Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 14, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

01:50:57

Ontario's Bill 67 - WHAT IS GOING ON? With Jim and Belinda Karahalios - Viva Frei LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Look at that.
	He looks a lot whiter than normal.
	Now, he's still wet and smells like a disgusting wet carpet.
	But I gave him a bath because it was that time of the month, time of the year.
	Good evening, everybody.
	This is a short notice stream because when I see a lot of people in the chat asking the same question, Viva!
	What's up with Bill 67?
	What's up with Bill 67?
	What's up with Cain Velasquez?
	And I noticed a lot of those questions yesterday.
	And I had to, you know, start exploring.
	I knew what I thought I knew of this Bill 67 coming out of Ontario, which is an act to amend the Education Act.
	I knew what I thought of it, because I've only heard, as we say in French, en diagonale.
	I've heard, loosely speaking, very summarily, top line, Bill 67 is effectively critical race theory infiltrating Canadian politics at the provincial level, and this is going to spread across Canada.
	I watched Jordan Peterson's video on his channel, which was him reading a piece that he had written, explaining why he thought...
	This Bill 67 at the Ontario level is as bad as Bill, what was it, C11?
	What was the bill that he had rung the bell, waved the flag, raised the flag, sorry.
	Just mixed metaphors there.
	He had raised the flag that this was going to potentially lead to C16.
	It was Bill C16, which was adding as aggravating factors to hate crimes.
	Gender identification, among other things.
	That was the key amendment.
	It added to aggravating factors for hate crimes gender identity.
	Everyone in the chat, man.
	It's the aggregate knowledge of the internet.
	I love it.
	And he...
	Bill.
	What are you doing there, man?
	Do you want to get up there?
	There you go.
	Jordan Peterson was saying at the time, this is going to lead to compelled speech.
	I did a video on it back in the day.
	I'll explain the zip tie in a second.
	I did a video on it back in the day.
	I was naive, wet behind the ears.
	I had not yet been red-pilled, let alone arguably black-pilled.
	And I said, look, this is not going to lead to compelled speech.
	At the time, there were two incidents in particular, British Columbia.
	I forget what the other one was.
	But there was a coming out of British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.
	Police were sanctioned for allegedly misgendering an individual that they were arresting.
	I read the case.
	There was a little more to it than that.
	And I said, look, bad law doesn't necessarily become jurisprudence, but there is the old expression that bad cases make bad law, which makes for bad jurisprudence.
	So Jordan Peterson was, you know, sounding the bells, sounding the alarm on Bill C-16, potentially leading to compelled speech.
	And look, we're not there yet, but we're uncomfortably close.
	Because since that British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal case with the police officers, there was another one also coming out of British Columbia.
	Not Buena Notte.
	It was in Italian.
	Buena Ostaria.
	Buena Ostaria.
	This Italian restaurant in British Columbia that got slapped with $30,000, $40,000 in fines for alleged gender-based harassment of a transgender employee that they were misgendering.
	All right, so Jordan Peterson put out a piece saying this is next level.
	This Ontario Bill C-67 is next level compared to Bill C-16, which was a federal bill.
	Harry Dairyman says, I even got the notification this time.
	Fro is growing on me as well.
	Enjoy the fro.
	I mean, we're getting into the hot season where it might be time to cut the hair, but I'm not going to.
	Who cares what's up with 67?
	We only care what's up with Viva.
	Well, I'll tell you what's up with Viva.
	67 is up with Viva tonight.
	I know Jim Carajalios and Belinda Carajalios.
	We did a podcast together.
	We've been on...
	I forget whose channel we were on together.
	The leaders of the Ontario New Blue Party.
	And I saw a tweet from Belinda Carajalios today saying, I'm the only Ontario...
	What do they call them?
	MPP, the Member of Provincial Parliament, to vote against this bill on the second reading.
	And I figured, okay, I'm going to do this right away.
	I'm going to look into this bill.
	I'm going to catch up on what I might have been behind the curve on.
	And then I called Jim and I said, how soon can we get on a live stream together where you can walk us through what's going on?
	Both in terms of the progression of the bill, the bill itself, and the politics behind how this bill is getting whisked.
	It's getting whisked.
	Through Parliament in the dead of night.
	And nobody knows what on earth is going on with this bill.
	And here's the cool thing.
	The lack of attention that it's getting.
	The lack of attention that it's getting.
	Now everyone's saying, who cares?
	Hold on, let me just see this here.
	Who cares?
	Let's talk about bill.
	I don't know what that is.
	But everyone says, who cares about this?
	Let's look at this.
	Because everyone's got their own concerns.
	They've got their own passions.
	I've looked into Cain Velasquez's situation.
	I got a copy of the...
	Oh, it's not an indictment.
	The arrest charges.
	I forget what the word is.
	I'm going to talk about Cain Velasquez probably tomorrow.
	Not tonight, because I want this to be...
	We're going to stick to one subject matter for the evening, which is going to be this Bill 67. Now, this is the interesting thing, by the way.
	I keep seeing my shorty social good award in the back, and I keep thinking it's someone's avatar.
	This is the amazing thing.
	This is how I do my research when I don't know something.
	I go find the bill.
	Before I read the bill, I go check what articles are summarizing the bill so that I can then go see how it's being depicted in the media and then go read the bill.
	This is the truly amazing thing about this bill.
	Let me share screen.
	When I go to the Google search results, this is amazing.
	Okay, here.
	Google search.
	So check this out.
	Let me just make sure that we can all see this.
	Neuroses.
	Not even once.
	Okay, fine.
	That's close enough.
	I'm going to shrink this up.
	Move this over here.
	Bring this up.
	When I go to Google search, now I'm in incognito, but I put in Ontario Bill C-67 and I go to...
	First of all, let's just go to all.
	And this is amazing.
	So I go to all.
	I get the...
	I think that's...
	Ontario Legislative Assembly.org.
	And there's the summary.
	We're going to get to that in a second.
	Then I see here TFI Global News.
	I never heard of that entity.
	I go down.
	I got fair for all talking about the bill.
	Don't know what that is either.
	Western Standard Online.
	I know what it is as an outlet, but it's not legacy.
	It's not mainstream Canadian media.
	So I figured, okay, maybe...
	I'm doing something wrong here.
	Let's go to news.
	Look at who is talking about this Bill 67 and look at who's not talking about Bill 67. Just by way of the search results.
	The Western Standard, which I know of.
	The Western Standard.
	Waterloo Region Record.
	Opinion.
	Cambridge MPP must explain her opposition to Bill 67. And that is Belinda Karajalios.
	Let me just do one thing here so I don't have to hear that beeping throughout the evening.
	Close that.
	Okay, that's Belinda Carialis.
	She's got to explain her opposition to the bill.
	I love doing this in real time.
	Re, racial equity bill receives nearly unanimous support in Queen's Park vote.
	Earlier this month, the members of the provincial legislature voted to approve...
	Second reading of Bill C-67, quote, racial equity in the Education System Act.
	There was one vote against the bill.
	It came from local Cambridge MPP Belinda Karajalios.
	She and her husband Jim are going to be joining us tonight.
	Bill 67 is a long overdue response to the everyday experience of all too many students who are looking to succeed in learning environments infused with all manner of discriminatory attitudes and acts, both subtle and overt.
	The legislation would at last bring anti-racism accountability to Ontario's school system.
	In so doing, it promises to ensure that students from racialized communities enjoy the same opportunities Ms. Karajalios has said little to explain her reasons for opposing equity legislation supported by all other Ontario political parties.
	Close that up now.
	There was once upon a time where I would think of unanimity as being a good thing.
	Like, it's so obvious.
	Everyone agrees.
	Very rarely in politics is unanimity a sign of anything good.
	Because typically, when they parole...
	Oh, no, what was it?
	It was that bill.
	It was...
	Oh, goodness.
	It had to do with...
	Brexit, and I forget what the decision they were talking about, but unanimous from the UK court.
	All 17 judges agreed.
	That's not normal.
	There should not be unanimity in any case that is so thorny it has to make its way up to a Supreme Court.
	In politics, the second there's unanimity, I think it was Mark Twain who said, the second you're on the side of the majority, it's time to take a step back and reconsider.
	Now, I see Jim and Belinda are there, and I'm not going to keep them any longer than I possibly have to because it was short notice that they agreed to do this, but this is important stuff.
	I want to go through the bill, but I guess we're going to do that with Jim and Belinda.
	Jim and Belinda, I see you in the backstage.
	I'm going to get ready to bring you in in three, two, one.
	You know what?
	I'm going to have to do it this way so we can see you both in this.
	How are you both doing tonight?
	Very well, thanks.
	How are you?
	This is going to get very interesting very quickly.
	I promised, actually, I would tell everybody what the deal was with the zip ties.
	My camera is propped up on a zip tie container, and it's fortuitous because my little sippy cup has a crack in it.
	And so I used the zip ties to hold the cup together for the evening.
	Viva, if this fro gets too hot, you could always try a reverse.
	We'll see about that.
	Jim and Belinda, thank you very much for joining me.
	Okay, so where do we start with this?
	This is your first time on my channel, correct?
	It is, yeah.
	I did a podcast with you and we were all on someone else's channel and I can't remember who or when.
	Alison Morrow.
	Okay, absolutely.
	We talked about some amazing Canadian politics.
	Welcome to the channel.
	I have a feeling, though short notice and we don't have all that many people in attendance right now, it's going to pick up steam as we go, but people are going to be watching this tomorrow.
	Before we get into the thick of it, for those of my subs who may not know who you are, tell us who you are, tell us who the New Blue Party is, how it came to be, and then we're going to get into the thick of this law, or this bill, I should say.
	Alright, so my name is Belinda Karajalios, and I am the Member of Provincial Parliament for the riding of Cambridge in the province of Ontario, so I'm a provincial politician, not federal.
	I was initially elected in 2018 with the...
	PC government, led by Doug Ford, because I too was fooled thinking that we actually had Conservatives coming in.
	I quickly realized that that wasn't the case, and I was the only former or current PC MPP who voted against Bill 195, the Reopening Ontario Act.
	And that is the horrible, horrible bill that allows the Ford government to maintain emergency powers even when the state of emergency is dropped.
	So that's what allowed them to put in the vax mandates and the mask mandates and all these wonderful things that we're seeing.
	So I was kicked out of the PC caucus in July of 2020 for my stance.
	And after that, shortly after, the New Blue Party of Ontario was formed.
	And I'm going to kick that over to Jim to talk about that.
	Right, and I'm Jim Carhalios, her husband, and together we founded the New Blue Party of Ontario.
	I've been involved in politics for a couple of decades since I was a law student in Ottawa, and I guess what got us in trouble is we fought the carbon tax that the PC Party of Ontario wanted to put in, voter fraud at a nomination, which I used to think everyone was against voter fraud, Viva, but apparently not, not if you're in the PC Party.
	That landed us a lawsuit, the first time a political party had ever sued.
	A private citizen in 2018.
	And we won.
	And then I ran for PC president when my wife was a sitting MPP and they rigged it with ballot stuffing.
	And we got the evidence and that's in court right now.
	I ran for federal leader.
	Could have beat Aaron O'Toole, but they kicked me out halfway through the race twice because I didn't take a deal to support Aaron O'Toole.
	And then two months later was when they kicked Belinda, me and 18 others out of the PC party.
	And our team on the ground in Cambridge and across Ontario started the new Blue Party.
	So we're a provincial party, and we're the co-founders, and we're getting ready for the June 2nd election.
	And this bill came up right as we're getting ready for the June 2nd election, Viva.
	Well, yeah, and hold on.
	I'm going to pull up one thing.
	I had the article.
	Oh, here we go.
	Here we go.
	Let me bring this up just so people can truly appreciate what happened.
	Cambridge MPP Belinda Karahalios ejected from Ontario Legislature.
	This is December 7, 2021.
	Cambridge MPP Belinda Karahalios was removed from the Ontario Legislature on Tuesday morning by Speaker of the House Ted Arnott.
	Last month, Karahalios announced that...
	Okay, do we want to get into this?
	Because it's...
	You have to explain it in a little greater detail because it's a story that I think people are going to find hilarious, depressing, and they will...
	Truly find a respect for you if they don't already have it.
	Thank you.
	It's all the things.
	Yes, the story.
	So the Speaker of the House had implemented new rules saying that you either had to disclose your vaccination status and if you were not vaccinated or chose not to disclose, then you had to test yourself with, sorry, you had to get a pharmacist to test you.
	So we were, you know, having to get a pharmacy administered rapid antigen test every two days.
	And the house sits four days a week, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday.
	And so I said, I am not disclosing my status.
	It is nobody's business.
	And I've maintained that throughout.
	Like, your medical choices are personal and they should not be shared with anyone.
	So I went the route to test.
	And, you know, I was going every week, twice a week, testing twice a week.
	So it was the Tuesday night I went to go get my test done at the pharmacy.
	I had a backache, but I felt fine.
	And so the rapid test came back positive, and the pharmacist was so surprised that he tested me again, and it came back positive again.
	Well, because the pharmacist did it, of course, he's got to report it to public health.
	So Jim, our little guy, and myself, we stayed at home, we locked it down, and I went for my PCR test.
	And it's funny, the nurse administering it was like, well, you're asthmatic, so, you know, it's probably negative.
	Because again, I was feeling fine.
	Like I was tired, but it wasn't anything crazy.
	So because we've been running kind of like 24-7 is to be expected.
	So PCR tests came back positive.
	So did my quarantine.
	Jim got COVID.
	He did the monoclonal antibody therapies.
	Our little guy got COVID.
	It was nothing for him.
	It was nothing for me as well, if I'm quite honest with you.
	And so...
	You know, I was going to go back to the house, do my job, what I'm paid to do.
	No, but you got the notice from public health saying that you can return to duties and you can go to work and everything's fine.
	You don't need to test.
	We were on a prolonged lockdown in our homes because we both got it a week apart.
	And I don't know how many, I can't remember how many days after we each got it.
	Yeah.
	And then you were ready to go to Queen's Park.
	Yeah, because I had to quarantine for 10 days.
	So yeah, so Public Health gives you this nice little email if you request it, a text or an email.
	I wanted the email and it said, you know, basically that for the next 90 days, you should not test because you could present with a false positive.
	And so you shouldn't be required to test to go back to work.
	And I said, great.
	You know, I've recovered.
	I've got this great natural immunity.
	And I've got my little passport, so to speak, from public health telling me that I'm good to go.
	To the point where the nurse actually said to me, you know, even if you had booked a trip to Jamaica, I wish, and you wouldn't have to test to board the plane as long as you have this little email.
	So I'm thinking, this is great.
	What a score.
	So I...
	Test myself anyway, okay?
	Because I know the rules are to show negative tests or show proof of vaccination.
	So I test anyway with a rapid antigen test.
	It comes back negative.
	So I bring the proof of my negative test to the legislature.
	Security lets me into the building.
	I sit in my chair in the chamber and the Speaker of the House rises and he asks me to leave.
	And so he's saying that I'm in contravention, like that I haven't followed the protocols essentially.
	So I rise in my seat and I say, well, no, your rules say show proof of vaccination or a negative test.
	I presented a negative test.
	I'm not breaking any rules, so I'm going to stay here.
	So he then said he's going to have to name me and shame me if I don't leave.
	So I sat in my chair and I didn't move.
	And, you know, the house is completely quiet.
	You could hear a pin drop.
	And the sergeant at arms is looking at me because she's going to have to walk me out if he calls me out.
	And sure enough, he asked me to leave again and I didn't move again.
	And then he said the member, I asked the member for Cambridge to leave.
	So they bartered for 90 days.
	And he said you can't come back for 90 days because according to him, if you can't test, then you shouldn't test.
	And then in the letter he sent to me, he said that you could give a false negative.
	But there's nothing anywhere that says you could give a false negative.
	So it was largely comical.
	So they took the logic, Viva.
	And they turn it on its head because after you've recovered from COVID, you're exempt from taking tests and you're exempt from getting the vaccine done, right?
	For 90 days.
	They say, you don't need to test and you don't need to take the vaccine because the chances of you spreading it and getting it again are very, very low.
	So the Speaker of the House at Queen's Park and the PC government and all the legislators took it and turned it on its head to say, oh, no, no, you can't come here.
	Because the test is not accurate 90 days after.
	No, it's the opposite, you morons.
	For 90 days after, you're allowed to go wherever you want.
	Everybody knows with half a brain, although logic has been absent for two years, that your positive PCR, which you got confirmed after your two rapids, then you get it, you get over it.
	After your quarantine, which is what they tell everyone to do, after that, you're good to go.
	And you could get false positives, especially if you're doing a PCR test, for a long period of time, which is why they say after your quarantine, it doesn't matter if you have any false positives because you've already recovered.
	Then they say, no, that's not good enough, and your negative test is irrelevant because you could have a false negative.
	So despite having tested positive, done your quarantine, recovered, they then make you leave, and then they...
	Bar you for 90 days?
	Yeah, for 90 days.
	So it just, it seems like they're always trying to make sure that I'm not able to get into the house.
	And it was frustrating because the week that I got...
	COVID that I was away, they were actually debating the extension of the Reopening Ontario Act.
	And so people were actually saying, like, do you think it was a plan?
	Did they give her COVID on purpose?
	I mean, like, but it was just, it was so, it was entirely frustrating.
	But thanks to pushback from people across Ontario, they reduced it to 30 days.
	And they, you know, they quietly let Belinda know a couple weeks later.
	But it was 90 days.
	And the amazing thing is that the media, the reporting on it, Viva, was just...
	I don't even want to say it.
	Jim, I see the way they're reporting on Belinda's voting against this.
	You've got some explaining to do.
	And if they say you've got to leave Parliament or you show your papers, you better do it or leave.
	The reporter said she got kicked out because she had COVID and showed up to Queen's Park.
	And another headline said it's because she didn't have the vaccine.
	So they just made that up because they don't know.
	They've never seen proof of...
	Belinda, one side or the other.
	And the 90-day rule, the Speaker and the government were saying, well, that's the rule, and the legislators know.
	They made it up last minute just for Belinda's case.
	That wasn't the rule for a year and a half.
	Well, so hold on.
	So this is...
	Another rabbit hole.
	At the time, though, at the time this happens, it's the new blue party, right?
	You're not part of the Conservatives.
	Correct.
	I got kicked out July 2020 from the Conservatives.
	I became a new blue member officially in January of 2021.
	And this occurred in December of 2021.
	That was just one of the long lists, Viva, of things that they've done to us that last one.
	That's the most recent one.
	She got kicked out before that.
	We had elections rigged against us, kicked out of leaderships, sued.
	Yeah, like it's a long list.
	Make a list.
	Well, I would like to get into all of them.
	I think maybe briefly to get into the one, Jim, where you got sued.
	What did you get sued for?
	And how did that end up?
	So it ties into what we've seen lately.
	So the media has been reporting, right, Viva, that the list, it's okay for them to crack a database.
	Of those who donated to the trucker convoy and email those people and publish their names in the newspaper, right?
	That's okay, right?
	That's okay from the media, right?
	But Jim Carajalios getting a list of people and mailing them an acts of carbon tax or an anti-voter fraud mailer piece back in 2018, that was controversial.
	Oh, how could he mail people at their homes?
	How dare he use that information of an address that's available anywhere?
	And if you know anything about election laws, you know that addresses are public for supporters and donors of parties.
	So the PC party at the time, we were kind of naive thinking, oh, this is just a problem because Patrick Brown and his buddy Waleed Solomon were in charge of the PC party.
	Little did we know it's actually the entire apparatus of the PC party, the lobbyists in charge.
	They said, oh, you know, let's not, you know, if you're presented with a campaign against the carbon tax and a campaign against rigged elections in your party, you know, one logical thing would be, hmm, maybe we should do something about this voter fraud.
	Hmm, maybe if we do something about this carbon tax position, you know, we could silence this campaign.
	No, no, they thought, wow, Jim's getting signatures to call a convention of our party under our constitution.
	Here's a good way to stop him.
	Let's sue him and try to tell the judge that Jim stole the data.
	That's how they presented it, with a wink and a nudge, that I went, I cracked into party headquarters and stole the data.
	And also say to the judge, that should not be allowed in campaign, in politics in Ontario or Canada, mailing people.
	Mailing, that should not be allowed, Viva.
	So basically campaigning shouldn't be allowed.
	Anyway.
	My lawyers used an anti-slap, which you know what slap legislation is, strategic.
	Strategic lawsuit against public participation, which is to say that you were being sued for having exercised effectively a constitutional right, and they're suing you to try to silence you, I guess, presumably, which your constitutional right was reaching out to voters.
	The campaign to express my political or position, public position on a matter of importance.
	And we put in that motion and thankfully that legislation exists in Ontario.
	Thankfully.
	Because, I don't know, I could have been in court for two, three years and they would have just, you know, they would have just run me dry, right?
	Like they've got millions of dollars at their disposal of a taxpayer subsidy, the PC party, to use whatever they want.
	So you can just imagine they could just wait it out and wait it out and ring up the legal bill and who knows what my tab would have been.
	But we put in a motion in 2020 of November is when they laid the lawsuit in December of 2020.
	I put in a motion to have it dismissed, and the judge looked at it, and he said, you don't have any facts to back up what you're saying, and you don't have any legal argument.
	And he tossed it in my favor.
	And here's the kicker.
	That's the real reason why Patrick Brown stepped down as leader of the Ontario PC Party.
	The lobbyists in the back of the PC Party didn't want...
	To say Patrick Brown has got to go.
	And caucus didn't want to say Patrick Brown has got to go because he just tried to sue one of our activists and members.
	And there's been vote rigging and corruption in the PC party with buyouts and payouts for selecting candidates and rumors of bags of cash and the blah, blah, blah, on and on.
	It was reporting the paper.
	So they didn't want to talk about that, Viva, because they didn't want to fix that problem or his leftist positions.
	So they planted that story in the press.
	About the allegations against him to use that as the reason why he had to go.
	And of course, those were not factually accurate stories, but it was enough to push him out.
	But if only the PC caucus and the guys running the PC party had a little bit of a backbone and actually had some principles, they could have just said the guy's a leftist, there's vote rigging going on, it's corrupt, it's time for him to go.
	But they didn't want to play that, so they made up that.
	A ridiculous story about allegations against him.
	Now, when does the new Blue Party get created?
	When does it get founded?
	So the name, it was the Thanksgiving long weekend of 2020.
	So October 15th?
	In and around that time.
	And so we had announced that we were registering a party name.
	And it was, the support was quite literally overwhelming.
	We got...
	More than 1,000 signatures in, what, less than a week?
	We got like 2,500 signatures in two weeks, and we needed, I don't know, half that.
	And then we submitted an election to Ontario, and we got registered in January 2021.
	And we've been at it for just over a year, getting ready for the election.
	We've got 112 candidates in place, almost riding associations in every riding.
	We're ordering lawn signs, newblueontario.com.
	And we did all that with our team, our board, and our local leaders.
	And all in between, you know, I had a cancer battle where I had three reconstructive leg surgeries and did six rounds of chemo.
	So it's been an adventurous year and a half, to say the least, Viva.
	Now, I know the answer to the question, but if you don't mind telling the crowd, what type of cancer did you have?
	It was the same cancer that Terry Fox had, osteosarcoma in my femur, in my right leg.
	Luckily, though, I didn't lose my leg because of real science, Viva.
	They've figured out how to remove most of my femur and other people who've had it and put in a prosthesis internally.
	So I had a prosthesis put in place.
	I don't have any cancer in my body.
	I go every three months for tests to make sure it doesn't creep back.
	But I had to do three rounds, three surgeries, major surgeries.
	The middle one was like 12 hours or something ridiculous.
	A full knee replacement.
	I lost two quads in my right leg.
	Femur was replaced with an internal prosthesis.
	And six rounds of chemo.
	So we were building the party.
	And, you know, while we were going through this and while Belinda wouldn't skip a beat at Queen's Park to challenge the Ford government.
	And, you know, it's been a, I don't know, it's been, I can't even imagine that this would have ever happened to us.
	But 2021 was quite the year battling through all that.
	But the reason why we're almost ready to run a full slate of candidates.
	Despite everything that the PC Party is throwing at us, despite the saboteurs they have in place to create opposition parties, fake opposition parties to split the vote and distract people, we're able to get through cancer and get through all that because of the great team we have running the New Blue Party, our board, and because of the hundreds of people that are riding presidents and candidates on the ground across Ontario for the New Blue and the thousands of people who've donated.
	So we're very, very grateful.
	Can I just say, Jim actually had to learn how to walk again.
	You're not giving it enough.
	He was bedridden.
	He had to learn how to walk again, and he did.
	Sorry, I just had to mention that because it was...
	Yeah, I downplay stuff sometimes.
	Yeah, it was very intense.
	And it's amazing for people who don't know.
	It's amazing for people who might even have some experience to know what you went through.
	Between the two of you, it's one thing, Jim, that you go through this, but you go through it as a family.
	Sorry, go for it?
	Sorry, that's the only way to get through it.
	And we're grateful.
	I can walk again, and we're grateful we have each other and we have the support across Ontario.
	But you start the new blue party from scratch.
	And this is not a political endorsement.
	This was not the purpose of this.
	It's kind of amazing.
	When people accomplish amazing things, you have to step back and appreciate it.
	You started this from zero.
	New party in 2020, 2021, whatever it is, late, early.
	And you're running how many candidates throughout the province of how many...
	Potential seats.
	Right.
	In Ontario, we have 124 total ridings.
	And we have 112 candidates so far, including myself and including Jim.
	But you're right.
	It's not like...
	Look, anyone can register a party name, right?
	That's very easy to do.
	You just request it.
	And then they check to make sure it doesn't look similar to any other name currently registered.
	But, you know, we've got the party.
	It's a real political party.
	We have a board.
	We have a constitution.
	We have principles.
	We've got like, I mean, the entire machine has been built.
	It is and it's up and running.
	So this is not just, you know, some flash in the pan.
	We've got people are buying five year memberships like we are invested in this and we are going to be ready.
	We are ready for the June 2nd election.
	We're almost ready.
	We're the only opposition right now in the Ontario legislature.
	Have you done any polling to have any idea as to where you lie and projections as to what might happen come June?
	I wish that we had the millions of dollars that the Ontario PC Party has.
	Actually, I don't because one of our six promises on the new blueprint is we're going to get rid of the taxpayer subsidy.
	I wish I had the resources, though, to waste like the Ontario PC Party does.
	But when we get donations, our entire party operation is funded by donors, not taxpayer subsidies like the PCs, the NDP, and the Liberals, and not through secret funds and backroom deals that maybe some other people have.
	I can't justify Viva handing over $10,000, $20,000, $30,000 to some pollster who's tied in with the Liberals, the NDP, and the PCs to do a poll that I know is worth nothing.
	The key to a new party when you're running against legacy parties that are over 100 years old is getting to May.
	That's when the campaign is.
	And when people see there's a candidate in every riding and there's lawn signs in every riding, that's when people are going to register and that's when it's going to make a difference.
	Doing a poll now doesn't make a difference.
	And especially when it's from a pollster who works for the NDP, the Liberals and the PCs.
	And that's what we got in Canada.
	We got establishment pollsters and they're all former members or current members of those other parties.
	So handing over money to them to tell me what?
	You're a new party?
	Yeah, I know.
	You're running against legacy parties that are over 100 years old?
	Yeah, I know.
	And there's no one that can predict the future.
	And pundits in Canada like to pretend they can predict the future.
	Oh, if you run it like this and you do it like that?
	Well, no.
	Our goal is to get a candidate in every riding, to get the fundamentals up and running, to get our platform out, and head into the June 2nd election as the 1, 2, 3, 4. Fifth party and the only non-leftist party that's going to run a candidate in every riding and be an established party going forward.
	People are asking in the chat, what's with the PPC?
	Guys, just appreciate there's provincial and federal.
	PPC, People's Party of Canada, is a federal party.
	The New Blue Party is the provincial party at the Ontario level.
	So these are two different levels of government.
	So they're not competing.
	I'm not cheating on my party.
	No, no, it's not your fault.
	It's not the viewer's fault because there have been...
	Largely manipulated by PC operatives in the back.
	They've been pushing out and had a couple of PPC staffers push this idea out that a PPC party is going to be starting in Ontario.
	And that's not the case.
	Randy Hilliard tried it for about five minutes.
	He didn't get the thousand signatures to register.
	So there is no PPC party in Ontario.
	We always knew that was the case.
	And that's why we created the new blue.
	Okay, well, it's beautiful, and this was not intended to be a promotional video for the New Blue Party.
	It might indirectly become one.
	I've pinned your website to the top.
	If anybody, I guess, wants to donate, wants to help, they can find the info there, and I'll put it in the pinned comment once we're done with the stream.
	But let's get to the business at hand, because Jim, Belinda, I'm not going crazy in that, I'll call it mainstream media, legacy media, the CBC, CTV, Global News.
	They're not talking about this bill.
	I mean, am I missing it?
	Would I go to Google?
	I don't see anything about it, except from, I won't call them alternative sites, but secondary sites from the big six.
	Are people ignoring this?
	Is the mainstream media ignoring this bill?
	I would say, by and large, that they are.
	I mean, our local papers did pick it up simply because it was the NDP MPP for Kitchener Center, which is in Waterloo Region.
	And so we...
	Share borders a little bit, the two of us.
	So it got picked up in the local newspapers.
	But for the most part, you're right.
	No one's really talking about it.
	And it was shocking that for 24 to 48 hours after the vote, there was one or two articles and none of the alternative sites were talking about it.
	None of them.
	And it wasn't until we blew the whistle on how the vote went down.
	That other alternative sites started picking up on it, and we're very, very grateful for that.
	But it shows you that if you have one MPP in the legislature paying attention and standing her ground and on principle like Belinda does regularly, you can draw attention to something that the establishment parties and the establishment press don't want anyone to know about.
	They don't want to know the details in the bill.
	And it amazes me.
	You know, you read that quote, Viva, from the article.
	Well, she hasn't said, you know, why she voted against it.
	Total nonsense.
	Didn't you send them like four paragraphs or something like that?
	What did they want?
	A thesis?
	I love the way it's the onus is on the person saying no to the new idea to justify why it's no.
	But they don't have to justify why they're bringing forward this.
	Ridiculous new idea.
	They don't have to justify, oh, is there racism in the school?
	Do people need to be fined?
	What the definition of racist is?
	Should it be subconscious actions?
	Anyway, we're going down the...
	The essence of the bill itself is to amend the Education Act.
	Reading the proposed amendments, because it basically goes by way of the following bill, we're going to go through the preamble of the bill.
	Essentially, it's to amend...
	The Education Act.
	And so I go pull up the Education Act just to see what it looks like.
	Jim and Belinda, you can see what I'm looking at here.
	So I go to the Education Act.
	Every province has one.
	Let me just go to the intro so we can see what the Education Act, the purpose.
	A strong public education system, I'm right here, people, is the foundation of a prosperous, caring, and civil society.
	Of course.
	The purpose of education is to provide students with the opportunity to realize their potential and develop into highly skilled, knowledgeable, caring citizens who contribute to their society.
	Okay.
	So I'm just thinking, if they're trying to amend this Act, the first thing I did was I went and I looked for racism.
	Did I look for racism in the Act?
	Here we go.
	Just to see what was in or not in the original Education Act that would require the amendments that we're going to look over.
	You know, at some point in the Education Act itself, let me just get rid of this because it's bothering me.
	You got Section 3031, which says, Every board shall support pupils who want to establish and lead activities and organizations that promote a safe and inclusive learning environment, the acceptance of and respect for others, and the creation of a positive school climate, including, and then we go, activities or organizations that promote anti-racism.
	That was the only time in this Education Act racism came up.
	I looked for other keywords, but we understand what the Education Act is about, what it's supposed to do, and what it contains by way of racism or combating racism.
	But then, Jim and Belinda, let us get in.
	Let's go share screen one more time.
	Which one is it?
	I believe it is this.
	Yeah, let's go for this one here.
	This is...
	There it is.
	The explanatory note, and I'll read it quickly.
	The explanatory note, to summarize what Bill 67 is, it's not a very long bill.
	It just contains amendments to the Education Act, and we're going to see what those additions and inclusions are.
	A number of amendments are made to the Education Act.
	New Section 10.13 of the Act is amended to require the minister to direct a board.
	To develop its anti-racism accountability report if, in the opinion of a minister, there is indication that the board's new teacher induction program does not include anti-racism and racial equity training.
	Section 171 of the Act is amended by adding anti-racism-related responsibilities to the duties of boards.
	New Subsection 212.1 provides for fines for persons who disrupt or attempt to disrupt proceedings of a school or class through the use of racist language or activities.
	New Section 277.28.1 provides that performance appraisals shall include competencies related to a teacher's Jim
	and Belinda, I'm going to bring this out now.
	Would you care...
	To explain to the rest of the world that might be reading this and saying, what the hell is going on?
	Can you explain what the hell is going on?
	Well, first let me say that this bill was tabled in December.
	And as you see yourself, we brought a copy of it here.
	It is a six-page bill.
	It is a very simple bill to read.
	And the funny thing is, is that you've got...
	Three PhDs over 80 minutes talking about the complexities of the bill and trying to give outs to those who voted in favor of it.
	But if you took the time to read this very simple bill, and I've only been an MPP for four years, and some of the people who voted in favor of it have been serving for 10 years, more than 10 years in some cases, there's no excuses for voting for a bill like this.
	Pieces that you read about finding every person who disrupts or attempts to disrupt children, teachers, parents.
	But the most interesting piece is they've changed the definition of racism to mean the use of socially constructed ideas of race to justify or support, whether consciously or subconsciously, the notion that one race is superior to another.
	So, critical race theory is what this is based on.
	And it's about the idea that they're going to infuse in our education system.
	Wait, wait, wait.
	No, no.
	Before you get to the point of what they're going to do, the premise of the bill is that the education system in Ontario is systemically racist.
	That's the premise of the bill.
	That the entire education system is racist, systemically, the way it's been set up, the way it operates.
	And something needs to be done.
	So you're starting from that basis.
	I haven't seen, and Belinda hasn't seen in her four years as a legislator, who made that conclusion?
	Who came to the conclusion that the entire education system is systemically racist?
	Because like we just said a few minutes ago, the onus is always on us saying no to new ideas before they've even proven that the new idea is needed.
	So that's the first problem with the bill.
	Then Belinda said the definition of racism.
	Apparently now subconscious racism.
	I've never even heard of this before.
	But apparently that's the case.
	It's not about teaching history.
	I am in my 40s.
	And since I was in public school when I was younger, we always taught about racism in our history in Canada and groups that were oppressed and different cultures and ethnicities around the world and in our history.
	That's not what this is.
	This is trying to set up a narrative in our education system.
	Where you have to be policed by bureaucrats who are getting trained to follow certain behaviors in a certain script.
	And if you fall out of line on the script, they're going to fine you.
	So now they've got police powers to levy fines against people for what they say that might be subconsciously racist.
	They haven't even defined what it is, what the behavior is.
	They're just leaving it up to these experts on the ground.
	And each of the experts are going to figure it out.
	The administrators at each school board and for each school.
	Lunacy is what this is.
	Crazy.
	They also talk about professional development programs.
	So annual professional development programs to educate teachers and other staff of the board about promoting racial equity and developing the necessary tools to address racism.
	Like, racism is bad.
	We know that.
	And you absolutely should tell children and teach everyone about this.
	It is wrong.
	This does nothing to deal with that at all.
	And, you know, it's frustrating.
	I come from a mixed family.
	My dad is Trinidadian.
	My mom is Portuguese.
	In Trinidad, the expression is Callaloo, meaning your family is mixed up with all kinds of different colors and people.
	That's something that was embraced when I was going through high school.
	We learned about that.
	It was a welcoming environment.
	Like Jim was saying, to say that the system itself is systemically racist is just...
	People are asking, if you're going to propose a bill, government is the one thing where It's almost better to do something stupid than to do nothing.
	And François Legault in Quebec is probably the best example of that in Canada, tied with all the other provincial leaders as well.
	But like someone says, if you put forward a bill like this, show us that there's a problem that needs a solution and not presupposing that there's a problem.
	Therefore, you're justified in doing anything.
	You know, when they propose a bill like this, first of all, who put forward the draft bill?
	Laura May Lindo, who is the NDP MPP for Kitchener Center.
	Okay, and now someone asked in the chat, Brian Moir, I'm not sure if I can bring this up again.
	Let me see if I can.
	It's a legitimate point.
	Why in an election year would the PCs, that would be the Conservative Party, allow an NDP member to write and introduce a bill, let alone one that tries to enshrine critical race theory?
	Okay, this is a fair point.
	So, okay, so there are no restrictions about the types of bills that we can introduce as MPPs.
	And first reading is just tabling that bill.
	So you get it prepared by the legislative lawyers, and you can table it.
	And there's no restrictions on that.
	There is freedom there.
	But how the PCs voted in favor after second reading debate and allowing it to get to committee, like, it's, again, I don't want people to give these MPPs a...
	A way out of this.
	Like, they read the bill.
	It's a simple bill.
	So they're okay with it.
	And, you know, there's no opposition.
	There is no opposition in that legislature.
	No, there is.
	You're the opposition.
	So the NDP MPP puts forward this as her private member's bill.
	She gets a shot.
	Fine.
	She can put whatever she wants forward.
	Goes to second reading on a vote.
	And the PC party, as has been the case for four plus years, just folds.
	Yeah.
	And they just, and it's not like they, they voted in favor of it.
	Not one other independent stood up to vote against it.
	Not even Derek Sloan's buddy, Rick Nichols, who claims that he's for parental rights.
	They've been campaigning for two and a half months.
	We're for parental rights.
	We're against critical race theory.
	They're operative friends in the back.
	Oh no, critical race theory is so bad.
	And they all voted for it.
	And this is the best part.
	Belinda, when you voted against it...
	What did they do, the PCMPPs and the legislators?
	This is the first vote we've had.
	So just so you guys understand, so you've got your legislative chamber and on either side is a lobby, right?
	You've got the government lobby and you've got the opposition lobby.
	So if you're not government, you go to the opposition lobby.
	And because of COVID protocols, we were voting by walking into the lobby of your choice.
	So government was yay and opposition was nay.
	And that's how we voted.
	So, you know, it was fairly discreet.
	Because the bells would ring for half an hour and you could vote that way.
	So this vote on 67 is the first way we're voting, the normal way, because they stopped that COVID protocol, which means you have to be in your seat and you stand.
	So everybody sees you voting.
	So, you know, everyone stands up to vote yay, including Rick Nichols.
	Everyone stands up to vote yay.
	And the clerk goes, you know, they call you by name, Mr. Nichols, Mr. Jones, etc.
	And so they pass me by.
	Now, everyone knows I'm there because I asked a question at question period.
	And you hear some of the NDP, because I'm on that side of the house, like, oh, Belinda, Belinda, what's going on, right?
	And so then they call for the nay votes, and I stand up.
	And then on the government benches, one of the cabinet ministers goes, ha!
	Like, just guffaws.
	And then some of the NDP are going, wow, oh my gosh.
	Just, like, complete shocked that I did my homework, read the bill, and realized it was rubbish and I need to vote against it.
	But also, it's nauseating that you're half Trinidadian, half Greek.
	Portuguese.
	Sorry?
	Portuguese.
	I'm the green.
	Sorry, I'm still stuck with the last name, but yeah.
	Because in Quebec, by the way, just so everybody knows, in Quebec, a wife cannot even willingly take her husband's name, even if she chooses to, which is why my wife's last name is not Freiheit.
	Other provinces are different.
	So you are of the individual subcategory that would...
	In theory, be the most relevant, targeted by this law.
	And you're saying no.
	And then people are looking at you and saying, we know better than you.
	And how dare you?
	And you'd better.
	You've got some splaining to do is what they're saying.
	But let me bring it up just so people can actually appreciate this.
	I'm going to bring my screen down and I'm going to go back here so we can see this.
	Just so we can read a few of these provisions.
	Subsection 1 of the Education Act is amended by adding the following definitions.
	Anti-racism means the policy of opposing racism, including anti-indigenous racism, anti-black racism, anti-Asian racism, anti-Semitism, and Islamophobia, and in French that's lutte contre le racisme, which is the war against racism.
	Racism means the use of socially constructed ideas of race to justify or support, whether consciously or subconsciously, the notion that one race is superior to another, racism.
	I've got to say this.
	I like to consider myself maybe not naive.
	Let me just remove this.
	Idealist.
	I never look at a person and then reflexively, instinctively say, what are they?
	Until such time as laws like this come in and compel me to say, what are they so that I can know, so that I could be walking on eggshells as to whether or not I am consciously or subconsciously.
	Anything I can do, anything I'm doing could be misconstrued as being because of what they are and not, you know, just natural human relations.
	And these types of things, toxic is a cliched word.
	They sour interhuman relationships by making everyone look at other people as the what and not as the human because everyone's now worried, is what I said going to be construed as being racist?
	Because subconsciously, if I wear a white shirt on, I don't know, a day where you're supposed to wear an orange shirt, am I now subconsciously indoctrinated to promote the fact that my race is somehow superior to another?
	These definitions presuppose racism, and you have to be a racist person to even propose those definitions, in my humble opinion.
	But, you know, do you have a discussion as to the definitions?
	Do you say, like, okay, how did we get to this definition?
	What does that mean, consciously or subconsciously?
	Was there a debate on that?
	Well, I mean, when they're debating the bill, it's like a love fest, right?
	I wasn't there to debate the bill.
	But it's all there in the Hansard on OLA.org and you can read and see every MPP that spoke to it and see exactly what they said.
	They do a good job of bringing forward the bills that they don't want Belinda to speak at, like late in the evening or when she's got a conflict or when they see her step out, she doesn't have a question.
	They do a really good job of doing that, the PC benches.
	But the key on the whole thing, like at the root of what we read in history.
	The evil, racist things that have happened in history is when government or the rulers of the day segregate people into groups.
	Like, that's the key.
	And the solution to that is to treat each and every human being with dignity as an individual.
	Not to treat people as parts of groups.
	To say, you're in that group, and you're in that group, and you're the oppressor, and you're the oppressee.
	And then tomorrow that might change if the group is defined a different way.
	And that creates a power dynamic in society, which is what this bill is doing, creating a power dynamic in the education system that pits people against other people based on what group they're slotting in on any given day.
	I don't know what our son in school, what group he would slide into.
	The Greek group, the Portuguese group, the Trinidadian group, I'm not really sure, right?
	Like, it depends.
	So now, the solution to all this stuff is not fining people for subconscious systems.
	It's treating people as individuals and applying laws to everyone equally and treating every single person as an individual with dignity and respect.
	That's the solution.
	Because the roots of evil with racism has always been a leftist thing, Dave.
	I gotta say, Viva, I gotta say this.
	It's always been a leftist thing.
	Right down to the ladies, the statues on Queen's Park of the liberals that we praise for getting women the right to vote and the eugenics experiments.
	That were the eugenics philosophies back in the day.
	I remember when I was in law school and I read about racism and some of the writing that was done back in the day in Canada was about blacks, Greeks, and Jews.
	That's who they were targeting with the racist eugenics lingo.
	And it just reappears by grouping people into different groups and not treating people as individuals with respect and dignity.
	And the amazing thing is like, sorry, I'll leave that so people can read it.
	I have to, in my head, count three hippopotamus to make sure everyone has had the time to read it that I've had to read it.
	I look at this like, to me, it's so nuts.
	Because on any given day of the week, someone will look at me and say, that's such a white cisgender male thing to say.
	Or you would say that because you're a white male.
	But I'm Jewish, so if I want to pull that card, I can say you judging me as anti-Semitic.
	And all that you end up doing is you sit there looking to interpret any slight, any fault, anything that occurs to you because of what you are and for no other reason.
	And just anecdotally, I shared this a while back, but at one point in time, I was running out of my house.
	I was in a heavy down North Face jacket.
	I ran out of the front door, slammed it quickly.
	And as I'm leaving my own house, I get stopped by local security.
	And they ask me for ID because I'll admit, I looked a little suspicious.
	But if I wanted to look for victimhood, if I wanted to say that this happened to me because of who I am and not because of the circumstances, if it were other circumstances, someone would have said, this is outrageous.
	Interpret it in light of the conclusion you want to get to.
	Find the identity aspect of this to interpret it in light of that.
	And it's just like, I mean, it drives me nuts because you basically create a world in which people are looking to interpret what happens to them through this filter of it's happened to me because of these categories of who I am and not just things like this happen to people at large and we should oppose injustices to everyone everywhere and not just filter them down through did this happen to me because I think Do I think it happens to me because I am X, Y, and Z?
	That might have been totally convoluted.
	No, not at all.
	No, it was great.
	I'm looking at this like it seems on reading this that if one wants to actually look at this for what it is, what it's basically saying is if you're an ethnic minority, you're protected.
	If you're a religious minority, you're protected.
	If you're a...
	I presume it's going to include gender identity.
	You're going to be protected.
	So what is it basically saying is that there's only one villain in this story, and it's that idealized white Catholic male.
	And people are going to say, well, that's white fragility, but Jim and Belinda, how is anyone else supposed to read this other than saying, look, we've pretty much narrowed it down where everyone is included in the racism protection, and only one very sub-demographic is excluded.
	How does anyone retort to that argument?
	Well, and it depends on where you're talking.
	You said white Catholic male because where you're sitting.
	You're in Quebec.
	Depending on the parts of the province you're in in Ontario, who knows who the minority is?
	And depending on the school, I don't know what the minority is.
	And depending on the class, it's a different minority.
	And it's a different majority.
	And the issue is, you kind of gave your definition of what you think is going to be covered.
	But it's not really quite there.
	It's kind of vague what they're covering in terms of subconscious thoughts and systemic racism and how it's applied.
	And ultimately what this is, this six-page bill, it's used as a power tool in debate to suppress one opinion and impose another leftist, collectivist type of thinking in the education system.
	At its base, at its bare definition, critical race theory is against the values of liberalism and treating each and every person with respect and dignity as an individual and free expression and free speech.
	And critical race theory is against that.
	So this is infusing a political ideology into the school system that has, you know, it's dressed up nicely, you know, it's fighting racism, but that's not what it is.
	It's fighting.
	Classical liberalism in our society at the school level and making it not just a debate, which is, you know, okay, well, let's look at this leftist critical race theory and debate it against classical liberalism and, you know, teach the kids political ideology and they can debate it.
	No, no.
	They're saying if you hold classical liberal views, we're going to fine you because...
	Because you are fueling what is systemically racist about our education system.
	That's the problem with the bill.
	And the other problem that's going on, let me just get this out, two things.
	The two other big problems that are going on is, you're supposed to have this debate in the legislature because you're supposed to have parties on different sides debating different perspectives.
	And in Ontario, we don't have a right to centre party anymore.
	The PCs are a progressive party, just like the Liberals, just like the NDP.
	So we have to stop.
	And call out influencers who are saying the PCs got fooled by voting for this bill.
	They probably didn't know what was in it.
	It was six pages.
	It's the easiest bill, Belinda said.
	You could read in her four years that was there.
	They knew.
	They laughed at her and chuckled when she voted against it.
	They knew what they were voting for.
	And without a PC party on the right, without any party outside of us on the right, you don't get to debate and you don't get to explore what's really going on with this bill.
	And anyone...
	You can just put forward any idea and it just gets rushed through second reading.
	People should appreciate this.
	A lot of the bills that go through, the ones I've been looking at are more federal than provincial, but they're long.
	They're tedious.
	They're heavy.
	This was short.
	It's short and repetitive above all else because it's basically reiterating some of the same amendments to different sections of the Education Act.
	Let me bring it up because you read one or two pages of this.
	You read one or two provisions of this.
	You know what's going on here.
	Let me just read this part.
	Same anti-racism training.
	Section 10.1 of the act is amended by adding the following subsection.
	Well, we read this.
	If, in the opinion of the minister, a report submitted under subsection 1 indicates that the board's new teacher induction program does not include anti-racism and racial equity training, as referred to in paragraph 3.1 of subsection 2, the minister shall inform the board...
	I mean, I read this.
	I'm going to bring this back out in one second.
	I read this, and I say, if I ever make it to Parliament, this will be the first question I have to every bill.
	What is this trying to remedy for which an existing law does not already protect, guarantee against, or cover?
	There's hate speech laws.
	There's discrimination laws, provincially and federally.
	I look at this and I say, what is this intending to do other than actually micromanage, instruct, manipulate the education system itself to become what can only be described as a hotbed of tribalism and racism in and of itself, where you're going to have one demographic saying we're being ignored because there's not enough of us and there's not enough training to sensitivities about...
	It's going to be fighting among each and every sub-demographic as to whether or not they're getting equitable representation within these policies.
	What problem is this trying to remedy within the Ontario educational system?
	Can anybody answer that?
	No, because it sounds like this is going to precisely create the problem that they're saying that they're trying to fight.
	That's what it sounds like to me.
	The problem they're trying to root out...
	Is the belief in classical liberalism and the dignity of the individual and freedom and morality and religious morality.
	That's what they're trying to root out.
	That's what they see as the problem in our society, which has made our education system and all levels of government systemically racist.
	And that's what they're looking for.
	That's what they're trying to root out.
	Back in the good days, which wasn't too long ago, like if you say something racist...
	You get suspended.
	If you attack a kid physically, you get suspended.
	And when you get suspended, you hear it from your parents.
	And then you stop.
	Like, that's how it's dealt with.
	By learning to treat people as individuals with dignity, I'm going to say that over and over again, but this is making being a conservative and being right of center illegal in the school system because they will apply fines on you and then teach you in a very condescending fashion that Those political ideas you have are systemically racist.
	And that is the problem we're trying to root out here.
	So you have to stop pushing those ideas like freedom of expression and freedom of speech.
	And I'm going to bring this one up because this is the reductio ad absurdum.
	In our, quote, harassment in the workplace training at work in the USA, we learn that the only demographic that the government does not classify as a protected class are white males under 50. Yeah, unless they're Jewish.
	Unless they're gay.
	Unless they're of a religious minority.
	You can have white Muslims.
	I mean, this is where you literally, at some point in time, and like you said, Jim, you go to Ireland, and the religious demographic is flipped around.
	You go to Quebec, compared to the rest of Canada, it's true.
	Quebec is predominantly Catholic, so I just take for granted Catholics are the majority.
	You go somewhere else, they're not.
	And they might be the persecuted minority.
	The thing about these types of laws is that they just force everyone to look down at identity aspects of their being and then interpret everything that happens to them in light of those identity aspects.
	It happens to me because I'm gay.
	It happens to me because I'm Jewish.
	I went to Quebec City.
	I studied at Laval in Quebec City.
	I was among 12 Jewish students in a...
	Faculty of Law of a thousand students.
	If I wanted to walk around and say everything that happened to me happened to me because I was Anglophone or Jewish, I could very easily have done it.
	But at some point you say, there are assholes out there and I'm not going to assume that everyone who treats me badly did so because of ethnic aspects.
	And even if they did, I'm going to move on with my day at some point in time and try to live a normal, functional life without...
	You know, without thinking that that's going to hold me back in any way.
	But this, I mean, these types of things, they seem to actually exacerbate, create the realities that they purport to want to avoid.
	And I'm going to go into a few more of the provisions just to see.
	But the question is this.
	The PC said, or people are saying who want to spin it to protect conservatives.
	They didn't see it.
	It just happened and they didn't...
	They were fooled!
	People might accuse you of being biased because they're your competitors and you want to make them look bad politically.
	Interpret it the way you want people.
	But Jim and Belinda, tell us why that would not be a plausible defense in your humble opinions.
	You were itching to say something.
	I was.
	Can I just say one thing?
	The one thing you missed on the identity classification, like saying if you're certain characteristics, then you're in the oppressive group.
	That's not even quite accurate because you're missing something.
	And in order to be considered as being a victim with critical race theory, you have to believe in leftist progressive politics.
	So Belinda is recognized by the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, one of the few legislators in the Ontario provincial parliament to be recognized.
	I can guarantee you, if she was a leftist and she got kicked out of her political party, And barred out of the legislature for 90 days for holding the views she had.
	If they were left-wing views, Viva, it would be on the cover of McLean's, it would be all over the Toronto Star, but not a peep or hardly a peep when it happens to someone who holds views that are blue or right of center.
	And the same thing for what we've been through.
	You know, I was running for PC president.
	I think a friend of mine said I would have been like the first...
	A person of Greek descent to be the president of a political party in Canada.
	We don't play those cards, right?
	But if we were on the left and we got sued, we got thrown out of leaderships, we had conventions rigged against us, Belinda got kicked out of her party, it would be a big deal.
	But when you're on the right, it doesn't matter what characteristic you have, it doesn't matter what religion, what identity, you can be in the minority of the minority and you will be ignored because you're siding up with the...
	With the classical liberalism idea, and that's systemically racist.
	And also that you self-hate.
	You must hate that part of your...
	It's very interesting how people...
	Okay, now you answer why it's not an excuse to say, were they fooled?
	Were the PCMPs fooled?
	And poor Rick Nichols!
	He's been there 10 years, the poor guy!
	He didn't get it!
	But you have to see...
	Who is Rick Nichols?
	Because I'm from Quebec.
	No one knows who he is.
	Yeah, why did I even mention him?
	He's a former PCMPP.
	He's now independent.
	He got kicked out because he didn't want to get the COVID-19 vaccination.
	But he voted in favor of the Reopening Ontario Act.
	And he's voted with the party every single time.
	So when he got kicked out is because he just didn't want to get the vaccination.
	Himself.
	He didn't care when everyone else was getting coerced and getting it in Ontario.
	But as soon as the Ford government said everyone in caucus a year later had to get it, he didn't want to get it kicked out.
	So the vaccine was good for everybody else, but it wasn't good for Rick Nichols.
	And he voted in favor of the lockdown bill and he said the Ford government was having an A-.
	So he got kicked out.
	And now he's teamed up with Derek Sloan to create this fake opposition party to the PCs as a way to undermine us.
	And they're backed by PC operatives who have a long history of coming after us secretly in the shadows.
	I'm making it exciting, right?
	In the shadows.
	So they've got these guys set up.
	And their primary position for their Alberta party in Ontario, that's what I call their party.
	It's the Alberta party in Ontario because Derek Sloan wanted to be an Alberta politician.
	It means their reason for existence is education and critical race theory and parental rights.
	And Derek Sloan's got one MPP in the legislature that's his co-conspirator, Rick Nichols.
	And after campaigning for two months, we're the parental rights party.
	We're the party against critical race theory.
	Rick Nichols, on the big moment, voted in favor of the critical race theory bill.
	Didn't even hesitate.
	He was the first people to stand up.
	You know, this is why I would never survive in politics because I cannot stand this type of fight.
	I can't stand this.
	This is like high school, but at a provincial level.
	I'm sorry.
	I didn't know better.
	I didn't read the belt.
	You didn't read the belt thoroughly?
	Come on.
	But this is important stuff.
	I read the bill sufficiently thoroughly.
	I won't say where, but relatively quickly.
	Really?
	A grade 5 student could read the bill and understand it?
	Let me bring up another great provision, because I do want people watching this to actually see what is in the actual bill.
	Oh, come on.
	I just lost it.
	This was Programs, Interventions, and Other Supports Anti-Racism.
	Section 7 point...
	Oh, son of a beasting.
	Here, sorry.
	Professional development programs.
	Establish and provide annual professional development programs to educate teachers and other staff of the board about promoting racial equity and developing the necessary tools to address them.
	You know what that provision presupposes?
	That there's systemic, systematic racism going on in the universities right now.
	If there is, by the way, if there is, fire everyone.
	Fire everyone and replace them with people who are not racist.
	Fundamentally, systematically racist.
	You're not going to train that out of people.
	So if this presupposes a problem, which, if that problem exists, fire all of the racists.
	Right now, you're all out of a job.
	You're systemically racist.
	Get out.
	I can find you a ton of people who are not racist to fill your position.
	Provide programs, interventions, and other supports for students, teachers, and staff who have been targeted by racism, witnessed incidents of racism, or engaged in racist behaviors.
	And the programs, interventions, and other supports may be provided by social workers, psychologists, or other professionals who have training in similar fields as determined by the board.
	Everyone should appreciate...
	Potentially where this goes, getting psychiatrists or psychologists, sorry, involved in universities to say that people have deep-rooted subconscious racism.
	They didn't know that a white dude with dreadlocks, that's systemic racism and oppression, and he has to cut his hair and repent.
	I mean, this is as absurd and as far as it goes in short order.
	I'm ranting.
	You guys have to tell me.
	Am I wrong or is this?
	Is this shockingly over the top?
	And this is about turning universities and the education system into a coddle fest of telling everyone why they are victims because they've presupposed that they're victims in the first place.
	It's kind of a continuation of it, really, because it's happening.
	Already in our post-secondary institutions in Ontario, I hear it all the time from students who feel very much like the minority simply for holding conservative views.
	And they get treated differently by the professors because of their views on certain things.
	And they're constantly told to get back into shape.
	Don't think like this.
	This is not the way the world works.
	And it's just what happened to our colleges and universities.
	You went there to learn how to think and to be critical.
	It blows my mind.
	How not far we've come, but how backwards we've gone over the last 10 years.
	The problem is, in Ontario, we don't have a single party other than the New Blue Party that's right of centre.
	And we're a brand new party.
	They're all progressive parties on the other side.
	So this stuff gets ushered into the legislature by, you know, you have your pick.
	You have NDP, Liberals, PCs.
	They all take turns with private members bills.
	It's one nonsense bill after the other.
	And it gets passed at second reading.
	And the influencers and the people that believe in right-of-center politics in Ontario continually are giving cover for Doug Ford and his PC party.
	And the problem with that is not because I want to be like a tit-for-tat.
	The problem with that is very, very destructive, not just for Ontario, but for Canada.
	Because what happens in Ontario often gets replicated at the federal level and replicated in other provinces.
	And if you don't have someone...
	With the biggest megaphone on the right in Ontario, who's usually traditionally been the leader of the PC party, to fight this stuff, to create the debate, and it just flies through second reading and it could fly through third reading before the election.
	This stuff gets put into law and people start figuring out what's wrong with it after the fact.
	It's not the fault of Ontario voters.
	They're awake.
	They know that this stuff is wrong.
	It doesn't take a genius.
	As soon as we send the email out or we tell people, hey, look at this, Belinda's getting calls.
	We're getting emails.
	We started, we're pushing stopwoke.ca, which is a petition against this stuff.
	So please visit stopwoke.ca, download the petition, sign it.
	We're going to get Belinda to read it in the legislature before this comes up for third reading to stop it.
	The problem is...
	Ontario voters don't know this stuff is getting passed in the legislature because no one's reporting on it and because the PCs are in on it.
	They're for it.
	They're fine with it until someone blows the whistle and then they start backpedaling.
	Now, I want to bring this one up as a joke.
	Can we still say honk-honk?
	Because once someone says that's subconscious racism, I forget who it was that said it's an alliteration for...
	It was a federal MP for your center.
	And we're waiting for the PCMP to agree with that since they're in cahoots with the Trudeau Liberals.
	I never realized when I shared the tweet, it's a great meme of this beautiful lips in front of an ear and someone's whispering sweet nothings and the text is honk-honk.
	And I didn't realize.
	I must be...
	One of them self-hating Jews because I didn't realize that when I tweeted that, I was subconsciously tweeting an anti-Semitic trope.
	Okay, but one question of technicality.
	For an ignorant buffoon like myself, first reading, second reading, third reading, royal assent.
	What do those steps mean procedurally?
	As in, like, what has to happen to get past first reading?
	What happens to get past second reading?
	What happens to get past third reading?
	And what happens to get past royal assent?
	Gotcha.
	First reading is the MPP stands up during a...
	The afternoon proceedings and says, I'd like to table a bill entitled for first reading.
	And then the page comes, grabs the bill, brings it down to the clerk's table.
	The clerk reads it.
	The speaker says, do we agree?
	No one ever says no at this point.
	Everyone says I. You know, you give your fellow members respect to allow them to table.
	That's first reading.
	That's all it is, is saying, I'm tabling the bill.
	Second reading is when you actually debate the bill.
	And this is a private member's bill.
	So it's not given the same amount of time as a government bill.
	So a private member's bill is a bill tabled by anyone who is not a cabinet minister, any member who's not a cabinet minister.
	So that gets 1224, it gets about half an hour of debate for a private member's bill.
	Once that debate is done, then a vote occurs, and that can go on a voice vote, meaning people just say yes or no, and the speaker figures out which side of the House has the largest response.
	Or it can be a recorded vote, which is what happened with this, where five people stand, five members stand in the legislature, which forces a recorded vote, and that's how you get the names listed on the website.
	Once the bill passes, A recorded vote.
	If it does, if it fails, it fails.
	It's gone.
	If it passes, then it gets referred to a committee.
	Once it's at a committee, it then gets flushed through.
	So, you know, you can...
	If I may pause you there, who's on the committee?
	So, it depends on which...
	So, every committee...
	I can't remember how many committees we have now.
	I think there's another one.
	This one got referred to Social Policy Committee, which is, ironically, the committee that I was on but got kicked off of.
	So, hold on.
	I've got to stop you there.
	So, they have these...
	Correct.
	We call them subdivisions of committees to deal with certain topical issues.
	Yes.
	How do the members get appointed to these committees?
	They're named and kicked off if they are too much of a pain in the neck of the committee itself?
	So the government controls all of that, the government benches, so the PC party in this case.
	And so for each committee, there is a majority of PC members.
	And then there is, because we have so many independents in this sitting, I can't remember what number we're up to now, because the liberals count as independent.
	That doesn't matter, though.
	So there'll be six PC, and forgive me if my numbers are off here, and then three NDP, and then one independent member.
	And so that's kind of the breakup of the committees.
	I might be off a little bit with the numbers there.
	And then during the committee time is when...
	They start to pick apart the bill and should we add this?
	Should we take this out?
	People come and they speak in favor of the bill.
	They speak against the bill.
	And that usually goes on for two days.
	It depends on how long.
	It's eight hours, I guess, of committee time you get.
	But they get to control who shows up to committee.
	And if you're against the bill...
	They won't let you sit in on the committee.
	They won't even let an MPP like Belinda get the committee to speak on it.
	And they can speed up how quickly it gets through committee and bring it back to the legislature for a vote.
	So it's a lot different than what you might be used to federally because I think from what I understand of the federal parliamentary rules, the other parties have a bit more of leeway to get an expert into a committee hearing.
	Provincially, Belinda had a private member's bill against voter fraud that she tabled in 2019.
	And they didn't even bring it up for a discussion at committee after a past second reading.
	And they let it sit there for two years and it died when they reset the legislature during the federal election when Ford did.
	And Belinda, as an MPP, had no power to force and flush that bill out of committee and back for a vote.
	So they totally control the agenda at committee.
	They control when it comes back.
	And when there's one MPP against the bill, you don't really have a lot of power to slow it down in the legislature.
	No, not at all.
	So, you know, if I wanted to sit on social policy for this, I would have to get one of the independent or NDP to agree to let me switch with them for a set amount of time.
	But they know where I stay.
	What are the chances any NDP is ever going to let you swap out knowing your political leanings?
	Out of luck with that.
	I'm not going to get a chance to sit and grill a committee.
	They're not going to want me to be there.
	So the solution is StopWoke.ca because there's only one MPP against this at the legislature that we can count on.
	But there's thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people in Ontario who, if they knew what this bill was about...
	They would sign a petition against it.
	So that's why we had a couple of parents approaches from Hamilton, concerned about this stuff, at the school board level.
	We saw the petition, and we're supporting it, stopwoke.ca.
	And so that's how you kill a bill like this.
	You hand it to the MPP, they go to the legislature, they read it, they read it into the record, they see how many thousands of people are against this in Ontario.
	And then the MPPs...
	You know, they might be a little bit reluctant if they see that it might cost them some votes at the election.
	So when a petition is read into the legislature, and I'll finish up how the bill gets royal assent, by the way.
	So the minister has 24 sitting days to provide a response to that petition.
	And that's the best part.
	And a lot of people don't realize that.
	So once it's been tabled, that minister has 24 sitting days to get you a response.
	So we're hoping to get signatures quickly and get that read into the official record soon.
	Now, someone just messaged me on Facebook.
	By the way, people, I only get Facebook messages if I happen to have my phone in my hand when I get a notification.
	Someone said, is it stopwoke.ca?
	Yes.
	Okay, stopwoke.ca, that's where you go.
	Now, I've pinned your...
	I'll put all these in the pincom.
	I'm going to take a screenshot.
	But hold on.
	Just so people genuinely appreciate what's in this bill if they want to go.
	Let's read another section, shall we?
	Anti-racism.
	I'm putting an H in everything now.
	Anti-racism.
	B1.
	To advance racial equity.
	Equity, not equality, which is a very interesting distinction which people can have a philosophical debate over at some point in time.
	Subsection 2682 of the Act is amended by adding the following paragraph.
	3.1.
	Anti-racism and racial equity training for new teachers.
	Oh my goodness.
	This might not be the right one to read.
	It's all bad.
	Everywhere it's bad.
	Even if you accidentally flipped on a page.
	Well, let's go.
	Anti-racism and competency.
	No conservative with the grade 5 reading level would read a paragraph of this bill.
	Either because it's obviously attacking classical liberalism or just because of its big government tendencies, which is like forcing the school boards to hire consultants and retrain a bunch of administrators and teachers just on that alone.
	Reading this, I would think that Canadian education systems are the most racist thing on earth.
	It's terrible.
	This is nine sections.
	It's amended.
	A1, to ensure that pupils receive the benefit of an education system that is safe and promotes respect and racial equity.
	First of all, I don't know what equity means versus equality.
	That would be another one of my questions.
	But are we suggesting right now that Canadian educational systems are not doing this?
	Because if they are, fire everybody.
	We have hate laws on the books.
	We have discrimination laws on the books.
	Charge them all.
	Issue them fines.
	Fire them and replace them.
	Because if this is how bad it is that we need this to ensure that...
	What is presumably not being provided to students be provided to students?
	Overhaul immediately.
	It's not fast enough.
	This bill is not enough.
	Fire all of them.
	They're all racists.
	They should be fired and replaced.
	But anti-racist competency.
	Despite anything in regulation made under this Act, a performance appraisal of a teacher shall include competencies related to a teacher's anti-racism awareness.
	How do you measure that?
	Another question.
	Is there going to be...
	Literal re-education camps.
	That's from The Simpsons' Ned when they had the re-education.
	It was the episode of The Simpsons.
	Everybody should watch it.
	And the teacher's efforts to promote racial equity again.
	Did they define equity in this thing?
	They don't define equity and they say it like 30 plus times in the bill.
	Section 300, 01, blah, blah, blah.
	To create schools in Ontario that promote racial equity.
	Equity.
	Is that equal results or is that equal opportunity?
	That would be my question.
	To promote racial equity and anti-racism to prevent...
	Okay.
	Let me back out here.
	I'm going to take this out of the stream and I'm going to ask you another question because Jordan Peterson has been in the news for covering this, but I do like a little bit of gossip.
	I do like to understand why...
	Well, Jordan Peterson's involvement in shedding light on this.
	It is...
	It's good and it is blameless and it is praiseworthy.
	How did Jordan Peterson come to become aware of this bill to become so proactively interested in seeing that it gets defeated?
	So it was great that he started tweeting about it because up until the second reading, I think there was only a couple articles online.
	I think Barbara Kay had written about the bill, maybe True North Center.
	Not a lot was out there.
	After the vote, when Belinda voted against it, we were really surprised for like a day or I don't know how many hours it was, 12 hours, 24 hours, that no one said anything.
	No one tweeted out nothing.
	So then the next day, we alerted our followers and supporters and members and donors that, hey, this bill just passed second reading.
	Belinda was the only one that voted against it.
	Shockingly, Derek Sloan's buddy voted for it.
	And then we started seeing, you know, some of the professor class starting to talk about this bill.
	So it was great he did that podcast.
	It had a lot of views.
	Unfortunately, it's kind of sad that the one MPP who voted against it, the three professors who took 80 minutes to decide that the thing was a bad bill, didn't acknowledge that there's one MPP who voted against it.
	They probably wouldn't have even discussed the bill.
	If Belinda didn't vote against it and we didn't blow the whistle on it.
	So it's good that they did that podcast and they covered a lot of stuff.
	And it was a long podcast, but they didn't acknowledge that Belinda was against it.
	But they did have a buddy of Derek Sloan's, a professor on there, to say that the Ontario Party is the solution.
	The Alberta Party in Ontario is the solution to this stuff, even though they voted in favor of it in the legislature.
	The New Blue Party is the only party of Eva.
	That's calling out stuff like this.
	That's calling out the lockdown bill, carbon tax, all the leftist stuff that's going on in the Ontario legislature and that the Ontario PC party is pushing.
	We're the reliable source and Belinda's the reliable MPP in the legislature that blows the whistle on this stuff when no one else is looking.
	And the friends of the PC party don't like it, Viva.
	Well, my question is, and there's no but to this.
	I respect Jordan Peterson even when I disagree with him.
	He's an incredibly intelligent individual, and he's got more foresight than a lot of people out there.
	My only question is, Jordan Peterson is shocked and outraged by this bill.
	He says it's worse than Bill C-16.
	This is, like, next level.
	Where is the criticism leveled against the alleged Conservative Party in Ontario?
	Unless I'm mistaken, Belinda, if you're the only person who voted against it, it means that even the Conservative Party of Ontario voted for it.
	So who is sharing in Jordan Peterson's outrage as to the consequences of this bill?
	Thousands of people across Ontario, actually.
	And the petition's already garnered a lot of attention, and it's been less than 24 hours that we announced it.
	But here's a couple things that I take issue with that podcast of the three professors who need to educate us, apparently, about what's wrong with this bill.
	Number one, they give the impression that the bill is complicated, that Rick Nichols and PCMPPs were tricked into voting for this bill.
	That is not true.
	That is not true in actuality, and there's no basis for suggesting that.
	Because the bill is simple, like Belinda said, six pages.
	When this bill was tabled, she flagged it for me right away and said, look at this, this is ridiculous.
	So that's not true, that it was somehow complicated and we need to guide these MPPs to vote against the bill.
	That's a primary issue I have.
	The other issue I have with that podcast, really important, is the notion that Canadians and Ontario voters have to wake up about this stuff.
	They're awake.
	They're awake.
	The problem is the voices that they're relying on to tell them about this stuff are not talking about it when the PCs are on site.
	That's the problem.
	Well, let me ask you one question after I read this chat from Zerosifer, who says, the interesting thing is I always hear this SJW mindset of accept everything.
	Everyone is a new thing.
	It isn't Rome.
	It isn't Rome went through this at the end of its reign.
	Men were feminized.
	Sex all over.
	Everyone should get stuffed.
	We know how that ended.
	Zerosfer, thank you very much for the chat.
	My question, Jim, is this, though.
	I'm not good at doing this.
	I'm actually very bad at doing this.
	Because when I think someone's made a mistake, I insist that they acknowledge the mistake and apologize for the mistake.
	And I don't give them...
	This is a criticism against me.
	I don't give them the window for them to back out and say, Oh, I didn't even realize I made the mistake.
	Now I'll apologize.
	So if Jordan Peterson...
	If what he's doing is maybe strategic and saying, it's not your fault, guys.
	You have time to repent and make right the wrong that you've done, so let me leave that window open.
	Yeah, it was complicated.
	You guys got duped.
	You're very smart, and it was a very tricky play, but now you can right that wrong.
	Is there a way for those who voted for this on the second reading to oppose it on the third reading to get their way out that allows them to preserve their integrity and intelligence?
	Yes, because after it leaves committee, then it goes back to the House for a third reading debate, and then there would have to be another vote after a third reading debate before it can be granted royal assent, before it can become law.
	So you're right about the strategy there, if Jordan Peterson's taking that approach.
	I'm not quite sure why, though, the three professors on his show would pretend there wasn't an MPP that voted against it.
	That's one question that you have to ask.
	Actually, I know why.
	It's not because I'm not sure why.
	It's because we're a threat to the PCs.
	Well, we're a threat to the PCs.
	And one of the professors on that show is in cahoots with Derek Sloan.
	He lives in Cambridge, and he's never given Belinda respect for four years for being the first MPP against the lockdown.
	The one professor on that show who lives in Cambridge has decided to partner up with everyone who's against us for the last four years.
	That's fine.
	But the other issue I have, Eva, with you simultaneously, we hear from influencers on the right that.
	We why don't we have politicians?
	That's kind of what we hear.
	Is there anyone in Ontario or Canada that's willing to stand up?
	And Belinda?
	Is the first MPP, PC, current or former MPP in Ontario to vote against the lockdown bill.
	And she's the only MPP to vote against this bill.
	And we've stood up against voter fraud and carbon tax, and we've had everything thrown at us from court battles to rigged elections to whatever.
	if what is the model being set for other politicians when if you're willing to stand up to this and now there's some left-wing press that have been emailing belinda uh questions about why she would vote against it so you know they're going to take her to task right they're going to say she's whatever whatever for voting against this bill if the influencers that are against this stuff are not willing to back up belinda when she steps up and says i'm voting against this bill and she shows courage and
	conviction why why would any other politician viva show any courage because the model you're setting is that if you step out from the mainstream pc party and vote against it will probably ignore you And we won't talk about you because we just really want to see the PCs do what we say.
	And we're never really going to hold the PCs to account on this stuff because we're just going to bash the liberals.
	But if the PCs become the liberals, well, that's okay because we just like the color.
	Yeah, that's fair enough.
	Now I'm thinking, as you were mentioning that, why the three other people on the podcast with Jordan might ignore the one dissenter who voted against it.
	At the second reading, so that when they wake up on the third reading, they can say, look, we saved the day.
	We're the first people to oppose this because we never recognized Belinda for having opposed it before we realized it was wrong.
	Politics is a dirty, disgusting business.
	Much like, look, politics exists everywhere.
	So within law firms, you have the same sort of vying for, not for attention, but for recognition.
	Who was the first?
	To stand up against something, to promote something.
	And sometimes, you know, the first person you think did it was not actually the first person who did it.
	So, but now, Jordan Peterson, who's arguably, but probably not arguably, the most influential Canadian, is vehemently against this.
	So we can assume now, you know, Conservative Party of Ontario are going to come out on third reading and say, we didn't know what was in this.
	It's not our fault.
	It was very tricky and they slipped it past us.
	Now we oppose it and we are the saviors.
	And then thus ignoring Belinda in her defiance.
	I'm not concerned about that.
	They're not going to do that, Viva, because they're going after the progressive vote.
	The PC party is now a left-wing progressive party, and they are targeting the liberal base.
	They want the liberal base.
	They don't want right-of-center voters to vote for them anymore.
	They've abandoned that.
	They don't care, right?
	So the new blue party...
	It's become the home for people who don't have a party to vote for.
	Now, there's still a lot of Ontarians that still think the PC party is right of centre because not enough people are talking about what Doug Ford's doing outside of COVID.
	And that's our goal for May and going forward beyond the June election.
	But the PCs don't care, Viva.
	They don't care if you call them leftist, woke, progressive over this bill.
	They're in support of it.
	And the proof is in the last two weeks since we blew the whistle on this, not one single PCMPP has publicly come out and said, oh yeah, we made a mistake or we're not going to let that pass publicly.
	They're not.
	They're for the bill.
	You have to accept that.
	And a lot of the influencers and the talking heads that want to suggest that MPPs don't know how to read and don't know how to vote unless they get advice from them.
	The reality is that...
	The government of Ontario has a huge, tremendous reach, and the PC Party is over 100 years old, and we're a new party.
	They are in the ear of these influencers all the time.
	And we have made our goal explicitly clear for almost two years, Viva.
	We've set up the new Blue Party to replace the PC Party as the right-of-center alternative in Ontario politics.
	And there are a lot of people on the inside and the elites that don't like that because their friends work in the premier's office or their friends work in a cabinet office or maybe they want to run for the PCs one day or whatever the reason.
	They don't want us to replace them.
	They don't want the new blue party to succeed.
	We're not controlled by lobbyists.
	We don't need professors to call us and explain to us what's wrong with bills.
	We are beholden to the grassroots.
	And not everyone agrees with our objective, Eva.
	So they're not going to give us free coverage.
	Because the PC party has rotten to the core.
	Really and truly.
	I mean, this is a party that campaigned on getting rid of the per-vote subsidy from the taxpayer.
	They not only did not get rid of it, they increased it and they extended it.
	They talked about transparency.
	And so when I tabled Bill 150 to make...
	Voter fraud, illegal, and internal party elections.
	They wanted nothing to do with it and went to the media and said that they weren't going to support the bill.
	They only supported me at second reading because of the pushback that they got from constituents and from members across the province.
	And as Jim said, they let it die at committee.
	This is a party that put through a bill to give themselves emergency powers without there being a state of emergency for the last two years.
	I mean, like, there's nothing conservative about them.
	There is no fixing it from within because there is no one, nobody, who has tried harder than Gemini.
	I promise you that.
	Because I did see a comment come through saying, you know, fix from within.
	It's not.
	You can't.
	Every time you try to win a PC party, you get sued, you get thrown out, you get kicked out.
	Anyway, it's not even nominally conservative.
	We've got our platform, the new blueprint, coming out.
	And one of our key promises is on critical race theory.
	And getting it out of the schools, getting it out of the education system, not just stopping Bill 67, but getting this stuff out of each board because it's creeping in at the board level and different boards, giving parents the right to sue and students the right to sue and teachers the right to sue if they're forced to adopt this political ideology and garbage.
	And we're going to deal with a lot of the leftist woke stuff that's being pushed forward in our new blueprint.
	Well, first of all, New Blueprint, whoever thought of that deserves a raise, because that's beautiful.
	I think it was Jay-Z.
	Well, that would explain why I'd never heard of it before.
	I don't listen to Jay-Z.
	I just want to read this part.
	Racist disturbances.
	So everybody who says, we didn't know it was in the law, this is in, it's like, what, two pages in?
	If we're being generous, where was it?
	Yeah.
	Anti-racism.
	Oh, come on, I just lost it.
	Hold on, I got it.
	Hold on.
	Okay, here we go.
	Racist disturbances.
	Every person who disrupts or attempts to disrupt the proceedings of a school or class through the use of racist language or by engaging in racist activities is guilty of an offense and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $200.
	Now, I'm asking a question.
	I have no idea.
	Is this administrative or is this supposed to be some sort of statutory offense?
	And in which case, who adjudicates this?
	And better yet, there are already laws that prohibit any racist conduct, discriminatory conduct, hate speech.
	What is this adding if not, I don't know what, ambiguity, which is never a good thing.
	More laws, less justice.
	Oh, geez.
	Who said it?
	Someone in the chat will get it.
	And then you get the anti-racism, which basically this means C1.
	They're adding to existing provisions to advance racial equity.
	And this is why it's easy to read in that they're basically adding the same caveats or qualifiers to existing provisions of law.
	This doesn't take very long to read.
	No, it doesn't.
	At all.
	Oh, my goodness.
	Who said it, people?
	More laws, less justice.
	Let me see.
	Within 30 seconds, we're going to get the answer.
	It's a Greek philosopher.
	It was not Ayn Rand who ever said that.
	No, no, no.
	I just said it, but I'm not the one who thought of it.
	Heraclitus?
	Someone's going to get it in two seconds.
	It doesn't matter.
	It could have been any one of them.
	So now, when is the third reading of this particular law?
	We won't know until it goes through committee.
	So they'll only set a date for third reading after it's gone through committee.
	Here's a question.
	Is Black Lives Matter racist?
	If Black Lives Matter interrupts a class, will they be subject to this?
	Or do they adopt that circular definition of racism, which is racism is race plus power, so therefore, definitionally...
	It always excludes that which you'd want it to exclude and always includes that who you'd want it to include.
	People are saying Cicero.
	I'm not sure.
	It was not Hippocrates.
	I think it was Cicero.
	Okay.
	I think we've done the rounds of Bill 67. It has not yet become law.
	It's got to go through third reading, then royal assent.
	What's the time frame on that, give or take?
	I think I might have asked you, but are we talking months, days, weeks, or...
	I mean, if they wanted to, it could happen within weeks, truly.
	I mean, they do that with government bills all the time.
	They rush it through committee.
	They do two full days of committee and then they bring it back to the House.
	And it wouldn't...
	I mean, it could happen within weeks, really and truly.
	And the legislature sits till the end of April and they're bringing back the budget or they're tabling the budget, what, April 28th?
	April 28th.
	They got an extension because Rick Nichols voted in favor of that, by the way.
	Well, that's another thing.
	And the election is going to be called like a week later in May.
	So they have right up until the end of April to bring this out of committee and vote.
	So stopwoke.ca is where the petition is.
	get it to Belinda and she can read it on the record in Queens Park or into the record at Queens Park, showing thousands of people against this before it gets debated at committee and comes back out.
	And it's important because you want a dual perspective.
	You want these MPPs to know, and we want the MPPs to know, and the establishment media, that there are people who care about this stuff and think that a one-sided debate and infusing a political ideology against classical liberalism across the school boards in all of Ontario is wrong.
	And so the way to do that...
	Is not to ask professors to call the MPPs and change their mind.
	The way to do that is to get thousands of people across Ontario pen to paper with their name in a petition that Belinda will read into the record.
	Okay, it's phenomenal.
	First of all, I love the both of you, not because of politics, because of individual grit and individual determination.
	And, you know, I think ideologically we're aligned.
	I still refuse to call myself conservative or right of anything.
	I think I have as many views which are left as are right.
	But I am pro-free speech.
	I am pro-individualism.
	And if that makes me something, then I'll have to live with that.
	I want to get to the chat.
	If I've missed anything that anyone in the chat had questions about about this bill before we wind up, get them into the chat, super chat or not.
	In fact, don't even do super chats.
	I don't want to be accused of opportunism.
	I'll try to get your questions.
	I can't think of anything that I might have missed.
	As far as your party goes, if people want to help, if people want to support, if people want to volunteer, where do they go and what do they look for?
	NewBlueOntario.com.
	We do have a button for volunteer at this point.
	Do we not?
	Just contact us.
	That's the volunteer page and you get on the list.
	We also have a link to every single riding association.
	And we'll be posting our candidates soon.
	And we've got 12 spots open, Viva, right across Ontario.
	12 ridings for...
	We just opened up the third round of applications today to fill the last 12. And we're going to run a full slate on June 2nd.
	And we're going to establish the new blue party as a right-of-center party.
	Or a common sense party.
	Or whatever Viva, whatever you classify your ideology as, that's what we're going to call the new blue party, I think.
	Because you want to come up with a new term that's not right-of-center, that's not freedom-oriented.
	Not conservative-oriented.
	We need something to combat the three major parties, the PCs, the Liberals, and the NDP, with their establishment progressive views.
	Well, Jim Belinda, I'm going to ask you this question.
	I don't know what Freemasons are.
	Until you answer, I will tell everyone that you will not answer.
	Are you Freemasons?
	No.
	What are Freemasons?
	I'm going to have to go.
	But I can tell you that I'm not one and Jim is not one either.
	Time's up.
	I'm not getting into that.
	The only thing I know about Freemasons is from The Simpsons when Mr. Burns went crazy and he puts his feet in the Kleenex boxes and then he looks at Smithers' face and it says Freemasons run the country and I have no idea what that meant and I still don't.
	Okay, stop this hate bill.
	Let's see what else we got.
	I want to get actual questions that I might not have asked because I think I got everything.
	Yeah, I guess the question is this now.
	Some people are going to ask, do you get the impression that the Ontario legislature is exploiting of the Ukrainian crisis to jam this through in the dead of night?
	No, I don't get that impression.
	I mean, they've been using COVID to ram things through for two years.
	Oh, 100% COVID, yeah.
	And the problem is, the worst damage is happening, Viva, because...
	When the NDP or the liberals put forward leftist ideas, like when the liberals were in government, because the PCs were in opposition, the influencers on the right or the people on social media on the right that were opposing that legislation, there'd always be that counter-narrative.
	But when the PCs are in on it, and they're in government, they're voting in favor of this stuff.
	That's what's really allowing these bills to fly through under the radar.
	It's not COVID.
	It's not Ukraine.
	It's the fact that no one's talking about it until the new blue party steps up and until Belinda says, I'm voting against that.
	And she gets chuckles and stuff from the other MPPs.
	Then we start getting some exposure on it, which is why it's critical that Belinda gets reelected and why we need more new blue MPPs, candidates to become MPPs on June 2nd.
	Because with the PCs in government, The most damaging left-wing policies are going through and no one's talking about it, which is worse than a left-wing bill getting rammed through when everyone's debating against it, right?
	You need opposition in a healthy democracy.
	Here's a good one.
	I mean, this is broad, but what else would the new blue like to make different in Ontario that is currently being ignored?
	Where do we start?
	So the new blueprint, it's not enough to just say COVID vaccine passports are optional, which is the Doug Ford position going forward.
	We're going to ban them.
	Private use, public facilities, they got to be banned.
	It's discriminatory.
	It's terrible.
	We got to expand early treatment for COVID-19.
	Monoclonal antibodies is being used in Hamilton right now.
	And they've been keeping it under the radar and not widely distributing it, which is just terrible.
	And then beyond COVID, we've got to grow the economy, reduce hydro rates, stop the woke culture.
	And a couple of very interesting things.
	We are...
	In addition, the other thing that we've been really hard on the establishment parties on is, number one, putting the lobbyists in check because they run these establishment parties provincially.
	There's a lot more checks and balances federally where lobbyists can't also organize party politics or be on the inside.
	We've got to put a check on that, and we've got to scrap this per-vote subsidy.
	I don't know if you understand the per-vote subsidy, Viva, but for the last decade, the Ontario establishment parties have been collecting...
	A couple bucks on every vote they earn of a taxpayer subsidy to run their political operations.
	And they can spend it on whatever they want.
	Over $100 million has been spent on these political parties for the last 10 years.
	And Doug Ford said he was getting rid of it, but he brought it back and he upped it by 40%.
	So the PCs have been getting $5.9 million a year.
	Last year and this year on this per-vote subsidy of taxpayer money to fund their political operations.
	Can you imagine all the backroom deals that are being made with political operatives to say terrible things about the new blue party to personally attack us behind the scenes?
	Oh, I can only imagine how much taxpayer money is being funneled to political operatives to help the PCs get re-elected.
	We're going to scrap that and make sure it never comes back.
	So the new blueprint's coming out days now, Viva.
	And it's going to be on newblueontario.com, and you're going to love it, and everyone watching is going to love it.
	www.newblueontario.com.
	And I'm going to put those in the pinned comment, all the links.
	Actually, Jim, just to make my life easier, send me all of the links by email or message.
	I will pin every link that you want up in the pinned comment.
	We now know what Bill 67 is in Ontario.
	We now know why it's relevant for the rest of Canada.
	I've never fully appreciated this.
	I appreciate that Quebec and Ontario kind of unfortunately determine national or federal elections, and I can understand why people out West are quite pissed about that.
	But the influence that Ontario has, it's where the capital is.
	Ontario tends to be the influence of the rest of Canada.
	So if this stuff makes it past The royal assent in Ontario.
	It'll be sort of like an indication of what's to come in the rest of Canada.
	And if you're down with the law, I'd still like you to answer the questions as to why it's necessary.
	What existing laws do not already respond to what this law purports to address?
	I'd like to know those questions.
	But if you support it, you're entitled to your opinion.
	I'd like to hear it, though.
	I think this was phenomenally interesting.
	We're going to leave it at that, everyone in the chat.
	Jim Belinda, thank you very much for everything.
	Thank you for coming on on such short notice.
	Too many people are saying they need to understand Bill 67. If you don't understand it now, take five minutes to read the bill.
	And a great five education.
	You'll be okay.
	Both of you, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	Everyone in the chat, thank you very much.
	Oh, hold on one second before we go because we have been simultaneously.
	Streaming on Rumble.
	I just want to make sure that we have not missed any...
	Let me just...
	Give me one second if there were any Rumble rants.
	There were not that I can see.
	We were simultaneously streaming on Rumble as well, but you guys are doing amazing stuff.
	Politics aside, to do what you've done, to start a new political party, to run a full slate within a year and a half or whatever.
	It's monumental, and that would be setting aside everything else that you've gone through personally as a family, health-wise.
	An inspiration and a motivation for everyone out there.
	And, hold on, Viva, speaking of this bill, can you explain why Trudeau left West Point?
	Ooh, no, that won't be for tonight, people.
	Google it, Google it.
	You will not find any legacy Canadian media.
	On that issue.
	But thank you for the super chat.
	Jim Belinda, stick around.
	Everyone in the chat, thank you very much for everything.
	And I'll see.
	I don't know.
	I'm going live tomorrow at some point.
	So we'll see what's on the menu.
	Cain Velasquez.
	But this was fascinating.
	Thank you very much.

▲