Stephen Gilbo, Canada’s Heritage Minister under Justin Trudeau, is pushing a censorship bill with a new regulator granting 24-hour takedown orders for "taunting" politicians online—while exempting offensive speech based on race—and heavy fines for non-compliance. Despite his fraud conviction tied to climate activism, Gilbo claims censorship protects free expression, a contradiction critics like Spencer Fernando and Rebel News highlight. Mainstream media ignores the threat, unlike Blacklocks.ca or Postmillennial, as left-wing institutions shift from defending civil liberties (e.g., ACLU’s Skokie stance) to policing speech subjectively, often targeting conservatives like Rex Murphy for "racism." The bill, framed as election-year suppression of dissent, isn’t conspiracy—it’s confirmed, with Rebel News facing physical attacks for reporting. Legal restrictions on online criticism loom, prioritizing state control over open debate. [Automatically generated summary]
Today I'm going to take you through that Canada 2020 interview.
That's a Liberal Party think tank, with Stephen Gilbo, the censorship minister.
He said quite a few interesting things, which makes it even more surprising that the media party just ignored it.
I mean, agree or disagree with him, he said some crazy things.
Other than Blacklock's reporter, no one reported on.
I'm going to show you some video clips of what's coming, of what Stephen Gilbo intends to make law in this country as soon as next month.
Here's a short version.
He's coming to censor you.
Anyway, that's ahead.
Let me invite you to become a member of what we call Rebel News Plus.
You get the video version of this podcast.
And I think today that's really useful to see Gilbo say these things.
I also have a little video clip of Angela Merkel and some others.
So just go to RebelNews.com, click subscribe.
It's $8 a month or $80 for the whole year.
And do it for the video stuff.
And you also get Sheila Gunread's video, David Menzies' video, etc.
But do it to support us, frankly.
I mean, even if you don't plan to watch it, it's a good way of showing your support to Rebel News because we don't take a dime from Trudeau.
And I am certain this censorship bill will be used against us almost immediately.
All right, here's today's show.
Tonight, why are journalists so quiet about the liberal plan to censor the internet?
It's April 23rd, and this is the Answer Levant show.
Why should others go to jail when you're a biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say to the government about why I publish it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Last night, I showed you a few clips from Stephen Gilbeau, Trudeau's censorship minister.
I know his actual title is Heritage Minister, but he really doesn't care much about our heritage.
Like Trudeau, he thinks Canada's heritage is one of racism and sexism and genocide.
He's a destroyer, not a builder.
He's the only convicted criminal I know of who was appointed to cabinet.
Have you ever heard of that before?
A lawbreaker becoming a lawmaker?
He hates you.
He hates anyone who disagrees with his worldview.
Imagine appointing a convicted criminal to cabinet.
I bet you think I'm saying that as some sort of insult or epithet.
No, he is a convicted criminal.
He managed to escape jail time.
But here's how the Globe reported on his conviction and sentencing.
Mr. Gilbeau was placed on one year's probation in order to perform 100 hours of community service in Montreal, where he works for Greenpeace, and pay $1,000 of the $3,000 restitution.
I wonder if the judge would have been so gentle had he seen what a liar Gilbo is.
Let me read from the Globe.
Although a prosecutor told an Ontario court judge the two men were remorseful, both expressed jubilation outside court about having drawn public attention to global climate change and the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Got it.
So he's a criminal and he lied to the judge to get a light sentence.
Fits right in with Trudeau.
I mean, that's sort of how Catherine McKenna operates too, right?
You can get away with anything.
You can lie if you just say it loud enough and long enough.
You know, I actually gave him some real advice.
I said that if you actually say it louder, we've learned in the House of Commons.
If you repeat it, if you say it louder, if that is your talking point, people will totally believe it.
So just go.
Okay, so what's this convicted criminal, Stephen Gilbo, up to now?
I showed you last night, he plans to introduce legislation as soon as next week to censor the internet.
Seriously, that's the second item on Trudeau's mandate letter for him, not to build anything, but to destroy.
It really is Orwellian that the highest priority is for him to be the minister of censorship, controlling the media, either by paying the media off, which is how 99% of the media chooses to go with the bailouts.
or the few who don't take the bailouts, the payoffs, to censors them.
As that story of his criminal trial proves, he'll lie when he has to, but I think he was telling the truth here.
What bugs him the most about the internet is not child pornography or terrorism or obscenity.
The thing that bugs him the most is people who taunt politicians like him.
We've seen too many examples of public officials retreating from public service due to the hateful online content targeted towards themselves or even their families.
So you can't taunt him, but he can taunt you on the internet.
He can mock you in your job like this picture he posted.
He can pass laws and regulations and taxes to destroy your job while taunting you.
You just can't taunt back.
Got it?
Those are the rules.
Of course, taunting someone or insulting someone or criticizing someone, especially a politician, isn't against the law.
In fact, it's protected by law.
The highest protection in our fundamental freedoms, there is no speech that is more protected in our laws than political speech criticizing the government.
But try telling that to a convicted criminal like Gilbo, I know.
So because no court will abide him, he will create a new court, a new ministry of censorship, a new censorship court.
I showed you this part yesterday.
I think we need a new regulator.
I think this regulator needs to be able to have audit powers over what platforms are doing in terms of content moderation.
And this new censorship court will have tremendous power, including the power to overrule the content moderators at Facebook or Twitter or YouTube who the government thinks aren't censoring hard enough.
Really?
Who on earth, other than governments in China and Iran and North Korea, think YouTube and Twitter and Facebook aren't censoring hard enough?
Could we envision having blocking orders?
I mean, that's maybe.
It's not, you know, it would likely be a last resolve nuclear bomb in a toolbox of mechanism for a regulator.
Theoretically, it is a tool that is out there and that could potentially be used, but really no decisions have been made on that.
And I would imagine, you know, this is something you would see as part of the regulation most likely.
So I showed you those clips yesterday.
I want to show you a few more today.
And it's interesting to me that these comments, which are so shocking by Gilbo, were only reported on by Blacklocks.ca, the independent Ottawa-based news website.
Even the interviewer with Gilbo here, that's a National Post reporter named Anya Caradelia.
Why Freedom of Speech Matters00:14:26
She asked substantive questions.
She actually asked good questions.
She got shocking answers, as I'm showing you, but she didn't write a story about it.
She was willing to participate in a Canada 2020 conference with Gilbo at the Liberal Party conference.
Her questions were fair.
They weren't aggressive, but they were substantive and fair.
The answers to her questions were outrageous, and she didn't write up the story.
I actually asked her why, and she wrote back to me and said she had written a story that covered the same ground a few weeks earlier, this story here.
And it's true, and it's a fair story, actually.
But surely the minister of censorship talking about banning things from even being uploaded to the internet, about banning foreign servers and a nuclear option, surely that's worth a little news story.
No?
Anybody?
Nobody?
Nobody?
If a Stephen Harper cabinet minister had talked about using the nuclear option to censor political critics who taunt him, surely that would have been a little bit of news entitled Story, especially if it were said directly to a journalist.
Anybody?
Hello?
Anybody home?
I want you to listen to this next line.
It's the censorship minister explaining that we need censorship in order to be free.
As in, if we don't censor you, other people can't talk.
I'm serious.
There's no other interpretation to what he's saying here.
By not acting, we are, in fact, not ensuring a great number of Canadians freedom of expression and freedom of speech, because they can't express themselves on these platforms in a safe manner and the way they have a right to.
Got it.
It's like that bizarre speech by Angela Merkel.
To save your freedom of speech, we have to destroy your freedom of speech.
Remember this clip?
All right, I want to show you three more clips from Stephen Gilboa.
Here's a crazy one.
Gilbo says that there are certain bad words, very offensive words, racist words even, that should be allowed, certain swear words or taunts, as he calls them, but it all depends on who says them.
If you're the right race, you can say, he gives an example.
He talks about black people.
They should be able to use the N-word, but not white people.
I wonder how anyone knows what your race is on the internet.
They judge you by the content of your character, not the color of your skin.
I wonder what would happen, even if they could find out what your race is.
I wonder what happens to someone who's mixed race, someone who's half black and half white or something like that.
Like, I don't know, Barack Obama.
What rule would apply to him?
Here's Gilbo.
Because these algorithms are trained to recognize keywords and not so much the context in which these words are being used.
A lot of the content that is being taken down right now is content that is being posted by equity-seeking groups and racialized people.
Why?
Because they will use certain keywords that are recognized by the algorithms as being problematic, not realizing, I mean, the algorithms can't tell the difference between two black people talking about their daily reality and using certain words that they would use in an everyday conversation, not in a harmful way, and a white supremacist using the same words in a very violent way against a person or a community.
So We're looking at the idea of putting in place an appeal mechanism when people feel that their content is unfairly being taken down by platforms.
And right now, you have really no recourse to deal with this.
I mean, that's an interesting idea.
I mean, Gilbo and the liberals call their opponents Nazis.
They've even called me a Jew, a Nazi.
I find that an outrageous, offensive taunt.
But is that okay for them to do because they're liberal and not officially Nazis or something?
And I'm a conservator.
What are the rules here?
Who gets to say what?
Because that's what he was talking about, right?
Does he get to call a Jew a Nazi or can I call him a Nazi because I'm Jewish?
What are the rules?
Who are the lucky people who get free speech to be offensive?
And who are the unlucky people who are censored?
And can I self-identify as whatever group I need to to have free speech?
Is he really going to make these decisions based on race?
Look, Stephen Gilbo is a thug, literally.
I mean, he's a convicted criminal who laughed at the judge who let him off easy.
He's not particularly smart.
Watching the interview with him was pretty painful.
I mean, remember this idiocy a few months back?
What does this even mean?
So, how will this work?
How are you going to regulate websites?
How are you going to register all that?
Do you buy these recommendations?
Well, I mean, one of the recommendations, so you're talking about a couple of different things here.
But as far as the licensing is concerned, if you're a distributor of content in Canada, and obviously, you know, if you're a very small media organization, the requirement probably wouldn't be the same as if you're Facebook or Google.
So there would have to be some proportionality embedded into this.
But we would ask that they have a license, yes.
Yeah, good times.
Well, the good news is Gilbo himself will tell Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, et cetera.
He will tell them what the rules are.
If the rules make no sense, if they're arbitrary, if they're biased in his favor, he's just going to do it.
He's nice that way.
He's going to tell the social media companies exactly what they have to do.
And if they do exactly what he says, there's no fine, no censorship.
He's going to tell them what to do.
Take a listen.
First thing that should be done is that these things should be flagged to the platforms.
They have a lot of resources to deal with this, much more than even a Canadian regulator would have.
So the first thing that someone or an organization should do is most likely would be to flag it to the platform.
And once it is flagged, then the 24-hour takedown would start if a platform decides not to take a publication down.
I imagine that, I mean, one of the possible scenario would be that then a person or group can turn to the Canadian regulator and then the regulator kicks in.
But obviously, as you mentioned, as you rightly pointed out, firstly, the regulator would put in place a series of guidelines so that the platforms are the first line of attack on that.
And they know exactly what we're expecting from them.
It would be unfair to ask them to do something if we're not clear in terms of what we're asking from them.
Okay.
But if those companies, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google, et cetera, don't do exactly what he says, get ready for a massive fine.
Another thing we're looking at, obviously, the regulator would be able to impose hefty monetary penalties in case of non-compliance.
Certainly been looking at what other countries are doing on that front, Europe certainly being one of them.
So, yeah, I think that's in a nutshell, That's what we have in mind in developing this legislation.
That's what I'm worried about.
If you were YouTube and there was a Rebel News video criticizing Stephen Gilbo, calling him a censorship minister, taunting him about the fact that he's a convicted criminal and not particularly bright, I don't know, say this video, and Gilbo made a complaint, would you stand up for freedom of speech for me, for Rebel News?
Would you, if necessary, hire lawyers to fight against Gilbo's censorship war?
If you were YouTube, I mean.
Why would you do that?
Why would you incur financial costs, legal costs, political costs?
Why would you get offside with this criminal Stephen Gilbo and Justin Trudeau?
Why would you put yourself offside with the government?
Why wouldn't you just say, all right, delete it?
New clear option, delete Rebel News, that video, delete them all together.
Just get rid of the problem so there's no fine, no legal bills, no nasty emails from Gilbo, no extra taxes from the liberals.
It's a safer option.
It's the easier option.
Just do what Gilbo says, silence his enemies, and you'll be fine.
Stay with us for more on this with Spencer Fernando.
Well, one of the things that surprises me, well, I can't say it surprises me.
It disappoints me the most about Stephen Gilbo's planned attack on internet freedom is the silence of the lambs.
I am quite certain that had it been Stephen Harper proposing a total regulation of the internet, a new regulator who would have the power to, quote, use a nuclear option to block things from being uploaded, to block servers from other countries.
I'm positive that we might have heard a peep about it in the mainstream media and the various groups that claim to be for free speech and civil liberties in this country.
I've heard very little aside from the Blacklocks Reporter, which is a small independent research news outlet in Ottawa.
They've really been at the forefront of this, and that's, you know, almost it.
I've seen some op-eds on the subject by our friends at the Postmillennial and True North, and by our next guest, Spencer Fernando, who joins us now via Skype from Winnipeg.
Spencer, great to see you.
I think that if this had been in an earlier era, censoring the entire internet, censoring journalists, censoring hurt feelings or social harms or other completely subjective things, I just know we would have had a five-alarm fire from the fancy people.
Not only is there very little criticism, there's very little coverage at all, like even just straight reporting on this.
Why do you think that is?
You know, I think it's really the culmination of a long-term trend in many ways in many universities in the country and the entire Western world where really the kind of idea of freedom of speech has been replaced with this concept of, oh, you know, we're going to stop hate, we're going to stop racism, which of course sounds nice, but it all becomes about, you know, how people feel about something, right?
Subjective feelings.
And the issue with that is it's not really a legal framework.
It's not protecting people's rights to speak their mind.
It's saying, look, if someone's upset by something, then, you know, if you said it, then you're in trouble.
Or if you wrote it, you're in trouble.
It doesn't matter whether what you wrote is legal or not.
It's saying you're going to get in trouble because someone was hurt by it.
And of course, the problem is anyone can be hurt by anything.
So whether it gives the government a blank check to ban and control whatever they want.
And you're seeing them say things like, there's people, people, you know, politicians, they're getting criticized too much and some people are choosing not to go into public office.
Well, you know, you live in a free country or supposedly a free country where people are supposed to be allowed to speak their minds.
You run for office, you gain power over a government, power over people's lives.
And what you're criticized too much or people are a little too harsh to you online, so you quit.
I mean, the solution to that is people need to toughen up, not trying to censor the entire internet.
Yeah, and these are crybullies.
I mean, these are the people.
I mean, I know there's a few liberal politicians that constantly complain about this.
Catherine McKenna, I think, is the worst.
I mean, the nickname that our friend Sheila Gunrid gave her, Climate Barbie, if that is the worst thing said about you, you're doing pretty well in the age of social media.
But I remember a few years ago, Harper, you know, F-U-C-K Harper bumper stickers, lawn signs.
The CBC was championing a guy who would drive around with that.
I mean, you had comparisons of him to Hitler.
The CBC's Mary Walsh called him Stasi Steve and Herr Harper, you know, calling him a Nazi.
Help save poor Stasi Steve this season.
God knows Hare Harper doesn't have enough sense to save himself.
So that's okay because he was evil, so he deserved it.
But you call Catherine McKenna climate Barbie because she hires a fashion photographer in Paris for $6,000 to take a few snapshots of her, and then we have to censor the whole internet.
It's quite incredible.
But, you know, I think you're right when you say ghosts the universities.
I mean, it was only a generation or two ago where when the Nazis marched through a Jewish neighborhood in Skokie, Illinois, where there were Holocaust survivors, the ACLU went to defend the Nazis' right to demonstrate, and they sent Jewish lawyers and black lawyers.
And they did that on purpose to make the point that obviously the ACLU didn't support Nazis.
They were sending, I mean, the ACLU used to send black lawyers to defend Klansmen.
Ghosts of Universities00:09:46
To make the point that we don't like these guys, duh, but if we don't fight for their freedom, ours is next.
That kind of civil liberties activism is completely gone from the left, isn't it?
Yeah, you know, when I worked at some student newspapers, I could already kind of see the trend emerging.
And looking back, it becomes more obvious.
Where there was kind of two types of people.
You know, there weren't too many super conservative journalists, but there was the ones who were, I guess you could say kind of the old school civil libertarians, right?
Hold the government accountable, you know, stand up for free speech.
You know, we should be a platform for people to share whatever opinions they have, whether we agree or not, right?
It's trying to be a somewhat neutral platform for free speech.
And then the others who were clearly activists, right?
They were in journalism to enforce their worldview on other people.
And that was totally about, look, we don't like this opinion.
We're going to shut you down.
We're going to ban you.
So there's a lot of tension internally.
And, you know, those people, you know, those two groups are really, they've grown up and now they're running a lot of these newspapers and websites and media companies.
And the split is still evident, but the split, unfortunately, has come down more on the side of those who are activists, not really journalists.
So I think that's what we're seeing now is people who the idea of, you know, why should I defend someone I disagree with?
I'll just use the power of the government to shut them down, which of course is very authoritarian and very much against the values we're supposed to have in this country.
Yeah, you know, I was thinking back to when I published the Danish cartoons of Mohammed in February 2006.
So that's almost exactly 15 years ago.
The reaction from the working journalists, even at the CBC, even at the Toronto Star, was 99% supportive of my right to do so.
Like even liberals said, of course you should have that right.
That was only 15 years ago.
Now that would be unthinkable.
And now I think of how the National Post, allegedly a conservative newspaper, they actually had this whole struggle session where all their staff got together to complain about Rex Murphy.
What did he do?
Did he call someone a bad name?
No, he had the temerity to say that Canada is not systemically racist.
Yeah, we've got problems, but we are not rotten in our bones.
That was such a freak out that a majority of staff signed a letter condemning him.
So 15 years from the CBC saying, yeah, you go, girl, when I publish those Danish cartoons, to the conservative newspaper having a vote of its reporters to condemn Rex Murphy, 15 years is all it took.
That's shocking.
Yeah, and I think what we're figuring out is the left is very good at getting into institutions that have a lot of cultural influence.
And even they then kind of make things, that's the best way to say it.
Things that almost nobody agrees with somehow become the norm, right?
And I'll give an example.
I saw a Twitter trend yesterday, and I think it was referring to people who experience menstruation and they're related to COVID-19.
Obviously, they mean women, right?
And so you'd almost find, you go to the street and talk to 100 people, and you'd maybe find one or two who would ever refer to women as people who experience menstruation.
But yet, this is Twitter, you know, one of the biggest social networks in the world.
And that's just the accepted lingo for them now.
So the left has been very good.
You see it in schools and universities.
And they're trying to, in many ways, I think, undermine the foundation of the Western world.
A big part of that is individual freedom and freedom of conscience and freedom of thought.
So if you undermine those concepts, you really don't have much freedom left after all.
And then who's there to defend it, right?
Young people are told, oh, the West is just colonialism and oppression and evil, and you shouldn't feel any pride in the Western world.
You should feel just guilt and feel other cultures are so much better.
The West is terrible.
And so who's going to defend these concepts if everyone's being demoralized?
What worries me is that I think most, you mentioned if you go on the street, most people wouldn't be part of this whole woke thing.
It's a very luxurious, you know, it's a rich person's problem to toy around with names like, you know, is it a woman or a person who menstruates?
Because if you're a working class person, you're busy earning a living for your family.
You're not splitting hairs about just the most exquisite phraseology.
I think most of cancel culture is alien to how real people live.
I think real people say rough things sometimes.
They joke around.
They make politically incorrect jokes.
And even teasing, even quote, mean nicknames can be a way of socially clicking together.
I mean, you know, this pretend way of living that's so exquisitely perfect.
None of these purveyors of it live that way themselves.
No one is ruder than the journalistic political class.
No one swears more than journalists and politicians.
No one drinks more.
No one's more sexist.
We're learning just how gropey Trudeau's male feminists are.
So they're holding up this artificial standard of perfection that they themselves, that no one could live up to.
Here's my point.
Spencer, I think that any political leader who said, look, let's be polite to each other.
Let's be nice to each other, but we got to get out of this crazy wokeness, this cancel culture, this language policing.
I think any such person would immediately have a majority of support from every party voter base.
So why don't we see that?
Like Aaron O'Toole, I've got a lot of beefs with him, and I know you do too.
But how easy would it be for him to pick up the mantle of guys, political correctness gone too far?
All of a sudden, real conservatives would feel some enthusiasm again.
If he drew any criticism or controversy, it would be good for him.
The Toronto Star is mad at me.
Oh, please don't throw me in the briar patch, you know?
So why don't we see opportunistic politicians, which is all of them, why don't we see politicians who care about votes, which is all of them, go for this issue of political correctness, wokeness, and fight against censorship?
Because I think you could probably muster public opinion against Stephen Gilbo's censorship plans, but I don't think you're going to if you don't have a political champion on the other side.
Yeah, well, I think O'Toole, I mean, he was doing a bit of that during the leadership race, right, when he was presenting himself as true blue, standing up for Canada's culture and history.
He's just stopped talking about that for the most part now, like he did with most things he promised at the time.
But I think a lot of them are afraid, right?
They don't want a negative media cycle.
They don't want to get tagged as, you know, of course, you know what they'd say.
It's racist or bigoted.
That's the attack that always happens.
So I think a lot of it is just cowardice, right?
People not willing to push back and stand up, and they're just going to take the easy way.
The problem with that for conservatives is then the idea is what are you actually ever conserving, right?
I mean, if you're just surrendering to the liberals on every issue, kind of going with the flow with the media, you're just, I mean, society just keeps moving in a way the liberals would like and not a way that, you know, many conservatives would like.
So you're not really conserving anything and you're not really getting anything done.
You're just trying to manage the liberal system with a conservative name on it, right?
So I think a lot of it is cowardice and it's fear, right?
You know, people, they don't feel they have enough strength in themselves to push back against the media or stand up for what they believe.
So they just take the path of least resistance.
And of course, that normally doesn't work out for the party anyway.
Yeah.
I'm worried, though, because even if O'Toole were to suddenly find courage and oppose this, I think the other parties in parliament would join with Trudeau and Gilbo in ramming this through.
I think the NDP probably wants it to go farther.
I think the Block Hippoque, I don't know, but I think they would want to go farther.
I think all the parties of the left love censorship.
And I really fear this thing's going to become law.
I fear it's going to come law before the next election.
And I think that's the timing here is to get those last squeaky wheels shut up before Trudeau goes to the polls again.
And I just really feel this is imminent.
Now, the bill has not been introduced in parliament yet, but they say it's coming imminently.
I don't know.
I just have this dread in me that things are about to get really get rough.
What do you think?
Yeah, well, I've seen some conservative MPs tweeting about it and expressing concern, but not O'Toole himself, unless I miss something, which is possible.
But I don't think I've seen him do it.
So we'll see.
I mean, you had all the conservative MPs saying how much they hated carbon taxes and O'Toole promising no carbon tax.
And then he said, actually, we are bringing in a carbon tax.
And MPs stop talking about the carbon tax, right?
They just kind of pretended, oh, none of that happens.
And he doesn't seem to be consulting with them.
So it wouldn't be a surprise to me to see them.
Yeah, you've got some MPs criticizing it.
Then O'Toole goes and says, hey, guys, we're actually supporting this.
So I hope not.
I hope you'll actually show a little bit of courage.
But, you know, past experience would leave some doubt about that.
Yeah.
Well, I know you'll keep fighting for free speech.
You're one of the good guys.
Spencer, great to see you again.
Thanks for taking the time.
No problem.
All right.
There you have it.
Spencer Fernando of the website, spencerfernando.com.
Stay with us.
ahead.
Welcome back.
Your viewer feedback Miles says, conservatives are crazies and conspiracy kooks blathering about unfair censorship practices.
Yeah, it would be crazy if it weren't happening.
Behind the Scenes Support00:01:36
But it's happening.
It's not a conspiracy theory.
It's a conspiracy fact.
We know that because they tell us they're censoring us, and you can tell for yourself because we weren't allowed to put up videos for a week.
Another comment on YouTube from Alberta Rebel.
Love your station.
Thanks for all you and your team do for this country.
Well, you know what?
I'm glad you said team because every day I marvel at the people who work with us.
And by the way, sometimes it's not easy to work with us.
Some of our people are behind the scenes, so they can keep sort of a low profile.
But our people who are public, sometimes they get abuse from our critics.
Sometimes it's merely words, but occasionally our people are actually assaulted by anti-fub, by other leftists who don't have the power of words to rebut us and debate us.
I'm so very proud of our team, both the on-camera and the behind-the-camera team.
And you know, we're growing.
The last year has been a terrible one for the world and for Canada in particular, but it's made telling the other side of the story more important than ever.
And I hope you agree that we've risen to the challenge with more reporters than ever, more news than ever, and lots of young new reporters that I just love seeing.
And they're not just reporters.
We have people who do other things mainly.
They're behind a computer editing mainly, but we're getting them on camera too, not just because they think it's fun, but because we need more voices.
So thank you for your support this past year and frankly the past six years.
I promise we'll keep fighting every day.
Until next time, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, see you at home.