Connect with us

Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Canada’s Indigenous burial hoax is still very much alive

Published

21 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Hymie Rubenstein

The Kamloops “confirmation” – growing more inconclusive all the time – consisted solely of signs of sub-surface soil irregularities: GPR cannot detect human or other organic material, and is only reliable in finding graves in known cemeteries.

History shows that many hoaxes, fake news stories, and conspiracy theories have proven nearly unassailable, even when proven false. So far, it seems a British Columbia burial canard will be added to this list.

The assertion that thousands of Indian Residential School children are buried in unmarked graves across the country, many of them victims of genocide, has been bandied about for decades. Its current promotion skyrocketed in mid-2021 following an Indigenous media release that was heard around the world:

May 27, 2021, Kamloops – It is with a heavy heart that Tk’emlúps te Secwé pemc Kukpi7 (Chief) Rosanne Casimir confirms an unthinkable loss that was spoken about but never documented by the Kamloops Indian Residential School. This past weekend, with the help of a ground penetrating radar (GPR) specialist, the stark truth of the preliminary findings came to light – the confirmation of the remains of 215 children who were students of the Kamloops Indian Residential School.

Although this claim and others like it are slowly being exposed as false, most Canadians still believe them.

This assertion is one of the findings of a February 2024 Macdonald-Laurier Institute research report that found “by a 79 to 21 ratio, respondents believed that ‘215 Indigenous residential school children were buried in a mass grave on school grounds in Kamloops, BC,’” a story lacking factual or historical evidence “but which most media and virtually all politicians have been reluctant to contradict.”

The Kamloops Burial Hoax

The Kamloops “confirmation” – growing more inconclusive all the time – consisted solely of signs of sub-surface soil irregularities: GPR cannot detect human or other organic material, and is only reliable in finding graves in known cemeteries.

Still, immediately following the Kamloops announcement, there were angry vigils, public displays of grief and shame, solidarity speeches, promises to revolutionize society, and the burning down of dozens of predominantly Roman Catholic churches.

The furore attending the Kamloops discovery accelerated as later findings were announced in other provinces, with the number of purportedly identified graves soon exceeding 2,000. Frequently heard among activists was the cry that these announcements were proof of a hidden “Holocaust” or “Final Solution” perpetrated against Aboriginal students by Canadians working in residential schools. The Kamloops school was alleged to have been a “concentration camp” and the 2021 “burials” evidence that there had been a horrific crime.

Evidence Challenging the Hoax

Entrenched public opinion on what increasingly looks like a burial hoax was damaged on August 18, 2023, when the 14 closely spaced soil disturbances detected using GPR in the basement of the Roman Catholic church on the site of the former Pine Creek Residential School were found to contain animal bones and debris, not human remains.

These findings were preceded by several other inconclusive discoveries.

In August 2021, a team of researchers in Shubenacadie, Nova Scotia, conducted an excavation at the former Shubenacadie Residential School in search of clandestine burials, but to no avail. Two months later, a search was conducted for unmarked graves on the site of the former Camsell Indian Hospital in Edmonton. The facility treated Indigenous people, many of whom suffered from tuberculosis, and some Indigenous leaders claimed that the dig would uncover patients that had been buried there, but no such evidence was discovered.

One discovery still making headlines is the unearthing of child-sized skeletons in a reputed “mass grave,” most likely the result of repeated accidental excavation and haphazard reburial by community grave diggers in the community cemetery on Alberta’s Saddle Lake Cree Indian Reserve. Without a shred of evidence, community members have attributed the death of some of these children to murder at the hands of a school official that was never reported to the police.

That there are no missing or secretly buried students who attended the reserve’s Indian Residential School is proven by the absence of relatives in the past or present searching for loved ones who never returned home. By comparison, in all of Canada, only two distant relatives have been identified as looking for their ancestors. In both cases, the children’s death certificates were found “buried” in the provincial archives whose records showed they were buried correctly on their home reserves.

Two easily located students’ records are surely vastly different from the “15,000 to 25,000 … maybe even more” children Murray Sinclair, former Chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, has claimed may be missing.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the Kamloops claim, and the many copycat allegations it fomented, are fallacious. More commentators are awaking to the “mass grave” propaganda, even though the Canadian mainstream media barely responded to the Pine Creek discovery of presumptive graves containing no human remains, an important reason this hoax is still very much alive.

Indigenous Elites Support the Hoax

Among the most prominent of many Indigenous perpetrators of these inflammatory claims of murder, mass graves, and even genocide has been RoseAnne Archibald, former National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Canada’s largest and best-known Indigenous lobbying group.

At a July 15, 2021, Kamloops Indian Band public presentation, Archibald maintained that the Kamloops case told the world “how 215 innocent children died and were buried in unmarked graves” and that this “crime against humanity” constituted “genocide.”

Completely ignoring the caution of all the known researchers conducting these band-sponsored GPR searches, Archibald added that “this ground penetrating technology is revealing evidence, undisputable proof, that crimes were committed.”

In an interview broadcast by the BBC on August 4, 2021, Archibald charged that Canada’s Indian Residential Schools were “designed to kill” Indigenous children. “And we are seeing proof of that,” she said. “1,600 children, innocent children, have been recovered so far…. We are going to be in the thousands upon tens of thousands of children found. I am not sure how you can say that the recovery of that many little children does not signify what it is – genocide.”

Chief Archibald failed to mention that not a single child’s body “has been recovered so far” or that three years later, no bodies have been exhumed.

A lack of verified evidence of children buried in unmarked graves, some supposedly after priests murdered them, has done nothing to deter the federal government from funding several lavish programmes meant to continue this effort. One of these initiatives was the August 10, 2021, announcement of the allocation of $321 million to help Indigenous communities search burial sites at former residential schools and to support survivors and their communities.

Such programmes have doubtless hardened the public opinion expressed in the Macdonald-Laurier Institute poll. Allied beliefs discovered by the study are also at work: 54 percent of all respondents consider the legacy of Indigenous colonialization to be a problem today; 55 percent vs. 45 percent believe that Indigenous peoples should have a unique status because they were here first; by 48 percent for to 41 percent against, Canadians believe the harm from Indigenous residential schools will continue rather than be resolved; and 19 percent of Canadians think children at residential schools were “purposefully killed” with another 39 percent saying that children also died of neglect.

But the most critical determinant of the exceptionally high belief in the “killing field” at the Kamloops residential school lies in “political culture in Canada,” according to the study: “Much seems to come down to the culturally left-liberal political culture in Canada. That is, the elite norms that hold sway in the media and among mainstream politicians are predominantly culturally leftist.”

As the report says: “It is well established that the media and politicians can cue the issues they want voters to focus on, making decisions to elevate some questions and ignore others.”

This obvious assertion allowed the Macdonald-Laurier Institute report to argue that:

Canadians’ relatively high trust in institutions and cultural elites grants considerable latitude to them to frame the issues that people talk about while neglecting other questions…. There is no better illustration of this than the Kamloops mass graves question, where the code of silence practiced by the media and mainstream political parties has resulted in a clear majority of the public believing this false account.

On the Indigenous side, the Kamloops discovery, and its promise of lots of money, quickly unleashed a flood of similar GPR searches across Canada. To date, the unmarked graves are presumed to hold the remains of mainly unknown and unaccounted for individuals, primarily children, at 26 sites that have been identified since 1974[RC1] .

The allocation of funds to search for graves was followed in June 2022 by appointing an investigator to work with Indigenous communities and the government to propose changes in federal laws, policies, and practices related to unmarked graves at residential schools.

Kimberly Murray, former Executive Director of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, was given a two-year appointment as Canada’s “independent special interlocutor for missing children, unmarked graves, and burial sites associated with the Indian Residential Schools.”

Murray’s appointment was simply one part of a campaign, whether deliberately organized or not, to label Canada as a genocidal country long engaged in the systematic murder of Indigenous children whose remains were dumped into mass graves.

Attempts to Stop Hoax Challengers

On June 16, 2023, Murray released an interim report arguing “urgent consideration” should be given to legal mechanisms to combat what activists have termed “residential school denialism.”

Unsurprisingly, her “opening words” in the report stated:

… my role is to give voice to the children. It is not to be neutral or objective – it is to be a fierce and fearless advocate to ensure that the bodies and Spirits of the missing children are treated with the care, respect, and dignity that they deserve” even if that “conflicts with my responsibility to function independently and impartially, in a non-partisan and transparent way.

This attack on the fundamental precepts of objective search for truth based on reason, logic, and scientific evidence rooted in a scientific paradigm that clashes with Indigenous ways of knowing gave her leave to label genocide denial as an “attack” on her version of the truth whenever there were announcements of the discovery of possible unmarked graves.

Moral certainty based on Indigenous ways of knowing, not objective evidence based on science, allowed Kimberly Murray to state that the Canadian government has a role in combatting “denialism,” an inflammatory distortion of what is simply scientific scrutiny, by giving “urgent consideration” to the legal tools that already exist to address the problem, including civil and criminal sanctions.

“They have the evidence. The photos of burials. The records that prove that kids died. It is on their shoulders,” Murray told a crowd gathered on the Cowessess Indian Reserve in Saskatchewan on June 16, 2023.

But there is no photographic evidence of children buried beside the shuttered Kamloops Indian Residential School nor at any of the other former Indigenous schools in Canada.

The only photographic evidence shows typical church burials and thousands of schoolchildren engaged in everyday activities. As for the records, they reveal that the few residential school children who died at the schools were buried in school cemeteries beside school staff members or the nearest reserve cemetery. But most deceased children were interred on their home reserves. All of them received a proper Christian burial after they died, most succumbing to contagious diseases like tuberculosis over which Indigenous people had little natural immunity.

Several of those labelled denialists have argued that there are few missing students, only missing records about their school attendance and death. On March 21, 2023, Murray inadvertently confirmed this assertion in her testimony before the federal government’s Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples when she said:

The family doesn’t know where their loved one is buried. They were taken to a sanatorium, an Indian residential school. They were just told … that they died. I can get the name of that [missing] individual, I can log into the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation, find the name of the student, find a record, which will lead me down to another record, which will lead me to Ancestry.com. Why are families having to go to my office to find the death certificate of their loved one on Ancestry.com when the provinces and territories won’t just provide those records?

And then those records will lead you to where they’re buried, hundreds of miles away from their home community. We are now seeing families going to cemeteries. I get this a lot. The children aren’t missing; they’re buried in the cemeteries. They’re missing because the families were never told where they’re buried. Every Indigenous family needs to know where their child is buried. When we find that, and we know that they’re going to have a little bit of closure now, they know the truth and they have some answers, that’s what keeps us going. [emphasis added].

Even though there is little evidence that thousands of children’s deaths were not reported to their parents, and lots of evidence that this is not true, including the refusal of the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation to remove the names of children whose cause of death and place of burial have been found, from its Memorial Register, a list now totalling over 4,100 named and unnamed “children who never returned home from residential schools.”

Murray’s statement contradicts the established public narrative about missing children. None of these facts have ever been communicated to the public by the mainstream media.

The latest anti-denial effort emanated from the Canadian Senate Standing Committee on Indigenous Peoples, which released a 30-page report on July 19, 2023, titled “Honouring the Children Who Never Came Home: Truth, Education and Reconciliation.” The study recommends “that the Government of Canada take every action necessary to combat the rise of residential school denialism.”

According to lawyer John Carpay, president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms:

The use of state resources to promote one opinion on a scientific or historical matter is nakedly totalitarian. Apart from that, the senators’ aggressive language calling on government to “take every action necessary” suggests that it would be okay for the government to punish the likes of Michelle Stirling, Mark DeWolf, and others who dare to disagree with the dominant narrative.

The report fails to define “denialism” yet claims it “serves to distract people from the horrific consequences of Residential Schools and the realities of missing children, burials, and unmarked graves.” This omission suggests that “denialism” means disagreeing with the dominant narrative that Indian Residential Schools were houses of horror marked by racism and genocide.

Decades of an Aboriginal blood libel assertions hang over all these claims, with an army of activists and their supporters acting as its eager propagandists. It is long past time to find the underlying cause of this fake news by exhuming the reputed unmarked graves and identifying any remains they might contain. If that never happens, Canadians will be paying vast amounts forever to keep this hoax about missing and murdered Indigenous children alive.

Hymie Rubenstein is editor of REAL Indigenous Report and a retired professor of anthropology, the University of Manitoba.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

COVID-19

Peckford: Hallelujah! Supreme Court of Canada to hear Newfoundland and Labrador charter case

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Brian Peckford

This will allow the SCC to address novel questions about the scope of mobility rights in Canada and the extent to which the government can limit Canadians’ rights to move freely around the country.

In what can only be considered a surprise move the SCC has agreed to hear an appeal of a decision of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland. Surprise because the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal refused to hear the appeal of this exact case.

For the Appeal Court it was the all too familiar excuse of the whole thing being too moot for the Court.

But now the SCC has agreed to hear the case. The parties, Kimberly Taylor and The Canadian Civil Liberties Association appealed to the court.

Here is a copy of the Civil Liberties Press Release dated April 26, 2024:

“Arbitrary travel restrictions infringe on the mobility rights of Canadians. CCLA’s challenge of Newfoundland government’s Bill 38 will continue before the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), so that Canadians have clear, predictable, and stable answers to fundamental questions affecting their basic mobility rights.”

Back in May 2020, CCLA challenged the constitutionality of the Newfoundland government’s Bill 38 before the province’s Supreme Court. This Bill provided for a travel ban between provinces and other restrictive measures in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. CCLA asked the Court to declare Bill 38 in violation of s.6 (mobility rights), as well as other Charter rights. CCLA also argued that the law could not be saved by s.1, which says that limits on rights must be reasonable and demonstrably justified. In September of 2020, the province’s Supreme Court found that the travel ban did violate the s.6 Charter right to mobility, but that such infringement could be justified under s.1. CCLA pursued this case before the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal. In August of 2023, the Court of Appeal refused to settle the merits of the appeal under the motive that it was moot, since the ban had been lifted. This was done despite all the parties urging the Court of Appeal to decide the appeal on the merits.

CCLA is pleased to learn that the SCC just granted its application seeking leave to appeal in this case. This will allow the SCC to address novel questions about the scope of mobility rights in Canada and the extent to which the government can limit Canadians’ rights to move freely around the country. CCLA is grateful for the excellent pro bono work of Paul Pape, Shantona Chaudhury and Mitchell McGowan from Pape Chaudry LLP in this file.”

Like the Association I am pleased that the highest court is going to hear the case. One can only assume that it will not just issue a silly moot decision given that they could have let the Court of Appeal decision of Newfoundland stand and not hear the case.

I hope the highest court considers the following given it is high time for the Constitution of This Country to be fairly applied and interpreted as written.

Courts have not the power to rewrite this sacred document. They are not omnipotent. That is for the people through its elected representatives as expressed in Section 38 of the Constitution Act 1982 in which the Charter is located—the Amending Formula.

The intent of Section 1 Of the Charter was that it could only be applied in a war, insurrection, the state being threatened circumstance. As one of the First Ministers involved and whose signature is on the original Patriation Agreement I submit this point of view was what was operative at the time of the construction of this section. All remaining First Ministers whose names are on that document are no longer with us. Sadly, no court has called me to provide my view.

This intent is clear In Section 4 (2) of the Charter:

 “In time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, a House of Commons may be continued by Parliament and a legislative assembly may be continued by the legislature beyond five years if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of the House of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case may be.”

So, decisions that have been made concerning the Charter should only be made in this context. Numerous court deliberations here and in many western jurisdictions have considered intent in determining the legitimacy of legislation. This is not novel or new.

Hence, a glaring, fundamental mistake has occurred in interpreting our Charter. The blatant omission of considering the opening words of the Charter in any interpretation of legislation by the Courts is an abuse of the Charter, our Constitution. Where is the power provided the courts to engage is such omission? Those words are:

“Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:”

The one reference of which I am aware in the Courts literature to any consideration of the opening words relating to God was by an Alberta Judge in a lower court foolishly indicated that the creators of the words did not identify God as being a Christian God. All the creators, the First Ministers, were Christians —that’s all. What an insult to our history and traditions and the authors?

And this has been allowed to stand?

And what about the rule of law? Little if anything has been done in considering and interpreting this point.

As for Section 1 itself of the Charter. If one can get past the previous points, which is impossible, but let’s speculate: the court in question in Newfoundland, like the courts across the land, have disfigured, misinterpreted the wording of this section —-

Rights and freedoms in Canada

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

What is of crucial importance is ‘demonstrably justify ‘and a free and democratic society ‘—-is it not? Many try and evade confronting these concepts by emphasizing ‘reasonable ‘. But ‘reasonable ‘is qualified, if you will, with ‘as can be demonstrably justified ‘and ‘in a free and democratic society.’ This was deliberate by the creators and authors of this section.

So, as we all know such reasonable demonstration would be a cost benefit analysis, a tool used frequently by Government in considering new policies or programs —and this case especially when sacred rights enshrined in the constitution were to be taken way!!! Yet, there was none!  And what about the Provincial Emergency Management organizations that were already established in all the provinces with immediate expertise. Were they consulted? Not one!

No such attempt was made, and the Governments did not conduct even a cursory cost benefit review and the courts eagerly accepted the one-sided Government narrative.  Yet experts like Lt. Colonel David Redman, who had been involved in Emergency Management and had written extensively on it were never consulted!

And ‘free and democratic society? Was there any meaningful engagement of the Parliament of Canada or the Legislative Assemblies —-not really, ——only to delegate power to unelected bureaucrats and relieve the politicians of direct responsibility. Where were the Parliamentary Committees? The sober consideration of all points of view in an open public session? Of independent science? Does not free and democratic society entail such deliberations?

And to those courts / governments who talk about little time—in this Newfoundland case it was 6 months before The Supreme Court of the Province ruled and 15 months for the Court of Appeal to issue a non-decision! So much for serving the people!

As for the concept of ‘mootness ‘that has been most dramatically used by the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal and The Court of Appeal in Newfoundland? This is a construct of the court not the Constitution.

It denies a citizen the right to know whether a government action to which a citizen was subjected violates the Charter.  Should a court idea of mootness, refusing to rule on whether a government action of only months before overruling the people’s right to know if their rights and freedoms were violated? Is this not the role of the Court? To protect the rights and freedoms of the citizens from Government overreach? That was and is the whole point of the Charter.

Whether the Government action is presently operative or not should be irrelevant, especially when millions of citizens were involved and especially when it involved rights and freedoms protected under the Charter, our Constitution. There may be a role for mootness if a frivolous matter is established but by any measure what we are discussing is anything but a frivolous matter, even though The Newfoundland Court of Appeal in calling the whole thing ‘moot ‘had the gall to find the Government’s action of denying rights ‘fleeting.’ Courts have abdicated their solemn responsibilities to the people in the exaggerated use of such Court constructed procedures.

So the highest court can go back to ‘first principles’, and examine intent and the opening words of the Charter and place them in full context in any interpretation of the Charter. If this were done then Section 1 of the Charter would not even be in play. Constructing a hypothetical i.e. considering Section 1 of the Charter during the so called ‘covid emergency’, well, even if we do, the Government and Court reasoning would have failed as demonstrated above.

There is an opportunity through this case as well as the one in which I am involved for our highest court to get it right——to return to the full constitution and re-establish the ‘supremacy of God and the rule of law, ‘the legitimate role of Parliament, to the plain meaning of demonstrably justify, and the importance of intent in interpreting our Charter.

Is the Supreme Court of Canada up to the challenge?

Will our Constitution, our democracy be restored?

The Honourable A. Brian Peckford P.C. is the last living First Minister who helped craft the Canadian Charter of Rights

Watch –  Leaders on the Frontier: Brian Peckford on Saving Canada’s Democracy | Frontier Centre For Public Policy (fcpp.org)  January 20, 2022

Continue Reading

Addictions

Why can’t we just say no?

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Susan Martinuk

Drug use and violence have become common place in hospitals. Drug-addicted patients openly smoke meth and fentanyl, and inject heroin. Dealers traffic illicit drugs.  Nurses are harassed, forced to work amidst the toxic fumes from drugs and can’t confiscate weapons. In short, according to one nurse, “We’ve absolutely lost control.”

“Defining deviancy down” is a cultural philosophy that emerged in the United States during the 1990s.

It refers to society’s tendency to adjust its standards of deviancy “down,” so that behaviours which were once unacceptable become acceptable.  Over time, this newly- acceptable behaviour can even become society’s norm.

Of course, the converse must also be true — society looks down on those who label social behaviours “wrong,” deeming them moralistic, judgemental or simply out of touch with the realities of modern life.

Thirty years later, this philosophy is entrenched in British Columbia politics and policies. The province has become a society that cannot say “no” to harmful or wrong behaviours related to drug use. It doesn’t matter if you view drug use as a medical issue, a law-and-order issue, or both – we have lost the ability to simply say “no” to harmful or wrong behaviour.

That much has become abundantly clear over the past two weeks as evidence mounts that BC’s experiment with decriminalization and safe supply of hard drugs is only making things worse.

recently-leaked memo from BC’s Northern Health Authority shows the deleterious impact these measures have had on BC’s hospitals.

The memo instructs staff at the region’s hospitals to tolerate and not intervene with illegal drug use by patients.  Apparently, staff should not be taking away any drugs or personal items like a knife or other weapons under four inches long.  Staff cannot restrict visitors even if they are openly bringing illicit drugs into the hospital and conducting their drug transactions in the hallways.

The public was quite rightly outraged at the news and BC’s Health Minister Adrian Dix quickly attempted to contain the mess by saying that the memo was outdated and poorly worded.

But his facile excuses were quickly exposed by publication of the very clearly worded memo and by nurses from across the province who came forward to tell their stories of what is really happening in our hospitals.

The President of the BC Nurses Union, Adriane Gear, said the issue was “widespread” and “of significant magnitude.” She commented that the problems in hospitals spiked once the province decriminalized drugs. In a telling quote, she said, “Before there would be behaviours that just wouldn’t be tolerated, whereas now, because of decriminalization, it is being tolerated.”

Other nurses said the problem wasn’t limited to the Northern Health Authority. They came forward (both anonymously and openly) to say that drug use and violence have become common place in hospitals. Drug-addicted patients openly smoke meth and fentanyl, and inject heroin. Dealers traffic illicit drugs.  Nurses are harassed, forced to work amidst the toxic fumes from drugs and can’t confiscate weapons. In short, according to one nurse, “We’ve absolutely lost control.”

People think that drug policies have no impact on those outside of drug circles – but what about those who have to share a room with a drug-smoking patient?

No wonder healthcare workers are demoralized and leaving in droves. Maybe it isn’t just related to the chaos of Covid.

The shibboleth of decriminalization faced further damage when Fiona Wilson, the deputy chief of Vancouver’s Police Department, testified before a federal Parliamentary committee to say that the policy has been a failure. There have been more negative impacts than positive, and no decreases in overdose deaths or the overdose rate. (If such data emerged from any other healthcare experiment, it would immediately be shut down).

Wison also confirmed that safe supply drugs are being re-directed to illegal markets and now account for 50% of safe supply drugs that are seized. Her words echoed those of BC’s nurses when she told the committee that the police, “have absolutely no authority to address the problem of drug use.”

Once Premier David Eby and Health Minister Adrian Dix stopped denying that drug use was occurring in hospitals, they continued their laissez-faire approach to illegal drugs with a plan to create “safe consumption sites” at hospitals. When that lacked public appeal, Mr. Dix said the province would establish a task force to study the issue.

What exactly needs to be studied?

The NDP government appears to be uninformed, at best, and dishonest, at worst. It has backed itself into a corner and is now taking frantic and even ludicrous steps to legitimize its experimental policy of decriminalization. The realities that show it is not working and is creating harm towards others and toward institutions that should be a haven for healing.

How quickly we have become a society that lacks the moral will – and the moral credibility – to just to say “no.”

Susan Martinuk is a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and author of Patients at Risk: Exposing Canada’s Health-care Crisis.

Continue Reading

Trending

X