Dave Menzies on the Ezra Levin Show (Oct 24) slams Ontario’s failure to prosecute returning ISIS fighters, like "Mohammed bin Mohammed," while enforcing petty rules on citizens. PC MPP Dave Smith’s bill—revoking healthcare, licenses, and even fishing rights for convicted terrorists—garnered praise despite Charter concerns from UOttawa’s Charisma Mathen. Menzies mocks Trudeau’s $7K+ carbon tax hikes, calling the $244 rebate a "patchwork quilt" distraction, while Swift warns of economic harm and past broken Liberal promises. They reject climate urgency, dismissing UN 2030 deadlines, and rail against media bias, like the debunked Toronto hotel fire linked to white supremacists. The episode frames political correctness and climate policies as reckless gambles, arguing "without risk, there can be no glory" masks deeper failures in governance. [Automatically generated summary]
Smith's Bill Strips Terrorists of Benefits00:09:20
Tonight, if an Ontario private members bill becomes law, terrorists returning to Ontario will lose all their provincial benefits, including free health care.
It's October 24th.
I'm David Menzies, and this is the Ezra Levin Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're a biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here and you won't give them an answer.
You come here once a year with a sign and you feel morally superior.
The only thing I have to say to the government about why I publish it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Just call it the Common Sense Revolution 2.0.
The Doug Ford Ontario PCs continue to hit him out of the ballpark.
And the latest issue that will surely resonate with Ontarians and for that matter all Canadians is the bill formerly known as the Terrorist Activity Sanctions Act.
And although this private members bill will enrage the usual suspects on the progressive side, morally, ethically and politically, this bill is a winner.
So talk about two vivid contrasts when it comes to those ruling federally in Ottawa and those ruling Ontarians at Queen's Park.
More reports are emerging of ISIS fighters returning to Canada and potentially scot-free because evidently there are no laws on the books to charge Canadians going abroad to commit murder in mayhem in the name of the Islamic state.
On the flip side, as a law-abiding citizen, don't you dare forget to claim that cheap bottle of hooch you picked up in Buffalo during a day trip when crossing back into Canada because if you do, you will feel the wrath of the state big time if you're found out.
In any event, it's absolutely outrageous and inexplicable that the RCMP are wringing their hands as they figure out what sort of charges they could or should lay regarding those returning ISIS fighters.
Now Paging Dudley Dewright, how about treason?
How about sedition?
And I bet if you really drill deep down into the criminal code, there must be some other crimes too.
But in the case of PC MPP Dave Smith, the author of the private members bill, the thinking here is that there's more than one way to skin an Islamist pole cat.
So while the federal government welcomes back terrorists and in some cases gives them multi-million dollar payouts for hurt feelings, Smith's bill seeks to permanently remove those convicted of a terrorist offense from obtaining any services that are provided by the province.
That would include, for example, no more free health care for jihadi jackass and his elk, feeling sick from that rabid camel that bit you in Syria, Ahmed.
Oh, too bad, so sad.
Take two aspirins and don't call us in the morning.
Also gone would be the right to receive an Ontario driver's license, so welcome to the wonderful world of Uber, guys.
Oh, and no more subsidized housing for you thugs either.
Best you find an abandoned refrigerator box and stake out a claim under some overpass of the Gardner Expressway.
In fact, these ex-jihadis wouldn't even be entitled to a fishing license.
Got a problem with that, Aqua Lad?
So sorry, go fish.
What a welcome response to Islamic terrorists compared to the hug-a-thug initiatives the federal government is embracing.
After all, in the world of Justin Trudeau, these terrorists going abroad for their rape and pillage vacations, they're not criminals.
Nope, they're no different from our great Dominion's law-abiding citizens.
A Canadian individual Canadian is a Canadian really?
So even if Mohammed bin Mohammed, fist-in-your-face Mohammed, has rejected Western values and is carrying out mayhem and murder in the hopes of establishing an Islamic caliphate, he's a true blue Canuck?
Yeah, I guess terrorism is as Canadian as hockey and maple syrup and Stompin' Tom Connor songs.
Speaking of merry melodies, just consider Trudeau's solution for returning ISIS fighters.
Oh, not to strip them of their benefits, but rather to have them rehabilitated by sending them to poetry classes.
Wow, wouldn't you just love to attend one of those whiz-bang poetry sessions?
Well, Miss Muffet sat on a tuffer, eating a curds and wing.
Long came a spidey sat down beside his in the bulb.
Oh, indeed, but through the diversity is our strength lens of our PM, not only is it offside to penalize returning ISIS thugs, we can't even criticize them.
We can't even ask questions about them.
Remember what happened when Conservative leader Andrew Scheer raised this issue in the House last year?
It was Conservatives who amended the Criminal Code to make it an offense to leave Canada to fight for ISIS.
It was Conservatives who are focused on giving our law enforcement new tools to prosecute ISIS fighters.
This Prime Minister is using a broad spectrum that includes poetry and podcasts and all kinds of counseling and group hug sessions, Mr. Speaker.
When will the Prime Minister take the security of Canadians seriously and look for ways to put these ISIS fighters in jail?
Honourable Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party learnt nothing from the last election and the lessons Canadians taught them.
They ran an election on snitch lines against Muslims.
They ran an election on Islamophobia and division.
And still they play the same games trying to scare Canadians.
The fact is we always focus on the security of Canadians and we always will and they play politics of fear and Canadians reject that.
Only one word comes to mind and that word is despicable.
In fact, I don't know who I have more contempt for folks.
Is it the returning ISIS fighters or is it the Trudeau Liberals who serve as the enablers of ISIS fighters?
In the meantime, Smith's sanctioning bill has a long way to go before it is proclaimed law, but even if it does become law, already the chattering classes are poo-pooing this initiative, noting that it would likely be deemed unconstitutional if put to the test.
A recent global news report quoted Charisma Mathen, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Ottawa, as saying the bill could be in violation of Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects a person's right to life, even if that person's hobby is ending the lives of others, said Mathen, quote, even people in prison are entitled to medical treatment, so the idea that once someone, if paroled,
you can just kick them off health care is not going to fly.
She also said the proposed legislation is outside the mandate of the Ontario government as violations of the criminal, the Canadian criminal code are a federal responsibility.
And you know what?
Maybe Mathen is correct on both counts.
But here's the rub.
Even if Smith's bill is deemed unconstitutional, this is still a big political win for the Ford PCs and indeed the federal conservatives.
Because with less than a year to go before the next federal election, would even Justin Trudeau dare go to bat for his jihadi pals by denouncing this bill or by invoking the notwithstanding clause to dismiss it.
After all, we know how Justin has a soft spot in his heart for Islamist causes, but we also know the vast majority of Canadians reject such toxic ideology.
So will Justin take yet another high-profile virtue-signaling public stand for Canada's returning homegrown jihadis at the risk of alienating real Canadians?
Or will he divert his eyes and hold his nose when Smith's bill is passed?
Oh, what a fascinating year awaits.
Carbon Tax Controversy00:14:37
Well, how do you like them apples, folks, for a change?
Justin Trudeau was being refreshingly honest regarding carbon emissions.
Yet, why is it when the federal election campaign unofficially kicked off yesterday in Ontario, first and foremost, a carbon tax was part of the Liberals' election campaign promising.
And what's more, the promise was if you endorse a carbon tax, this is going to be a financial boon to Canadians, not a boondoggle.
Is anyone buying that?
Well, joining me right now is Catherine Swift with Working Canadians.
And Catherine, once I heard those figures being bandied around by Trudeau and the bureaucrats that were explaining the technical process to the journalists, don't know about you, my friend, but the needle in my BS detector was veering sharply into the red zone.
What say you?
Yeah, I'm just quite flabbergasted by this whole process.
First of all, the clip you played, of course, it always kills me.
Trudeau has a habit of saying one thing in French and another in English.
And he really must think we're morons that, A, lots of us speak both languages.
And in this day and age, does he really, I mean, maybe 100 years ago, it wouldn't have gotten out to the rest of the country.
But that just amazes me no end because that clip basically, you know, said it won't make any difference anyway.
So yeah, that having taken place, however, I mean, I've spent a long time in advocacy for mostly small business and taxpayers in general.
And I have never heard of this magical tax that you pay X and you get back more than X.
This is truly a new thing, I think, in the realm of taxation.
But seriously, how in the world does he think any rational Canadian is going to buy this?
And in the announcement, there was just so, I mean, we could talk about this probably for hours, but first of all, he calls it a pan-Canadian plan.
Well, of course, it's nothing of the sort.
It's a patchwork quilt.
Every jurisdiction has their own version of this or some version of it.
And that kind of thing to try to do business among the provinces when you're dealing with every single jurisdiction has something different going on just makes it horribly, horribly difficult for businesses in particular, and of course consumers too.
There's no doubt.
When we drill down to the nitty-gritty, he's saying that for an average Ontarian family of four, you could expect a $244 check to offset the carbon tax.
But when you look at how everything is going to increase, I came across one estimate that the same family would be paying more than $7,000 in regard to the increase in the cost of goods.
So the math does not add up.
No, no, the math doesn't add up at all.
And a lot of people, I mean, we finally, I guess, saw the nitty-gritty such as it is yesterday.
And of course, anything like this is based on a whole pile of assumptions.
They have to make assumptions as to what an average family is going to consume.
How is this going to bump up gas prices?
How is it?
I mean, there's just, there's, you know, there's a possibility of failure at every single step in this process of estimation.
So I'm sure now that the announcement's fairly recent, it was just yesterday.
So I'm sure a lot of economists and others will be examining all the gory details here and disproving the fact that this, again, this magical tax is going to give you back more than what you pay.
For businesses, as you alluded to, David, they're all going to have to raise their prices.
And what kills me is these strong proponents of environmental measures such as this is supposed to be, and there's a lot of doubt about that, but they exempt all these businesses who export to other countries because they know it makes them uncompetitive.
So they're exempting big companies, many of which are big polluters.
And of course, they're including the vast majority of small businesses who typically do business more locally within Canada.
But every business is going to have to factor this into their cost structure.
Prices are going to increase.
And how anyone can estimate that your average family is going to get this money back and only pay less than that is beyond me.
It just does not compute.
And again, if people buy this, they really are delusional.
And Catherine, when we look at the environmental argument, too, that you've brought up, I mean, we got to face reality here.
Canada is a huge country.
It's sparsely populated.
It's a cold country for most of the year.
You know, we need to be, I guess, carbon emitters just to have a reasonable lifestyle.
And yet on the flip side, you see coal-burning factories in China going up on a frequent basis.
You see India adding to their pollution.
I mean, you know, I'm not buying this argument that we have to freeze in the dark, if you will, so that we can save the planet because in the grand scheme of things, we're not a major contributor to the problem in the first place.
No, no, we're not.
We're about 1.6%, as has been cited many a time.
And the whole, even if you want to go back to the carbon tax, there's all manner of ways in which this government, which proposes, you know, which is proposing measures like this, is breaking, even if you believe in it, the way to impose such a thing is just to impose a carbon tax, not have a plethora of other measures that do things like limit emissions, that subsidize people for buying an electric car, that subsidize wind and solar energy production, and on and on and on.
So even if you were a believer, and I think there's a lot of very justified skepticism out there, but even if you were a believer, they're going about it all the wrong way.
And as you mentioned, we're a cold country.
We're a big country where people have to travel.
And again, the principle of a carbon tax is that you have the ability to move away from carbon consuming activities into something else.
So it gives you that incentive to consume less.
But what option do we have in Canada?
Do we want to be freezing in the dark?
Are we not going to go to work where most of us don't have the luxury of a decent transit system?
So we have to drive cars and so on and so forth.
So this whole principle behind the carbon tax is you have the ability to substitute in Canada.
We have a very limited ability to make substitutions away from carbon consuming activities.
So it's inappropriate for Canada in many ways to start with.
And yes, exactly what Trudeau said in that French quote was, we are such a small player, we won't make a difference anyway.
And you know, Catherine, I mean, we've talked about the financial and the environmental implications of the carbon tax.
But politically speaking, as I said in my preamble, what we saw yesterday was really the unofficial kickoff of the election campaign by the Liberals.
And Catherine, I just cannot connect the dots here, how the Trudeau Liberals think that bringing in a carbon tax is a political win, especially when you have right now four provinces representing 70% of the population that are up against it.
Yeah, exactly.
And one thing Trudeau said in the press conference yesterday was that he got elected on the promise of a carbon tax.
Well, first of all, that stretches it.
He mentioned the whole notion of putting a price on carbon.
Mind you, that's pollution now.
They've changed their wording because clearly putting a price on carbon isn't flying with people anymore.
So they've had to change their baffle gab.
But subsequent to him getting elected, when Canadians might have thought, well, yeah, I want to do something good for the environment.
And, you know, I maybe want to kick the tires on this.
Now, a lot of Canadians have seen what it actually means, that it's costing them big time.
Here in Ontario, where I live, we know that a lot of people, because of green policies that were pursued by the McGiddy and then Wynn governments, people had to choose between heating and eating in some instances and situations like that.
So now that people have had a little bit of a taste, and they ain't seen nothing yet if this proceeds, but now they've had a little bit of a taste of what a carbon tax means.
They're doing things like electing Ford in Ontario, who campaigned very explicitly against the cap and trade.
In other words, another way of taxing carbon.
We see Jason Kenney probably poised to win in Alberta, where they haven't had an established carbon tax for a while.
So people are seeing the reality, not the theory, and they're not liking it.
No, and you know, the thing is, Catherine, what I resent is people like you and I will be labeled deniers, which is really a loaded word if you look at the history of what that really means, because it's all about saving the planet.
And yet, when you look at the facts, I mean, I'm not saying there's not climate change.
I'm saying that the idea of there being definitive man-made climate change, that is very much up for debate.
And the fact of the matter is we've had five mass extinctions, all of which occurred long before Homo sapiens was on the planet without our coal-burning plants and our SUVs and our snowmobiles emitting exhaust and carbon.
So, you know, when I hear things like, for example, the United Nations saying, we have 12 years to get this right or come 2030, that's it.
It's the beginning of the end of the world.
I'm not buying it at all.
Are you, Catherine?
Well, I mean, I'm old enough to remember in the 1970s, we all got our knickers in a knot over the next ice age.
I remember that.
So, you know, these, you must be old too then, David.
But anyway, The science, the people say the science is settled.
It's not.
Of course, again, to be a so-called denier, which is a ridiculously loaded term and meant to squelch debate.
Let's not fool ourselves.
It's meant to shut people up when debate is what we really inform debate is what we really need on these kinds of issues.
There's a ton of very learned scientists with many, many more letters after their name than I have who question things and on very legitimate scientific grounds.
And I think, too, you're not a denier if you say, yes, we have some climate issues we should totally look at.
How can we best, you know, how can we best deal with them?
And yet also say the carbon tax isn't it?
Impoverishing people, trashing the economy.
And the latest UN climate change panel report basically said we would need the kind of, in their view, which they've been wrong before, we know, but in their view, they say we would need carbon taxes many multiples higher than what Trudeau is proposing to introduce if we're going to make a dent.
So again, is impoverishing people, destroying jobs, destroying the economy, is that the right thing?
And I think that's the valid question here.
Is that the way we deal with this?
Or are there, as Brad Wall and now Scott Mo in Saskatchewan said for years, are there other ways of doing it?
You know, other ways of cleaning the pollution that might come out of certain industries, for example, you know, other ways of dealing with things.
Innovation deals with a lot of these issues.
And in the history of mankind, we've, or people kind, I guess I should say, we have, you know, had issues.
I remember reading books back in the turn of the century.
The big pollution problem was horse manure all over the streets because there was no such thing as cars.
So, you know, times change.
How can we best deal with it?
Is a carbon tax which hurts people, hurts families, hurts businesses, which kills jobs, is that the way we want to be going about it?
And don't forget, a number of countries around the world that have had carbon taxes for a few years, every single one of them has abandoned it because it was so harmful to average people.
No, you're quite right.
And also, we have to consider if this revenue would even go towards fighting climate change.
I say this, Catherine, because as you well know, if you look at the multitude of taxes and fees and revenue tools that are attached to a liter of gasoline, the whole idea, the ostensible policy reason, was to maintain existing roads and build new ones.
But we both know all of that went into general revenues, right?
We know a century ago, income tax, that was just a temporary measure for a couple of years to pay for World War I.
Well, guess what?
That's quite a temporary measure.
So I'm not even certain that the money they'd raise for saving the planet, so to speak, would even go towards that in the first place.
Well, yeah, and history would suggest that you should not ever be certain that that would happen.
Governments have never, and British Columbia was held up as the shining example for a little while there because they had the so-called revenue-neutral carbon tax.
But as we've subsequently learned, no government can resist significant amounts of money coming in to do what they want with it.
And we've seen time and again in Ontario, we know darn well it was just a tax grab, the whole cap and trade thing.
And the government even sort of inadvertently admitted it under the previous Liberal government a few times.
And yes, there is zero reason.
I mean, it reminds me of Charlie Brown and Lucy in the football.
Why should we trust this loosey government to not pull the football out from under us?
They have on every single other occasion.
Look at, I mean, when I think of the Trudeau gang, the only commitment they've actually fulfilled is pot.
And I don't think that's a particularly stellar reputation to have, although I don't have a problem with legalizing pot.
All of the promises that they made on spending, on fiscal, on taxes, on helping the middle class.
Well, you ask any middle-class person in Canada today, they don't feel better off.
They feel worse off.
And so, no, you know, again, barring all the other issues around carbon tax, even if you agreed with it, why for a nanosecond should we trust these guys to not pull the football out from under us again?
World's End Nears00:03:58
Indeed.
And, you know, Catherine, we're going to have to wrap it there.
And besides, according to the United Nations, we've only got till 2030.
I don't know about you.
I have a huge bucket list.
I need more than 12 years to fulfill all my dreams and ambitions and goals.
So I think I'll just put in my resignation tomorrow because the world's going to end soon, anyways, no matter what we do, apparently.
People have been predicting the world was going to end for centuries.
And the UN panels, they have said things, none of which have come to pass.
So again, it's not to say there aren't issues here.
There are.
But what's the sensible way to deal with it?
And what is the non-ideological way to deal with it?
Something that is truly science-based and practical and right for average people.
You got it.
Catherine, thank you so much for joining me today.
Thank you, David.
And that was Catherine Swift with Working Canadians.
And folks, keep it here.
More of the Ezra Levin show to come right after this.
Well, folks, lots of feedback regarding my commentary about the mainstream media pursuing the narrative that a fire at a Toronto hotel housing refugees was caused by a white supremacist.
even though there was absolutely no evidence to support this theory.
As well, I wanted to investigate the property firsthand, so I booked a room.
Yet, after checking in, the manager pulled me aside and told me he knew who I was and what I was up to.
And if I didn't leave the property immediately, he would call the police and have me charged with trespassing, even though I was a registered guest who had just shelled out more than $200 for a stayover.
Incredible.
Ron Joseph writes, Menzoid, you should have kept the Burka costume that you voted with.
The hotel management would have been terrified to refuse you accommodation.
Well, you know what, Ron?
Whether it is voting or buying booze at an LCBO liquor store or whizzing through airport security, being clad in a burqa is your guarantee of receiving excellent customer service and not being asked any impolite questions.
People are so terrified of being labeled Islamophobic when it comes to those wearing the Islamic fabric coffins that they'll turn a blind eye to the rules and the procedures and even the law of the land, even at the expense of public safety.
Maybe I will show up again at the Radisson Clad in a burqa.
Instead of booting me off the property, I'll probably get upgraded to the presidential suite.
And Alberta MAGA writes, so funny how the media know the motivation in this case, but in other cases where the motivation is out in the open, they claim ignorance.
Well, actually, Alberta, they don't so much as claim ignorance as opposed to publishing propaganda to play down any linkage to, say, radical Islam.
It's so sad.
How are we to fight this blight if we can't even have an honest discussion about it due to political correctness?
And finally, David Ball writes, how would the Ontario Human Rights Commission look upon your denial of accommodation given the circumstances?
Oh, David, is there any doubt how the human rights hucksters would rule given that I am A, white, B, male, C, heterosexual?
In other words, in their view, these are three big strikes against me.
Translation, my case wouldn't even receive a hearing.
Well, that wraps up another edition of the Ezra Levant Show.
Thanks so much for tolerating me.
The big boss man will be back here tomorrow.
Have a great evening and never forget, folks, without risk, there can be no glory.