Ezra Levant’s February 3, 2023, episode exposes the Trudeau Liberals’ climate hypocrisy: they track no emissions for government delegates (e.g., $622K in flights to COP27) or Justin Trudeau’s travel since 2015 while enforcing strict policies on Canadians—like SUVs, steak, and farming. Cosmo Gierga reveals "fertilizer files" showing potential carbon taxes on farmers if they miss voluntary emission cuts, risking higher food prices globally and even collapsing Canada’s canola industry. Sheila Gunread ties this to past broken promises and Archer Pulowski’s persecution under the Critical Infrastructure Defense Act for advocating freedom, questioning whether dissent is now criminalized while systemic failures go unchecked. [Automatically generated summary]
The Liberals are completely convinced that it's your greenhouse gas emissions and not theirs ending the world.
They're so convinced they don't even bother to measure their own.
Then Cosmo Jerja from True North joins me to discuss his expose, the fertilizer files.
It's February 3rd, 2023.
I'm Sheila Gunread, and you're watching the Ezra Levant Show.
You know, it's absolutely astounding that the liberals can talk about the specific degrees by which we need to dodge the bullet of global warming with absolute confidence.
They tell me the world cannot go over 1.5 degrees of global warming from pre-industrial levels.
But when you stop and really think about it, how would you ever be able to measure that?
How do you measure the average temperature increase of 1.5 degrees across the surface of the earth with different topographies, latitudes, longitudes, mountains, rivers, streams, oceans, grasslands, prairies, wetlands, rainforests, deserts, number of people, number of animals?
All these things affect the surface temperature and almost make it impossible to measure across any large space.
When you get your weather from your weather app, it is only the temperature exactly where the thermometer is, and it can vary across a very small space.
You know, my friend Michelle Sterling from Friends of Science did this very experiment in real time just to show us how absurd this thinking all is.
She put a handful of thermometers in her backyard in different locations, but not all that far apart, just to show how wildly the temperature varies.
Now, let's just leave that for a few minutes and just see what happens.
I'm going to go get my cell phone.
Some of you may say, well, what kind of scientific experiment is that?
Every one of these polar bears or Bigfoot were parked in a different location.
They all had different thermometers.
None of them were calibrated to this air.
And so this is a poor experiment because not all the thermometers and the sightings are exactly correct.
Well, what do you think about all the temperature monitors in the world?
Do you think they're all sighted correctly?
Policy Paper Hoops00:15:32
Because you're wrong.
Do you think they're all well maintained?
Because they're not.
She did this to demonstrate how insane it is to think that there's a global mean or average temperature that you could A, first measure and B, then stay beneath by how?
Paying a carbon tax on everything?
Sure.
Now, the Liberals speak with such assurity that not only is this temperature fluctuation measurable across the entire surface of the globe.
Think about how crazy that is.
But any upward fluctuations in that immeasurable number is somehow caused by your car, your job, the number of kids you have, your stake, and even that malicious, vile monster, your local farmer.
You know, the liberals say this and vilify farming with such certainty that they'll insist your farmer reduce his fertilizer use by 30% and perhaps his farmland by 10%, which means your pocketbook will be reduced by hundreds of dollars every year, not only in the form of the carbon tax I just mentioned, but also food inflation.
Because if a farmer's yield drops, the price to the consumer goes up.
Oh, and the liberals, they'll also make you buy an electric car that is unable to get you even to the grocery store in the winter.
But what if the liberals own greenhouse gas emissions?
I know that they are not driving electric cars.
I filed for access to information on that.
But they know all about your greenhouse gas emissions, don't they?
And they know how bad they are.
Surely they would know about their own greenhouse gas emissions, right?
This makes sense.
But they don't.
And we know it today through a handful of order paper responses that came back in a huge stack this morning.
Now, for those of you who don't know what order paper questions are, they're a tool used by opposition parties in our form of parliamentary democracy to compel the government of the day to provide hard data in an answer to a very specific and narrow question within usually about 30 days.
Frankly, it's an antidote for the theatrical nonsense and non-answers of question period.
So I'm going to show you three order paper responses to some questions that came back today.
The first order paper question was posed to Environment and Climate Change Canada by Conservative MP Gerard Deltel, who asked about whether or not the government had even calculated the greenhouse gas emissions expended to send an absolute army of hundreds of Canadian delegates to Egypt, actually to the resort town of Charmel-Sheikh for last year's annual United Nations Climate Change Summit, something that probably could have been a Zoom call or maybe even an email.
Now, I know through other data that the government has already tabulated $622,000 in flights alone for people to attend that thing.
And that number is not finalized.
In fact, it's expected to grow.
But the ministry tasked with lecturing Canadians about the deadliness of their own carbon footprint was forced to respond that they don't even care about their own.
They're not even remotely interested enough in their own carbon footprint to bother calculating it.
Here's their response to Dell Tell.
The information requested is not systematically tracked in a centralized database.
Environmental Climate Change Canada?
They don't care about their carbon footprint to stop flying to these places.
They only care about your carbon footprint to go to your kids' hockey game.
Anyway, let's keep going because there's another very similar order paper response to a somewhat cheeky, similar question.
Full disclosure, my own MP asked this prickly question through an order paper to the Privy Council office.
So those are Justin Trudeau's bureaucrats.
Those are the ones who work around him.
Garnet Jennis, the Conservative MP for Sherwood Park, Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta, asked for the greenhouse gas calculations for the prime minister's travel and work.
And wouldn't you know it?
It's on page four of the response.
Since 2015, these people have not tracked a single one of the prime minister's greenhouse gas emissions.
But you better not treat yourself to that ribeye steak tonight because Justin Trudeau said it's going to cause climate refugees or something.
Now, here's the last order paper response that I wanted to show you.
It's been posed by Conservative MP Clifford Small.
And the reason I want to show you this is because it demonstrates the absolute insane hypocrisy of the liberals on the subject of greenhouse gas emissions.
Because you don't get to have a job in natural gas, and our country doesn't get to reap the benefits of exporting natural gas and offsetting Russian natural gas, because the liberals are absolutely convinced that natural gas is a bad greenhouse gas.
And any country that wants to do business exporting natural gas has to do the climate tabulations that the liberals refuse to do for themselves.
So Clifford Small asked with regard to the Prime Minister's claim that there has never been a strong business case to export liquefied natural gas from Canada to Europe on what specific evidence or analysis, if any, did the Prime Minister base such claims?
We are in a situation in the short term where we will do what we can to contribute to the global supply of energy by increasing our capacities in the short term and explore ways to see if it makes sense to export LNG and if there's a business case for it to export LNG directly to Europe.
And that's something that economic conversations are going on between businesses in Canada and in Germany.
They never actually answer the question directly, but they do answer it kind of by detailing all the hoops that a company would have to jump through for an export project to go ahead, which naturally would make it just so expensive to start a project to export natural gas that you'd have to be out of your mind to even propose such a thing.
Let me show you.
As the Minister of Natural Resources has stated, in order for any liquefied natural gas project to go ahead, they must ensure that upstream emissions associated with gas production and those from liquefaction facilities fit within Canada's emissions reductions targets and demonstrate that exports from these facilities will be used to displace either higher emitting energy sources like coal and unabated natural gas or Russian supplied oil and gas.
Proponents should also build energy transition considerations into project design, such as plans to transition facilities to hydrogen production and export.
So these companies have to calculate their carbon footprint before they get permission to build a project that will lower global emissions.
Huh.
This is like what my friend David Menzies always says about liberal hypocrisy.
Rules for thee, but not for me.
Well, this is analysis for thee, but not for me as long as me as a liberal.
Stay with us more climate craziness with Cosmin Georgia from True North up after the break.
So we learned through order paper responses that the Liberals don't actually track their own greenhouse gas emissions, but they have absolutely no problem vilifying with complete certainty your SUV, your trips to the hockey game, your job, your steak.
and your local farmer for global warming, which is actually, when you think about it, probably completely immeasurable anyway.
Now, part of this vilification of farming is being played out in Justin Trudeau's war on nitrogen-based fertilizer with the imposition of his so-called voluntary fertilizer targets.
Now, my guest today got his hands on a stack of documents from Agri-Food Canada about what the federal government was really planning when it came to fertilizer.
So, joining me now is Cosmen Gierga from True North on his expose, he's calling the fertilizer files.
Cosmen, thanks so much for joining me.
What, I guess, as a fellow access to information journalist, what made you file for these documents?
You must have known that they were doing something else or plotting something else behind the scenes.
Right.
So, this goes back all the way to 2020 when the Liberal government announced their climate plan of that year, and that set these 30% below 2020 levels fertilizer emission reduction targets for the agricultural industry.
So, I was interested to see the planning process, the reasoning, and science that went behind achieving this 30% target because there's a lot of questions that, well, it looks arbitrary to a lot of people.
So, we wanted to investigate where they got these numbers from and what they were saying on the inside.
Now, the trove we're talking about is about 3,000 pages of access to information documents.
And this was actually a preliminary release because the government told me that they were already working on processing these files for another party.
Now, I don't know who that other party was, but we were the first to make it public as far as I know.
And now, we're still waiting for documents that span the year 2022 to see where this program is in its current state.
Cosmo, I think you might have scooped me, but I'm happy that it was True North that did it.
Now, you've broken this down into three document dumps because, as you say, there are so many documents.
You just, it's so labor-intensive to read through them all and then to weed, and you have to physically read through them all to weed through sort of the government back and forth to get the nuggets of gold and what they're really plotting.
Now, document package one, it sort of blows a hole in the Trudeau narrative that these fertilizer targets are just a voluntary thing that good-hearted farmers who don't care about the size of their yield or their input costs are going to do to help fight climate change.
Because if farmers didn't adopt these targets voluntarily, they were floating the idea of a carbon tax-style scheme.
Tell us about this.
Right.
So, what you're talking about, it's a policy discussion paper.
Now, these papers are compiled by high-level staff within ministries.
We're talking about deputy ministers giving all kinds of input.
And in that document, there's a section called policy options.
And under the policy options, Agricultural Canada says we need to give consideration to a regulatory backstop should these voluntary agreements fail.
Now, if you recall when the government was first introducing the federal carbon tax way back, they were calling it and still do call it a regulatory backstop.
Now, that's just a fancy way of saying, well, if all else fails, here's our policy measure or tax to make sure that our policy objectives get done.
So it's quite stunning that the government internally is seriously considering this.
And my question would be: is there a plan for this?
Is there a drafted law or potential bill that has been worked on?
And I think that's something I will be looking into.
But for a while and throughout this whole time they've been introducing these emission reduction targets, the government has maintained that this is voluntary, but internally they're considering otherwise.
And they're telling you, if you say that it is never going to be voluntary, they're accusing you of fake news and misinformation.
They do it all the time.
They say one thing in public and say another thing behind closed doors, which is why I love access to information.
You get down to the heart of the matter.
You cut through the spin and the talking points to see what they're really actually scheming.
Now, part two of the fertilizer files, I think, is probably the most frightening for non-farmers and terrible for consumers, especially as we are trying to struggle our way through an inflationary crisis.
Part two of the fertilizer files documents that the federal government was aware that these fertilizer emission targets would, first of all, like so many of their bad policies, target Western Canada because we are where you use these fertilizers, and that it would ultimately, if you harm the yield, then the cost of the consumer is driven up in the grocery store.
Tell us about this.
Right.
So, first of all, I'd like to make the point that a 30% reduction in nitrogen emissions in the agricultural industry on a global level is minuscule, if not negligible.
It's not going to do anything realistically to the pollution levels.
So it's quite astounding that they're willing to sacrifice yields.
And by yields, we mean essentially areas throughout Canada that produce a large amount of agriculture, particularly the prairies and Western Canada, where like over almost 100% of Canada's canola gets produced.
And that all gets pretty much exported.
All that stuff is threatened by this because if those farmers, which already use low amounts of nitrogen fertilizer because of regional conditions like arid topography and different climate conditions, if they do any sort of reduction, it will impact their yields.
It's like a thin hair of the amount of change that they could possibly make.
And doing a 30% reduction is quite astounding because the government insists: well, no, on the one hand, they're telling farmers we need to become a global competitor in the agricultural industry and to feed the world that is ballooning in population.
And on the other hand, they're saying you have to make these reductions.
So it's absolutely nonsensical.
They haven't explained themselves properly to farmers and industry groups.
Mixed Messages in Agriculture Policy00:09:47
And it just makes no sense.
It's like these people have never actually met a farmer.
It's like they think we're just out there with a garden hose spraying fertilizer all over the place because we need something to do.
Farmers are very concerned about input costs, especially as the carbon tax is added to our inputs.
We are price takers, not price setters in the world market.
So if you want to maximize your profit, you have to manage your input costs.
And one of those input costs is fertilizer.
If you use too much fertilizer, it cuts into your bottom line on the other side.
Again, I stress, it's like the people at Agri-Food Canada have never talked to a real farmer.
But on the flip side, these are export crops largely.
We're talking about canola.
Canada's, we developed canola, but we're also the world's largest exporter of canola.
Pulses, beans, legumes, these are portable proteins that store well dry, and we export them to the developing world because they're cost affordable for people in the developing world.
And this is not only are we sacrificing Canadian farmers on the altar of climate change, Western Canadian farmers by and large, but we're also sacrificing poor people in the developing world because we are making their food way too expensive.
Right.
And it's not only canola, we're also talking about wheat and barley grains.
For example, I think it was last year I wrote a story about Agricultural Canada labeling Canadian wheat and barley farmers as the worst offenders when it comes to agricultural emissions.
And that is quite astounding because Canada has some of the best fertilizer use among the agricultural industry when it comes to limiting emissions and reducing environmental impact compared to other parts of the world like China and India.
So it's quite, it must be from a farmer's perspective, you know, quite insulting to see this government label you in such a derogatory fashion, completely overlook the hard work that has been put over the last, you know, couple decades into making our farms more sustainable.
And I've spoken to farmers groups and farmers themselves, and, you know, they're open to making their, to protecting their environment.
You know, Robert Saik from an agricultural consultancy group told me, you know, the key to producing good soil and reducing emissions is also growing good crops.
And Canadian farmers are already doing that, especially in Saskatchewan.
Yet the government has ignored this and is pushing this, as a matter of fact, arbitrary target onto them to achieve some sort of ideological policy agenda so they can check off that box.
Yeah, we're stewards of the land.
If the land is unhealthy, we don't have a job.
I mean, it's just so crazy that they think some bureaucrat in Ottawa would do a better job of taking care of our land than we do when generations of, and again, I do, I take it as a personal slight because generations of my family have lived and farmed this exact same land.
And now apparently I need Justin Trudeau to tell me how to do it.
Now, I said number two was kind of shocking, but number three of fertilizer files blows your mind, but it is indicative of the liberals' inability to learn from others' mistakes.
So part three of the fertilizer files notes that Ottawa considered following the same steps that Europe has walked in that resulted in riots, resulted in mass protests in Holland.
Ottawa looked at that and said, yeah, let's do that too.
Tell us about this.
Right.
So throughout these documents, the federal government, Agricultural Canada, spoke, you know, boasted about how great the European strategy was.
And now we're talking about what's called the farm to fork strategy introduced by the European Union, which has a list of like a couple dozen targets that they want to see member states achieve.
Among them is, I believe, a 20% reduction in fertilizer emissions.
Now, this is just one of the targets.
There's also a 10% reduction in land use for agriculture within the European Union.
Now, as you mentioned, the Dutch farmers protest, the Netherlands government, prompted by this push from the EU, picked an astounding, I think, 50% reduction in fertilizer emissions by introducing a farm buyback scheme.
So they're essentially buying farms and land from farmers who have been there for generations.
And I mean, we're talking about potentially hundreds of years here because this is Europe we're talking about.
So they want to take this land, pay them some money so that these farmers stop doing their ancestral livelihoods.
And that, of course, prompted a huge backlash throughout Europe.
We saw tractor convoys, we saw farmers dumping manure in front of government buildings and all sorts of clashes.
Yet the Canadian government was looking at this policy and saying, we want to align ourselves with the farm to fork strategy.
This is a great thing that we need to adopt in Canada.
And industry groups, rightfully so, were worried.
We see in those documents Fertilizer Canada, which is one of the leading industry groups on this matter, saying, Hey, we want to make sure that you guys are not going to pursue this disastrous European approach because we're getting a lot of mixed messages where the government is saying, actually, we want to see a fertilizer reduction, not only a fertilizer emission reduction, which is a completely different thing, right?
The government has insisted they don't want a fertilizer reduction, but internally, there's mixed messages and conflicting statements from deputy ministers and these sorts of documents.
So it's incredible that the government has looked at this scenario unfold and is continuing to barrel ahead with this.
And that's why I think it's so important that we get our hands on those 2022 documents.
Because when I filed that access to information request, I asked particularly about this whether they have any concerns or whether any statements have been expressed about the social and political consequences of pursuing these.
And I would really like to see what they're thinking and whether there's any sort of adjustment or they're reconsidering this approach.
I'd love to see their paperwork on any, if any, I should say, financial analysis being done on behalf of the consumer, not just the farmer, for these sorts of crazy ideas.
Because as you note here, they were so committed and they seem to be so committed to focusing on this farm to fork initiative that senior agriculture Canada officials were already preparing media lines in case they were being put on blast by the public for their bad ideas.
So I would like to see if they have done any sort of financial analysis on how a reduction in land use by 10% plus a reduction in fertilizer, which causes a drop in yields, how that's going to be passed along in the supply chain to the consumer and how it's going to hurt Canadian families who are already struggling to get by with increased food inflation.
I'm sure if they've done that, which I doubt they have, it's going to be buried in another 5,000 pages of documents coming your way.
Right.
And what I want to stress that this approach was being considered, like the current plan is not based on that 10 and 20 percent target the European Union is pursuing.
But Fertilizer Canada released a report in 2020 based on the scenario of what a 30%, what the fertilizer reduction would mean for the industry.
And that goes into consumer exports-related stuff.
It actually claims that such a reduction, if we pursue the European approach, would totally eliminate Canada's canola industry, basically.
It would destroy us.
And, you know, and the way the arithmetic works out in trade and economics, you know, that like exports and imports, all those things will have an impact on GDP and will have ripple effects throughout the economy.
So the government needs to tread very carefully on this stuff, but it seems to me that they're just ignoring what people are telling them and what the people, what the farmers themselves are telling them.
And I want, you know, who knows what the government is planning to introduce with that regulatory backstop stuff.
So, you know, we're talking, the government has spoken about mandate, about voluntary things all the time.
Government Ignoring Farmers00:02:47
We saw with the COVID-19 pandemic, right?
You know, a lot of stuff were voluntary.
You know, you can get, it's voluntary to get vaccinated, but here are all these consequences.
We also saw the government promising they would never take firearms, but yet here they are today trying to do a buyback scheme on firearms.
So we can't trust them for their word.
And that's why we have to look deeply and investigate this stuff while we still can.
Yeah, exactly.
While we still can.
And they just passed Bill C11.
So while we can even still talk about this sort of stuff, Cosmo, how do people read the fertilizer files?
How do they support your work at True North?
Because I think you're one of the best investigative journalists in the country.
You cover all the beats, you know, federal government access to information documents, school board craziness.
How do people support your work?
Because I think it's just so, so vital.
Thank you, Sheila.
So you can find our fertilizer files at tnc.news.
I'm pretty sure we still have it featured on our website.
So there's three parts to that.
You can read it all there.
We've put the documents into those stories so you can look for yourselves.
You can also follow me on Twitter at Cosmondz.
And then I have a substack on more global European dissident issues at outeredge.substack.com.
Cosmo, thanks so much for taking the time to go through these thousands and thousands of pages of documents from me to you, though, as a farmer.
Thanks so much for this important work that you're doing.
And I'm a journalist farmer, but I know there are a lot of farmers who are too busy trying to feed the world to worry about what the government is doing behind their backs.
So thank you so much for that.
Pleasure.
Thank you, Sheila.
Thanks.
Stay with us.
your letters to Ezra read by me up after the break.
Well, friends, we've come to the letters portion of the show.
I say this every time I host, and I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but I do want you to know we actually care about what you think about the work that we're doing here at Rebel News.
And so we invite your viewer feedback.
You might notice on some mainstream media channels and platforms that host mainstream media stories, sometimes they close the comment section because they don't want any pesky ideas from you cluttering up their social justice nonsense.
Now, we want you to leave us comments.
We always leave the comment section open.
And who knows, if you leave a comment, your comment might be read on air by one of us.
Persecution of Pastor Archer00:07:01
Now, today's comments come to us on Ezra's coverage of the latest trial of firebrand Calgary pastor Archer Pulowski, who was our very first client of the Fight the Fines project.
He got in trouble during the times of COVID for holding an illegal public gathering, which was Archer feeding Calgary's homeless on a bitterly cold day.
And since then, it's been run-in after run-in after run-in with the COVID cops.
And then, when he went to Coots, Alberta, to give a supportive sermon to the truckers and activists there who were blocking the border in protest of vaccine mandates and other COVID restrictions, he was charged under the Critical Infrastructure Defense Act, a law that's meant for pipeline terrorism.
Well, he was charged under that law.
Now, that's not what he's on trial for today.
Right now, he's on trial for mischief because the crown prosecutor in Lethbridge, Alberta, says that the sermon he gave to those truckers in support of freedom is mischief, a crime against the state.
It's outrageous.
It's an attempt to criminalize political disagreement with the governing agents of the day.
That's your God-given right, but it's also a protected right in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I cannot believe that tyrant prosecutor in Lethbridge is proceeding with this.
But I mean, it makes perfect sense.
This is a man who was charged with an illegal public gathering for providing food, sustenance, and care to Calgary's forgotten people.
Anyway, Mary 2023 writes trials like Pastor Archer's is not about any crimes being committed, especially when freedom of speech is every Canadian citizen's right.
These trials are about political prisoners being made an example of to the rest of Canada.
Our courts don't care about real crimes and real justice.
No, their purpose has become to follow the dictates of a tyrant in parliament who is a servant to the cabal.
Now, I don't think I'm speaking out of turn when I tell you about a phone call that I literally just had with Ezra.
And he said when he got to the courthouse in Lethbridge today that there were like 30 people gathered on the steps of the courthouse and they were there protesting because an accused child sex offender has either been given a lenient sentence or granted bail.
And as we know, it's very difficult to get bail if you're somebody like Tamara Leach or Jeremy McKenzie, who's a critical of a critic of Justin Trudeau.
It's pretty easy to get bail for all sorts of other things, including murder or child sex offenses.
And Ezra said, it was just sort of a perfect synopsis of the problem with the Canadian legal system, but particularly here in Alberta, where we're short,
50 crown prosecutors and real court cases with real victims other than the feelings of some politicians are under threat of being tossed out because they're going over the statutory limit for a court case to make it to trial.
And Ezra said it was perfect that you have these people who are either accused of or have committed real crimes against vulnerable little people, people we should as a society protect.
And Ezra's there because an out-of-control crown is wasting two days' worth of already stretched thin prosecutorial resources on a pastor who said some things to some truckers that the political powerful people might disagree with.
It's just shocking.
Now, thank goodness, Pastor Art has his really great lawyers, Sarah Miller and Chad Haggerty, working overtime to fight this because it's not just about Pastor Art's freedom of speech.
Because if they can do this to Pastor Art, they'll do it to the rest of us.
And so not only thanks to Sarah Miller and Chad Haggerty for their hard work, but thank you to all of you who pitch in at savearter.com.
That's Archer's legal fund.
You can make a tax-deductible donation there to help him navigate his legal challenges.
He's still got so many ahead of him.
Let's keep going.
Raw data rights: persecution directed against an individual or an identifiable group is a crime against humanity.
Multiple prosecution attempts against Pastor Archer have resulted in case dismissed.
Using Canadian taxpayer money to repeatedly attempt to prosecute Pastor Archer is persecution.
There's no statute of limitations for prosecuting crimes against humanity.
Mr. Kenny may have to come out of an old age care home to stand trial at Nuremberg, too.
Yeah, I think that sounds a lot like wishful thinking, but yeah, I mean, I don't think anybody would argue, like any reasonable, sane person would argue that what's happening to Pastor Art is not persecution.
They are withdrawing, not dismissing, but they're withdrawing charges before they get a judgment because they don't want the judgment against them because they know it's not going to be against Pastor Art.
He keeps winning these things or having his charges withdrawn.
The only one that he actually lost was overturned on appeal.
So all that is to say, I'm not all that convinced that anybody involved in any of this persecution is ever going to be held accountable.
And at this point, I think the best we can hope for is that they just go away forever.
Wouldn't that be great?
MU4SS.
What is this?
Moo Assassin?
Did I get that right?
I don't know.
I'm not much for internet speak.
Anyway, Rebel News always gets an automatic like from me.
My reason has nothing to do with political affiliations either.
And it's mainly because Rebel News doesn't impose their views on the viewer.
This is real news.
Thank you for all your hard work.
Well, thanks so much.
We try to keep an open mind here at Rebel News.
And I think, and I'm always honest with my viewer.
I'm a conservative.
I don't think that should shock anybody.
So I do look at the world through a very specific worldview.
But I think as long as I let you, the viewer, know that that's the lens through which I see the world around me, you can make up your own mind.
My problem with the CBC and the mainstream media outlets is that they are just as biased as me because I will admit my bias.
I'm conservative.
Keeping An Open Mind00:00:51
Everybody knows that.
They're just as biased as me.
They just aren't truthful about it, which is dishonest to the viewer and an insult to the viewer, by the way, because I think you, you know, they're liberals too.
But second, I don't want to have to pay for their liberal bias.
You want to pay for Rebel News?
That's great.
If you don't, that's your choice.
I wish you would, but it's also your choice.
We don't have a choice with the CBC, and we no longer have a choice with the mainstream media either because they live and breathe on Justin Trudeau's constant bailouts.
And boy, it's sure reflected in their coverage of him, isn't it?
Well, everybody, that's the show for tonight.
Thank you so much for tuning in and bearing with me as I fill in for Ezra Levant.