The Blueprint: Canada's Conservative Podcast - Trudeau’s Government will use misinformation to suspend Canadian’s civil liberties

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. 1.00

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. 0.90

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 .

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

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

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript