Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Christmas: As Canadian as Hockey and Maple Syrup
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Gerry Bowler
Well, they’re at it again. A year after a Canadian Human Rights Commission position paper labeled Christmas “discriminatory” and an example of “colonialist religious intolerance”, an Alberta public school has cancelled a winter concert because marking Christmas isn’t inclusive enough. The principal of Whitecourt’s Pat Hardy Elementary stated, “Not all students celebrate Christmas, and their families may or may not choose to have them participate in the Christmas concert. Other families celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday but do not want children engaging in the non-religious parts such as Santa, Christmas trees, etc.” It was suggested that a spring concert might be more inclusive, presumably on the theory that no one gets too worked up about the vernal equinox.
The principal’s actions are scarcely news; for years schools and public officials have been reluctant to stage any activity around the celebration of the Nativity. “Christmas concerts” have been relabelled or cancelled; “Christmas trees” have been termed the “Holiday Tree.” Or a “Care Tree.” A “Multicultural Tree.” A “Tree of Lights.” A “Community Tree.” A “Winter Solstice Tree.” A “Grand Tree.” A “Special Tree.” A “Family Tree.” The “Annual Tree.” A “Festive Bush.” A “Unity Tree.” A “Culture Tree.” Activists in Saskatoon objected to city buses displaying a “Merry Christmas” wish; a Toronto judge ordered a Christmas tree removed from the courthouse lest it makes non-Christians feel unwelcome; inspired by the American school that mandated that the lyrics to “Silent Night” be changed to “Silent Night, mmm, mmm, mmm, / All is calm, all is bright, mmm, mmm, mmm”, a principal at an Ottawa school excised the C-word from the ditty “Silver Bells”. Thus: “Ring-a-ling, hear them sing; Soon it will be a festive day.”
There are several ways of dealing with this perennial issue. One is to remove religion from the public square altogether – that would certainly suit the secular fundamentalists – another is to play the majoritarian card and insist that since Christians outnumber other faith communities their will should hold sway. Some might want to dilute any mention of Christianity from the season while others might wish to include every other religion’s holy days on the school calendar.
I have a solution to this seasonal dilemma. It is to adopt the attitude taken by leaders of racial and religious minorities in Canada when asked if they are offended by mentions of Christmas. Their invariable answer is, of course not, Christmas is an integral part of Canadian culture.
Christmas is indeed Canadian, as native to our land as Hockey Night in Canada, Stompin’ Tom Connors, or pineapple on pizza. It has been Canadian longer than poutine, mediocre socialized healthcare, or the last time Toronto won the Stanley Cup. The Vikings who found a home in Newfoundland a thousand years ago likely celebrated Christmas, and there’s no doubt that the holiday has been observed for half a millennium by later European settlers.
Though a current American politician may regard Canada as the 51st state and a current Canadian politician may opine that we are a post-national entity with no core identity, Canada, over the centuries, has developed a unique Christmas culture. We have beautiful carols of our own – “D’où Viens-Tu Bergère?”, the “Huron Carol” (“Jesus Ahatonia”), the first ever written in a North American indigenous language, and J.P. Clarke’s 1853 “A Canadian Christmas Carol”– not to mention secular seasonal music such as “Voici Le Père Noël Qui Nous Arrive” by the legendary Mary Bolduc, the melancholy “River” by Joni Mitchell, Bob and Doug Mackenzie’s take on “The Twelve Days of Christmas” and the immortal “Honky the Christmas Goose,” as sung by Johnny Bower (the last Leaf goalie to win a Stanley Cup).
We have unique Christmas foods – the taffy pull on St Catherine’s day, the tourtière of the revéillon, rapee pie, cipâte, butter tarts, Nanaimo bars, ragoût de pattes, “chicken bones,” and “barley toys.”
Though Santa Claus has his own Canadian postal code (H0H 0H0), we do not count him as a citizen, but we do have our own native Gift-Bringer in the form of Mother Goody (also known as Aunt Nancy or Mother New Year).
Canada can boast the first Christmas tree in North America, the custom introduced by Baroness Frederika von Riedesel whose husband Baron Friedrich Adolphus von Riedesel had brought 4,000 German Brunswicker soldiers in 1776 to protect Canada from American invasion. The first department store Santa was employed in Fredericton, New Brunswick, in 1869. Our post office issued the world’s first Christmas stamp in 1898. Eaton’s department store in Toronto staged the first Santa Claus parade in 1905.
Only in Canada can we see mummers of all sorts at Christmas – Janneys, Ownshooks, Fools, Belsnicklers, and Naluyuks; only in Canada do door to-door canvassers under the guise of “la guignolée” solicit donations to charity while singing a song threatening to torture the oldest daughter of the house.
So the next time objections are raised to the appearance of Christmas in the public square, simply state that it’s a long-standing Canadian custom, sanctified by time and universal practice, as deeply embedded in our culture as the red maple leaf. It’s what we do. Canadians do Christmas.
Gerry Bowler, historian, is a Senior Fellow at 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.
From the Frontier Institute for Public Policy
Research VP Marco Navarro-Genie warns that Canada’s future hinges on building energy infrastructure, not just expanding pipelines but forging a true North American energy alliance. With global demand rising and authoritarian regimes weaponizing energy, Ottawa’s dithering costs Canada $70 million daily. Sovereignty isn’t secured by speeches but by infrastructure. Until Canada sheds its regulatory paralysis, it will remain a discount supplier in a high stakes geopolitical game. Time to build.
Canada has energy the world is begging for, but ideology and red tape are holding us back
As Prime Minister Mark Carney met with U.S. President Donald Trump recently, energy should have been the issue behind every headline, whether mentioned or not. Canada’s future as a sovereign, economically resilient country will depend in no small part on whether the country seizes this moment or stalls out again in a fog of regulatory inertia and political ambivalence. Canada holds an underleveraged strategic card: the potential to be the world’s most reliable democratic energy supplier. Recent trade figures show Chinese imports of Canadian crude hit a record 7.3 million barrels in March, a direct result of newly expanded access to the Pacific via the Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX), a federally owned pipeline project that now connects Alberta crude to global markets through British Columbia’s coast. But one pipeline does not make a national strategy. Demand in Asia is growing fast. India is among the hungriest, but Canada’s infrastructure is nowhere near meeting that demand.
This matters not just for Canada, but for the United States as well. In a world where energy markets are weaponized and strategic reserves manipulated by authoritarian regimes, the case for a coordinated North American energy alliance is stronger than ever. Such an alliance should not erode national sovereignty. It should reinforce it, allowing Canada, the U.S. and Mexico to insulate themselves collectively from supply shocks and geopolitical blackmail while projecting democratic strength abroad.
But for that alliance to work, Canada must be a credible partner, not merely a junior supplier shackled by Ottawa-induced internal bottlenecks. While the U.S. has leveraged its shale revolution, LNG capacity and permitting reforms to pursue energy dominance, Canada dithers. Projects languish. Investment flees. And meanwhile, Canadian oil continues to flow south at a steep discount, only to be refined and resold, often back to us or our trading partners, at full global prices.
Yes, you read that right. Canada’s oil and gas is sold at a discount to U.S. customers, and that discount costs Canada more than $70 million every single day. The Frontier Centre for Public Policy has developed a real-time tracker to monitor these losses. This pricing gap exists because Canada lacks sufficient pipeline infrastructure to access overseas buyers directly, forcing producers to sell to the U.S., often at below-market rates.
Such massive losses should be unacceptable to any government serious about economic growth, geopolitical influence or environmental integrity. Yet Ottawa continues to speak the language of ambition while legislating the mechanics of paralysis. Stephen Guilbault’s statement that Canada already has enough pipelines speaks to more paralysis..
Canada’s energy infrastructure challenges are not just economic; they are matters of national defence. No country can claim to be secure while relying on another’s pipelines to transport its energy across its own territory. No country can afford to leave its wealth-producing regions boxed in by regulatory choke points or political resistance dressed as environmental virtue.
Our energy economy is fragmented. Western hydrocarbons are stuck inland and must pass through the U.S. to reach Eastern Canada or global markets eastward. This weakens national unity and leaves us exposed to foreign leverage. It also creates strategic vulnerabilities for our allies. American industries depend on Canadian crude. So do U.S. Gulf Coast refineries. And while American officials continue to treat energy as a tool of diplomacy and economic leverage, using energy exports to build alliances and reduce reliance on unstable regimes, Canada treats it as a domestic liability.
We need to shift the frame. Infrastructure isn’t just about steel in the ground; it’s the backbone of strategic autonomy. Pipelines, export terminals and utility corridors would allow Canada to claim its place in the emerging geopolitical order. They would also signal to global investors that Canada is open for business and capable of delivering returns without political obstruction.
The U.S. wants a stable, competent partner to help meet global energy needs. Increasingly, so does the rest of the world. But until we address our internal dysfunction and build, we’re stuck. Stuck watching global opportunities pass us by. Stuck selling low while others sell high. Stuck in a conversation about sovereignty we’re not structurally equipped to address, let alone win.
When Carney meets with Trump again, he would do well to remember that economic independence, not rhetorical unity, is the bedrock of sovereignty. Without infrastructure, Canada brings only words to a hard-power conversation.
Paraphrasing Thomas Hobbes, energy covenants without infrastructure are but words. It’s time to stop posturing and start building.
Marco Navarro-Genie is the vice-president of research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He is co-author, with Barry Cooper, of Canada’s COVID: The Story of a Pandemic Moral Panic (2023).
How Chinese State-Linked Networks Replaced the Medellín Model with Global Logistics and Political Protection
New RCMP program steering opioid addicted towards treatment and recovery
Trump deploys National Guard to Los Angeles after violent attacks on ICE agents
LA Mayor Karen Bass Makes New Demands Of Trump At Monday Night Press Conference
Natural gas pipeline ownership spreads across 36 First Nations in B.C.
We need an immigration policy that will serve all Canadians
