Ezra Levant examines Bud Light’s new rainbow-themed packaging promoting non-traditional pronouns like X-E-X-E-M, sparking debate over ideological shifts in mainstream brands. Guest David Menzies ties this to "critical race theory" and "radical transgenderism," while Jim Carahalios (New Blue Party) warns of establishment backlash despite shared conservative values. Dutch farmer Moepke van der Beek, facing nitrogen bans that could force land losses up to 50%, highlights rural-urban policy divides, echoing fears of Canada’s Trudeau Liberals adopting similar WEF-backed measures. The episode questions whether corporate pandering and government overreach signal a broader cultural realignment. [Automatically generated summary]
I'm David Menzies, and this is the Ezra Levent Show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
So the other day, a can of Bud Light lands in front of me upon the table, and it was like no other can of Bud Light I've seen before, which is to say it was festooned with a rainbow and a command to, quote, celebrate everyone's identity, end quote.
Now, at this particular time, I was identifying as a parched humanoid in the summer sun who simply wanted to quench my thirst with some cold suds.
Full disclosure, despite its inexplicable popularity, Bud Light is not a desirable brand of beer for me.
Budweiser itself truly meets the proverbial bad beer definition of horse piss.
So why would I even want further watered down pseudo-equine urine in my glass?
But as sailors tend to say, any port in a storm, I suppose.
But nevertheless, what was this odd can in front of me?
Was it a container for beer or was it propaganda to indoctrinate drinkers to embrace a facet of critical race theory or critical sexual orientation theory, as the case may be?
In addition to the celebrate command, the can was festooned with pronouns.
There were the classic pronouns, you know, she, him, her, they, etc.
But then there were a bunch of made-up words, which I imagine are whiz-bang new age pronouns that do not reside in any dictionary that I know of.
Indeed, I don't even know how to pronounce these words, which is a pressing concern for someone who currently identifies as a journalist.
And get this, Labat Breweries, which brews Bud Light in Canada, they have apparently axed the call center.
So calling the 1-800 phone number on the can is an exercise in futility, as there are no more he's or hers or they's picking up the telephone these days.
Anyway, in the days following, I remained obsessed with those made-up words in both English and French, no less.
As a side note, I'll have to ask my francophone colleague Alexa Lavois if she can make sense of the words in French.
Say, how do you say phony bologna in French?
So it was that yesterday I traveled to the Labat Brewery in London.
No, not the real London, the Ontario London, that is, to see if anyone could educate me.
Check it out.
Reception?
Yes, hi there.
My name is David Menzies, and I'm with Rebel News.
And I'm just hoping to speak to a spokesperson about these Bud Light cans.
You know, they have words on it.
I'm not even sure how to pronounce them.
X-E-X-E-M, S-I-E-H-I-R.
I was just trying to find out what these words are, how you pronounce them, you know, who's responsible for that.
Is there someone that can speak to me?
Um, I'll send someone out to the gate.
Thank you so much.
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Oh, hi there, sir.
How are you doing?
Good.
Tuberts for Labatte.
Oh, no, I don't.
Oh, okay.
Are you the lady that's going to talk about the Bud Light come?
Do you know what an XE is or an XIR?
No.
It's on the camp.
I have nothing to do with marketing.
So isn't that interesting?
Not even the people at Labat know what these words are or how to pronounce them.
And no, I never received a response to my emailed query.
And no, Labrat Corporate did not get back to me either.
But the question arises, what is the purpose of putting all this gender gibberish on cans of beer?
And Bud Light is no fringe beer made by some cottage brewery in the gay village.
Bud Light is about as mainstream as it gets.
Do you think the average consumer of Bud Light gives a rodent's rectum about bogus gender descriptors?
What is Labatte even thinking?
Jordan Peterson's Ban00:03:02
Indeed, is there even 10 people in all of Canada who refer to themselves as an XE or XEM or an SIE or an HIR or a ZE or a ZIR?
I think ground zero for pronoun Apalooza goes back to 2016 when the great Jordan Peterson took a stand against compelled speech.
He refused to use make-up words to describe students who attended his former place of employment, that being the University of Toronto.
And for taking a sane and righteous stand, the various spirit unicorns and their asinine allies on campus had a conniption, of course, demanding Professor Peterson be punished.
But thankfully, Peterson did not bend the knee.
And in an interview with the BBC, he stated the following, quote, I've studied authoritarianism for a very long time, for 40 years, and they've started by people's attempts to control the ideological and linguistic territory.
There's no way I'm going to use words made up by people who are doing that, not a chance, end quote.
Bravo, but alas, earlier this month, Professor Peterson was kicked off Twitter for apparently hurting the feelings of Ellen Page, who is now going by the name Elliot Page.
Geez, talk about a real page turner, eh?
Anyway, Peterson called the person who performed surgery on her a, quote, criminal physician, end quote.
And that was good enough for the censorious thugs at Twitter to cast aside Professor Peterson.
Hey, what happened to that diversity we're all supposed to be embracing?
Or is a diversity of opinions offside, even when it comes to a company such as Twitter that is based in the land of the First Amendment?
Now, granted, Peterson can return to Twitter.
All he has to do is apologize and delete the controversial tweet.
Instead, he released a video statement claiming he'd, quote, rather die, end quote, than do that.
Oh, how we need more strong men such as Jordan Peterson.
Can I call him a man, by the way?
Indeed, Peterson is akin to the little boy in the fable, The Emperor's New Clothes.
You may recall that the boy was the sole individual in the village who called out the duped king for not wearing any clothes at all.
When that fable was penned way back in 1837, the boy came across as the voice of reason in 2022.
Alas, being the voice of reason gets you banned and deplatformed and even fired lest you hurt the feelings of someone who might be, you know, mentally ill and in urgent need of psychiatric treatment.
Voice of Reason Banished00:07:20
And I do not exaggerate when I reference mental illness.
I hearken back to the 1973 nonfiction best-selling book, Sybil.
Now, Sybil was one of the names adopted by Shirley Ardell Mason.
She actually identified as 16 different people.
For example, one person she identified as was Peggy Lou Baldwin, who was described as assertive, enthusiastic, and often angry.
Sometimes she identified as Mike Dorset, who was a builder and a carpenter, and so on and so forth.
But here's the deal, folks.
In yesterday, Sybil was being treated for a psychiatric condition, namely disassociative identity disorder.
But hey, in retrospect, perhaps Sybil wasn't mentally ill at all, but rather she, he was way ahead of the curve.
Could it be that Sybil was a they and they should not have been occupying the couch of a psychiatrist, but rather they should have been championed on a beer can?
Welcome to the tyranny of the minority.
And by the way, folks, even if you are not part of the alphabet soup community, but you identify as a close ally, you better damn well make sure you know you're knitting or else you might just end up unemployed despite your good intentions.
Case in point, back in 2017, former Liberal Party of Canada President Stephen Ledrieux was on Fox News for a Q ⁇ A with the always superb Tucker Carlson.
The interview was primarily about the new gender identifier code, or whatever it's called, being embraced by the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario.
You see, LGBT is just way too obsolete these days.
So it is the Federation now refers to this group with a 15-letter identifier, namely LGGBDTIQQAAPP.
Now, this loving spoonful of Alpha Getty stands for lesbian, gay, genderqueer, bisexual, demisexual, transgender, transsexual, two-spirit, intersex, queer, questioning, asexual, allies, pansexual, and polyamorous.
As an aside, folks, did you notice that one letter is conspicuously absent, namely H for heterosexual?
You know, that silly sexual orientation that comprises about 98% of the people on this planet.
But I digress.
Now, keep in mind that Ledrieu was on the air trying to convince Tucker that this new descriptor was a good thing and that freedom of speech is very much alive in Canada today.
No, seriously.
But then Ledrieu answered a question from Tucker that resulted in him being terminated by his employer, Bell Media.
Check it out.
I'll get specific with you.
What's and this is meaningful because teachers are being taught this, kids will be taught it.
And I think I have a right to non-judgmentally ask what they're talking about.
So, for example, what's Two Spirit?
Well, Two Spirit sounds like there's someone they don't know whether they're, you know, fish or foul.
They don't know whether they're frick or frack.
So they're clearly confused.
And, you know, again, if you're confused, what better place to go than to be at school?
Uh-oh, Spaghettio, did you catch that?
LaDrew described two-spirited people as fish or foul, frick or frack, and clearly confused.
Well, when the various non-binary gender-fluid asexual spirit unicorns heard about this, they went completely batshite crazy over this remark.
After all, that almost sounded like they were being mocked.
And we can't have that now, can we?
Because mocking or even saying something that seems to be mocking or calling a group of people confused, well, that's kind of like hate speech and that must be banned.
And so it was in the days that followed.
LaDrew's 20-year career at Bell Media came to an abrupt end.
Hey, LaDrew, how you digging liberalism these days?
In a way, this would all be so laughable if there wasn't a sinister undertone to it all.
For example, radical transgenderism goes hand in hand with Marxism.
It's all about tearing down society to rebuild it through a Marxist lens.
If you think I exaggerate, then consider this.
We now have a U.S. Supreme Court judge who is unable to define what a woman is.
Here in Canada, our chief medical health necromancer, Teresa Tam, she refers to pregnant women as pregnant persons.
The term breastfeeding is increasingly under the ban.
The proper and oh-so-inclusive term is chest feeding.
Yes, yet another made-up word for dudes, I guess, who think they can lactate?
Gee, whatever happened to follow the science?
That's the chestnut that has been shoved down our throats for the past two and a half years vis-a-vis virology.
Hmm, maybe biology is now a fluid science, which would explain why biological males are competing in sports with biological females and why penis-equipped males are choosing to be incarcerated in female penitentiaries.
And gee, what could possibly go wrong with that?
And riddle me this.
Why is it that the feminist movement is so on board with all of this claptrap?
Because what we are seeing is nothing short of a war on women, as in real woman.
Indeed, at the end of the day, this is pure misogyny, as well as an attack on the nuclear family.
And the left is perfectly fine with this.
And the likes of Labat seem to be perfectly fine with this too.
Hey, either Labat has some uber-woke soy boy in charge of the marketing department these days, or they believe that if they bend the knee to the loud radical fringe who comprise the LGGBD TTTIQQAPP and sometimes Y community, then they will be left alone and won't be targeted for a boycott or something.
Why The Rules Matter00:15:17
Either way, those ludicrous celebrate everyone's identity cans are shameful and embarrassing.
Thank God there are so many other beers on the market.
It's bad enough that Bud Light is plonk to begin with.
The last thing I need when I'm quenching my thirst is a lecture that is equal part surreal and sickening.
Well, folks, when it comes to Patrick Brown's leadership ambitions to be the new leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, the phrase uttered in first blood by Colonel Troutman comes to mind.
It's over, Johnny.
It's over.
Well, yeah, there's still some legal wrangling to take place, but for the most part, it's curtains for Patrick Brown.
Par for the course, Mr. Brown broke the rules.
He got caught breaking the rules.
And then he played the victim card saying there was a grand conspiracy and that everyone was out to get him.
Unbelievable and somewhat pathetic, if you ask me.
But joining me now is my guest.
He is the leader of the new Blue Party of Ontario.
He is someone that has had personal dealings with Patrick Brown, and we thought it would be good to get his analysis of this latest Patrick Brown fiasco.
So I'm joined now by Jim Carihalios of the new Blue Party of Ontario.
How you doing there, Jim?
I'm good, Dave.
How are you doing?
I'm doing fantastic.
Busy as always, my friend, which is the way we like it here at Rebel News.
But Jim, I'm sure you've been watching ringside as the events of the Conservative Party of Canada leadership saga unfolds.
And when it came to light that Mr. Brown was allegedly breaking the rules and was tossed out of the party, what were your first thoughts, my friend?
Well, it was shocking that they let him run to begin with.
If you remember back in 2020, Dave, I was in that Conservative Party leadership race, and they disqualified me from that race because the leadership committee that was running the election didn't like the fact that I was criticizing the chair of another leadership campaign, Aaron O'Toole, who was the same individual that was running the Patrick Brown-led PC party of Ontario.
And back in 2017, Patrick Brown and his team used the PC party to sue me to try to hurt my family and shut down the Axe the Carbon Tax campaign and a campaign against voter fraud that was going on.
So fast forward, the Conservative Party of Canada finally figured it out in the middle of a leadership race that maybe some of the shenanigans in Patrick Brown's record aren't what they want in a leadership race.
So they've come around to taking my position on following the rules and following election laws.
I'm not quite sure why it took them so long, Dave, to get to the position they took.
And I'm not really sure that the reasons they gave for disqualifying Patrick Brown now are greater than all of the history and the track record that he has as a leader of the Ontario PC party prior to this leadership race.
You know, you raised some good points there, Jim.
And first of all, if we go back to the years when Patrick Brown was indeed the leader of the Ontario PC party, you mentioned Axe the Carbon Tax.
And what I always found fascinating is why this individual passes himself off as a conservative.
I remember him telling when he was running for leadership of the PC Party of Ontario, telling social conservatives, oh, I'm going to axe the McGuinty Wynn sex education curriculum.
And once he became leader, he said, ah, no, nothing, no problems here.
We threw the social conservatives under the bus.
And then one of his first policy statements was introducing a carbon tax for Ontario, a manufacturing province still.
And so he threw the fiscal conservatives under the bus.
There was no more conservatives thrown under the bus.
So the party threw him under the bus.
Why is this person who seems to be a progressive, a liberal to me, Jim, why does he pass himself off as a conservative in the first place?
Well, the betrayal of the base on policy by Patrick Brown has been well documented, not by the establishment media, but obviously, Dave, you were covering it and the way he tried to use the levers of power in the Ontario PC party to crush my family and to end the Axe the Carbon Tax campaign and the campaign against internal party voter fraud.
I guess he finds a home, though, in the Conservative Party of Canada, because there are enough amongst the Conservative Party of Canada establishment that are fine with his positions on policy and his track record.
They took me to task in the 2020 Conservative leadership race for me flagging the history of Patrick Brown and his team when they were running the Ontario PC Party.
They didn't like that I was talking about that stuff in 2020.
Fast forward now, two years later, and it's become the Conservative Party of Canada's position.
And if you look, though, the Ontario PC Party, they've consistently adopted the Patrick Brown line with even as Doug Ford's leader, betraying conservative voters is par for the course in the Ontario PC Party.
So the question is not just why does Patrick Brown believe he should be in the Conservative Party of Canada?
Why do many of those establishment figures and backroom dealers who are left-wing advocates on social, fiscal, or democratic policy, why do they continually stay involved in the Conservative Party of Canada and the Ontario PC Party and with authority and vengeance, push others out of their parties who are right of center or conservative-minded and block you, Dave, from coming to events?
Well, Jim, that's an excellent question.
And you stole my thunder.
I was going to say I would ask Premier Ford himself, but every time I show up to an event these days, they call the police on me.
I used to be welcomed with open arms.
Doug, I don't know what happened to him.
But you know, the other thing, Jim, with you being a political party insider, you know how things work.
You know who's who in the zoo, as they say.
Patrick Brown has hired arguably the best criminal lawyer in Canada, Marie Heinen, to go after the Conservative Party of Canada.
He's saying he's being hard done by, et cetera.
But as I understand it, Jim, and maybe you can take us through this, when these kind of complaints have come before judges in the past, they've basically ruled that a political party is like a private company or a private club, that they can make their own rules.
They don't have to follow democratic rules, so to speak, as a party, not as a government, of course.
So I guess ultimately the question is, even with top-notch legal talent like Ms. Heinen, does Patrick Brown have a snowball's chance in hell in getting a reversal of the decision from the CPC?
So let's unpack this, Dave, because it's, you know, I guess we could say it's inside baseball.
Legal stuff is not very exciting, but it's an important question.
And so there's, I want to get to a couple of things.
Number one, if you look at the amount of establishment media coverage that Patrick Brown is getting for being disqualified, it's amazing because I was removed from the Conservative Party leadership race halfway during the 2020 race, and I had to go to court.
I went court and I won the lawsuit and was reinstated.
And they disqualified me a second time.
And they just basically ran out the clock, the Conservative Party, to make sure that by the time the first court case was over, I'd have to put more legal money into a second case and the clock would run out because the race was still going on.
And you look, you know, Thomas Melcair, the former leader of the NDP, wrote an article for CTV News the other day, and he claimed that the courts have said that political parties are under judicial review.
And that was completely false because he was citing a case from 2017 that was later overturned by the courts.
In fact, you can sue a political party.
And there is a case that there's a precedent for that.
And it's Corojalios versus the Conservative Party of Canada.
I sued them over that 2020 race and I won.
And it was the first time in Canadian history that a private citizen had successfully sued a political party.
And a couple of years before that, the Ontario PC Party sued me to try to bankrupt me with Patrick Brown as leader.
And I won that lawsuit as well.
So no other private citizen has ever been sued or sued a political party.
And no one has ever beaten a political party in court.
There was one other individual after in 2021 that took the Conservative Party of Canada court for an internal party race.
And I guess I kind of broke the ice.
But if you look at the media, they ignore the 2020 disqualification.
They ignore that my case even existed.
And why are they doing that?
Because, you know, the establishment media will talk about Patrick Brown because he's the kind of candidate they like, preaching left-of-center policies, but they don't want to talk about the fact that me with the Conservative campaign for leader in 2020, talking about acts, the carbon tax, talking about integrity in the party, got removed and won in court.
So I guess there's a lot to unpack there.
Number one, can he sue and win?
Yes, because I laid the precedent in Canadian history and I put the proper legal theory with my team of lawyers and we worked on it and you can sue.
It's not a judicial review.
It is a private entity, a political party, but they enter into contracts.
And when you pay a fee to enter a leadership race and there's a contract for that, you can sue and you can win.
Now, the bigger question, though, is if you sue and you win and you get back in, they're kind of the odds are stacked against you because they can keep making decisions and you can't, at some point, you can't keep going to court to fight that off.
And then the bigger question for Patrick Brown is: does he have the stomach, does he have the courage to sue them and go through with it?
And, you know, they've been taking a few days here.
I don't know if he does.
It looks like he's hedging his bets and looking at maybe running for mayor of Brampton.
I did it.
I won.
They kicked me out again a second time.
And, you know, they've got the levers of power at their disposal and they can keep disqualifying people over and over.
But there is a precedent to win in court.
It just hasn't been done very often, if at all, Dave.
You know, that's very interesting, Jim.
And I do stand corrected given your success.
But as you said, they threw you out again and they basically ragged the puck until the clock ran down.
So I guess the old adage: you can win the battle, lose the war, I suppose.
But in terms of the war with Patrick Brown, I think you're right.
I think probably he's subscribing to a bird in the hand being worth two in the bush.
He's got to make a decision by August 19th whether he's going to run for mayor again in Brampton.
And one of the things that isn't getting a lot of attention, Jim, is the way in which this individual has been running the city of Brampton, a city he's had absolutely no affiliation with until 2018, where he there was, you know, he thought he had a chance of being the mayor and he did win it.
And that is, Jim, there's in the last four council meetings have been canceled because Brown and his counselors who are friendly to him do not show up to city council.
So only five councillors do.
That's one short of a quorum.
And basically, as I understand it, the reason why he doesn't want to have the council operate is that one of the orders of business is to launch forensic investigations against him and how money is being spent at the city, how hiring is being done.
I mean, Jim, I find this incredible.
If he was prime minister, it's kind of like proroguing parliament because you don't want to take prickly questions and question period.
What do you make of the way Patrick Brown has won, has run the city of Brampton?
And does that not speak volumes of what kind of a leader we would have in this country if, God forbid, this individual ever did become prime minister?
And you just summed up his record as mayor of Brampton, and there was plenty of items that you could have talked about in his time as leader of the PC party in 2016 and 2017 running up to that election in 2018.
Why can't anybody beat Patrick Brown except for me?
That's one question, Dave.
Why can't the establishment of the PC party or the Conservative Party beat him fair and square in a race?
Why couldn't they beat him for mayor in 2018?
You had Nick Kuvalis and Richard Chiano and Michael Diamond, top advisors for Doug Ford.
In 2018, their contribution to running someone against Patrick Brown for mayor of Brampton was to host a fancy fundraising dinner at the Albany Club for a liberal who was running against Patrick Brown for mayor.
And that didn't work out.
So fundraisers at swanky events at the Albany Club are not grassroots organizing.
And the PC establishment has a long history of losing outside of running a campaign in 2018 on axing the carbon tax or hiding behind COVID.
So there is so much to talk about when you're in a campaign against Patrick Brown, whether it's his record leading the PC party nominations that went sideways, that he didn't reverse into a Democratic fashion, betraying voters, and now even more stuff as the mayor of Brampton.
So the question is, why can't they just beat him in a Democratic race?
Why couldn't even Pierre's team or Roman's team or Leslie's team in the leadership talk about and debate this stuff, Patrick Brown's record, and make sure that it was an easy win?
And why couldn't they stop him in 2018 when he was running for mayor?
And I see Nick Kuvalis, Ford's pollster, he's tweeting very aggressively.
He loves the Twitter.
He really talks tough, hiding behind the Twitter about how he's going to stop Patrick Brown running for mayor.
I just don't think swanky fundraising dinners is the way to beat Patrick Brown.
Even so, Jim, I just think the big question is with these latest scandals.
And by the way, this doesn't include our expose that we ran last month when we caught Patrick Brown running a secret headquarters using at least six city of Brampton senior staff on work time working his campaign completely against the rules.
Patrick Brown's Political Resurrection?00:07:24
But I'm just wondering, given that Patrick Brown and scandal seem to go together about as well as peanut butter and jam, has Patrick Brown's brand, is it now gone once and for all?
Or is he kind of like the political version of that horror character from the Friday the 13th movies, you know, Jason Voorhees, you think that the bad guy's dead and then he pops up again and he keeps on going?
I mean, if he does run for mayor of the city of Brampton, are there enough people out there to buy what this guy is selling?
Yes, because what the establishment just did to Patrick Brown is inject more fuel into his grassroots campaign.
They made the mistake in 2018.
I was running a campaign against the carbon tax and against voter fraud in the party.
The establishment behind the PC party planted stories.
digging into Patrick Brown's relationships from years ago.
Why not just talk about and clean up the PC party?
They chose they didn't want to do that because they agreed with his position on the carbon tax.
Fast forward to 2022.
They let him run in the leadership.
They let it run its course and they boot him on one allegation.
And now you've created this entire spectacle that the establishment media is talking about now for days.
This idea that he might sue the idea that he was, you know, and people are arguing about it.
Was it legit that he was disqualified under this or not?
So what does that do?
You're creating a spectacle around this guy.
You're increasing his name recognition rather than challenging him on the issues, which is what they should have been doing, talking about his track record and talking about his betrayal of conservative voters, but they don't want to do that.
They want to talk about one allegation in the leadership and they want to talk about his relationship history back in 2018.
And I hate to say it, Dave, because I know I saw your face.
You didn't want me to give you this answer, but they're adding fuel to the fire and he can parlay that into a grassroots campaign like he did in 2018 and keep that seat.
And, you know, as much as Nick Kuvalis might not want to hear it, fancy polls and fundraising dinners at the Albany Club is not enough to beat a guy in a grassroots campaign.
And he does work really hard, Patrick Brown.
He is a disaster when it comes to running parties.
He doesn't know how to tell people that run and do shady deals to back away.
And sometimes he gets mixed up in it himself.
Whether he's actually ordering that or not, we won't know because we never get to the bottom of this stuff with the establishment.
But, you know, he's almost obsessive in terms of he's constantly campaigning from one campaign to the other, municipal, federal, back, and provincial for a brief time.
And it's going to take a lot of work to stop him running for mayor of Brampton.
And it's going to take a debate on the issues.
And someone principled that says this betrayal of conservative voters, this drive to the left is not acceptable.
Jim, we're almost out of time.
We've got about a minute left.
I just want to ask you in terms of last month's election in Ontario.
I mean, I was personally saddened that your wife, Belinda Karahalios, did not retain her seat.
I thought even if we just have one independent in Queen's Park, at least she could have been the conscience of the legislature, if you will.
Certainly, I think a couple of things went wrong.
One was the NDP and the Liberals, they ran brutal campaigns and they had lackluster leaders.
Secondly, tons of people stayed at home.
They didn't bother coming out.
It was one of the lowest, if not the lowest turnout in Ontario history.
And that's probably why the Doug Ford PCs went up seven seats to an even bigger majority.
Very quickly, in less than a minute, Jim, what is your assessment of the 2022 election that occurred in Ontario last month?
Well, you're right.
They lost 400,000 votes, the PCs, from the last election to this one.
And that's despite the fact they gained hundreds of thousands of voters from the left party.
So you can imagine the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Conservative voters who didn't vote.
And we had a year and a half to two years to get the new blue party up and running.
We're very proud of the fact that we registered 124 candidates, finished the race with one of our candidates on a ballot in every single riding.
And we are now the fifth largest party in Ontario politics.
We had a better showing in our first election in Ontario than the PPC did as a federal party in their first election.
And no parties obtained the vote share or the number of votes in their first election campaign in Ontario since the 1930s, outside of the PCs, Liberals, and NDP.
Of course, we would have liked to have retained our seat in Cambridge.
And Belinda worked so hard for the constituents in a year and a half.
But when the establishment media ignores our campaign, ignores the way Belinda and I and our candidates have been fighting back, that puts us at a disadvantage.
A year and a half is also not enough time to make the new blue party of Ontario a household name.
And, you know, Dave, you've seen a lot of me, and maybe sometimes you think it's too much of Jim, but Belinda and I have only been in politics for four or five years.
And some of these other political figures that we talk about have been in it for decades.
And they have built in a name brand.
Doug is still borrowing on the name brand of his brother Rob, right?
And even a little bit from their dad.
And so this stuff takes time.
And many, many voters in Ontario, we had record low turnout, did not show up to vote.
And our job is to let them know that the new blue party exists and that it's and then that it's a team of people across Ontario that are qualified to be elected to Ontario Provincial Parliament and we'll be back in four years and we'll keep building on the ground in every single riding.
Because one thing that the election showed us for sure is that hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people in Ontario are tired of the establishment parties.
They want another option and it's going to take us time to earn their trust and let them know that the new blue party exists.
And we're going to have to fight the challenges of hostile characters on the right of center spectrum that appear to be saying all the right rhetoric but are trying to hurt the new blue party.
And we're going to have to unite with those that are sincere and keep challenging those that are out to sabotage us.
So there's a lot at play here, but it takes time, Dave, and it takes a lot of work and we're continuing with it.
Well, Jim, I want to thank you for your time and certainly 2026 in political terms, the next election.
That's an eternity.
I'm sure we'll be speaking many times before then.
And I wish you the best of luck.
Thank you so much again for your time, Jim.
Thanks a lot, Dave.
And that was Jim Carahalios, the leader of the New Blue Party of Ontario.
Keep it here, folks.
more of the Ezra Levent show to come right after this.
Well, checking some of the feedback from yesterday's Ezra Levent show, we have Claude who writes, YouTube has shut down practically everything on this completely.
YouTube Throttles Free Speech00:02:46
I think he means what's going on in the Netherlands right now with the farmer revolt, folks.
In fact, it's exceedingly difficult to find anything new on this situation online.
The common people around the globe are in serious trouble.
Anyone else notice that suddenly there are new COVID emergencies ever since these uprisings started?
You know, a couple of points here.
First of all, shame on YouTube for throttling information on this very important issue.
As I've said before, going back some 15 years ago when the likes of Facebook and YouTube and Twitter first started, it was come on, come all.
It was going to be a big free speech reservoir where everything goes.
And then once these Silicon Valley tech giants achieved a critical mass, they got picky and choosy, which is another way of saying those that do not have a leftist bent, well, you are put in the penalty box sometimes forever.
And also with the war that the Dutch government is engaging on nitrogen, the new N-word, if you will.
Right now it's the Netherlands, folks, but how soon will it be before it comes to a nation near you?
You know in Canada, I am positive the Justin Trudeau Liberals are looking at a similar nitrogen ban here in our great dominion.
They don't like to be out virtue signaled by any government in the world.
And as always, we pay the price.
And Jimmy Zhao writes, fair reporting, Sheila, giving bureaucrats praise when they deserve praise and criticism when they deserve criticism.
And of course, that was bureaucrats saying, yes, indeed, males have a superior advantage to females when it comes to sports, which is why it has been trusted for thus, folks, that with the exception of equestrian and auto racing, males and females compete in different divisions.
I just wonder if the bureaucrats responsible for that report are going to be brought up on hate crime charges for not going along with the radical transgenderism ideology that is so apparent these days.
Well, that wraps up tonight's edition of the Ezra Levant show.
Ezra will indeed be back on Friday.
In the meantime, as the big boss man likes to say, keep fighting for freedom.
Farmers' Protest: Everybody's Problem00:05:57
For the international viewers who do not know what is going on here in the Netherlands, we've been embedded with the tractor convoys and the farmers where they are protesting against the Dutch government for these insane environmental policies that are going to completely wreck the agricultural sector of the Netherlands.
And a reminder to the viewers that the Netherlands is actually a high exporter in food and supply chains.
Now, these policies will include trying to reduce nitrogen emissions where the government want to purchase or forcefully take up to roughly 50% in total of farmland within the Netherlands.
Naturally, the farmers have taken it upon themselves to protest against these policies.
Now, these policies also include the Agenda 2030 playbook from none other than the World Economic Forum over in Davos with the bond villain himself, Klaus Schwab, which Mark Root, the Prime Minister of this country is heavily involved with.
This is Louis Brackpool for Rebel News, and today I'll be visiting a farm in Burgum.
A farmer from the local area came to have a chat with me about his concerns with the government overreach from Mark Root and the World Economic Forum.
But even if you build houses in a city, that's what they're doing.
That's true.
If you're in a few islands, you're trying to build houses more than in a city.
A Moepke van der Beek.
I have a dairy farm with 60 cows and of course the younger cattle.
So in an amount of 100, that would be Basically, we're just producing milk and meat, mostly from grass-fed, of course.
So the cattle will go outside mostly of the year.
And then, of course, winter day they'll stay inside.
And it's, well, I'm the third generation now, which is doing that.
And it's one of the most fantastic jobs to do, being there, being in nature, working with your soil and everything, the whole circle.
It has to be rounded.
That's, that's just one of the fantastic things to be part of.
Let's talk about the the current situation in the Netherlands, of course, as we've been seeing and it's now international that a lot of the farmers are very, very unhappy with this overreach from the Dutch government, with new laws that are coming in to do with nitrogen, to do with taking away percentages of of the land, the farmlands.
Can you give your take on what you think is going on?
And yeah let's, let's start with that.
Yeah so, so let's start with, I think, what's going on?
I think I don't have any idea, and that's the whole point.
We need a government to say like okay guys, this is the horizon we want to go over here, and that's, that's the lack of government we we have at this point and they're, they're just igniting a bomb here and there.
And you know, if we're going to do something, let's do something, but let's do it all together.
And now nobody knows what's going on.
So, just just for an example, we're, we're talking about a reduction.
How high will that reduction be?
And what are we reducing?
On point of what.
So what's your?
What is point zero?
And uh like yeah, if we're reducing on 10 years ago well, that that would be a lot more yeah, a lot more difficult.
Yeah, because there's um, there's talk that it could be.
Uh, farmers will have to give up 30 percent, 20 percent, 10 percent where, and then it fluctuates for different farms and then you'll get, on average, around a 50 percent.
So, let's say, everybody goes down a 50 percent.
Yeah, and that's uh.
There was one politician who said there will be um, a new model, a new finance model, but we don't have that yet, right?
So first you'll cut everything in half and then just see who will, who will manage.
Yeah, that's so.
So it's a bit of uh, hopeless and I think a lot of uh colleagues are uh desperate because we want to have answers.
Yeah, and that's because I I don't mean we we really really love doing this job.
It's it's not an economical thing, it's it's being in the field with your animals, with your soil, with your ever and man.
It's, it's fantastic and and yeah, we love doing that.
Yeah um, how does?
I know it's a silly question, but how does it make you feel that politicians in their offices in the city uh, are telling the rurals basically, you're to give this up to combat nitrogen emissions and and things like that.
How does that make you feel?
Well, the the sad thing about it it's, well, let's say, we have to do something, let's go with that.
Um, the sad thing is, why the farmers, and why not industry, why not everybody?
So that's, yeah we're we're, we're like the only only guys in the scene who uh, who are getting kicked yeah, and that's that's the feeling of, I think, a lot of uh yeah, friends of mine also, and and it's it makes everybody look um, one gets sad, the other gets um disappointed everybody, the other one gets angry.