Frontier Centre for Public Policy
The tale of two teachers
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Jim McMurtry
Some have criticized me for stating that the good, as well as the bad, of residential schools should be recognized. I stand by that statement…. Others have criticized me for stating that the Truth and Reconciliation Report was not as balanced as it should be. I stand by that statement as well.
At L.A. Matheson, a high school in Surrey, B.C., a poster in Annie Ohana’s classroom suggests society is too moralistic about sex work, the quote coming from an avowed Satanist. National Post writer Jamie Sarkonak described her classroom in this way: “The walls are covered with Social Justice posters. Some of them sloganeer about ‘decolonization,’ others ‘inflame racial politics.’” Ohana drapes herself in a Pride flag and speaks openly of her pansexuality as well as her subscription to wokeism, identity politics, Social Justice, and DEI.
In March Ohana appeared on CTV after being roundly criticized on X by an Ottawa teacher, Chanel Pfahl, the latter chased out of the profession a few years ago for questioning Critical Race Theory. Ohana said that Pfahl “seems to be making a lot of assumptions that were simply based on misinformation, lies, and in fact, puts myself and other teachers and students and my community in danger.” She also argued she was teaching about “critical thinking” and creating “empowered citizens that can speak up for themselves.” A Canadian flag hangs forlornly in her classroom, atop it is scrawled, “No pride in genocide.”
So far, she has faced no direct consequences for her political position or trying to indoctrinate her students. Indeed, she has won three teaching awards.
I, on the other hand, was walked out of my classroom and career for suggesting the only thing buried in Kamloops was the truth. In the eyes of my employer, I had put students and the community in danger by saying students who died while enrolled at a residential school did so from disease and not murder.
Northrop Frye wrote in The Great Code that the aim is “to see what the subject means, not to accept or reject it.” There is nothing wrong with the teaching of either me or Ohana as long as we are not steering students toward belief. In a 100-page investigation report on my teaching, an assistant superintendent of the Abbotsford School District wrote:
It in my view cannot be overemphasized that Mr. McMurtry having no knowledge of his students and more particularly whether any of these students had Indigenous descent in making his comments that provoked a strong student response and which was contrary to the school’s message of condolences and reconciliation. Regardless of his intent he left students with the impression some or all the deaths could be contributed to ‘natural causes’ and that the deaths could not be called murder or cultural genocide.
My fault was that I didn’t promote a “message of condolences and reconciliation.” Not only was this message never communicated to teachers, the message runs counter to the educational aim of seeing what a subject means. The message is also that the deaths of at least some Indian residential school children were attributable to murder, for which there is still no evidence.
Senator Lynn Beyak was the first prominent Canadian to wade into the increasingly turbulent waters of Indian residential schools. Labelled a racist and facing the prospect of ejection from the Senate, she retired in 2021 from her senate position but not from her convictions.
Some have criticized me for stating that the good, as well as the bad, of residential schools should be recognized. I stand by that statement…. Others have criticized me for stating that the Truth and Reconciliation Report was not as balanced as it should be. I stand by that statement as well.
George Orwell wrote in 1945 in an introduction to Animal Farm, “At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas of which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it.” Queen’s law professor Bruce Pardy wrote last year: “A new standard of practice is emerging for Canadian professionals: be woke, be quiet, or be accused of professional misconduct.”
Annie Ohana is a better approximation of that mythically average teacher than I. Most teachers appear woke or know enough to be quiet and go along, standing for land acknowledgments, using individualized pronouns with students, speaking of gender identity and sexual orientation, distinguishing students based on race, reading Social Justice books over literary classics, and accepting revisionist history. They go to school wearing the right colour for the occasion: rainbow, pink, orange, red, or black. At staff meetings they are woke and quiet.
I am an avatar of Lynn Beyak, standing outside the orthodoxy and condemned by “all right-thinking people.” Our issue is also the same. Indian residential schools were not the genocidal project that federal members of parliament voted as a genocide on October 27, 2022.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, headed by two Indigenous men and a woman married to an Indigenous man, travelled for six years across Canada, and heard from 6000 former students. The Commission’s bias was evident in its final report:
Physical genocide is the mass killing of the members of a targeted group, and biological genocide is the destruction of the group’s reproductive capacity. Cultural genocide is the destruction of those structures and practices that allow the group to continue as a group. States that engage in cultural genocide set out to destroy the political and social institutions of the targeted group. Land is seized, and populations are forcibly transferred and their movement is restricted. Languages are banned. Spiritual leaders are persecuted, spiritual practices are forbidden, and objects of spiritual value are confiscated and destroyed. And, most significantly to the issue at hand, families are disrupted to prevent the transmission of cultural values and identity from one generation to the next. In its dealing with Aboriginal people, Canada did all these things.
What the final report does not mention is:
o the educational value of the schools;
o the alternative was no education at all in remote areas where a day school was not feasible;
o that both Indigenous chiefs and parents saw them as a treaty right and petitioned to keep them open into the sixties;
o that parents had to apply to send their children to residential schools;
o that the mandatory attendance which began in 1920 was to go to school (one-third going to day school, one-third to residential school, and one-third never going to any school);
o that the schools took in orphans and served as a refuge for children and in some cases adults who were abused on the reserve or without the necessities of life; and
o that many former students testified their time there was the happiest in their lives.
My natural allegiance is to fellow teachers, and I don’t doubt that Annie Ohana and others within the Critical Social Justice educational movement teach their students about critical thinking and create empowered citizens that can speak up for themselves. However, such critical thinking should also be directed against the orthodoxy these teachers are imposing on captive groups of students. As well, if their students are indeed empowered citizens, they should come to their own conclusions, no matter the ideological perspective of their teacher.
Jim McMurtry, PhD, was formerly a principal of Neuchâtel Junior College in Switzerland and a college lecturer, but mostly he was a teacher. He lives in Surrey, B.C.
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Most pundits missed it, but Alberta’s revised Bill of Rights just strengthened property rights in a big way. Senior research fellow Joseph Quesnel breaks down how new amendments could protect landowners from regulatory takings—government actions that restrict property use without compensation. He examines key Supreme Court of Canada rulings and explains why every Canadian jurisdiction should take note. Could this be a game-changer for property rights?
Property rights amendments prevent governments from seizing land or restricting its use without compensation
Alberta is one of the few Canadian jurisdictions with a citizen’s bill of rights outlining fundamental freedoms. In 1972, the Lougheed government introduced the Alberta Bill of Rights, which supersedes other laws and requires provincial legislation to be consistent with it.
Premier Danielle Smith faced controversy last year for amending Alberta’s Bill of Rights. While most commentators focused on the amendments protecting the right to refuse vaccinations, they overlooked the significance of changes that strengthen property rights.
Section 1 now states: “The right to the enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof to the extent authorized by law and except by due process of law.”
Another new clause reads: “The right not to be subject to a taking of property except to the extent authorized by law and where just compensation is provided.”
The law defines a “taking” in two ways: as “a transfer of property ownership without the consent of the owner (expropriation)” and as a situation where “an owner of property [is] being deprived of all reasonable uses of that property.”
Unlike the United States, Canada lacks constitutional protections for property rights. While Canadians have some legal safeguards, they are not as extensive as those in the U.S. In the British common law tradition, there is a presumption that if the government takes a citizen’s property, it must follow legal procedures and provide compensation.
This principle dates back to the Magna Carta of 1215, which opposed arbitrary seizure, and extends to the 1920 British case Attorney General v. De Keyser’s Royal Hotel, which ruled: “Unless the words of the statute clearly so demand, a statute is not to be construed to take away the property of a subject without compensation.”
Following this precedent, federal, provincial and territorial governments in Canada must provide fair compensation when expropriating property. While provinces and territories have different expropriation laws, they all require due process.
However, a legal loophole allows governments to deprive citizens of their property without compensation. Courts refer to this as a “regulatory taking” when government regulations restrict land use to the point that it is effectively expropriated.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled on regulatory takings in two cases: Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Vancouver (2006) and Annapolis Group Inc. v. Halifax Regional Municipality (2022). The court determined that compensation for regulatory takings requires two conditions: the government must acquire a beneficial interest in the property, and the regulation must remove all reasonable uses of the land. A beneficial interest means the government gains a financial share or the right to occupy a property without legally owning it.
Peter Russell, one of Canada’s top constitutional law scholars, argued that the requirements established in the CPR case are nearly impossible to meet. Proving the removal of “all” reasonable uses sets a high bar, granting governments broad discretion to restrict land use without compensation.
The Annapolis ruling clarified this issue. The Supreme Court determined that municipalities do not need to gain a proprietary interest in a property to constitute a regulatory taking. Instead, a claimant only needs to prove the government received “a benefit or advantage accruing to the state” due to regulatory activity. This means the government can deprive a titleholder of potential economic use without taking legal ownership.
The Annapolis decision also established that courts must consider future-oriented land uses when determining whether a regulatory taking has occurred. The amended Alberta Bill of Rights now explicitly includes both expropriations and regulatory takings, strengthening property rights protections.
This amendment is significant because it expands safeguards for Albertans by applying not only to provincial laws but also to municipal bylaws. While Alberta cannot enforce laws that conflict with the amended Bill of Rights, the revisions give courts more authority to ensure governments treat citizens fairly.
The updated Bill of Rights is now law in Alberta. Other provinces and territories should follow its lead and strengthen protections for their citizens.
Joseph Quesnel is a senior research fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Lee Harding
Alberta moves to remove books after disturbing content, too graphic for media to view, was found in schools
Should elementary school children be given books to read with harsh insults against minorities, depictions of oral sex, and other disturbingly graphic and explicit content?
Such books have been in some Alberta elementary schools for a while, and in many school libraries across Canada.
In late May, the Alberta government announced it would establish new guidelines regarding age-appropriate materials in its schools. A government press release included quotes with disturbing content, but at a press conference, Education Minister Demetrios Nicolaides said some book illustrations could not be shown.
“I would show these images to all of you here and to the media, but they are too graphic for a live-stream media event. These examples … illustrate the kind of content that raises concerns amongst parents,” Nicolaides said.
You don’t say? This seems like the sort of stuff no one, except a pervert in a park, would dream of showing to a child. Ironically, the inability to publicize such graphic materials is part of the reason they have been shown to children with little public awareness.
Citizens’ group Action4Canada (A4C) has claimed its activism played a pivotal role in the Alberta decision. The organization has compiled a 36-page document online with examples of objectionable content in Canadian schools. Among the worst is Identical by Ellen Hopkins, which includes graphic descriptions of a little girl being molested by her father.
A4C founder Tanya Gaw has repeatedly tried to raise concerns about objectionable books with school boards, often without success. In some cases, she isn’t even allowed on the agenda if she states her topic upfront. When she is permitted to speak, she’s frequently cut off as soon as she begins quoting from the books, preventing the content from entering the public record.
In January 2023, Gaw made an online presentation to a school board in Mission, B.C. regarding materials in their schools. As she began to screenshare what was there, some board members objected, saying such permission had not been given in advance.
One month later, the board banned Action4Canada from making any further presentations. In later media interviews, the board chair justified the decision by saying Gaw’s PowerPoint contained some graphic and “inappropriate images.”
Exactly, and that is the problem. A recent check showed Mission’s school division only removed four of 15 books A4C objected to. Gaw is just glad “Identical” is one of them.
Pierre Barns, a father from Abbotsford, B.C., made it his mission to notify school boards across Canada what was on their school shelves. An online search was all it took to confirm. A “reply all” from a board member at the Halton School District in Ontario was most ironic.
“I am concerned. This individual has included links to publications and videos which may contain illegal content,” she wrote.
“I’m not sure how to investigate the content of the email safely. Would you please advise us whether or not this person ought to be reported to police? Is there some action we should take?”
There probably was action they should have taken, such as removing the books, but that never happened. Later, they defended a biologically male teacher in their school division who made international headlines by wearing large prosthetic breasts to school.
The Alberta government has committed to conducting public consultations before implementing new policies. It’s a good time for parents and citizens there and in other provinces to speak up. A young mind is a terrible thing to corrupt, but unfortunately, some schools are part of this corrosive effort.
Lee Harding is a research fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
Alberta’s grand bargain with Canada includes a new pipeline to Prince Rupert
Central Alberta MP resigns to give Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre a chance to regain a seat in Parliament
Unanimous Supreme Court Ruling Inspires Hope For Future Energy Project Permitting
Alberta health care blockbuster: Province eliminating AHS Health Zones in favour of local decision-making!
-
Daily Caller1 day ago
Unanimous Supreme Court Ruling Inspires Hope For Future Energy Project Permitting
-
espionage1 day agoFBI Buried ‘Warning’ Intel on CCP Plot to Elect Biden Using TikTok, Fake IDs, CCP Sympathizers and PRC Students—Grassley Probes Withdrawal
-
Agriculture1 day agoUnstung Heroes: Canada’s Honey Bees are not Disappearing – They’re Thriving
-
espionage1 day agoFrom Sidewinder to P.E.I.: Are Canada’s Political Elites Benefiting from Beijing’s Real Estate Reach?
-
International2 days agoJudiciary explores accountability options over Biden decline ‘coverup’
-
Energy1 day agoWho put the energy illiterate in charge?
-
Alberta1 day agoAlberta’s carbon diet – how to lose megatonnes in just three short decades
-
Business24 hours agoSenator wants to torpedo Canada’s oil and gas industry