Sheila Gunn-Reid exposes Ottawa’s $57B climate plan—710 wind turbines, 36 km² of solar panels, and lithium battery storage—to public backlash, with critics like Tom Harris (ICSC Canada) and Bob Lyman dismissing it as economically wasteful and environmentally negligible, citing China’s 4,420M short tons of coal. Residents challenge its focus on warming over fatal cold risks, question media bias (CBC ombudsman’s "no other side" rule), and demand pilot studies before implementation, arguing fossil fuels may be safer than renewables. Direct citizen engagement forces politicians to reconsider, proving grassroots scrutiny can override unchecked green agendas even in left-leaning cities. [Automatically generated summary]
Regular citizens are fighting back against the city of Ottawa's enormously expensive climate change strategy.
I'll show you exactly what they did.
I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed, and you're watching The Gunn Show.
Do you know that the city of Ottawa has a climate change plan in excess of $55 billion?
The city of Ottawa, not Ottawa as a proxy for the government of Canada as a whole.
The city of Ottawa expects the taxpayers of the city of Ottawa, the residents of the city of Ottawa, to be on the hook for a climate change plan in excess of $50 billion.
It's crazy, right?
Well, it's even crazier that Calgary is doing the same, except Calgary's climate change plan is in excess of $880 billion.
Did the residents of Calgary ever get a say before city council passed that plan?
Did they ever get a chance to fight back?
Can they still fight back?
Well, let me tell you, the residents of Ottawa are fighting back.
They are turning up at special meetings and asking questions of their politicians.
And instead of answering the questions, politicians appear to be turning on the people a little bit.
Now, joining me tonight is Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition.
He's going to break down exactly what those pesky, curious, critical citizens did at a special meeting in Ottawa and maybe lay the groundwork for other citizens of other cities to do the same.
Take a listen.
So joining me now is good friend of the show and my friend Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition Canada to explain what unfolded at the City of Ottawa's Climate Change Committee.
because there is a real story in here that I think other cities and other citizens of other cities should learn from.
Things are happening in Ottawa that could very easily be happening in Calgary and frankly should be happening in Calgary.
Tom, thanks for coming on the show.
Tell us exactly what, I guess let's go back a little.
The city of Ottawa has a climate change committee.
Like that seems a little bit gritty to me.
Right.
Yeah, that's right.
They have an environment and climate change committee.
And, you know, they were previously all crazy climate wackos.
And the city of Ottawa passed the $57 billion climate change plan after declaring a climate emergency.
And as a consequence, what happened was the city was given the job of making an appropriate plan to respond to the emergency.
So they made this climate change master plan and also something called energy evolution.
And talk about evolution.
It's more like revolution.
They want to have no fossil fuels anywhere in the city.
Ottawa's Climate Master Plan00:15:49
They want to have the city run largely on wind and solar power.
And the numbers will just stagger you.
They want 710 industrial wind turbines taller than the Peace Tower.
Okay.
Of course, the question comes up, where are you going to put them?
And it was funny because during the mayor election that we just had back in the fall, you know, there were quite a few Ottawans who went to the microphone and said, where are you going to put 710 turbines taller than the Peace Tower?
Because you can't have a home within a half a kilometer of those by Ontario regulations.
And even that's too close because makes infrasound that goes right through your body and through the building and everything.
So the leading contender for mayor was Catherine Mckinney.
And Catherine Mckinney she just sort of giggled and said, oh ha ha we, we didn't really think we could put 700.
So you sort of say well, why did you actually have it in your plan if you don't think you can do it?
But but anyway, in addition to that, they want to have 36 square kilometers of solar panels and well over 100 large shipping containers of lithium batteries to back them up, because at least they realize that they're inconsistent energy sources.
But you know, it's crazy to have the batteries because the biggest battery pack in the world is in California.
And one of our physicists did a calculation and showed that if California's power went out, the biggest battery pack in the world could power the state for 102 seconds.
And that would be enough, as he said, to find a flashlight.
But the interesting thing is that during the election, Catherine McKinney had a significant lead for almost the whole election.
But various things happened.
Quite a few people, you know, we put out a report on the climate change plan.
I was going around the city giving presentations showing how insane it was.
And our economics expert, Bob Lyman, was doing really super excellent work on the economic and policy impacts.
And sure enough, at the very last minute, everybody who was voting for a secondary, tertiary, or whatever candidates, they all joined on board with the one candidate who could beat McKinney.
And that was Mark Sutcliffe.
And he suddenly soared at the very end to just over 50% of the vote and the victory.
So that was really interesting because I think it showed Ottawans, if you actually stand up for something and you actually push it and you grill the politicians with sensible, but not easy to answer questions.
One of the ladies, for example, Danielle Mayo, because I met her later, she went to the microphone and she said, I don't want my city to be electrified on the backs of African children.
I'm a mother.
I'm a grandmother.
I don't want this.
So she was saying that.
And the counselors, or at least the people that were running to be mayor, they had no answer.
They couldn't answer.
And people said later that was like the atom bomb question.
Because what are you going to say?
Oh, I don't care about the children.
We're going to electrify Ottawa.
Or are you going to say, oh, well, I guess we won't electrify Ottawa.
Now, there's more sort of details on that as to where they get the cobalt.
You know, it might not be using children.
We don't really know.
But the bottom line was that experience showed Ottawans you can make a difference.
Okay.
Now, this is really applicable to the committee hearings that are going on now.
The one that happened last week was the annual report of the Climate Change Master Plan.
And so, of course, I went there and so did Bob Lyman.
You know, we're both members of ICSC Canada.
But also, other Ottawans showed up and they asked really, really good questions, you know, and it was quite interesting because we've actually grabbed those questions from the YouTube video of the commit, the committee hearing, and we show all five of them.
If people go to ICSC-Canada.com, ICSC-Canada.com, the first button says Ottawans challenge cities climate and energy plans at committee meeting.
And you can watch their hearings, okay?
You can watch the testimonies.
And, you know, we should go through some of them because I think this demonstrates, you know, it's funny.
I have a friend in British Columbia and he says, I hope Ottawa does go through with their plan because there will be such a catastrophe in Ottawa.
So many people will die.
They'll never do it in BC.
But I think, you know, conservatives have to take their victories where they can get them.
Yeah.
And I think we've got a pretty critical mass here in Ottawa of people who now realize that the climate change plans are insane.
Okay.
I've been giving presentations all over the city for the last couple of years.
And practically every week now, I get an invitation to go to some group.
Usually it's a freedom group, you know, because these people are concerned about climate lockdown and things like that.
But as a consequence, people are reading our report and they're taking chunks out of it and they're starting to grill the actual committee on climate change.
And so I have here actually the five testimonies that were presented.
I'm doing it chronologically, so mine is first, but I'll just play you mine and then we can talk about it because what was quite funny is after my hearing, there was one question, just one.
It came from my counselor.
And you'll see he tries to pin me as a supporter of the tobacco industry.
Yeah, and it's funny because after, yeah, I know.
And afterwards, you know, people said that my answer to him owned him.
Tom, I know you to be a bit of a fitness buff.
This is crazy.
Yeah, I know.
And you'll especially laugh when I explain how I actually worked to get smoking banned on airplanes when I was an airworthiness engineer for safety reasons.
But I'll play you just a snippet at the end of my testimony.
Not all of it, just let's see, one minute approximately.
Actually, yeah, something like that.
And I'll play you also the question that came from Sean Devine because, oh, man, people who are watching this later said that his face went all red because he looked like a bit of a moron at that moment.
So here we go.
As the seventh coldest capital city in the world, it's irresponsible for Ottawa to only plan for warming when cooling is far more dangerous and some scientists would say more likely.
It would be like going on a camping trip in an area known to be infested with mosquitoes and black bears and only planning for the mosquitoes.
Yes, the bugs can drive you crazy, but the black pears can kill you.
Similarly, heat in Ottawa is not fatal, except for the elderly and other vulnerable citizens.
And those are people, of course, we should protect.
But everyone can die when it's minus 30 with no heat.
Consequently, I ask the committee to direct city staff to incorporate serious preparation for cooling into the climate change master plan.
I welcome your comments and questions.
Okay, thank you for that, delegation.
Counselor Devine.
Thank you, Chair.
Hello, Mr. Harris.
I'm working from home today, so I can't see below your arm.
So I can't tell if you brought in all of those books that you wrote, that you brought in last time.
I imagine they're pretty heavy to carry.
So you're a frequent delegate at these meetings.
You've delegated at meetings for my ward as well.
And because you're a frequent delegate, I just want to ask a couple of questions to speak to credentials and credibility.
Sir.
So you've let us know that you're the executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition.
Thank you.
I see that you're also associated with the Heartland Institute, where you're listed as a policy expert.
The Heartland Institute certainly has a lovely name.
From what I understand, the Heartland Institute is a U.S.-based conservative think tank that is best known for the work that it does, such as what you do challenging climate science, but also for the work that it's done in challenging the well-known negative health impacts of smoking.
Throughout the 1900s, sorry, throughout the 1990s and as recently as 2008, the Heartland Institute was working with tobacco company Philip Morris to discredit health risks associated with secondhand smoking.
And so my first question for you, Mr. Harris, do you know whether or not the Heartland Institute with whom you're associated still denies damage done by secondhand smoke?
Point of order, Mr. Chair.
State your point.
My colleague's question does not relate to the matter at hand on the agenda.
I'm going to agree.
I would like to say something.
I think I'll let the delegate just respond on the piece around the Heartland Institute, and then I think we need to move on.
Okay.
Thank you.
I only advise the Heartland Institute on climate and energy.
I have no involvement with their tobacco issue.
And I don't actually know specifically what they say, but I used to work for Transport Canada.
And as a non-smoker, and at that time, a very strong anti-smoker, I actually petitioned the Minister of Transport to stop smoking allowed on long-haul flights because of safety implications.
It actually shares the smoke throughout the whole cabin.
And the pilots therefore have a reduction in visual acuity, which is measurable.
And we petitioned the minister to ban smoking on airplanes.
So to associate me with tobacco is funny because, of course, I am on the other side of the argument.
Heartland have roughly 150 advisors on many, many topics.
And about twice a year, they ask me for some input and I give it to them, but they don't pay me.
And certainly, you know, their other issues are not related to my work on climate.
Okay.
Thank you.
That's so funny, Tom, because they immediately, instead of just answering the question, he goes after you personally.
By the way, Philip Morris was involved in the developing of a COVID vaccine for, I think it was Medicago, Medicago, I think it was.
They, you know, the government gave them a bunch of money to develop a COVID vaccine.
So the government didn't think Philip Morris is such a bad guy until very, very recently.
So why should you?
Yeah, yeah.
Well, I mean, what he did was a guilt by association logical fallacy.
I mean, he was basically trying to say you can't trust anything this Harris character says because he worked with people who support smoking, you know?
It's quite funny.
Now, the next person to speak was Bob Lyman.
And that was a long, by the way, the one we just played was by far the longest of them because I wanted to include his silly question because it just shows he didn't ask, oh, what should we do to prepare for cooling?
You know, not a sensible question, which would have been obvious.
Instead, he tries to discredit me.
Yeah.
Yeah.
You know, if I were you, I would ask him, what are your credentials to be opinion on climate change issues?
Because this is the work that I've done.
You tell me where you come from.
Well, it is interesting.
Sean Devine, a fellow sent me a link, actually.
Sean was an actor and he was in a horror film.
Right.
I remember.
I think he ran for the NDP also, didn't he?
Oh, something like that.
Yeah.
So obviously he's very well qualified to speak on climate.
Now, Bob Lyman is our economics expert.
And I just have a little snippet at the end because he really put it in a nutshell.
You know, he just basically nailed it at the very end of his testimony.
This is only about 25 seconds.
So here we go.
The basic reality here is that reducing emissions in Canada will have essentially zero effect in terms of global temperatures and climate.
The Ottawa Climate Plan proposes to spend somewhere between $52 and $57 billion to reduce emissions and to do Ottawa's share, whatever that might be, to reduce it, to contribute to climate change.
So you have a $52 to $57 billion expenditure and you have zero environmental benefits.
That won't pass any kind of a cost-benefit test in any government in the world.
Except, of course, the Trudeau government.
Right.
No, I guess what he could have said is it won't pass any cost-benefit analysis in any rational government in the world.
Well, yeah, and I think that's really the crux of the argument.
Even if you believe that climate change is just lurking out there to get you.
Yeah.
How do you justify the expenditure for the literally net benefit of zero?
As Canadians, there's not enough of us to affect change anyways.
We're a carbon sink.
We're one of the most traded places in the world.
Sorry, we didn't do any of this.
If you think it's happening, we didn't do it.
Sorry.
Well, I know.
It's very much, you know, if you thought we were causing dangerous climate change, it's like you're in an inflatable life raft and you're puncturing it with a pin, which may cause it to leak out over a period of a year.
And your neighbor is using a chainsaw, you know, right through it.
That's China.
China has double the emissions of the United States.
They're building coal stations all over the world.
They just put billions of dollars into a new refinery.
They're clearly going to do nothing.
They obviously consider it our really great.
It's fantastic for them because, of course, we lose our jobs and our industry to them.
And then, of course, the greenhouse gases go up even faster because they don't have as clean an energy source as we do.
Now, the next one was Nigel Ellis.
He was a citizen of Ottawa.
And he actually, it's interesting because he, and by the way, all of these, the whole testimonies, each one's about five minutes, is on our webpage.
Okay.
If you go right to our homepage, icsc-canada.com, the upper left-hand button, click on it, you can watch all these testimonies.
One thing we're going to have on that webpage, by the way, is the Twitter handles of every counselor on the committee.
And what we're hoping, and this is where, you know, as I said earlier, if we can win in Ottawa, we can win anywhere.
Because Ottawa is not only left-wing, but it's heavily government employees, okay?
Many, many of the people in the city work for the government.
So this could be a real proof of concept as to how citizens can speak up and completely change woke, terrible policies.
So the next one is, his name is Nigel Ellis.
And earlier on, and again, I'm only going to play the last 30 seconds.
He goes through the numbers.
He says, okay, here's how much Ottawa puts out.
Here's how much the world puts out.
Here's what the change would be in temperature if Ottawa ceased to exist.
And the answer is it would be one ten-thousandth of a degree by 2100.
Do you know what?
As an Alberton, I think it's worth it for Ottawa doing this.
That's right.
And my friend in BC, he wants us to go ahead with this.
Anyway, we'll evacuate the good ones and push the rest into the riddle.
That's right.
So here goes Nigel Ellis.
Okay.
He's a project manager.
He was previously VP of research of a healthcare software development company.
So he knows about transitions.
Okay.
He knows about big IT and other projects.
And well, you'll hear what he says.
So when these issues were raised to the candidates during the mayoral candidate debate in Orleans last fall, the response given was that it was Ottawa's objective to show leadership to the world.
We were expected to believe that the world is going to follow Ottawa.
Ottawa's Green Agenda Questioned00:11:05
Yet China has made it crystal clear that they are not slowing down.
They will not follow Ottawa.
And I would argue that they have no intention of following us.
Statista forecasts that they will consume 4,420 million short tons of coal in 2023, 138 times Canada's forecast consumption.
Also note, China has recently approved $20 billion to build another petroleum refining plant.
So it seems clear that China has no intention of reducing its CO2 emissions anytime in the foreseeable future.
The same applies to India.
My conclusion is that Ottawa's climate change master plan has no perceived benefit and will be a massive fiscal sinkhole.
So my main question is, when the key countries of the world are not reducing CO2 emissions at all and Ottawa's plan doesn't change the global numbers at all, why are you expecting us to pay an additional tens of billions of dollars for no benefit?
Wow.
Why are you expecting us to pay tens of billions of dollars for no benefit?
I mean, he just nailed it.
You know, I mean, and so, you know, these are people that, you know, they don't have any high-level positions or anything, but they learned about it.
They learned enough to actually realize the thing's crazy.
And that's why, you know, this is so valuable.
Well, and I believe that these studies, these question askers, they've studied this topic far more than the people making the decisions for these same people to pay tens of billions of dollars for absolutely no benefit in the end.
I mean, to say that they're going to put up, you know, dozens and dozens and dozens of wind turbines.
And then you ask them, where are you going to put them?
Well, we never give any thought to that.
Uh-oh, yeah.
You know, like the people who are asking these questions have really seriously considered the tangible effects to their everyday lives due to these climate change policies.
And the people who are drafting the policy have never even given it that thought.
They just think climate change is bad.
We'll spend whatever it takes and the people are going to like it.
Those that's the mantra under which they operate.
That's right.
And, you know, it's not just knowledge because there's a lot of people in Ottawa who know these are crazy plans.
There are a lot of scientists in Ottawa, Carleton, and Ottawa U and other places who know there's no climate crisis.
But the main ingredient that these people have is courage.
Okay.
They're prepared to go on the record, you know, on the internet in front of the whole committee.
And I don't think all the committee are crazy, you know, because there's new people on the committee.
And of course, our hope is that they will see how stupid this is because they don't have a, you know, they didn't own, they don't own it because they didn't make it.
Right.
It's not theirs.
They can be critical of it.
It's not their baby.
Yeah.
Now, the next one is beautiful.
It's a former teacher and she's approaching it as a teacher.
Okay.
She's basically saying, you didn't do your homework, you know, and well, you'll hear what she has to say.
It's really fun.
This is Karen Bordreau, Bordreau, I think is how you pronounce it, Bordeaux.
And she just takes it to task, you know.
Well, you'll see.
I won't, I won't rob her.
Don't ruin it.
Yeah.
Can you tell us about any other city of a million or more population that has successfully followed the sort of transportation-related climate and energy plans being planned for Ottawa?
If no such example exists, why not carry out a pilot study on a small subset of Ottawa's population, perhaps composed of the members of this committee or city employees who are promoting the plan?
Such a study would entail all participants switching over to an electric vehicle and an electric home, heating, and only commuting by transit, walking and cycling.
Participants could also commit to retrofitting their homes in accordance with the plans the city now wants us all to follow.
Then after a reasonable timeframe, they could report to the committee their experiences during the trial period to better inform you on the likely real impacts of cities plans, where they to be carried out on the whole of Ottawa.
If a student were to approach me with suggestions that the class switch over to a radically new way of learning, I would ask, have you tried it yourself?
If their answer was no, then I would tell them to try it out and let me know how things went.
Similarly, I asked this committee to do your homework before further considering compelling the whole city to radically change the way we live.
Thank you.
Wow.
I mean, that was great.
I love the analogy she made.
It was like a student coming to her and saying, oh, I have a totally new way to teach this class.
And the teacher says, well, a totally new way to learn.
And the teacher says, oh, have you tried it yourself?
Well, no.
Okay, well, go try it yourself.
And if you tell us what happens.
And so, you know, that's one thing that drives me crazy about all these greenies is that they constantly tell us all how to live.
They don't live that way.
Right.
You know, they've never demonstrated how you can live without fossil fuels.
Okay.
No plastics, you know, none of the painting or millions of other materials.
I mean, there are typically 6,000 materials that use oil, you know, as a base stock material to make.
I mean, all of our plastics, all of our hospitals, you know, our paints, our fertilizer, it goes on and on and on.
So yeah, if you think that we should get rid of fossil fuels, show us how to do it.
Do it yourself.
Okay.
Go ahead.
Well, and I think that it's a great, it's a great way to put it to these people.
You know, you want us to live this way?
You first.
You first, you tell me how much you like it.
And if you like it, then maybe we'll talk about other people adopting your crazy lifestyle choices.
But they've never even tried it.
Tom, I just went through an order paper question, a response from the whole of government about the use of the limos, the government executive vehicles that they're only really supposed to use in the national capital region.
They're not supposed to be driving them to Montreal so that they don't have to fly a commercial flight, which they're doing.
And there's so much hypocrisy from the climate emergency government.
They want us to live a certain way that they would never live.
They want us to switch to electric vehicles.
You know what the majority of the government fleet is, don't you?
Well, you know, Gandhi said, live simply so others simply may live.
Right.
But other politicians say, do what I say, not what I do.
Yeah.
Rules for me, but not for thee.
As David Menzies always says, that was incredible.
And, you know, kudos to that lady.
I imagine it becomes a little easier as a retired teacher, as opposed to a current active teacher, because I can't even imagine what it would be like in the staff room after she questioned the, I guess, the climate change lifestyle of our moral and intellectual superiors.
Yeah, exactly.
Now, the last one is Danielle Mayo, a French Canadian lady.
And, you know, she has a little trouble towards the end because it's her second language.
Sure.
But she also is very brave and she points out that, hey, you know, wind and solar are not clean.
I mean, they're probably the dirtiest energy sources on the planet.
I'm sure that kind of blew away the committee, but I'll play you her thing.
It's about a minute.
Here we go.
Research shows that we do a far better job protecting the environment by continuing our reliance on fossil fuels than by making a massive transition to so-called renewable power.
I ask the committee, it is still time for courageous conversation to do your due diligence and properly investigate every aspect of the question before ruining our environment with a huge expansion of wind and solar power.
Finally, the Schillenberg Schellenberger concluded his 2019 TED Talk by asking, now that we know that renewables can't save the planet, are we going to keep letting them destroy it?
The prosperity is Prosperity created by fossil fuels has made environmental protection both highly valued and financially possible.
Thank you.
Yeah, now that is so cool.
She didn't pull her punches.
She said point blank that it is much better environmentally to stay on fossil fuels.
And that in fact, our standard of living that allows us to protect the environment, to even care about the environment, is because of fossil fuels.
And that's the point made in this book here, Sheila.
This is the Climate Change Reconsidered report on fossil fuels.
And they show very, very clearly in this book.
Okay, it's the non-governmental international panel on climate change.
And people can check it out.
It gives you lots of great talking points.
It has little summaries at the beginning of each chapter.
It's at climatechange reconsidered.org.
Okay, that's those reports.
And those are the reports I was that Sean Devine was mentioning.
Oh, you haven't brought in all those big reports.
Yeah, Sean, why don't you read them?
Yeah.
But I was very impressed with Danielle Mayo because she just hit the nail on the head.
She said, basically, we need fossil fuels to protect the environment.
You know, like, that's beautiful.
You just don't hear that kind of a direct statement from, you know, the Canadian Association of whatever.
You know, many of these associations are afraid to tell the truth.
You know, oh, we're reducing greenhouse gases.
Well, no, guys, you know, focus on your core job.
Yeah.
Yeah.
The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers is great at being colonized by environmentalists and basically apologizing for the very important, valuable work that they do in the interest of Canadian prosperity, but also human rights and freedom around the world.
More Canada means more freedom when you are, you know, export.
You just don't export energy.
You export freedom because we're providing jobs and prosperity here and we're offsetting tyrannical sources of energy.
Well, that's right.
And, you know, there are a lot of useful idiots in this whole debate.
I attended the Canada 2020 conference and I won't say a lot about that.
It was an incredible snooze fest.
And the best news actually was that Mark Carney was the keynote speaker at lunch to charge them up.
It was the most boring speech I think I've ever attended.
I mean, I thought, great, this is a highlight of the event, you know, put everyone to sleep.
But regardless, we had people like the Canadian Cement Association, Canadian Steel Association, you know, these different groups who will be absolutely creamed if we continue along this route.
CBC's Deadline Rush00:05:10
But they were up there boasting about, oh, you know, we're reducing greenhouse gases so that we're not causing as much damage as these other countries.
I thought, you idiots.
I mean, they are what the Soviets would have called useful idiots.
Okay.
In an attempt to appease the enemy, they admit the enemy's right with respect to the main cause of all this.
Okay.
They're not saying, hey, you know, Canada puts out 1.6% of world emissions, you know, Ottawa, less than 1%.
You know, they don't get into that, let alone the science.
They accept the science and try to get less damage for their companies.
You know, so I mean, I think that's a huge mistake.
But, you know, Sheila, I got to tell you one thing.
At the end of this particular committee hearing, the CBC were there with their cameras and everything, and they were interviewing, you know, the climate alarmists.
So I went up and I said, oh, would you like a different perspective?
And they said, oh, well, we heard your testimony.
I said, right.
And would you like to talk to me now about a different perspective to what you're hearing from all these other people you're interviewing?
Oh, well, we don't really have time now.
So I gave them my card.
I said, okay, well, call me later and I'll be happy to talk to you about it because their plan here is disastrous.
It's very dangerous.
It's incredibly expensive.
Oh, yeah, we might call you.
So anyway, a little later, I was waiting outside the building for my taxi.
And sure enough, the CBC reporter comes out along with her cameraman and all the equipment.
And they're walking really slow.
They obviously have lots of time.
And I said, oh, I'm waiting for my cab.
You folks are all finished.
Why don't we have an interview?
And she said, oh, we're rushing to a deadline.
And I looked at them.
They weren't rushing anywhere.
So I said to her, you know, I'm going to be on Rebel News next week.
What should I tell them about why you wouldn't interview me?
And she just shrugs and says, anything you want.
And so I finally said, you know, you give yourselves a black eye when you only cover one side of these issues.
I felt good saying that.
I mean, I didn't get angry.
I just said it, you know.
And she says, you know.
So, I mean, the next day, the report was in the citizen or on the CBC website.
And of course, there was no reference to what was by far the most newsworthy event.
Okay, the con, you know, the committee hearings generally are very dull.
Okay.
Everybody gets up and they say what they're expected to.
The fact that five Ottawans challenged the city with well-constructed and well-delivered, confident, they call them delegations.
That was the news story.
Okay.
And yet there was not a word about that in the CBC's report.
And I thought it was hilarious when she said, it was something like out of yes, minister, you know, or Monty Python.
Oh, we're rushing too much.
I don't believe the CBC reporters rush anywhere.
But I can tell you why they don't tell the other side of the story with regard to climate change or even acknowledge that there's another side of the story.
If you go to the CBC's website, the ombudsman there has made a decision that there is no other side of the story with regard to climate change.
And so because of that, they will not give equal time to both sides of the debate.
They won't even acknowledge that there's another side of the debate.
That's a decision made by management at CBC that they don't even try to hide anymore.
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
And it's the same thing at that Canada 2020 conference.
You know, I talked to their first speaker.
I can't remember his name, but he was a leading guy in the climate alarmist camp.
And I said, you know, they can say we're going on and on at this conference.
We have to go faster.
We have to speed up.
There's no time to lose.
There's no time to lose.
Well, yeah, they're right in a way.
There's no time to lose because the public are actually waking up and realizing that this is all a hoax.
So yeah, you better get your policies in quick guys because people know it's wrong.
But anyway, I went to him afterwards and I said, you know, I think that we should be going much slower.
CBC slow.
Like CBC trying to meet a deadline.
Yeah, that's right.
Yeah.
So he said, what are you talking about?
I said, well, you know, there are scientists all over Canada, just here at Ottawa U and at Carleton University who actually recognize that the climate scare is wrong.
So I think that you should take a step back before spending tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of billions across Canada.
And he just said, no, the science is settled.
So I've told him again, I use Rebel News and I love Rebel News.
I said, well, you know, I'm going to be on Rebel News next week.
So, and of course his ears go up.
And I said, so what should I tell him that your response is to my statement?
The science is settled.
He says, you know, he goes on and on about that.
And he sort of runs away.
I ran after him.
I couldn't catch him.
He was too fast.
But no, too many smokes.
Too many smokes.
These people are totally brainwashed.
And it's funny because we had a table there and one of our supporters actually gave $1,000 to buy a table.
Bruce's Urgent Call00:12:30
Wow.
Yeah.
So that quite a few people could actually go.
I didn't pay for it.
They paid for it.
Yeah.
And so it's interesting because, you know, early in the event, a couple of people from our table got up and asked inconvenient questions.
So by the time I got my hand up to ask a question, they already knew to stay away from our table.
So funny.
And of course, this is the point.
I mean, in a democracy, if you are forbidden from debating something, you know that something's being hidden.
Okay.
And that's the whole point.
And it reminds me very much of a line in the Star Trek series.
And you can see with my space shuttle here, I'm former aerospace engineer.
And, you know, I love the space program.
Anyway, data, the android, was in charge of evacuating a world because the aliens were coming back to re-inhabit it.
And they regarded humans as just vermin to be exterminated.
So data's job was to get the human colonists off the planet.
And they didn't want to tell them anything.
So data turned to the leaders and said, is your point of view so weak it cannot withstand rational debate?
At which point they hit him with a laser and disabled him.
So, I mean, that's the point.
Anybody who refuses to argue, the answer is, is your point of view so weak it cannot withstand rational debate?
And the answer is yes, that's exactly the case because you got this report.
You know, you have this report.
You've got this report.
I mean, these are thousands of references from scientists all over the world publishing in leading peer-reviewed journals who are brave enough to say there's no climate crisis.
Like, knock it up.
Since 1880, average global temperature, which is kind of a fictitious number, but that has gone up one degree.
One degree.
And, you know, if you ask them, do you think you would feel that in your entire lifetime?
The answer is no.
And how do you even measure that?
Like, how do you even measure one degree over the surface of the globe?
How do you even measure that?
It's impossible.
Well, that's right.
And it's a meaningless statistic, anyways, because there's no super being kind of straddling the planet and feeling one degree warming.
Right.
We all live in regions.
And to show you how useless and, you know, meaningless the global average temperature is, let's pretend half the planet got 10 degrees warmer and half the planet got 10 degrees colder.
The average would stay the same, yet the pressure and temperature differentials would drive terrible extreme weather.
Okay.
So there would be a huge climate catastrophe if that happened.
And yet the average would stay the same.
So the average means nothing.
Okay.
All that matters is where people and animals and plants actually live.
And what we see across Canada, I mean, Ottawa, great example.
The maximum summer temperature has not risen at all.
Now they say, oh, average temperatures in Ottawa have risen.
Well, yes, that's true because it's not quite as cool at night.
Sounds lovely.
Yeah, that's right.
So I said to the council, it was actually I brought that up in this committee hearing.
I said, the fact that it's a little less cool at night doesn't threaten anybody, you know?
So, I mean, if you look at the numbers, the actual statistics, there's no climate crisis.
We're wasting $50 billion.
It's crazy.
And, you know, this should be a lesson for other cities and other citizens across the country.
Calgary, I'm looking at you with your $80 billion plus climate plan.
Citizens should be turning up at their town halls and raising a little hell.
They can poach exactly these questions and ask these exact questions to their own politicians in cities all across the country contemplating passing this collective madness on to the taxpayer.
Exactly.
And I really hope that your viewers can go to our website, icsc-canada.com, and click on that first box.
Because what we'll have on that webpage are the Twitter handles and the email addresses of all the counselors on the committee.
And if they get flooded with emails and tweets that are sent all over the place saying, look, you know, this teacher asked you a really, really good question.
Will you live the kind of lifestyle for a year that you're telling us we should all live?
Or, you know, they could ask the question I did.
Are you going to properly tell the city to investigate the impacts of cooling?
Because 20 times more people die from cooling than heating.
So if people start to bombard our counselors, and as I say, it'll be on our website with these questions, then yeah, we can have a good chance of killing the climate scare in Ottawa.
And that will be a great thing to show other cities and other activists.
You can win, okay?
But you got to be brave.
You got to speak up.
And I hope we can get all your viewers to do that.
Well, you got to turn up.
You just can't go on the internet and complain.
Like you have to physically be at these meetings to make some trouble.
That's right.
And I'd be really happy.
I've had a few people reach out to me from other cities in Canada saying, you know, how can we fight this?
So I really welcome people to reach out to me at icsc.tom.harris at gmail.com.
It's on our website, icsc-canada.com.
And I'd be happy to help people from across Canada because you're right.
It's at the municipal level where we can have the most impact.
And, you know, they say that cities are this huge contributor to greenhouse gases.
So they're focused hard on bringing in these draconian policies at the city level.
So let's work at the city level.
Let's kill it.
And we can do it.
Well, and these are the most accessible politicians to you.
It's going to be kind of hard for you to bend the ear of Justin Trudeau without getting ragdolled by his security.
But you can turn up at a council meeting and they can even get to know your face as they've known yours now, Tom Harris.
And you can, you know, really pin these guys down on their bad ideas.
Now, you've given out the website a couple of times, but how do people get involved in supporting the work that you do?
Because despite what Councillor Devine would have the public believe, you're not in the pockets of really anybody, including big oil and big tobacco.
You guys are just a grassroots organization, a citizens advocacy group.
So tell us how people can support the work that you do because you are really up against like big green.
You want to talk about money?
Big green has it all.
Yeah, exactly.
Well, people should go to our homepage at icsc-canada.com.
And there's a big red donate button.
My daughter's the webmaster and she made sure nobody could miss it.
And it tells you how to donate.
You can either do it on the internet or you can send a check.
We want here in Ottawa to have a webinar.
Patrick Moore has agreed to participate.
Bob Lyman, you know, and we're actually going to educate the city if we have the funds.
Then we'll put out press releases and have a citywide poll asking Ottawans then, do you want to spend almost $60,000 for every man, woman, and child in the city for this climate plan?
And I imagine it'll be 90% of people say no, and then we'll publicize the heck out of it.
If we have the funds, we'll put out news releases and all sorts of things.
So yeah, your money will be well used if you donate to ICSC Canada.
Tom, don't forget your podcast.
Oh, yeah.
Exploratory journeys.
That's right.
It's on the icsc-canada.com website.
Click under resources.
And we also have something else there that people who don't have much time would enjoy.
And that is our climate change minutes.
Okay.
Sometimes they're two minutes, but regardless, we go through all these different topics and you can click on them.
There's about 60 or 70 of them there, which is fun.
Okay, thanks, Sheila.
Yeah, I think we've checked off all the important things that you're doing.
Tom, thanks so much for coming on the show.
Thanks so much for your advocacy work.
And, you know, you're just out there fighting for the taxpayer and fighting for a little bit of sanity to be injected into this conversation.
It's not a one-sided conversation.
There are disruptors.
There are other opinions.
And I think the longer time goes on, those other opinions seem to be the more clear-minded ones.
Exactly.
Thank you, Sheila.
Thanks.
We'll have you on again very soon.
Yeah.
Bye.
Well, friends, we've come to the portion of the show where we invite your viewer feedback.
I say this every single week and I realize it's probably getting redundant and possibly annoying to regular viewers, but I think it's important to reiterate that unlike the mainstream media, I actually care about what you think about the work that we do here at Rebel News, for better or for worse.
In fact, just a couple of days ago, I was at a speaking engagement for Alberta Proud and somebody came up and talked to me about something that I had said that they didn't like.
And I'm always happy to address criticisms, comments, story ideas.
Without you, there is no Rebel News.
So of course, I want to hear from you.
We don't have a sugar daddy named Justin Trudeau reaching into somebody else's pocket to pay us to create work that nobody wants to see except Justin Trudeau himself.
So we rely on you and we care about you.
And we appreciate that you do take the time to reach out to us, which is why right now I'll give you my email address.
It's Sheila at rebelnews.com.
Put gun show letters in the subject line so it's easier for me to find because, well, not that I'm lazy, but I do get like sometimes it's like hundreds of emails a day, depending on what I've said or done on any given day.
Now, today's letter comes from Bruce Acheson.
Bruce is a regular viewer of the show and someone who writes in very, very regularly.
I think he writes in just about after every single show.
So I like to shout out to Bruce.
He is one of the most loyal viewers of the gun show for a very, very long time.
Bruce is in beautiful Radway, Alberta, about, you know, just a quick jaunt north of here.
Bruce writes, hi, Sheila, what a good show you had tonight.
So I should stop.
This is on my interview with my friend and colleague, Kian Simone, on our work on the documentary Church Under Fire, Canada's War on Christianity.
You can find out more details and support our work at savethechristians.com.
And there's like a perk level for everybody there.
So if you give us some money to continue to work on the documentary, we'll give you a little something back depending on what tier you've donated at so that you are as invested in the documentary as we are.
Because truly, like I said, we can't do any of this work without you.
So anyways, now that that's out of the way, Bruce writes, what a good show you had tonight.
And what a shame it is that Christians in North America care so little about their siblings around the world.
It's true.
Not only in the Middle East, but also in China, where the Chinese communist government is enforcing a strict crackdown on Christians and even rewriting the Christian Bible to comport with communist ideology.
I keep running smack into this same ignorance wherever I go around here.
I'm also glad Rebel News is making the Church Under Fire documentary.
I donated to help make this important video a success.
Better still, I'm glad the full-length interviews will be available for us donors to watch.
Yours in Sleepy Radway, Bruce Acheson, and Gourmand Delta the Cat.
Not brought to you by Pfizer.
Well, thank you, Bruce.
And thank you to everybody who has donated at savethechristians.com to help us make the Church Under Fire documentary.
You will not only get specific perks, but you will get access to special fun behind the scenes video updates where you might even see me chasing seagulls in St. John or wearing a Roman soldier costume at Pastor Phil's church in St. John or just outside of St. John.
So you will see the work as it's progressing and as Kian and I are traveling around the country to gather up these very important stories from the persecuted pastors who stood up to the state in defense of their congregations that the mainstream media and the politicians would love for you to forget.
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.