders altogether and dropping illegal guns.
00:17:37.320 We know statistically crime has gone up substantially since the Liberals have taken power.
00:17:44.320 Homicides in all our major centres have skyrocketed,
00:17:48.320 and at least 90% of the homicides across this country are being used with illegal guns.
00:17:57.320 So, while 21 talks about some small measures the government has taken, it's not the focus.
00:18:05.320 The focus really is to put a freeze, not a ban, but a freeze on the purchase, the sale, the transfer of existing handguns
00:18:20.320 that are being properly used and enjoyed will have no impact on crime. None.
00:18:28.320 Did you want to comment?
00:18:29.320 Well, one, I know we're running short on time, so I'll leave you with this, Jamie.
00:18:33.320 I looked at Section C5 and Section C21, and maybe I missed it, but I didn't see any reference to victims.
00:18:38.320 Ah, I was going to bring that up, yes.
00:18:40.320 And that's something that we need not forget.
00:18:43.320 There are a lot of people who are victimized, and they're completely innocent.
00:18:48.320 They didn't choose a life that involved firearms or illegal firearms.
00:18:54.320 They didn't choose a life that would have led them to ordinarily be victimized,
00:18:58.320 and we can't forget that when we're debating this legislation.
00:19:02.320 I always give the guests the last word, so if you want to talk about this or anything else, we'll start with Larry.
00:19:08.320 The floor is yours.
00:19:10.320 As conservatives, we will continue to put the needs of victims first and keep our communities safe.
00:19:17.320 We will never stop fighting for that balance that I'm trying to achieve.
00:19:22.320 Hear, hear.
00:19:23.320 Yes, I couldn't have said it any better myself. Thank you very much, Jamie.
00:19:25.320 Perfect. Well, great to talk to some former prosecutors, and I really appreciate your contribution.
00:19:30.320 And again, I really encourage you, if you haven't already, check out their social media posts,
00:19:34.320 because their speeches, the questions in the House from Frank, Larry,
00:19:38.320 his questioning of the Deputy Prime Minister, Chrystia Freeland, was absolutely amazing,
00:19:43.320 and trying to get to the bottom of some of these very important questions.
00:19:46.320 Again, if you like the content, please like, comment, subscribe, share this program.
00:19:50.320 Together, we can push back against the ever-moving liberal agenda.
00:19:53.320 We have new content for you every single Tuesday, 1.30 p.m. Eastern Time.
00:19:57.320 If you can't listen or watch it in its entirety right this second, download it, listen to it,
00:20:01.320 on platforms like CasOps, iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, you name it, it is out there.
00:20:05.320 Thank you very much, Larry Brock, Member of Parliament for Brantford Grant,
00:20:08.320 also the Deputy Shadow Minister for the Attorney General, and also Frank Caputo.
00:20:12.320 I will get his riding right this time.
00:20:14.320 Kamloops, Thompson, Caribou, and the beautiful province of British Columbia.
00:20:18.320 Also the Shadow Minister for Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defense.
00:20:22.320 As always, low taxes, less government, more freedom.
00:20:25.320 That's the Blueprint.
00:20:26.320 Thank you.
00:20:27.320 .
00:20:31.320 .