Tom Harris challenges Canada's "2x warming" claim at the 16th International Climate Change Conference, arguing flawed data averaging and sparse stations distort trends. He attributes a 1998 temperature spike to El Niño and the AMO rather than greenhouse gases, defends coal as reliable, and criticizes Alberta's phase-out for causing brownouts. The segment concludes with Sheila Gunn Reid testifying against government censorship of independent journalists under the Online News Act. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Canada Warming Twice Global Rate00:05:04
Is Canada really warming twice the global average?
I'm Sheila Gunnreid, and you're watching The Gun Show.
I want you to do a little experiment.
I did it myself.
I want you to open up whatever search engine you use and plug in Canada warming at twice the rate, just that.
And then see what pops up.
It's article after article after article, including Canada.ca, so the Government of Canada report saying that Canada is warming at twice the global average.
Now, what is the global average?
How do you even read that?
And Also, if the EU is also warming at twice the global average and Canada's warming at twice the global average, and perhaps even the United States is warming at twice the global average, then if we're all warming at twice the global average, what even is the global average?
And what if this is all based on nonsense anyway?
Well, when you know it, I think it is.
And so does my guest today.
Today, we're talking to Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition about his recent presentation.
Wherein he lays out how this flawed claim came to be.
Take a listen.
So, joining me now is Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition Canada.
And as you saw in my introduction to the interview, if you just put Canada warming at twice the global rate into your search engine, it seems as though every year Canada is warming at twice the global rate.
But what even is the global temperature as a baseline?
How could you even test that?
Tom, you very recently gave a presentation debunking this idea that.
I think it permeated from Environment and Climate Change Canada in roughly 2019 ish, is when this idea came into the ethos of the country and then just spread around the world.
Now, apparently, the EU is warming at twice the global rate.
Again, what's the global rate?
I don't know.
Who knows?
Tom, walk us through this flawed concept.
Yeah, for sure.
I presented this talk at the International Climate Change Conference, number 16.
In Washington, DC, last week, and people can check it out.
We'll put it up on our homepage at icsc-canada.com.
But you can go to heartland.org and watch the whole conference, which I really recommend because there's some pretty inspirational things.
And before I get to my own topic, I just wanted to mention they had a youth panel.
And these were, you know, in most cases, they were youths that actually were on the climate change side.
Lucy Biggers, I don't know if you've heard of her, but Lucy Biggers, she actually worked with Greta Thunberg and AOC.
And there's pictures of her on the internet, big smile, you know, she's with all these climate alarmists, but she now has woken up.
Chris Martz, who we interviewed on America Out Loud, and he's like, I like that kid.
Yeah, yeah, lots of these people are, in fact, moved over to climate realism.
You know, and they're angry because they were constantly propagandized.
You know, Annika Sweetland, for example, she did an excellent presentation.
She got a degree at the University of West Australia in climate change.
And in fact, she was being primed to be a climate activist speaker, and she's a very good speaker.
You know, she could win a Toastmasters award, that's for sure.
But, you know, it's really inspirational to see, especially with so many of the old climate scientists dying off, you know, real heroes like Tim Ball and, you know, Bob Carter from Australia.
I mean, so many of them are passed away that we got a new generation that are opening up their eyes and they're really wakening up to this.
So, that was to me, in some ways, the most encouraging part of the whole conference.
But again, people can check it out at heartland.org.
And my presentation was on the second day.
And I was looking at two things one, is Canada really warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world?
And two, is it caused by greenhouse gases?
Now, And in the case of the first one, the first thing I said to people, and this is what Will Happer, the physicist from Princeton, said to me he said, Would it really matter if Canada was warming faster than the world?
It's a cold country, you know?
And I mean, that's a really good point because most of the warming is supposed to occur in the winter in the Arctic.
Okay, and that's supposed to be a problem.
Constant Temperatures vs Record Heat00:12:32
So it's going to be minus 55 instead of minus 60.
I mean, how many animals, yeah, how many animals or plants or people would really care if that were true?
So, I mean, you know, that was how I started and everybody laughed.
They thought, yeah, Canada, we're worried about global warming, especially at night in the Arctic in the winter.
But, you know, the second thing is just what you were saying is that is there a global temperature?
Is there a Canada wide temperature?
And the answer is no, there isn't really because.
Temperature is not something that you can be, that you can average like height or weight.
Okay.
You can take 10 people's heights and you add them all up and you divide by the number of people and you get an average height.
But weight is actually, it's kind of like a quality of something.
I, the analogy I like is it's a little bit like a phone number.
Okay.
You could take all the phone numbers in one of those old telephone books and you could average them and you get a phone number.
And if you called them, would you get the average person?
You know, I mean, it's.
Yeah, it's a silly idea.
And you know, it's interesting because Ross McKittrick and Chris Essex and Bjarin Anderson gave examples in a paper in which they pointed out that you can show that a system is both warming and cooling at the same time with the same data.
And the reason is this if you have two things, two sort of temperature fields, like the temperature field for Canada over one year and then the temperature field over a later year, those two fields almost completely overlap.
There can be a small change, perhaps a tenth of a degree, in this so called average.
But if you average it in different ways, you can actually show that it's cooling or warming.
And, you know, Ross McKittrick and Essex, they actually point this out.
And they say the only time you can say that a temperature field is hotter or colder than another one is if the ranges don't overlap.
In other words, in January in Toronto, it might be minus five to plus 10.
But in Miami, it's not even within that range.
It might be plus 15 to plus 25.
So those two temperature ranges don't overlap.
So you can definitely say that Miami is warmer than Toronto in January.
But for temperature fields that overlap a great deal, and in this case, almost completely from year to year, you can't really say easily if in fact it's warming.
And then, of course, the other thing that I always laugh about is they have almost no temperature sensing stations that have a continuous record.
You might have noticed that they use the year 1948.
They say from 1948 to the present, the temperature is warm twice as fast as the world, and the Arctic three times as fast as the world.
Well, I was kind of suspicious.
So, along with Joseph Hickey, who's a PhD in physics, he looked into the data back in 2021.
It was kind of interesting.
But I asked, huh, 1948, is that a special year?
Yes, it is.
Because if you go back a little further, you find that in the early 1940s and 1930s, especially when we were in the Dust Bowl, It was warmer almost everywhere in the Arctic.
In fact, we know that from looking at the northern record.
But even that is very uncertain.
I mean, it appears to have been warmer in that period.
So you say, well, they say that they only picked 1948 because before that they didn't have good data.
Well, I would say they don't have good data even now, because you take an area like the Northwest Territories, that's twice the size of Texas.
And they have something like 13 temperature sensing stations in that region.
A lot of those stopped recording a decade or more ago.
And if you look at the record, Sheila, you'll notice they don't give just temperature.
They call it the adjusted homogenized temperature.
Because in many cases, these temperature stations have been moved.
They've started to sense them at different times of the day.
They've changed their instrumentation.
There's been all kinds of changes.
So, yeah, and of course, there's big gaps at times.
So, what they've done is they've adjusted them and they've homogenized them and done all sorts of Fancy mathematical techniques to try to figure out what the temperature trend has been.
But the interesting thing is that the Americans realized, oh, back in the late 1990s, that this approach was not good enough.
So, starting in the year 2000, they started a completely new temperature sensing network across the United States.
In the continental part of the United States, the contiguous states, they have 114 temperature sensing stations, and these are pristine.
They're a long way from urban heat islands.
They have triple redundancy in the instrumentation.
In other words, if one temperature sensor conks out, they still have two others.
And this kind of pristine network, they concluded, was necessary to determine climate trends.
So I always find it funny when Canada, the Environment and Climate Change Canada, they say they have very high confidence, those are the words they use, that we've had double the warming since 1948 in Canada as a whole and triple in the Arctic.
And yet, if you look at the Arctic, the Hemel.
Sorry, I just read a report that says it's warming four times faster in the Arctic now.
Yeah.
So, yeah, well, I don't think they really know.
And I think the Americans, yeah, the Americans obviously don't have any confidence in this kind of temperature record that is very inconsistent.
As I say, if you're moving the temperature station around, it's going to make big changes.
And because, as I say, if they didn't think, if they did think, I should say, that the temperature record like Environment Canada has for the north, and remember, the north of Canada is 40% of Canada.
Okay, so if we don't know what's going on there, then we don't have any confidence in the actual global average.
And so I think that, you know, if they thought that you could take this kind of a crappy record and just do mathematical tricks, they would never have built this pristine climate reference network.
Now they have the measurements since 2000, and they show that for the continental United States, the contiguous states, there's no warming since the year 2000.
So Joseph Hickey, actually, he was a data scientist at the Bank of Canada.
And in 2001, he noticed something really interesting.
He was given the job, I believe, of Figuring out the economic impact of climate change.
So, they expected him to use all the Environment Canada data.
It was Environment Canada in those days.
And he noticed that you had almost constant temperature for 50 years from 1948 to 1998.
And then there was a one degree jump.
And then we've had constant temperature ever since.
If you believe that it mattered that Canada warmed, if you believe there was a Canada temperature, and if you believe their data, you still got this weird one degree jump.
Now, If it was caused by greenhouse gas and environment and climate change Canada, you know, they're very confident about all this.
They're saying it's by far the majority of it is caused by greenhouse gas warming.
But greenhouse gas warming, since it's been increasing, you know, greenhouse gases have been increasing gradually, would cause a gradual temperature rise.
You wouldn't see 50 years of constant temperature, a one degree jump, and then 26 years of constant temperature.
It just wouldn't do that.
So Joseph Hickey has actually written a very good report where he analyzes.
You know what's going on, and you find in places like Moncton, for example, it's so distinct you have two plateaus with a jump in between, and greenhouse gases just don't do that.
But what does do that is something like El Nino, okay?
That's the ocean oscillation.
And in 1998, there was a very extreme El Nino, and you could see it all over the northern hemisphere.
And it's interesting because the satellite record for Canada, Friends of Science, prepared a very nice graph.
Friends of Science, they made this graph, I included it in the slides I showed you.
You can see the jump in 1998.
So it appears that the jump is caused by El Nino.
Now, the next question then becomes why has it stayed at that high level?
Why didn't it fall back to the previous slope after El Nino was over?
Well, it turns out the North Atlantic is in a warm phase of what you call the AMO.
AMO stands for Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.
And that warm phase will probably end actually over the next few years.
So the higher temperature is probably being held at that higher temperature.
By the AMO.
And when it goes away, which it will, we'll enter into a cold phase fairly soon.
It'll be really interesting to see if the temperature drops back.
So they say they're highly confident about their temperature measurements, which is silly.
And they say that it's mostly caused by greenhouse gases, which is ridiculous.
Well, and before we came on air, I was talking about this little experiment that our friends at Friends of Science did.
Michelle Sterling, just to show people how bizarre it is to even refer to something as the global average temperature, tried to take the global average temperature in her backyard.
And so she put out these thermometers and marked them with little stuffed animals.
One was, you know, a polar bear, because that's the symbol of climate change, and one was the Sasquatch, whatever.
And she just said, you know, she showed like the wild variations in her own backyard, depending on where she took the temperature.
And that's in her backyard.
Imagine trying to do that across the entire Arctic when some of it is governed by proximity to, you know, the Hudson Bay or the Beaufort Sea or whatever.
That causes wild temperature changes versus inland in the Arctic.
And so it's just really an impossibility to even figure out what the average temperature is, let alone say how far you're deviating from it.
And then to attribute those deviations to my SUV, there are some real leaps in logic happening.
Well, right.
And in fact, the average temperature, it's really just a statistic.
It really doesn't mean anything.
I mean, nobody lives in the average Canada.
You know, there's no super being sort of straddling Canada saying, oh, I feel hotter today.
I feel colder.
No, the only thing that matters is.
What the temperatures do where you live.
Okay.
And, you know, I always find it intriguing that people get so wrapped up in this average because Michelle is completely right.
The average is silly.
You can have, I'll give you an example of how averages can completely blow you away.
Let's say you wanted your family to go on a diet.
So you took everybody's weight, you got 120 pounds, 160, 180, 200, and 800.
800, like that's silly, and yet if you took the average, you'd end up with something like 400 pounds.
You say, Oh my god, our family is 400 pounds heavy, you know, which is silly.
No, what happened is you had one outlier which completely messed up the average, so the average doesn't mean anything.
So, when you look at the Arctic, if you have just a few outliers when they have such a sparse temperature network, it can completely blow away all of your averaging meaningfulness.
Okay, the other point is this let's say half the earth.
Or half of Canada, since they're dealing with Canada, let's say half of Canada got 10 degrees warmer and half of Canada got 10 degrees colder.
Well, that would cause massive pressure gradients.
You'd have incredible storms.
It would be an absolute disaster.
And yet, the average temperature would stay the same.
So, average temperatures just simply don't mean anything.
And so, we're arguing about angels on the head of a pin, and then they're attributing it to some sort of magical greenhouse gas that causes a one degree jump.
In one year, and then constant the rest of the time.
So, the whole thing is ludicrous.
Now, the interesting thing is that Joseph Hickey discovered this jump in 2021 when he worked for the Bank of Canada, and Environment Canada never satisfactorily addressed that.
So, you laugh, Sheila.
This is such poetic justice.
Coal Energy and Rising Emissions00:07:33
Joseph wouldn't get the COVID vaccine.
And so they fired him.
So suddenly he had the freedom to tell everybody what he had been discussing with Environment and Climate Change Canada inside the government.
Because before that, he couldn't tell anybody.
He worked for the government.
So he published a report in December, just passed, in which he showed this boom, boom, you know, and it's not caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
So, you know, I really direct people to have a look at that.
On our homepage, we have, you know, climate data fraud or something like that.
I can't remember exactly.
It's a box, and you can click on it and read some of the articles.
That we've written about this thing.
And yeah, so I think Joseph, you know, as I say, it's quite ironic that they would fire him.
The last thing they should have done is fired the guy who knew that their data was bogus.
Poetic, poetic justice.
And yet, they still haven't answered.
Yeah, and yet so many expensive job killing policies are based around this flawed data, including the phase out of coal.
And again, before we came on air, we were talking about my interview with my friend Robbie Picard from a couple of weeks ago, where we were talking about the war on coal.
And he said sheepishly that he wished he had come out swinging when the NDP were colluding with the federal government under Justin Trudeau in Alberta to phase out our coal fired generation.
Early because now, in retrospect, all those same arguments that were used against coal and continue to be used against coal are the same ones attacking the oil sands and all the good Canadian jobs that come with it.
And hopefully, things are changing here in Alberta because our United Conservative Party adopted a policy resolution to bring coal back online.
In fact, they called it Clean Alberta Coal back online because it really is.
And we have the technology to make it even cleaner here, thanks to.
Oil sands emissions development.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Coal is a wonderful technology.
You know, one of the things that people don't seem to realize is that it's also very, very secure.
Okay.
If you have a grid that is based on coal, where you pile up a year's supply of coal right on the power plant site, all you have to do is shovel the coal into your boiler and make steam and make electricity.
You can do it.
It doesn't matter if the rest of the world, you know, just falls to pieces if you don't have any pipelines.
You still have coal.
Coal is a solid, dependable energy source.
And we can actually pull out of the pollution, the emissions, all the serious pollutants.
Taking carbon dioxide out, that's another story.
I mean, first of all, you don't need to because there's no climate crisis.
CO2 is plant food.
One of the few things that we've noticed for sure as CO2 rises, we've had a massive increase in crop yield, plant productivity, deserts are shrinking.
You know, it's a good thing that CO2 is rising.
And in fact, it's interesting that people that specialize in agriculture are saying, Yeah, bring us more CO2.
I mean, why do you think they pump it into greenhouses?
Because plants love it.
They evolved at a time when CO2 was much higher.
So, coal is a really wonderful energy source.
And, you know, I've been on some of the reclamation sites where they do strip mining.
And I'll tell you, the reclamation sites, after they've finished with that region, they're better environmentally than the previous.
Yeah, they're better than all the surrounding landscape.
So, the idea, and you know, an example of what happens when you totally get rid of coal is Ontario.
Ontario, back in 2002, when Dalton McGuinty was premier, they had 25% of their energy from coal, and we had among the cheapest electricity rates in the world.
Dalton McGinty held a press conference and he had a big pile of coal on a table.
And he said, This is an old technology.
We're going to get rid of it and lead the world in climate change, stopping climate change.
But of course, he's wrong.
It's not a technology.
Coal is a resource.
And how you burn it is what is the technology.
And generally speaking, in Canada, we burn it very cleanly in comparison with China, let's say, who, by the way, are building two coal stations a week.
So, but yeah, so we should keep coal.
It's a very dependable energy source.
Like nuclear, it keeps its energy supply, the actual resource, it keeps it on site.
And I love natural gas, I love petroleum, that sort of thing.
But those have to have some sort of input on a regular basis, either through pipes or trucks or whatever.
But the beauty of coal, and you should use coal as a baseline energy source, giving the predominant energy, and then you can top it up with gas and other things.
But coal is a baseline energy source, it's secure, it's solid, it's inexpensive.
We have enough for centuries.
So, the whole idea that we should get rid of coal is ludicrous.
If you thought that it was a problem for its greenhouse gas emissions, and China's opening all these stations, then what we do doesn't matter anyway.
Yeah.
I mean, Alberta has seven to eight hundred years of some of the world's cleanest burning coal under our feet, easily accessible.
If you were in the developing world, you would think we were out of our minds to leave it there.
Well, I know the head of Indonesia, he said point blank, he said, No, he said, We're not stupid.
We're going to continue to use coal.
We're going to continue to develop, pull our people out of poverty.
You know, the developing world, which is now putting out more emissions than the rest of the developed world, they actually, They recognize the value of coal and they're booming.
You know, China, they constantly say China leads the world in wind and solar power.
Well, yeah, but they also lead the world in coal by far.
And they make a lot of the renewable energy using coal.
Right.
Well, that's like saying the Americans lead the world in wearing Nikes.
There's a lot of people in China.
So naturally, they will lead the world in consumption of a lot of things.
That's right.
So you're right.
They're using this silly double the rate of the rest of the world, the Arctic triple.
They're using that argument.
And the greenhouse gas blaming, both of which don't make any sense, they're using it to get rid of some of our best and most reliable energy sources.
I put coal right at the top of the list.
Same.
Yeah.
Same.
I mean, there's no excuse for a place like Alberta having rolling brownouts when it gets really cold because we don't have a baseline reliable power supply.
And when the NDP got us off coal, they sure as hell didn't get us off coal.
They got us off Alberta coal jobs because when we need reliable baseline energy, we have to buy coal fired electricity from Saskatchewan, Montana, Wyoming.
The only thing that's changed is we're not producing our own energy anymore.
Well, that's exactly right.
In fact, in the blackout that we had two winters ago in Alberta, or near blackout, near blackout, Saskatchewan coal saved Alberta from having blackouts.
And you know, the funniest thing, Sheila, talking about renewable energy, they were boasting, oh, we had all this battery power and it came online and it provided power for so many hundred thousand homes for 10 minutes.
Right.
Brave Donations for Independent Media00:04:18
Now, Tom, how do people find the work that you do at the International Climate Science Coalition Canada?
How do they find your other media appearances?
Because you're really working hard to bring realism to an otherwise fantastical and fictional debate.
Yeah, that's for sure.
The best thing is to go to icsc-canada.com and we accept donations from people.
Of course, we have no funding from the government, we have no funding from big industries.
Unfortunately, when they say, Oh, you're funded by big oil, I say, Oh, where do I apply?
I wish.
Yeah, exactly.
And so, yeah, little donations, big donations, whatever people want, they're very much appreciated.
The other thing is to go to AmericaOutloud.news and search under hosts, and you can see Tom Harris, and you'll find our radio shows.
The other side of the story, we interviewed Chris Martz.
It'll be online actually right now.
He was one of the, he's a meteorologist who just graduated.
And he's been the target of a lot of climate alarmists and stuff like that.
So he's a very brave guy.
So, AmericaOutLoud.news, click on that, go down to me, and you can actually hear my interview with Chris Martz that happened just this weekend.
Wonderful.
I like Chris.
I remember Chris fighting it out as just a young kid before he was off to university, like when he was in high school, trying to bring some truth to the lies.
What a Brave kid, he is now.
I guess he's a grown man, that's how long I've been at this.
I think he's only about 22, 23.
But, um, yeah, Chris actually, believe it or not, they gave him a keynote speech at the final dinner at the Heartland conference.
I mean, I think I would have been totally stressed out, but he just got up and said, Hi, y'all.
So, he's a brave guy.
Funny.
Well, Tom, so are you.
Thanks so much for coming on the show and for all the work that you do to try to alleviate some of the nonsense and I think unnecessary anxiety around the climate debate.
I think it's got to be very difficult to live in a world where you think it's going to end at any given moment and that you are responsible for it.
I just think that's a terrible sort of condition to inflict on people.
The powers that be sure do.
Yeah, that's for sure.
Actually, Annika Sweetland, she's another one, the University of Western Australia, she said in her presentation that the level of depression and anxiety among young people in the UK has tripled since I think it was 2000 and doubled in the United States, probably the same in Canada.
So, I mean, it's a form of child abuse telling them the end of the world is nigh because it isn't.
Okay, there's a lot of great things happening and we should take advantage of that.
Amen.
Tom, thanks so much for coming on the show.
We'll talk to you very soon.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
Well, as you know, friends, the last portion of the show belongs to you at home because without you, there's no Rebel news.
If you want to give me some viewer feedback about my interview with my friend Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition, you can send it to me directly.
My email is sheila at rebelnews.com.
Put gun show letters in the subject line so I know exactly why you're emailing me.
But if you see free clips of the show over on YouTube or Rumble, please leave a comment there.
I do go looking there.
But do that for all of our work for a couple of different reasons.
First of all, I care about what you think about.
The work that we do here at Rebel News, but also when you interact with clips of the show or with our free video content, it puts us higher up in the algorithm on YouTube or on Rumble.
If our content is engaged with, they sort of recommend it to more people.
So that's a great free way to help us.
And today's viewer feedback actually doesn't come from any of the clips of the show or to my email inbox directly.
State of Canadian Journalism00:09:05
I wanted to know what you thought about my testimony.
At the House of Commons Heritage Committee.
I was invited by the Conservatives on committee to give an overview of the state of independent journalism in Mark Carney's Canada.
And I was on a panel, I guess, not really a panel.
I mean, we're all separate witnesses with four other committee witnesses from the independent sphere.
They aren't.
Because, how are you independent if you take money from the government?
And so, the other four members of the committee were there asking for money, and I was there pleading with the government in the nicest possible way to stop giving failing media organizations our money and to stop censoring independent journalists in unique and creative ways, either through pieces of legislation like the Online News Act, the Streaming Act.
By using the tax code to provide subsidies specifically to outlets that are approved by the government through the QCJO,
that's the Qualified Canadian Journalism Organization status, and to quit sicking security and police on independent journalists when they're just trying to do their jobs in the streets because they are not allowed.
To go into certain venues and to take away the power of the parliamentary press gallery to block independent journalists from working on Parliament Hill.
In fact, let me be quiet.
I'll show you a clip of that right here.
Journalism, I believe, encompasses opinions, but firsthand news gathering, analysis, investigation, access to information.
But I also believe that it does involve opinion journalism.
Every major newspaper in this country has an editorial section, and we would not.
Call those people not journalists.
What I think distinguishes a lot of the truly independent from government journalists in this country is that they're honest about their political biases.
They don't try to obscure them the way we see at the CBC or the Toronto Star.
So that's a little bit of my five minute opening statement.
They only give you five minutes and then they ask you questions afterwards.
Now, I should tell you, the Liberals and the NDP didn't bother to ask me any questions.
I don't think they would have.
Wanted to pitch something right over the plate and have me hit it outside the park and embarrass them in that way.
The conservatives were very concerned about the parliamentary press gallery, a cabal of our competitors who are funded by the taxpayer, blocking us from doing work on Parliament Hill.
And it's not just the parliamentary press gallery, it is legislature press galleries all across this country, except for Alberta.
Now, that is not to say that the legislature press gallery hasn't had a witch trial for us and prevented us from joining, but We are accredited through the speaker's office around the legislature press gallery.
So they tried to block us, and the speaker of the house said, That's not remotely fair.
And if you want to work here, you can work here.
These people don't get to keep you out.
So I don't need to sit in the legislature press gallery office with a bunch of people who don't like me anyway.
Well, I would like to because it would make them uncomfortable, but it doesn't stop me from doing my job.
So I wanted to know what you guys thought about my testimony.
So I went looking on the YouTubes, and this is what you guys had to say.
Much joy says, You were outstanding, Sheila.
Outstanding.
Anthony Fusciarelli says, Ezra, you must be so proud of your team.
I know I am.
Sheila is a rock star.
Well, thank you.
I didn't tell anybody that I was going until I went because I was worried that if the lefty lunatics on the internet found out that I was going, they would put pressure on the conservatives to cancel my committee appearance.
So I sort of kept a lid on it.
I worked and then reworked and then reworked my opening statement because you only have five minutes.
And man, it's bad out there for independent journalists.
So I had to make sure that I was concise as possible.
And it's hard because there's a lot of things to talk about, but you only get like this much time.
And thanks to the conservatives for inviting me.
JLWY1PQ says, way to go, Sheila, hold him to account.
Yeah, I also knew that because of the liberal majority that they stole, the conservatives would lose the influence they have on these committees.
And the Heritage Committee makeup will quickly be changing.
And so I thought it's going to be a long time before they invite somebody like me back around to these parts.
So leave it all on the dance floor, as they say.
And I think I did.
I tried my best anyway.
User LC8SZ2LW8O says, I enjoyed this report.
Wonderful to see Sheila at committee and sounding so strong.
Well done.
Well, you know, I talk about this stuff all the time, and it's also.
Not just my job here at Rebel News to care about the advancement of press freedom, but I am the president of the Independent Press Gallery of Canada.
And it is my mission to advance the rights of independent journalists in this country and to make sure, as best I can, that the government knows these concerns and to push back at any place where I see that the government is impeding into press freedom.
And as I said in my committee testimony, Press freedom in this country has fallen incredibly over the last 11 years.
Guess what also happened in the last 11 years?
The liberals.
Barry Petit, T7K, says, Thank you, Sheila and Rebel News.
Well, you're welcome.
BubinskiLord5618 says, Sheila is amazing, and the whole Rebel team.
I just want to say thank you, and I appreciate the hard work you guys do.
I sincerely mean that.
Well, I appreciate your kind words, but really, I'm only able to do this work because of you guys at home.
People watching this, people subscribing to our work, donating to our causes.
You guys are cheering for us to succeed.
And I think we must do everything we can because you are putting your hard earned dollars toward us advancing causes that you care about.
And so, while I appreciate you thanking me for this, I mean, thank you for making it possible to advocate for causes.
That I care about too.
I mean, I couldn't even imagine working in a normal newsroom talking about stuff I don't care about.
What a terrible existence.
I'm lucky.
On some level, I feel slightly bad for the other journalists in this country.
Danny Papadimitriou7587 says, God bless you, Sheila.
Amen.
Well, thanks so much.
And Jonathan Hale391 says, Free speech, free press, no government funding.
From your lips to God's ears, brother, but that's not how the liberals feel about these things.
And I know I should tell you, I'll give you a little bit, something that I know for sure is that the American administration is watching what's happening in Canada very closely when it comes to the attacks on press freedom here.
And the censorship.
Of American platforms like YouTube and Meta are trade issues for them.
So, if Canada does become a more free place for independent journalists, it won't be thanks to the Liberals.
It'll be thanks to pressure from the American administration.
Okay, well, everybody, that's the show for today.
Thank you so much for tuning in.
I'll see everybody back here in the same time, in the same place next week.
And as always, don't let the government tell you that you've had too much to think.