Sheila Gunn-Reid and Rick Igersich of Canada’s National Firearms Association (NFA) expose Bill C-21’s handgun freeze as a thinly veiled confiscation scheme, ignoring public safety while targeting law-abiding citizens’ farming, hunting, or competitive shooting heirlooms. The Liberals’ $400M-to-$2B cost estimates balloon due to unaccounted gun show purchases, and the unelected Firearms Advisory Committee wields arbitrary power—like the 2015 CZ-858 ban—that could soon extend to magazines. Gunn-Reid highlights the $8M Ottawa steel barn’s wasteful spending as rural priorities crumble under ideological overreach, urging citizens to demand change through advocacy and votes. [Automatically generated summary]
For the second time in recent history, we are finding out that the Liberals' latest gun grab is going to cost way more than they told us it would.
I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed, and you're watching The Gunn Show.
I'm the president of Canada's National Firearms Association.
I'm here today representing the members of my organization and other law-abiding Canadians.
I want to speak specifically about two parts of this bill.
The handgun freeze that will eventually lead to confiscation of personal property.
I would also like to comment on the government's creation of the Firearms Advisory Committee.
I am neither an academic nor a bureaucrat nor a lawyer.
I am simply one of the many Canadians that Bill C-21 will directly affect.
As a third-generation firearms owner, I have several family heirlooms, including handguns that have been passed from my grandfather to my father and finally to me.
My grandfather, a First World War veteran, was a farmer who legally carried a handgun in his daily activities on the farm, whether it was for predator control, to dispatch injured or wounded livestock, or just to do some planking at a tin can under a shade tree while he ate his lunch, which was a common practice in that day.
My father was a competitive shooter in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s and a Dominion marksman who competed in the Olympic trials in his youth.
I have followed in his footsteps, becoming a competitive handgun, IPC rifle and shotgun competitor.
I am also an avid collector and I'm passionate about the pieces that hold significance in Canadian history and heritage.
If Bill C-21 becomes law, I will be the final chapter in that book.
Upon my passing, regardless of age or sentiment, my firearms will be slated for destruction.
The history, the time-honored traditions, national pride, and the legacy of countless Canadian icons will come to an end.
This saddens me deeply, along with countless law-abiding firearms owners who share my position.
Despite proven statistics that we are one of the most vetted and law-abiding demographics in Canadian history, and our hope that the government would treat us fairly, we will unfortunately bear the brunt of these measures.
What you just saw there is a clip from my friend, good friend of the show, Rick Igersich of the National Firearms Association, testifying before Canada's Senate.
And he's doing his best to humanize the true cost of the Liberals' latest gun grab, which codifies the Order in Council banning of, at first, now it's many more, 1,500 models of Canadian firearms, as well as entrenching a ban on handgun ownership.
Rick is doing his best to explain to people who just don't want to understand that stripping firearms from law-abiding Canadians will strip away a part of Canada's culture and a part of the history of many Canadian families.
I'm not sure the Liberals really understood what Rick was trying to say, or maybe they did.
Just don't care, because it's a lot easier to blame people like Rick for the rising crime rates in Canada's large cities than to actually do something about it through changes in legislation to changes in bail and through tightening up Canada's porous border.
Joining me today to discuss the ballooning costs of the liberals latest gun grab.
It's now proposed to cost $2 billion to compensate Canadian firearms owners for their property that the government plans to confiscate.
Initially it they said 400 million.
We'll explain why the liberals could not possibly know how much it's going to cost and we'll talk about Rick's testimony.
take a listen.
So joining me now is my friend, good friend of the show and friend of Rebel, Rick Igersich of the National Firearms Association.
Uh Rick, when I talked to you I think it was about two weeks ago you talked to us about how you had been invited to give testimony before the Senate about the I suppose it would be the human cost of the liberals gun legislation at all costs.
And I watched your testimony and I think you did exactly what you intended to do, and that is to make the victims of the firearms compensation something more than just a bunch of numbers.
Uh, to the pencil pushers in the bureaucracy, but you really tried to humanize what the liberals are doing to the firearms community.
Yes and uh, thanks for uh having me on your show again.
Sheila, I tried uh, I took a different approach than a lot of the other uh witnesses.
I took the approach of trying to let the senators know who we really are and who this bill affects, the, the statistics that were flowing in and and they were being repetitive and there was uh, there's definitely flawed, uh flawed numbers and flawed statistics and I I kind of called them out on a bit of this stuff.
But uh, I wanted to, I wanted to, I wanted to go out there and uh let people know who we are.
You know some of our, some of our background, some of my background and uh, you know there's a lot of testimony previous to uh, previous to my appearance, and you know a few of the anti-firearms people.
You know they were calling us, uh.
You know xenophobes uh misogynists uh, you know the list is endless.
You know it was just a big an insult and assault campaign by them and I, you know I wanted to.
I wanted to go out there and uh show people that we're just everyday people that, like what we do, we're proud of what we have and we want to keep our personal property.
Yeah, and you know, like that's the thing, like you hear about the, the statistics, the numbers all the time.
And actually, I think the statistics are on our side, that if indeed there are this culture of firearms ownership in this country, and I think that's 100% true, we're not the problem.
Liberals' Documents Reveal Goals00:07:01
We have never been the problem.
The statistics lie on our side.
But when you take the statistics out of the equation, because the liberals don't seem to really actually care about the facts, right?
But if you take that out of the equation and you say that these are family heirlooms, trusted family heirlooms, these are part of not just my family's heritage, but the heritage of this country that the liberals are, I suppose, happy to throw in the garbage because they really don't want to do the tough thing of dealing with crime in progressive-run cities in this country.
That was my point of Bill C-21 too.
It doesn't address the root issue.
C-21 has nothing to do with public safety, gun crime, smuggled firearms.
C-21 goes after law-abiding Canadian citizens and their personal property.
It does nothing more.
You know, I was questioned by the senator: how could we find a balance?
How can we find something in this bill to make it make it palatable for everybody?
There isn't.
There isn't because it's one-sided.
They're going strictly after law-abiding Canadians and their personal property.
End of story.
You know, and many of the same arguments that you made were made by Alberta's chief firearms officer, Terry Bryant, in her testimony before the Senate.
She said that Bill C-21 is basically irreparable.
It should be scrapped altogether.
And she pointed to the fact that it violates justice, which was one of the arguments made to the federal court, even though the federal court basically upheld Bill C-21.
But Terry Bryant said it violates justice because it confiscates precious personal and family belongings and destroys household wealth.
It's true.
It weakens public safety because it prevents people from getting life-saving tools and training.
And frankly, it undermines the whole concept of gun regulations because it invents arbitrary policies designed to criminalize and confiscate property from honest citizens instead of promoting safety and security in Canada's progressive-run cities.
And there's more to it than that.
It's affecting sport shooters, for example.
People go out with their families, enjoy firearms in a safe manner.
It affects them.
It's affecting hunters.
There was a lot of talk in the Senate all, it's not really affecting long guns.
But when you look at the Firearms Advisory Committee with the open-ended side of the Firearms Advisory Committee, the government could add any firearm they want to this list without due process.
A prime example of government overreach.
You know, there's so many parts of this bill that affects so many Canadians.
It's unbelievable.
And how far they want to go by these firearms advisory committees, there's no end to it.
You and I know what their goal is.
Their goal is to get rid of all firearms in Canada.
There's no doubt about that.
And this is just a stepping stone.
I hope that some of the senators, I'm hoping all of the senators took to heart what I had to say because there's more to this than the anti-gun side.
The anti-gun side, they come up with this domestic violence stuff.
And some of the ridiculous stuff they were quoting was unbelievable.
But if you look at, you know, and I don't want to quote statistics, but if you look at the statistics, it's not us, you know.
And I made a suggestion when I was questioned by one of the senators, you know, and they said, you know, something to the effect of, you know, if we got rid of guns, then people would feel safer.
I said, what's the next step?
Get rid of pointy objects in your house?
You know, everybody's got kitchen knives.
It just.
You know, it's hard to comprehend on how focused some of these left-wing senators are on not the facts, but just on a bunch of, I'm going to use the word propaganda because that's what it is.
Well, and look at how they frame that question to you.
If we get rid of guns, wouldn't Canadians feel safer?
I don't care how they feel.
They wouldn't actually be safer.
I don't have to feed somebody's misplaced notions of safety that aren't actually real by having my property confiscated.
I don't think we should legislate around feelings.
We should legislate around reality.
But the liberals seem hell-bent on saying, okay, well, everybody's just going to feel safer if Sheila, who didn't do anything, has to lose her guns to make some left-wing feminists feel better about, I don't know, sleeping with her cat at night.
Yeah, exactly.
Then they threw the discrimination card at me.
They asked me what my organization does to vet new members.
And my response to that was, this is Canada.
Canada is a free country.
Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows anyone to join any organization they want.
The only people that are vetting us are the RCMP.
That's our members with PALs.
We're getting vetted by the RCMP.
We don't vet our members.
We don't discriminate against anybody.
And that's a classic liberal play.
Okay, the domestic violence didn't work.
Let's throw in the discrimination card.
I was just sitting there and absorbing this stuff.
It was unbelievable.
Okay, so the liberals, the people who trotted out an actual Nazi, which is pretty hard to find these days because the supply doesn't really meet the demand.
They dusted off a geriatric Nazi, brought him into the House of Commons, gave him a hero's welcome, and these people have the audacity to tell you you're not vetting your members?
Really?
A little tone-deaf, I'd say.
I would say so too, Sheila.
It's a crazy world, and it's, you know, for a body that's supposed to be balanced and bipartisans, the Canadian Senate is not, in my opinion.
No, it's not.
I mean, Justin Trudeau created his independent senators, and they're independent only insofar as they don't carry the liberal name, but they vote by and large consistently with the liberals.
Let's talk about something that as we're recording this on Tuesday morning, it'll go to air on Wednesday.
This unsurprising news came out Monday.
Liberals' Gun Documents Appeal00:15:08
So the Liberals documents.
So this is the Liberals' own documents.
And the Liberals have said all along the gun buyback program, and I say gun buyback, that's because that's what they call it.
It's the compensation for confiscation program because you can't buy back something that was not yours.
But liberals' own documents now project the liberals' compensation program to cost nearly $2 billion, double the minister's first estimates.
The government still has yet to release public figures on what the confiscation program would cost taxpayers.
So this is their so-called assault rifles, which included a 410 bird gun.
At first, they said it would cost $400 million, then it was $600 million, then I think it ballooned up to $800 million.
And of course, it's double, and I think it's going to be even double this again because they don't know how many of these firearms are in the country, because that's what happens when you move guns from completely unregistered all the way to Prohib.
A lot of these guns were gun show first purchases for a lot of highly vetted individuals.
And so the government has no real record of who has these guns or where they are.
And so there's only one solution, and that's to send the RCMP door to door looking for these things.
We've heard in Alberta, our RCMP are not going to do that.
I think a lot of RCMP members are going to object to doing that too.
But of course, of course the liberals have no idea how much this is going to cost because they don't know where these guns are, who has them or how many of them there are.
Our original projections were between $3 to $4 billion.
They said, oh, there's no way it's going to be that much.
I realistically think it's going to be more than $4 billion now.
I think you're right when you say it'll double again.
I believe it will also.
And you made a very valid point there, Sheila.
There's a lot of these guns on the original order, the May 2020 ordering council that nobody knows where they are.
Even if they were to go to gun shops, these guns are unrestricted.
They could have changed hands three or four times.
So nobody really knows where these firearms are.
That's why they kind of put this secondary background check into place in Bill C-71, maybe to try to track down some of these firearms.
But nobody knows where these firearms are.
So how can you put a price on something that you don't even know what's out there?
And it's highly improbable that the RCMP is going to go door to door to every gun owner in Canada.
It's just logistically impossible.
So I don't know where they're going.
I know it's always the liberals, again, are in trouble in Ottawa.
Them and their happily marriage to the NDP.
They're in trouble again in Ottawa.
And it seems that I think they might be going back to the firearms as a wedge issue.
The last few months had dropped off the grid a bit, but they're kind of bringing it back now.
So we'll see what happens.
At the end of the day, we need an election to change this government.
So that's a great point.
I do think because the liberals are about 10 points down consistently behind the conservatives and those numbers seem to be holding.
I think previously we've seen fluctuations where the conservatives are up and then the liberals go back up again in the polls.
But it's been month after month now, consistently, the liberals are down 10 points on the conservatives.
And of course, they trot out this cudgel where they pit urban people against the firearms community and rural people and the West because they don't stand to lose any votes in the West.
This is basically something directed at, this is an issue directed at Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver.
Do you think Canadians are going to buy this or are they just completely over it?
Because I think if the Liberals even believed that these firearms were so deadly they had to get out of the hands of law-abiding Canadians, they wouldn't have kicked the can down the road five years before their confiscation program kicks in.
If you look at some of the talk at the Senate, and it was almost like they're trying to cause a rift between the urban and the rural people.
I believe right now Canadians have had enough of this.
I think they're trying to bring it back to light.
And they're quoting there's more guns in rural Canada than there is in the cities, which is a falsehood because in Ontario, there's a lot of shooters and gun owners and collectors in the cities.
And I'm sure it's like that in Edmonton and Calgary also.
I don't even know where they're getting their data from.
But if you listen to them, it's almost like they're purposely trying to cause a rift between urban and rural people.
And people aren't going to fall for that anymore.
I believe this gun issue has been drugged through the wringer for so long, so many times that people are getting tired of it and aren't going to be thinking about that when they go to the polls.
No, I don't think so either.
And this is just indicative of how the liberals govern.
They govern through division.
That's how they got through COVID.
You know, those people are dirty, even though all they did was make a different health choice than the people around them.
And right now they're scapegoating law-abiding gun owners for the crimes that are happening largely in the progressive run cities and because the liberals refuse to secure their border because a lot of the gun crime in this country is caused through smuggling.
These are not really domestically sourced guns.
And if they are domestically sourced, they are in the hands of the wrong people, largely because somebody was robbed of them.
So right now, the liberals, if you look at how they are legislating, when they point to domestically sourced guns, it's not straw purchases.
It's scapegoating the victims of a robbery for what's done with the property that was stolen from them.
And we would never treat vehicle owners the same way.
Like we don't hold vehicle owners responsible if their car is taken from their driveway and used in the commission of a crime.
We don't turn to the original owner and say, well, you did something wrong.
We don't do that, but we do that with firearms.
Yeah, you know, and the data they're using is so skewed because they take into account air guns, staple guns, you know, nail guns.
And even if somebody writes somebody a threatening letter, they call that a crime gun.
It's unbelievable how the data is skewed.
And I know one of the senators, Senator Kucher, actually was quoting statistics that, and he was saying that 65% of the crime in Canada is done by legally owned and registered firearms.
And Senator Plett, you know, God bless Senator Plett called him out on that.
And it was, it was, there was a bit of a, I don't think it was, you know, acceptable Senate quorum or Senate practice.
But, you know, Senator Plutt called him out on that.
And I think I think that that was, I think that was straightened out at the end.
And actually, that was, that was just right before my testimony, I believe.
And it was, there was a bit of a match going back and forth.
And it's all about where this data is coming from.
You know, these anti-groups are producing their own data.
We have data.
I have data right here.
I have four fetid peer-reviewed reports that are accurate.
But you asked, you know, and they're coming up with rebuttals to these reports, but none of their stuff is peer-reviewed that I know of.
It might be, but as far as I can see, it's not peer-reviewed.
And the statistics, the statistics they're quoting are ridiculous.
One senator said that 65% of firearms owners in Canada are in favor of this handgun freeze.
And something like 75% of Canadians are in favor of this assault weapon ban.
Number one, an assault weapon, there hasn't been any of those in Canada since 1979, and long before that, 79 in some cases.
What definition are they using?
That's my question.
They're throwing these statistics at me.
I've traveled coast to coast across Canada on several occasions and talked to thousands of firearms owners.
Not one, not one, Sheila, has said they're in favor of this handgun freeze, this handgun seizure, or the ordering council.
So where they're getting these numbers, I don't know.
No, and I think a lot of firearms owners who didn't own handguns are all of a sudden having a bit of a come to Jesus moment when, you know, previously they said, well, you know, this sort of doesn't concern me.
So I don't have a handgun, so I don't really care.
A lot of those people are saying all of a sudden they do care because they realize how this stuff, it's not creeping anymore.
It is barreling at them where the liberals are maintaining this power to just ban things they don't like overnight and the federal court upholds it.
Yeah.
And confiscation without compensation because that's what it's going to come down to.
You know, we were talking some figures.
You know, they're saying $2 billion.
You know, we're saying $4 billion or more.
Where's this money going to come from?
If there's no money, if they decide to go through with this confiscation, there isn't going to be any compensation for these people.
And I try to stay out of that when I gave evidence at the Senate.
I try to stay out of the money end of things.
And, you know, I did mention tax losses and businesses closing and stuff like that.
But I try to stay out of the money end of things because at the end of the day, the liberals don't care about money.
You and I both know that.
Of course.
They don't care if Canadians are losing money.
They don't care if you've got your grandfather's firearms there and you're going to, you know, it's more than the money, of course, sentimental value.
But some people were banking on this as a retirement fund.
But the liberals don't care about that.
And that, in my opinion, has always been the case and I think always will be the case.
Yeah, it's true.
That's a great point.
The liberals don't care how they spend other people's money.
That's, again, another theme of how this liberal government governs the country.
Rick, tell me what's next for you guys at the NFA, because we know the federal court has upheld the, I think, the completely unfair order in counsel.
What's left for the Canadian firearms owning community to do to try to hang on to our property?
Yeah, right now we're looking at an appeal.
Our legal team is looking at appeal, but we've got to weigh this very carefully because if we appeal this, it's going to be very expensive.
And we're still dealing with liberal judges and liberal crowns.
So do we file an appeal just for the sake of optics?
If we're going to file an appeal, it's going to be because we think we can win.
Our case was a little different than all the other cases in the order of counsel.
We stuck to the procedure and legality side of this thing, not the constitutional side.
I don't know.
Like I say, right now, Solomon is Solomon Friedman, our lawyer, is reviewing things.
And we haven't made that decision whether to appeal or not.
I know other orgs say they're going to appeal, but I just don't know if we want to use members' resources to go out there for an appeal and not, you know, and be in the same position we are.
At the end of the day, what we need is a change in government, which Pierre Polyev has assured me personally that he is going to get rid of the Order in Council and this handgun freeze ban.
So I'm taking his word.
I'm taking his word for it.
As far as our group, we're going to kind of run behind the scenes in this election.
We don't want to give the liberals any, you know.
We take something, they spin it, and they use it against us.
So, you know, we're going to put the information out there of what each candidate has in mind, what their platforms are.
We're not going to endorse anybody.
We're going to let people make up their own minds.
And that's our position right now.
Like I say, we are looking at an appeal, but we have to be very careful how we use our members' resources.
You know, and I think the conservatives must commit to taking away this undemocratic power from the firearms advisory committee and the ability of the government to just reclassify guns without actually ever having to be accountable to the owners of these things.
There's too much power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats right now, and that must change.
Absolutely.
That firearms advisory committee is the biggest government overreach item that I've ever seen.
It's basically an open door to do whatever they want.
You know, they're doing whatever they want by abusing the order in council.
But, you know, with this firearms advisory committee, that just opens things right up for them.
And, you know, it's another tier.
You know, we've talked about their tiered approach to getting rid of guns in Canada.
That's another tier in the approach to getting rid of all firearms in Canada.
You know, and that firearms advisory committee, it abuses its power even when the conservatives are in charge.
We must never forget how owners of the CZ-858 went to bed one night with their lawfully acquired firearms and then woke up in the morning to find out that their firearm had been banned and they were all of a sudden in possession of a prohibited weapon, which is a serious offense here in Canada.
And that was all because of something happening at the Firearms Advisory Committee.
Thankfully, the Harper government gave an amnesty on that.
But amnesty should never have had to have been given because some bureaucrat outlawed your property while you slept.
And so, you know, that I think, as you rightly point out, it's one of the biggest undemocratic power vestiges in this country, and it must come to an end.
Become a Member00:04:07
It must, you know, with the Firearms Advisory Committee, I think what a lot of people don't realize, and there was a lot of talk of this at the Senate.
They're also talking about parts and accessories of firearms, you know, magazines, you know, their big thing is, you know, if we need to stop, we need, we need, we won't be able to fix our firearms anymore because they want to ban the flow of parts because somebody could take apart and allegedly 3D print a gun and make a ghost gun and stuff.
So, you know, and that's going to be, you know, as far as this firearms advisory committee, you know, I think I think that might be another thing where they'll set their focus onto accessories and parts of firearms.
You know, it's it's so open-ended that nobody really knows how much power it's going to have if they if they do put it in place.
Now, Rick, I could probably talk to you all day about how unfair the gun legislation is in this country and what we must do to fix it.
But please tell us how people can get involved in the NFA because you really are a grassroots organization working hard for people like me out there.
You know, become a member.
Your money, all your money go, well, most of your money, except for very little of it for, you know, to keep our office running, it goes into the good fight for firearms.
So join, become a member.
Follow us on our social media platforms, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter.
We're putting information out there every day.
Have a look and see what we're doing.
But at the end of the day, become a member.
But the big thing is, you know what?
Write your MP.
It really works.
Write your MP and your senator.
We had a lot of response in the Senate from people that were writing letters.
And the senators actually did mention that they were getting overrun by letters that were coming in, which is a good thing.
Let the senators, let your MPs know what's going on and get out and vote.
That's the big thing.
But like I say, join the NFE.
Join the NFA.
Get out and vote.
Write your senators and your MPs.
Let them know that we're a voice.
And when they understand that we're a large voice in Canada, things might change.
Yeah, from your lips to God's ears.
This is not just a legislative change.
It needs to be a governmental change.
Yes.
And a way this country rethinks what they feel about their friends and neighbors in the firearms owning community, because for the last going on eight years, Justin Trudeau has scapegoated them and treated them as though they are the violent criminals in the community instead of just the people that you play hockey with and see on the street every day.
Rick, thanks so much for coming on the show.
We'll have you back on again very soon because until there is a change of government, I think this is going to be a topic that we will constantly be talking about.
Thanks for having me on, Sheila.
I really enjoy doing your show.
And like I say, we'll speak again.
There's a lot of things that are going to be happening in the next few weeks.
So we'll be in touch again and to take this discussion a little further.
Well, friends, we've come to the portion of the show where I invite your viewer feedback.
I know, I know regular viewers of the show will find this little bit, this little preamble redundant, but we get new people here all the time.
We have to tell them how the rules work.
So if you want to send me viewer feedback on the show today or any show, just send me an email to Sheila at RebelNews.com.
Put gun show letters in the subject line because I do get dozens, hundreds of emails a day, depending on what controversial thing I've weighed in on to make half the internet angry at me.
But also, if you're watching the free version of the show on YouTube or on Rumble, thanks for sitting through those ads, by the way.
Steel Quonset Barn Solar00:05:46
It helps us pay the bills here.
But leave a comment in the comment section.
I do go poking around over there sometimes, or even on the free version of the clips of the show that we release on YouTube and Rumble.
If you don't feel like sitting through the whole version of the show, you can just watch some interesting clips.
And that is exactly where I get today's comment from.
And it is on my show last week that I did with Corey Morgan from the Western Standard.
And we were talking about the new legislative session here in Alberta and what sort of things our freedom-loving premier, Danielle Smith, who just loves fighting with the federal government, what she has on her legislative agenda.
And one of the things we talked about was how Justin Trudeau very recently has given a tax break, by and large, to Atlantic Canada by exempting home heating fuel from the carbon tax while leaving it in place for cleaner burning fuels, if you care about those sorts of things, like natural gas, which is what we burn on here in Western Canada.
And of course, Justin Trudeau did this for political reasons and not environmental reasons because home heating fuel is actually a less clean burning fuel.
But liberal MPs are starting to break ranks with the rest of their party on issues of the carbon tax in Atlantic Canada because they say it's all too punishing for their people there.
Now, as Chris Sims, my friend from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation points out, Western Canada actually pays more carbon tax on natural gas as a net sum than they pay on the carbon tax on home heating fuel in Atlantic Canada.
Not the Liberals care about those sorts of things, but actually we do pay more.
But the people who pay less on a dirtier fuel, again, if you care about that sort of things, they're the ones getting the carbon tax break because of course Justin Trudeau stands to lose nothing in Western Canada.
What are we going to do?
Not vote for him harder?
Anyway.
We have a comment on that story from GC3339 on the clip of the show on YouTube, who writes, what heating source is in the Trudeau storage barn recently renovated?
I wonder if it has heat pumps or natural gas.
Well, isn't that interesting?
What GC3339 here is referencing is the barn that was recently built.
That's how they're describing it.
It's a barn, but I think it's more of a storage building with a barn and it's got some wash bays there for vehicles, I think, which, okay, fine.
But basically, it's a steel quonset, which you see all over the place, at least out here in Alberta.
And it was built by the National Capital Commission, which are like the parks and property managers for the properties owned by the federal government in the national capital region.
So in Ottawa.
And so they are in charge of the property, let's say, at Rideau Hall, where the governor general lives, which is where this barn is.
And the barn is $8 million for a steel quonset.
I'm a farmer.
I know a little something about what barns cost, especially like steel machine sheds.
And probably, probably they could have done this for like 1 100th of the cost.
But the National Capital Commission had to put solar panels on the top of the barn.
And so that added enormously to the cost.
And so to answer your question, how is this thing heated?
Well, according to the National Capital Commission, with solar panels.
But according to reality, whatever it's heated with is not solar panels because it would naturally have to have a backup, which is usually clean burning natural gas because green energy is unreliable.
I can't even imagine Who they have to pay to climb up on top of this steel quandet to sweep off the solar panels on a snowy Ottawa January day to get three minutes of electricity out of these solar panels until they ultimately break and then leach into the soil.
And then we have to pay for the very expensive remediation of the soil on a national historic site.
What could possibly go wrong?
So, yeah, $8 million for a building with solar panels that probably costs, you know, like $100,000 at most.
Of course, these things are expensive because the government's doing them.
But yeah, I mean, just crazy.
But to answer your question, if it has heat pumps, no.
This is the governor general's property we're talking about.
And she likes things that work.
Things that don't work, those are just for us little people.
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 weekend.