Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Why is Trudeau sticking to the unmarked graves falsehood?

Published

8 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Brian Giesbrecht

There is simply no possibility that Trudeau didn’t know on June 17th, 2024 that he was spreading misinformation when he said that unmarked graves were found. In plain English — he knew he was lying.

The claim made by Chief Rosanne Casimir on May 27th, 2021, that the remains of 215 children, former students of the Kamloops Indian Residential School (KIRS) had been found in unmarked graves on the school grounds, was false.

Only soil anomalies were detected by a radar device. Those anomalies could be tree roots, previous excavations, or almost anything. In fact, research since that time makes it clear that the anomalies were almost certainly the trenches of a former septic field installed in 1924 to dispose of the school’s sewage.

No “unmarked graves”, “human remains”, “bodies” or “mass graves” were found.

Chief Casimir finally confessed to making that false claim three years after making it. She admitted what was known to most of all along: no graves, human remains, or bodies were found — only 215 “anomalies”.

So, everyone in Canada now knows that the May 27th, 2021 claim of unmarked graves containing human remains found at Kamloops was false. Everybody except the prime minister it seems, and his former Indigenous Affairs Minister, Marc Miller.

However on June 17th, 2024, Prime Minister Trudeau — instead of taking the opportunity to set the record straight — repeated at an indigenous event the whopper that “unmarked graves” have been found. He has been spreading that misinformation for three years.

One would think that now that the person who originally made the false claim has admitted that no graves were found — only anomalies — that Trudeau would take the opportunity to clear up the confusion and go with the truth, instead of repeating the original lie.

One would be wrong.

There is simply no possibility that Trudeau didn’t know on June 17th, 2024 that he was spreading misinformation when he said that unmarked graves were found. In plain English — he knew he was lying.

So, why would he do such a thing? Doesn’t a prime minister have a duty to refrain from deliberately lying to Canadian citizens? After all, the great majority of Canadians know by now that no graves were found at Kamloops.

The only answer that makes sense is that the Prime Minister was not speaking to all Canadians on June 17th, 2024. He was speaking only to indigenous Canadians when he falsely stated that unmarked graves had been found at Kamloops. He was repeating a lie they believed. They believed that lie in large part because he and Marc Miller were doing their best to keep the lie alive.

Everything that he and his colleagues have done since May 27, 2021 — lowering flags, kneeling with a teddy bear in an ordinary community cemetery, lavishing money on indigenous communities to search for missing children he knows were never “missing” — has been done to pander to an indigenous community that largely believes those false stories about evil priests and secret burials. I repeat  — believes that anti- Catholic bilge in large part because the Trudeau Liberals have encouraged them to believe it.

What has come to be known as the “Kamloops Graves Hoax” is now known to most Canadians for what it is — a false claim. However, we have a prime minister who, for his own reasons,  seems intent on keeping the hoax going within the indigenous community. The deception being practiced by the prime minister will have serious consequences in the years ahead. And those consequences are all negative.

Prime ministers come and go. Some remain popular throughout their term, but some become increasingly unpopular. For example, the late Brian Mulroney was so unpopular with Canadians toward the end of his term that the Conservatives, led by his successor, Kim Campbell, were  virtually wiped in the election following his retirement.

Trudeau’s fate remains to be seen.

However, that is just politics. But what Trudeau is doing, in deliberately lying to an already marginalized demographic that has a history of being lied to by indigenous and non-indigenous politicians, is not just politics. It is reprehensible conduct. Those people are going to be very angry when they realize that they have been deceived.

Under Trudeau’s watch, we have already seen churches burn, statues topple, and other mayhem as a result of a claim that the PMO knows is false.

Exactly why he is practicing this deception we do not know. We do know with certainty that Indigenous Affairs Minister Marc Miller spoke with Chief Rosanne Casimir on the evening of May 27, 2021, immediately after she made her false claim that the remains of 215 children, who were students at KIRS, had been found. Here’s what he said about his May 27, 2021 telephone conversation with Casimir, according to Hansard:

“On Thursday evening, I spoke to Chief Casimir and assured her of my steadfast support for the grieving and reconciliation process over the coming weeks. We have been in contact since then as well. We will be there with them as they lead this initiative, and we will help meet their needs in the coming weeks and months.”

Unless Chief Casimir told Miller that “remains” had been found, and not the truth — that only anomalies had been detected — the Trudeau government and the Kamloops band together, for reasons unknown, created the false narrative that the remains of 215 children had been found, knowing that their claim was false. Why did this happen?

The prime minister is now keeping this false narrative alive, knowing that it was, and is, false. Why is he doing this?.

And why are the CBC and our mainstream media not even trying to find out?

Something is very wrong here.

Brian Giesbrecht, retired judge, is a Senior Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

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

Frontier Centre for Public Policy

‘Hottest Year in History’ Alarms are False

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Ian Madsen

It’s that time of year for breathless reports about planetary heating. Multilateral institutions, including the United Nations, recently made worldwide headlines, proclaiming 2023 as the hottest year in history.

The increase in average temperature, versus the longer-term average from 1850 to 1900, was a rise of 1.48 degrees Celsius. However, with the considerable difficulty of having truly comparable sets of measurements (from different sites in different years), one should treat such claims carefully.  Interested parties use them to promote ‘solutions’ that could do more harm than good. It is notable that this new ‘high’ temperature was only 0.17 degree Celsius higher than in 2016.

NASA notes five factors explaining higher temperatures.  Only one is the ‘usual suspect,’ greenhouse gases (mainly carbon dioxide, ‘CO2’). The other four are:  the El Niño Southern Oscillation, ‘ENSO’, cycle; aerosol levels (such as smoke, dust and air pollution); volcanic eruptions; and general ocean temperature level and trends. NASA says the first and last of these affect current overall temperature.

The world has been in what meteorologists call an El Niño phase, which brings much higher temperatures to most of the world when it prevails.  The oceans have also been gradually warming for decades, with occasional pauses, as  in the period 1998-2013.

There are other major reasons to make an observer skeptical of extreme claims. The first is that this is a ‘history’ that is relatively short; i.e., the past 150 years (or even, in practice, much less).  A second reason is that wide-scale, reliable global satellite temperature measurement has only been possible since the 1970’s. Before that, temperature monitoring was not systematic.

Until the 1880’s, temperature recordings were mostly in either North America or Europe, and hence show major data biases.  Another crucial bias was that many weather stations are in or close to cities, which grew and warmed as they burned more coal (and, later on, more oil and natural gas), causing the heat island effect.  The cities, growing gently warmer, also grew toward the weather stations, usually located on the outskirts of cities, especially the stations at airports.

For example, there are two weather stations in Winnipeg – one at the wind-swept airport and the other in the heart of downtown at the Forks.  An analysis back in 2007 showed the temperature difference between the two locations to be 1.57 degrees warmer at the Forks.  So closing or ignoring the airport temperature measurement location would “on paper” show warming in Winnipeg. It will be the same with most major Canadian airports.

Another valid way to challenge an assertion that 2023 was history’s hottest year, is to examine other time periods to see if one was hotter. The most well known such period came in the 1930’s, which was hotter and drier than the decades before or after. High temperatures set many new records that remain unbroken. The 1970’s were cool, despite rising COemissions.

The Medieval Warm Period, approximately AD 750-1350, was much warmer than today. Farming was commonplace in Greenland, and vineyards grew in Britain.  Industrialization began in the 1750’s, so, increased levels of greenhouse gas emissions could not and did not cause ancient warming.  Nor did lower CO2 emissions cause the subsequent cooling of the Earth’s atmosphere, which culminated in what is now called the Little Ice Age, AD 1350-1850, from which we are still emerging.

According to interested parties the past year may have set records, but  there is no evidence that it was the ‘hottest’.

Its summer time. Enjoy the hot weather.  Ignore the climate doomsters.

Ian Madsen is the Senior Policy Analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Continue Reading

Energy

Free Speech Was Curtailed In Canada. Did You Notice?

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Brian Zinchuk

We’ve seen this before, of course… The Soviets under Lenin and Stalin, and Maoists in China made denunciation commonplace. Don’t like someone? Denounce them for anti-revolutionary speech and have them hauled off to the gulag for 10 years

In the waning days of June, the federal Liberal government, supported by the New Democratic Party, passed legislation to take away some of the rights to free speech in Canada.

Bill C-59 was an omnibus budget bill, which meant its passage was assured lest the government fall. And there are some amendments to the Competition Act within C-59 which are effectively a gag law for you, me, and everybody else.

Gag law

I honestly wasn’t aware of it until Minister of Justice and Attorney General Bronwyn Eyre held a press scrum at the Saskatchewan Oil and Gas Show on June 5 to talk about this. She called it a “gag law,” and it has become evident those were very fitting words.

The additions to the budget impact the Competition Act, for the purpose of eliminating “greenwashing.” The significant clauses state:

“A person engages in reviewable conduct who, for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, the supply or use of a product or for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, any business interest, by any means whatever …

“(b.1) Makes a representation to the public in the form of a statement, warranty or guarantee of a product’s benefits for protecting or restoring the environment or mitigating the environmental, social and ecological causes or effects of climate change that is not based on an adequate and proper test, the proof of which lies on the person making the representation;

“(b.2) Makes a representation to the public with respect to the benefits of a business or business activity for protecting or restoring the environment or mitigating the environmental and ecological causes or effects of climate change that is not based on adequate and proper substantiation in accordance with internationally recognized methodology, the proof of which lies on the person making the representation.”

The penalties for a corporation can be up to three per cent of global revenue.

Charlie Angus’ influence

The Bill was introduced last November, but these portions were amended since then. And you can see from a briefing submission from the environmental lobby, some of their suggestions were implemented.

It also seems to be an extension of Charlie Angus private members bill, which was banning the promotional petroleum in early February. I think that was a trial balloon. No one really thought anything would come of it, but the essence of that bill was already in Section 236 of C-59, with amendments made at the very end of the budgetary process.

This move seems to be a back-door implementation of NDP MP Charlie Angus’ private members bill, Bill C-372, which sought to shut down all oil and gas advertising. Angus’ press release said, “Passage of Bill C-372 will mean that no fossil fuel company will be able to advertise, promote their products, nor mislead the public about the health and environmental threats posed by the burning of fossil fuels, which the World Health Organization now says is the biggest global health threat of the 21st century.”

Isn’t that eerily similar to the clauses noted above?

Saskatchewan calls it a gag law

Eyre told reporters on June 5, “This is a gag law. It’s a federal gag law. It’s Charlie Angus’ fossil fuels advertising act in another form, and it is very serious. That’s what the letter expresses, our profound alarm at this rushed bill, Bill C-59, which is part of an omnibus budget bill. It was rushed, it was done without consultation with any of the provinces. And it could have a very profound effect, very sobering effect harmful effects on our economy, frankly, so very, very concerned about C-59.”

Premier Scott Moe posted on social media on July 2, “It’s a wonder why the federal government would want to put a gag order on Saskatchewan oil and gas companies when they are having great success with their emission reductions. In fact, our energy sectors greenhouse gas emissions last year were 67 per cent below levels reported in 2015. Our government will continue to fight against the Liberal-NDP Coalition Bill C-59 plan in order to protect Saskatchewan’s energy sector.”

Such a statement, made by a provincial premier, no less, could possibly be considered afoul of the law, if he had made these statements after June 20, 2025, when the law is implemented.

Did Moe quote “proper substantiation in accordance with internationally recognized methodology?” After all, according to the law of the land now, “the proof of which lies on the person making the representation.”

Jordan Peterson persecution

The implementation of this law is essentially modelled on the persecution (and I don’t use that term lightly) of Dr. Jordan Peterson.

As noted by the National Post, Dr. Peterson’s plight was that the “College of Psychologists of Ontario that ordered Jordan Peterson into a mandatory rehabilitation program for his politically incorrect tweets, which had nothing to do with his practice and involved none of his patients.”

Among the complaints made against him was the submission of the entire transcript of his appearance on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast! And an Ontario court backed up the College’s prosecution (persecution?) of him!

Bill C-59 conjures up a similar system. As energy advocate Deidra Garyk writes in Pipeline Online, “While focus has been on the muzzling of oil and gas supporters and companies, this bill is agnostic and, therefore, allows all industries to be targeted. Although, oil and gas is likely to be disproportionately aimed at and penalized since anyone can go onto the Bureau’s website and easily complete a complaint form. You do not have to be a victim to file a complaint, meaning a company can be accused of a victimless crime.”

Communist-style denunciation

We’ve seen this before, of course, long before Peterson’s problems. The Soviets under Lenin and Stalin, and Maoists in China made denunciation commonplace. Don’t like someone? Denounce them for anti-revolutionary speech and have them hauled off to the gulag for 10 years, but only if they don’t catch a bullet behind the ear, first.

Process is the punishment

While Canadians aren’t likely to catch a bullet, yet, this is a situation where the process is the punishment. It doesn’t matter if the complainants win. All they have to do is initiate the process, and you are in a world of hurt.

And trust me, they will be filing complaints. Expect groups like Ecojustice, Sierra Club, and Greenpeace to be lining them up as we speak. In December, several of them, including Ecojustice, submitted a briefing note “amending Bill C-59 to more effectively combat greenwashing.”

A few clicks online and bam! You’re tied up in litigation that’s from tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

And even if you win, you still lose, because you’ve paid all that money for the lawyers and the time and effort.

And in the meantime, while you’re in litigation, you’re not going to say a damn thing until it’s resolved. So, you have effectively been muted until the court process, which is never quick and efficient, is dealt with. Again, the process is the punishment.

Easier to say nothing, ever

Now, the solution for most people, and most companies, will realize is that it’s easier not to say anything at all, which effectively silences you. As Eyre said, this is a gag law.

And you know what really, really troubling?

Some of the largest companies in Canada, corporations with literally floors of lawyers among them, folded like a house of cards as soon as C-59 became law. The Pathways Alliance, made up of the six largest oilsands producers, promptly wiped their website clean. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, on June 20, said it “has chosen to reduce the amount of information it makes available on its website and other digital platforms until the Competition Bureau has released further guidance on how these amendments will be implemented.”

So the gag has been thoroughly applied, already. Spines, and perhaps some other bodily parts, are notably absent.

And these are the organizations with by far the largest resources to fight this assault on free speech. Instead, they issued press releases. Big deal. That press release should have said they will fight this tooth and nail. Instead, They’ve already all but given up.

So what the hell am I supposed to do, working in my basement as a one man band? I have no financial resources to pay for any sort of legal fight.

How the hell am I supposed to fight this when the people who have all the resources in the world, in this country have said, “Oh, we’ll put up a press release saying, ‘We don’t like this, but we’re not going to do anything about it.’”

I’ll tell you what my defence is, should I, or my corporation, Pipeline Online Ltd., have a complaint issued under this legislation: Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It states, “Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.”

That includes the right to say whatever you want about “protecting or restoring the environment or mitigating the environmental, social and ecological causes or effects of climate change.”

And under Canadian law, corporations have rights, too.

ESG as the rope to hang you

And here’s another twist: in the last four years, environment, social and governance, or ESG statements or reports have went from non-existent to required if you expect any sort of institutional investment. No ESG report; no money, honey.

But these very reports, the ones making companies’ environmental cases, will now be rope with which the likes of Ecojustice and Greenpeace will hang them. Now if you publish an ESG statement, your critics can use that as evidence to prosecute you. So you’re damned if you do, and you’re damned if you don’t. If you don’t put out an ESG statement, maybe you’ll lose all your investors. And if you do publish it, well, maybe you’ll get prosecuted by this for saying the wonderful stuff that you have tried to do for the environment.

What if a journalist like me comes around and does a story on your company? Let’s give a real example. Several years ago, a drilling company which no longer exists called CanElson converted many of it rigs to operate on dual-fuel; diesel and compressed natural gas. And one of the reasons cited at the time when I wrote about it was the environmental benefits from lower emissions. But now, lawyers would almost certainly tell them everything they say would have to be couched with “proper substantiation in accordance with internationally recognized methodology.” In other words, mountains of fine print. But no press organization is going to publish all of that, and the company would have no control over what is published. So that company’s lawyer would, according to the new law, obviously advise their clients to say nothing, ever, to any media where it could be published, lest they open themselves up to prosecution under the Competition Act, as amended by Bill C-59.

Again, a gag law.

1984

This is really an implementation of George Orwell’s 1984, where groupthink has been legislated into law a couple week ago by the federal government. If you say anything against the current orthodoxy of anthropogenic climate change, or even if your efforts to support it are found insufficient, you are an apostate and can be prosecuted for it.

This is not hyperbole. This has really happened.

Your freedom of speech, today, is dramatically reduced from what it was on June 19.

And we allowed it to happen.

Authoritarian pattern

This reminds me of how the Russian Revolution evolved under the Soviets, as recorded by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago. First they came for the Mensheviks, then the socialists. Then they came for the bourgeois business owners and clergy. Next were the engineers, which were called “wreckers,” as well as the intelligentsia. Then they came for the kulaks, which were farmers who had as few as three cows, leading to the Holodomor. Then they came for the military, in the great purge.

This is the route authoritarianism takes. Free speech is the first to go. What comes after that?

I’ve been talking to a number of people about this in recent weeks. Some have suggested working within the system as it now exists, under the new changes to the Competition Act. Some have suggested using the new rules to fight back, making complaints about the green lobby, instead.

That’s a fool’s errand. You’re co-opting the authoritarians’ plan. Just like the Jews who dutifully donned their yellow Stars of David. If we just do what they tell us to, work within their new rules, maybe they’ll leave us alone.

How did that work out?

I wore a uniform as a reservist officer in the Canadian Forces. I may have been the lowest form of reservist officer, but I still wore a uniform for seven years, and there’s no way in hell I am going to be gagged by my own federal government for being able to say what I’m going to say.

And the fact that CAPP and the Pathways Alliance folded on this like a cheap house of cards, is all the more troubling. They’ve just been handed the environmental equivalent of a yellow star, and they dutifully put it on.

Will you do the same?

Brian Zinchuk is editor and owner of Pipeline Online, and occasional contributor to the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He can be reached at [email protected].

Continue Reading

Trending

X