Sheila Gunn-Reid highlights Ottawa’s election where climate activist Catherine McKinney—leading with 38%—lost to Mark Sutcliffe after her $57.4B climate plan and $250M bicycle path proposal backfired amid homelessness crises. ICSC Canada, led by Tom Harris, exposed wind power failures (e.g., Texas) and cobalt mining ethics, forcing McKinney’s retreat. Sutcliffe’s win signals a rare common-sense victory, but COP27 looms with demands for $1.3T annual "loss and damage" transfers, potentially saddling Canada with $54B yearly payments. Harris dismisses climate alarmism, citing historical data and policy risks, urging conservatives to counter leftist momentum by engaging in local debates—just as activists did against pipelines—before irreversible harm sets in. [Automatically generated summary]
The city of Ottawa has a brand new mayor who doesn't seem to be a hypochondriac worrywart.
How did we come to this startling turn of events?
A rare win for common sense.
I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed, and you're watching The Gunn Show.
Former Ottawa city councillor,
social justice warrior, climate activist, and anti-convoy ball of nerves, Catherine McKinney lost her bid to be the next mayor of the nation's capital city after votes coalesced around someone far more reasonable...
but someone I probably disagree with on almost everything, former broadcaster Mark Sutcliffe.
It's odd because if you got all your news from the mainstream media, you would have thought that McKinney was an absolute shoe-in for the mayor's office.
She's immensely popular on social media.
She's a face of the anti-convoy city councilors on local and national news, but none of that translated at the ballot box.
So what happened and how the heck did it happen?
I think it had a lot to do with citizens turning up at public forums and actually asking real questions and not the boring, insufferable questions nobody cares about that are normally asked by equally boring moderators at these sorts of things.
And I think it caught McKinney completely flat-footed.
Tonight, Ottawa resident Tom Harris, the man behind that citizen-organized campaign to ask questions, joins me tonight to discuss what unfolded in the city of Ottawa in their latest election.
Now, Tom and I normally meet in some foreign country this time of year because Tom's also with the International Climate Science Coalition Canada.
And this time of year, we are often at the United Nations Climate Change Conferences.
But as you can see, both of us are at home.
So we're going to discuss what we anticipate will come from the conference from afar.
check it out.
So joining me now is my friend and good friend of the show, Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition Canada.
And last time Tom was on the show, he was talking to me about normal people turning up at public debates for local politicians because where a lot of these majorly expensive climate change policies are coming from is not from the federal government.
It's coming out of municipalities that are being infected with World Economic Forum and UN garbage.
And Tom was telling us about the successes of normal citizens turning up at these debates.
Now the municipal election has come and gone in Ottawa.
And thankfully, the climate alarmist, lockdown alarmist, anti-convoy candidate, Catherine McKinney, who was running for mayor, has lost.
I thought we could bring Tom back on.
We could talk a little bit more about the successes that unfolded there to get, I think, a more reasonable I don't know if I would agree with your new mayor on very much, but he seems at least reasonable.
And then we'll talk about the latest UN climate change conference that's coming up.
And that's usually where Tom and I meet, but neither one of us are going this year.
So Tom, thanks for being patient with me through that big long preamble.
Let's talk about the Ottawa election.
Tell me who won and why you think they won.
Yeah, exactly.
Back in July, Catherine McKinney, who is a current counselor in the council until November 15th.
That's when they have the switch over.
She was ahead, significantly ahead.
And now her support was only in the 30s, but all of the rest of the candidates were splitting the vote.
So it looked very likely that she was going to win the election with a high 38%, something like that.
And in fact, over the time period between July and the final election, her actual vote count slightly rose.
Okay, so she kept her solid supporters and they did vote for her.
But a very interesting thing happened.
Mark Sutcliffe, who was a previous radio announcer with CFRA here in Ottawa, he actually was quite far behind her until just a few weeks before the election.
And what happened is there were two things.
First of all, there was a huge percentage, something like 30% undecided.
Okay.
And they apparently all switched to Sutcliffe.
The other thing that happened is the third, fourth, and fifth candidates lost their support to Sutcliffe.
And I think what happened is that Catherine McKinney scared people so much with her loony plans.
And I'll talk about that in a second.
Please.
That people, you know, even in my own family, for example, they had their own favorite candidates, you know, Professor Cadre or Maguire, all sorts of people.
But they finally realized, holy smokes, if we don't vote for the only candidate that might beat her, she could very well win the election.
And so when you actually look at the numbers, and I plotted them not only in a graph, but I also plotted them over time to show how the change in other support just went to almost zero.
Okay, almost zero.
Even Shirelli went down to about 5%.
Cadre lost his support.
Sing went from something like 7% or 8% to practically zero.
And what happened, I think, is all of these people who were supporting these third, fourth, and fifth candidates suddenly said, oh my God, this Catherine McKenney is going to win.
And so they all voted for Sutcliffe.
And Sutcliffe ended up getting more than 50% of the vote.
And he beat McKinney by, oh, 14% or something.
So that was a huge change.
I think the polling was correct.
I think the polling showing that McKinney had the lead consistently was right.
But I think that her plan just scared people so much.
Brought to Public Attention00:14:55
Now, there are two parts of her plans that are actually of a concern.
And ICSC actually has been publicizing the terrible Ottawa climate plan, the $57.4 billion climate plan.
But the thing that she did also is she really promoted bicycle paths.
I'm not kidding.
She said that she was going to spend a quarter of a billion dollars on bicycle paths.
And it's interesting because Mark Sutcliffe did something very smart.
He figured out, okay, all that money would have to be borrowed because Ottawa was miles in debt.
So what would be the interest charge over, let's say, 10 years?
And he calculated that the final cost of the bicycle paths would be about $400 million.
Now, it was interesting because she was not only being attacked by Sutcliffe on this point, but she was being attacked by Ade Olami.
Okay, he didn't get a lot of support, but at the same time, he brought up some really good points.
He said, look, we have a city that has a waiting list for drug rehab centers.
We have people living under bridges.
And you're going to spend a quarter of a billion or maybe 400 million on sort of Cadillac bicycle paths.
I mean, it's completely crazy.
And, you know, I like to think that our group played a major role in educating people about what would happen if they really did what she wanted to do.
710 industrial wind turbines.
And, you know, one of the things I worked with a few people, a few volunteers behind the scenes before the debate started to talk about, okay, what are the important questions to bring up?
Because typically when they have public debates, they just get softball questions, you know, things like, well, how can we reduce greenhouse gases even more?
You know, can we actually bike in the winter?
You know, things like that.
So what we did is we got together and we spoke about, okay, what would really impact Ottawans in this plan?
What's really important?
Okay.
And we chose different topics and we actually different people chose topics that would fit their personality.
And it was quite interesting because, for example, a French Canadian lady, she decided to talk about the child mining in the Congo for cobalt to make the batteries for electric vehicles.
And she said, I am a mother and a grandmother, and I do not want this to happen.
Should Ottawa be doing this?
And you know, none of the people on the panel, especially McKinney, had any clue about this issue.
It was totally, you know, they were totally caught flat-footed.
So in the first three debates, where they allowed questions directly from the public, I'd say that our group actually absorbed about half of all the questions.
Nice.
Yeah.
And I think this must have shocked the organizers.
Now, we were careful to not actually support or oppose any candidate.
We were talking about policy.
If McKinney's policy was rational, then she wouldn't have suffered as a result of the questions that we asked.
We also asked questions like, well, Ottawa produces about one 100th of 1% of world emissions.
And so, and the calculation was done in the U.S. by a leading expert, if we reduced our emissions to net zero and stayed that way all the way to the end of the 21st century, the net change in temperature would be about one ten thousandths of a degree.
So one of the people that was in our volunteer group, he got to the mic and he said, so you're going to spend almost $60 billion for one ten thousandths of a degree.
What common sense does that make?
Well, what all the candidates said is, well, we're going to lead the world.
But of course, we weren't allowed to have a second question.
So it was a later debate that we brought up the fact that China was building coal stations all over the world and China's not going to follow Ottawa.
But they stuck to their line.
Much as I like Dr. Cadre, he said, well, China is going to follow Ottawa.
We're going to go to the Egypt COP27 conference and we're going to convince them that this is the way to go.
And you know, it's interesting, Sheila, when he said that, somebody in the audience yelled out, not going to happen.
And it was hilarious because Rogers censored the question.
They censored the answer.
They censored all that stuff out.
They took out two major questions from the debates, which put the city in a bad light.
So there was a huge amount of censorship going on.
And, you know, you'd laugh that by the fourth debate, I guess the organizers must have think, oh, something's going on here.
Like, how often in a public debate do half of the people ask hard questions?
Now, we weren't questioning the science.
And that was intentional because we didn't want to have people dismiss us as deniers.
What we wanted is people to feel the pain that would be coming if this Ottawa plan came in.
And the point that I brought up in the first debate, actually, at the microphone, was, you realize that 700 people died in Texas during the February 2021 cold snap because wind power failed.
And yet you're pushing Ottawa to the same kind of situation as Texas, but it gets a lot colder in Ottawa.
Now, McKenney responded by saying, well, she didn't think that wind power played a major role in the campaign.
But we went later and we checked.
And of course, wind power is triple solar.
She said solar was more.
So in the third debate, one of the members of our team, a very brave lady, she got to the mic and she read McKinney's quote.
And then she read the part of the plan that, you know, she interpreted it that showed that she was totally wrong.
So the lady asked McKenney this question.
And you can see why Rogers deleted it.
The question was, did you vote for a $57 billion plan without reading it first?
And so I think we did have a significant impact.
You know, we did other things, lots of interviews, you know, presentations, Zoom talks, being careful not to support or oppose any candidate.
And we also handed out, you know, flyers and things like that, always talking about not the science, but the pain of the Ottawa climate plan.
And various people are telling me that this did have an impact.
I mean, it made people think about it.
At the ward level, I went to the ward debate for our local counselor and you'd laugh to hear what happened.
I got up to start talking about the cost of the plan and everything else.
And the very left-wing candidate, he's an NDP person, jumped up and he started yelling at me.
I wasn't even finished my question.
And he said, you know, you're a climate change denier and everything else.
And he was trying to shut me up.
The audience, of course, jumped in as well.
And they're all yelling at this denier.
And then they noticed I was not wearing a mask.
Oh, my goodness.
Oh, they went berserk.
You know, get out of here unless you put on your mask.
At first, so I told them, I said, well, it's not required anymore.
It's recommended, but the city has rules and the rules say that you don't have to wear it.
No, no, no.
And the organizer came over and yelled at me.
And so eventually I put on the mask just to shut them up.
But by then, they could say, oh, your time for asking a question is up.
Sit down.
So I got an email actually the next day from the city of Ottawa basically telling me I was right.
So there was a huge amount of censorship going on, not just in the way the debates were set up, but also in the fact that if you disagreed.
But something really interesting happened.
I did get enough out that by the end of that debate, none of the candidates in the ward were actually supporting the Ottawa climate plan.
In fact, even the NDP said, NDP guy said, almost $60 billion?
He said, you know, when I saw that, my eyes just rolled.
I thought that's like crazy.
And one of the candidates told me that in the later debates in our ward, which I didn't bother going to, he said, you realize none of the candidates were supporting the Ottawa climate plan anymore because the issue of cost had been brought up in a, well, I brought it up in a pretty solid way, and none of them wanted to identify with it.
And, you know, it's interesting, Sheila, after the fourth debate, maybe the fifth, yeah, the fifth debate for the mayors, Bob Shirelli came up to me afterwards and he said, you know, the Ottawa climate plan is dead.
Now, he was a former mayor, okay?
So let's hope he's right.
Let's hope he's right.
Because just like you say, Sutcliffe, he won more than half the vote.
He's got, you know, only 44% of people voted, but still, you know, he did have an overwhelming victory.
We're hoping that because he's not a climate fanatic like McKinney, that he'll actually allow open hearings, you know, bringing in people, economists and engineers and others to talk about what would be the impact if we actually did this.
Right.
Versus the payoff.
Yeah.
Like $57.5 billion.
What's the payoff?
Hoping Beijing follows along with what Ottawa is doing.
Imagine the narcissism in thinking that.
That's right.
Well, it's all virtue signaling.
And it's extremely important and totally useless, sorry, extremely dangerous and expensive and useless virtue signaling because China is simply not going to follow us.
And, you know, the organizers in the third debate, they actually eliminated from the debate everybody who actually had been strongly against McKinney's climate plan.
You know, for example, Mike McGuire, he was eliminated from the fourth debate.
Same thing with Ade Alamed.
Now, in Ade's case, he's a black fellow who was very outspoken about the bike paths being stupid.
He actually had a written commitment from the organizers to be in the debate.
He accepted it and they still eliminated him.
And, you know, so there's a lot of corruption in this election.
Something that really has to be looked at, I think, for future elections.
Ade has actually registered a complaint and his objective is to try to clean up the process.
So we were actually, you know, Ottawa dodged a bullet because everything was stacked in favor of McKinney winning.
The structure of the debates, the fact that the first four debates were all climate change, that they eliminated candidates, they censored questions, et cetera, et cetera.
And she still lost.
So that actually gives a pretty powerful message, I think, to other politicians that if you come across too strongly in favor of woke climate change, the average person is going to get a little uncomfortable.
And in this case, McKenney's support didn't drop, but Sutcliffe's went through the roof.
So I think what happened very clearly is that people were frightened by her.
And thank goodness they were.
I am a little frightened by her, generally speaking.
And it became pretty evident by that fourth debate that they really were doing everything they could to stack it in her favor, including bringing in a true believer from the CBC as their unbiased moderator.
Yeah.
In fact, he even said in the debate, he said, well, all scientists agree.
He didn't say like 80% or 90%.
He said, he said, all the experts agree that we're in dire peril.
And I thought, oh, yeah, that's a really neutral, you know, chairperson.
So that was crazy.
So, I mean, I think it was really a wake-up call to politicians that if you go too far on the climate thing, yeah, people will be shocked and they will naturally not vote for you.
You know, so I think that we had an impact.
We brought this to public attention.
We've been doing it, of course, for years.
We put out a report in January, but it suddenly became really relevant because as the only candidate who was currently on the council, she was the only candidate who was really responsible for the plan.
And when people started looking at, what the heck?
Say, this is crazy.
You know, so I think it's actually a good lesson for conservatives that if you properly publicize the issue, you know, you give presentations and you don't back down, you're not scared.
You go to these events, you hand out flyers, you talk to hundreds of people, that you can actually stop the extreme climate people from getting in.
By the way, I don't pretend that we stopped her by ourselves.
There were a lot of factors, but I think we played a significant role.
You know, another factor that played a very big role is just before the election, the Ottawa Police Association came out and very strongly condemned McKinney for her defund the police, her accusations that the police were racist and all this sort of thing.
I was shocked when I saw it.
I mean, I was happy to see it, but I was really surprised that the Ottawa Police Association, and they say, it's funny, because at the end of their little dialogue, they said, oh, but we're not supporting or opposing a candidate after giving us three straight minutes of how horrible McKenney was, you know, and I mean, even we didn't do that because, of course, we're not promoting a candidate or opposing one.
We want to see good policies.
And, you know, once again, if she had good policies, fine, you know, she wouldn't have been damaged by the public learning about her plans and about the city's plans.
So, you know, we're careful not to actually tell people who to vote for.
There is a real lesson in here, as you say, for conservatives.
And I've been sort of banging this drum for the last two years, maybe a little longer, but particularly because of the pandemic restrictions.
Many of that patchwork pieces of that patchwork quilt of lockdown restrictions, those were done at the hands of your local municipal politicians.
And, you know, that's why it's so important to have people there who truly believe in freedom, but also people who will look at a seven, no, sorry, a $57.5 billion municipal climate plan and say, where's the payoff for the taxpayer here?
You know, you're not going to save the planet.
And I think that's what I like about what you did there.
You framed it in a way that no matter what side of the climate change debate that you're on, how do you justify spending this much money to virtue signal and really make no impact either way at the bitter end of it all?
I think that was really important because you were able to capture people from all sides of the argument.
Yeah, exactly.
And we'll put out a science report.
We actually have had it in the wings for a few months.
It's being ready.
But we didn't want to put it out because we didn't want to taint our message.
Sure.
Our message was very straightforward.
You know, it's interesting, Sheila, in the fifth debate where they wouldn't take questions from the public.
I went up to the microphone.
I went, you know, after they had finished the debate, I went up to ask Catherine McKinney if she'd read our report.
And as I approached the stage, she saw me.
So as soon as she finished with one of her supporters, she started walking off really quickly.
And finally, she went behind the black screen and I called out, I said, Catherine, excuse me, Catherine.
Wandering Streets Without Harassment00:02:57
And she said, no, no, no.
And she ran away.
And I thought, wow, like that's not very accountable.
And of course, I reported that in my articles because the other candidates, they all hung around for a good half hour talking.
And, you know, like you say, Mark Sutcliffe is somewhat of a climate alarmist himself, but he's a reasonable person.
You know, like he actually spoke with me as a normal human being.
You know, he knew I disagreed with him, but it didn't matter.
He spoke with me and lots of other people.
So I think it's a very positive development having someone come in who's not a politician.
That's actually good.
You know, I think that's what happened with Trump.
He sort of actually came in, not a politician.
It's a breath of fresh air.
And I think we're going to see a really good development come out of him.
And I think now the potential exists for us to get them to drop the plan entirely.
And that's, of course, going to be our goal when we release the science report because Sutcliffe, yeah, it's a pretty decent guy.
And the other people, Kadre and Shirelli, they were all very friendly too.
So I think to some extent, Catherine shot herself in the foot, not only by running away, because of course she wasn't talking to anybody else either, but also because she pushed these plans that it only appealed to the hardcore climate activists in her base.
The average person would say, that's crazy.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And we know how Catherine McKinney feels about normal people based on how she treated those people in the convoy who were just there to ask for an end to vaccine mandates and other COVID restrictions.
Now, sorry, you laughed, Sheila.
One other quick thing.
She wanted all of us to call her they.
And I did for a while.
But then somebody wrote me an email saying, what are you doing?
She's only one person.
She's not plural.
So I stopped doing it.
You know, so I mean, I think that also didn't help her.
You know, the fact that she was getting all excited about wanting people to call her they, them there, you know, it's such a weird idea.
She's such an odd woman.
I watched a lot of her testimony from the Trucker Commission.
Oh, yeah.
And she would wander the streets filming the truckers.
And I frankly hoped she never stopped because she didn't see what everybody else saw.
You know, she's wandering the streets saying, look at these truckers invading our cities.
And I'm looking thinking, okay, well, right behind you is an open lane of traffic.
That's great.
I don't hear any horn honkings.
That's great.
And you're able to wander the streets bad mouthing truckers while the truckers are in the background, just looking at you like you're a crazy person, not saying a single word to you.
So apparently you can wander the streets without being harassed.
Everything she showed only reaffirmed my position that the convoy was relatively peaceful.
But moving along, this is the time of year where you and I normally meet at a fancy locale somewhere in the more exotic parts of the world, like Madrid or Berlin.
Pay And Countries00:14:41
And this year is Egypt.
Neither one of us are going.
You're busy with other things.
I didn't think it was safe for me to go because I wasn't accredited with the United Nations, which didn't give me the same protections as the other journalists there.
because only the true believing journalists can get into the United Nations complex.
So just for the safety of our team, we decided not to go this year.
But this is where the gathering of the globalists happens to decide how much money in climate tithes the rest of the world has to pay to the climate cult.
What do you think is going to come out of Egypt this year?
Well, it's a good question.
I don't think we're going to see any new greenhouse gas reduction targets.
I don't think we're going to see that.
But the whole objective of this conference is, like you say, it's money.
It's money.
Because India, for example, has said that if they're not paid $1 trillion upfront, they're not going to pay any attention to their greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.
Okay.
I'll take that deal.
You know what?
Yes, fine.
No money.
No money.
And you don't care about climate change.
And I'm happy.
What's the product?
So we can save the money and they can go ahead and industrialize and bring the people out of poverty.
Perfect deal.
Yeah.
But you know, there's three main flows of money.
It's first of all, mitigation, trying to stop climate change.
And that one is actually fairly well established as to how much we're supposed to pay.
It's supposed to be 100 billion a year starting in 2020.
100 billion a year coming from developed countries to developing countries to supposedly help them stop climate change, you know, reducing emissions, things like that.
But it hasn't happened.
Okay.
It just simply hasn't happened.
And I don't think it's going to happen.
Now, the second one is adaptation.
And the third one is loss and damage.
And that's the 9,000 pound gorilla in the room.
Okay.
That could be literally many trillions of dollars.
But I'll just give you one other number that'll blow your mind.
The African group of countries, they want to get $1.3 trillion per year between, let's see, I'll just check the number, the actual dates.
It's important because it does give a number for Canada.
Okay, here we go.
They want to get $1.3 trillion per year between 2025 and 2030 with further increases beyond that.
Now, they haven't actually decided how it would be at proportion to different countries who would pay how much.
But if they do it based on GDP, it turns out that Canada's share would be $54 billion per year in Canadian dollars.
Okay, that first number was American.
And that's two-thirds as high as the federal government's $84 billion equalization payments.
And it works out to about $1,400 per year for every Canadian to just pay for the demands of the African countries.
So what's going to happen, of course, is they're not going to get the money.
And so I think that by the end of the conference, we won't have any significant agreements for emissions reduction.
They might promise a lot more money, but I really can't see even Trudeau paying $54 billion every year to the Africans.
It's just a bit loony.
But that's going to be the main focus.
Give us the cash.
That's what they want.
And as I said before, the 9,000 pound gorilla in the room is loss and damage.
That comes from the Warsaw Loss and Damage part of the different UN agreements.
What they want us to do is to pay for the reparations, to pay for the recovery from extreme weather events in developing countries.
Now, the interesting thing about this, Sheila, is there's no actual statute of limitations.
They're not saying, well, before the year 2000, you don't have to pay anything.
They could go back to Hurricane Haiyan or they could go back to previous tornadoes and typhoons and say, well, you owe us for a typhoon that happened in 1996 because you clearly caused it.
So that, if it ever gets to fruition, if we ever see that come about, it's going to make these numbers I just said sound small because we're talking about many trillions of dollars.
But I think honestly, the whole thing is going to fall apart.
Oh my goodness, Tom, from your lips to God's ears.
They tell me this isn't a cult, but it sounds a lot like superstition when I hear things like generational guilt for weather events that have no scientific tie to my SUV that may have happened 30 years ago that I have to pay for today.
That seems like religious superstition to me.
Yeah.
Well, you know, the interesting thing also is that the science is not there.
I mean, if you look at documents like this, which is climate change reconsidered, this is the most recent one.
It talks about the benefits of fossil fuels, what it has done for us, and it's done a great deal.
They also talk about the climate issue.
And, you know, it turns out during cold weather, during colder times when we saw more extreme weather, even the Chinese Academy of Sciences, they did analysis of sediments on the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, and they showed that typhoons were stronger and more common during the Little Ice Age, during the cold period.
So the whole idea, you know, I mean, the science just isn't there to back up what they're saying.
And we want to start bringing this kind of thing into future debates.
You know, so I encourage listeners, if in your city, in your town, they're coming forward with crazy climate plans like in Calgary, we'd be happy to help out because we actually did raise public awareness in Ottawa significantly.
And I do think that had a significant impact on people sort of scratching their heads and saying, wow, do we really want this?
So we'd like to do this across Canada, actually.
As I say, people should contact us.
We can help them out.
There's great strategies to make sure you get your questions in and what you do when they try not to answer.
And of course, the response is that you have to interrupt them.
You have to say, my question is dunk.
My question is dunk.
You're not answering my question.
You have to be a lot more dogmatic.
And, you know, it's sad because the organizers wouldn't like that, of course, because they say you're not following our rules.
But they're talking about the destruction of a city and the death of thousands of people.
I mean, I'm not too worried about their rules under circumstances like that.
You know, if you look at what, like we were talking about last time, Alinsky's rules for radicals.
Right.
Yeah.
Let's start applying those against the extreme woke leftists in the climate debate.
And again, I'd be happy to help others do this in other cities.
You know, the left does this all the time.
They used to do it with the pipeline public hearings.
Lead now would organize activists to come and their campaign was called Mob the Mic.
And they would just make it impossible for anybody with anything reasonable to say to take the mic and say, you know what, we want the pipeline.
It's great for jobs.
Now, you'd have these outside activists from the likes of Vancouver taking over the microphone in Terrace BC or wherever.
You're actually proposing something a lot more reasonable.
Actual residents of a municipality who live there, who are not low liability activists, they will pay the price of these climate change policies, going and being actively engaged with politicians in their community at public, open debates.
Where exactly these discussions are supposed to take place, it's just that so often conservatives are just too busy paying the bills and doing things with their kids to turn up to these things.
And that time, I think, has passed.
Yeah.
They're relying on how busy we are to get these listeners.
That's right.
Well, also, this Ottawa climate plan was snuck through right during the COVID thing, eh?
Definitely.
There were no public hearings.
Calgary, same way.
Yeah, it's so it's really dishonest in that sense.
But you know, people who don't want to get to the mic and risk the abuse from the audience and everything, there's still things they can do.
And that is go to these events and cheer for the good questions.
You know, when people actually ask good things, you say, Hey, good question, you know, clap, clap, clap.
Because I mean, think about it.
Let's say I go to the mic, and you know, I go to these events quite often, all across different hearings from the Ontario government, et cetera.
I'll go to the mic and I'll be the only one bringing up dissenting points of view.
And, you know, you get nobody in the audience clap.
You might get quite a few booze.
How seriously is the panelist going to take you?
Not that seriously.
But if you go to the mic and you ask a question and the audience erupts in applause, and then the next person asks another hard question, and the next person, and the next person, would they start to take it seriously?
And this is Alinsky's first rule, eh?
You have to make it look like your group, your, you know, your side in the political argument is big and strong.
The trucker effect.
This is the trucker effect.
Yeah, exactly.
So, so I think, yeah, it's way past time for conservatives to start attending these events.
And at the very least, cheer for the volunteers that get up and ask the hard questions because it takes a fair bit of courage to do that, you know.
But at the same time, if you don't do it, the left will just ruin your society.
Thousands will die.
We'll be frozen in the dark.
You know, so the alternative is a lot worse.
Well, and let me give some advice to those people taking to the mic.
You know who is more scared than you are?
Because it is intimidating to speak truth to power and to hold politicians to account.
It can be.
It's nerve-wracking.
You know who's more scared?
The politician you're about to ask a question to, because this might be the first time in a long time they took an unscripted, unfriendly question, and they are already rattled before you open your mouth.
That's right.
And if you look at the video, the third debate, no, second debate in Canada, the one where that lady asked about the cobalt, oh, you can just see that they don't know what to say.
Because if they say, oh, I don't care about the children, I want electric buses with cobalt from the Congo, they look terrible.
If they say, oh, well, I don't want electric buses, they look terrible.
So yeah, you basically catch them in their own policy failures, basically.
Right.
Now, Tom, first couple of questions.
How do people support the work that you're doing at International Climate Science Coalition Canada?
And secondarily, if they are in one of these unfortunate municipalities bringing forward one of these crazy climate policies that will cost you billions of dollars and will force your great-grandchildren into energy poverty, how do they get in touch with you for some help organizing those questions at the mic?
Well, the way to go is to get to our homepage, which is icsc-canada.com.
And there's a connect button.
It'll give you my email address, which is icsc.tom.harris at gmail.com.
And you can either email me or phone me.
It's, you know, my phone number is on there as well, and I'd be happy to help out.
But yeah, people can help us because we rely entirely.
You can be sure the government's not funding us when we say what we say.
People can help us, whether it's $15 or $1,500.
I mean, it's all thankful.
We're very appreciative.
And you can donate the big donate button on our homepage and help us do this because we want to do this across Canada.
We want conservatives to be organized, to know how to fight back.
And yeah, our Ottawa experience was a kind of a pilot study to show what you can do to raise the awareness of issues in a population.
And, you know, from that point of view, we succeeded.
Well, and expose how little the politicians actually know about the very things that they're voting for you to pay for.
But so many of them flat-footed.
They hadn't given even something beyond the surface level.
They hadn't even thought about the issue.
And every little bit helps when you donate to the International Climate Science Coalition Canada because you are non-funded by the government.
You're really nonpartisan.
You're just advocating for the policy issues.
And you are up against all that foreign money flowing into those environmentalist organizations.
You are just a small group of people battling billions and dollars of foreign money flowing into Canada, as we found out in the Alberta inquiry.
Yeah, exactly.
And but we have the right on our side.
I mean, we are correct in what we're saying.
Okay, there is no climate crisis.
This is a huge waste of money.
It's going to kill thousands of people.
We're going to freeze in the dark.
I mean, that's the results of not standing up against this.
So we want to help other people stand up against it.
So yeah, thanks for promoting us.
You got it, Tom.
I love the work that you do.
I can't see what you do next and where you'll do it next, but I'll have you back on again very, very soon so you can tell me.
Okay, thank you.
Thanks, Tom.
Well, friends, we've come to the portion of the show where, unlike the mainstream media, we actually invite your viewer feedback because we care about what you think about the work that we're doing.
Also, unlike the mainstream media, we'll never take a penny from Justin Trudeau.
It's funny, hey, they take your money and then they close their comment section.
They don't even want to hear from you.
That's not what we do here at Rebel News.
And that's why I give you my email address at the end of the show.
It's Sheila at RebelNews.com.
If you want to send me any sort of viewer feedback, that's the best way to do it.
Please put gun show letters in the subject line, though, so that I can find it because I'm not exaggerating here.
I get a couple hundred emails a day and I just don't want yours to get lost in the shuffle.
Now, today's viewer feedback comes to us from Bruce Acheson.
It's regular viewer of the show, regular writer of letters to me.
Bruce has a cat, if I recall correctly, and he lives in beautiful Radway, Alberta.
And if you need a reason to go to Radway, let me tell you, they've got a really great Army surplus store there.
Or at least they did.
And it's worth your while to drive there.
Anyway, Bruce writes, Hi, Sheila.
I'm sorry about your cold.
That's right.
Last week, you people had to suffer through my scratchy voice after I had recently lost it because I was just smacked by a cold.
Anyways, he offers me some health advice.
Good host, Iced Tea with Hot Water helped me stay awake and get things done whenever I had colds.
I also remember you and my prayers.
Well, thank you.
I think that's even better than your health advice, Bruce.
Anyway, Bruce goes on.
I'm thoroughly enjoying this inquiry into the Trucker Convoy and the enactment of the Emergencies Act.
Trudeau's COVID Conundrum00:01:43
The sunlight of Rebel News reporting is showing the infection of corruption in our governments.
I also wonder what excuse Trudeau will try to get out of the inquiry.
Doubtless, it will involve another case of COVID-19.
Yeah, the more Trudeau gets his booster shots, the more he just conveniently comes down with COVID anytime he has to face any sort of scrutiny or accountability.
And there's even another politician in the mix of all of this who I want to be surprised at his attempts to skirt accountability.
But unfortunately, after the last two and a half years, I'm not surprised whatsoever.
And that's Doug Ford.
He's currently fighting a subpoena to appear before the Convoy Commission.
And my friend Tamira Yulini was in court on Tuesday covering all of that.
You can see her reportage from the courtroom at truckercommission.com or .ca.
In fact, you can see all of our coverage of the Trucker Commission at that special website, truckercommission.com or .ca.
And you can support our independent coverage there.
As I pointed out earlier, we don't take a penny from Justin Trudeau, and we have all hands on deck covering this thing, what's called the Public Order Emergency Commission.
in Ottawa, we've got a team in Ottawa.
We're cycling journalists through as relief.
We've got an Airbnb as a satellite studio there too.
And I know I have two colleagues from Alberta as I'm filming this who are on a flight headed to Ottawa to relieve some of the team there.
Well everybody that's the show for tonight.
Thank you so much for tuning in.
I'll see everybody back here in the same time, in the same place next week.