Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Let’s get the facts on the graves, with a public inquiry

Published

9 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Brian Giesbrecht

Canada needs a public inquiry into what has become known as “The Kamloops Graves Hoax”.

The May 27, 2021 claim of the Kamloops Indian band was that “human remains” were found in the apple orchard area of the former Kamloops Indian Residential School, resulting in what has been described both as a “national hysteria” and a “moral panic”. The band subsequently extended the claim to include other even more graphic  terms, such as “bodies”, “graves” and even “mass graves”. Emotional articles and books followed.

In a press release issued three years after those sensational claims were made, their chief, Roseanne Casimir, has finally admitted the truth – there were no “human remains”, “bodies” “graves” or “mass graves” found at Kamloops.

Only “soil anomalies” were detected. Those anomalies could just as easily be tree roots, rocks, or the result of any of the other previous excavations that had been done in that same area. (As it happens there was a previous excavation in the area that was apparently missed by the radar operator. It is almost certain that it was soil anomalies from a 1924 excavation that her radar detected.)

Those 2021 false claims sent the nation into a panic. There is no need to describe in detail the flag-lowering, church-burning shock and  frenzy that spread like wildfire through national and  international media, brought the ailing Pope to Canada, convinced shamed MPs to condemn their own country as genocidal, vote in regressive UNDRIP and other incredibly expensive legislation, and spend what will be billions of dollars on a futile search for “missing children” who never existed. Many fine writers, including Terry Glavin, have described these strange last three years.

That episode of national hysteria is now an embarrassing  part of Canada’s history.

A legitimate question to ask is why the Kamloops band made those false claims.

Chief Casimir said that they were based on Sarah Beaulieu’s report.

“But it would be shockingly unprofessional for a ground penetrating radar operator (GPR) to claim that graves had been found before excavation had taken place. It is well known that GPR can detect only soil anomalies or disturbances. It cannot detect “graves” or “human remains”. A simple Google search of the question “Can ground penetrating radar detect graves?” is all that is necessary to find that answer.

It therefore seems highly unlikely that Beaulieu would have made such a reckless claim. Almost certainly, Beaulieu properly reported only that soil disturbances, anomalies or reflections – that might be graves — were detected, and that excavation would be necessary to determine whether or not those disturbances were graves, or any of the hundreds of other possibilities.

But the answer to precisely what Beaulieu said can only be found by reading her report. And that is currently impossible, because the band is refusing to release the report. This is odd, because they had initially promised to release it, and only later reneged on that promise. They are are now steadfastly refusing to let the public see it.

The only reasonable explanation for this refusal is that they have something to hide – specifically that their claim of “graves” found was a claim they knew was false when they made it. Beaulieu’s report almost certainly did not say that graves had been found.

But on the strength of what appears to be a lie they made an application to the federal government for money to deal with what they said were “graves” containing the remains of 215 KIRS students – students they insisted had died under sinister circumstances, and were secretly buried by persons unknown, with the forced help of children – “as young as six”.

Exactly what representations the band made to the federal government in order to get the $8,000,000, or how the money was spent, is unknown, for the simple reason that both the band and the federal government have not released that information to the public.

Logic dictates that either Sarah Beaulieu, or Chief Roseanne Casimir, claimed that “graves” had been found, knowing that such information was false. Only one of them was telling the truth. $8,000,000 was obtained from the federal government on false information. Who made that false “grave” claim?

The Kamloops band refuses to release Beaulieu’s report – a report they initially promised to release. They are also refusing to provide any details about how the $8,000,000 was spent – despite not having put even one shovel in the ground. The RCMP is refusing to investigate anything involving the Kamloops claim, unless the Kamloops band requests their assistance. It is not likely that the band will ask the RCMP to investigate their own false claim. The federal government is refusing to release any details about the representations made by the band in order to obtain the $8,000,000.

And now, three years after that claim of “human remains” the Kamloops band has suddenly changed “remains” to exactly what they always were “anomalies”. They refuse to provide an explanation for that astounding reversal.

Meanwhile, there is absolutely no explanation from the Trudeau government about why they gave out millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money, and severely damaged Canada’s reputation at home and abroad, with a preposterous genocide confession, for allegations about secret graves that a simple Google search would have told them were false. There is also no explanation for the mainstream media’s failure to do that simple Google search, or ask even one obvious question about claims that were so highly improbable from the outset.

Hamlet’s “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark” quote is apt here.

Except the smell is coming straight from Kamloops and Ottawa.

Most Canadians now believe at least some version of the original claim that priests secretly buried indigenous children at Kamloops. One in five believe that priests actually murdered the children.

Life in Canada has been severely disrupted by the false claims made on May 27, 2021. Canada’s reputation has been badly damaged. Canadian schoolchildren are being falsely taught that their ancestors were genocidal racists.

We have now reached the absurd point where a Justice Minister of Canada has seriously considered  criminalizing  anyone asking legitimate questions about these secret burial claims, Canada’s Senate has recommended that even writing an article disputing the original May 27, 2021 Kamloops claim should be outlawed – apparently making not only this article – but even Casimir’s recent correction to “anomalies” illegal. This madness must end. Canadians deserve to know how things went so horribly wrong.

A public inquiry is the only way to clear the air, and get the country back on track.

Brian Giesbrecht, retired judge, is a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

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

Energy

We can and must adjust to climate change – and not kill billions

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Paul Driessen and Ronald Stein

The futures of poor developing countries hinge on their ability to harness foundational elements: fuels, electricity, minerals and feed stocks made from fossil fuels and other materials that are the basis for all buildings, infrastructures and other technologies in industrialized countries.

We’ve always done so and have no right to tell others they can’t have modern living standards.

Earth’s climate has changed many times over four billion years, and 99.999% of those changes occurred before humans were on this planet. During that short time, humans adjusted their housing, clothing and agriculture in response to climate changes. Can we now control the climate?

Except for decades-long droughts or massive volcanic explosions that ended some civilizations, humanity generally adjusted successfully – through a Pleistocene Ice Age, a Little Ice Age, a Dust Bowl and other natural crises. Numerous state high temperature records were set in Dust Bowl years.

After putting our current “microsecond” on Earth into its proper perspective, we might therefore ask:

* With today’s vastly superior technologies, why would humanity possibly be unable to adjust to even a few-degrees temperature increase, especially with more atmospheric carbon dioxide helping plants grow faster and better, providing more food for animals and people?

* How dare the political, bureaucratic, academic and media ruling elites – who propagate GIGO computer predictions, calculated myths and outright disinformation – tell us we must implement their “green” policies immediately and universally … or humanity won’t survive manmade climate influences that are minuscule compared to the planetary, solar and galactic forces that really control Earth’s climate?

* How dare those elites tell Earth’s poorest people and nations they have no right to seek energy, health and living standards akin to what developed countries already enjoy?

Scientists, geophysicists and engineers have yet to explain or prove what caused the slight change in global temperatures we are experiencing today – much less the huge fluctuations that brought five successive mile-high continental glaciers, and sea levels that plunged 400 feet each time (because seawater was turned to ice), interspersed with warm inter-glacial periods like the one we’re in now.

Moreover, none of the dire predictions of cataclysmic temperature increases, sea level rise, and more frequent and intense storms have actually occurred, despite decades of climate chaos fearmongering.

Earth continues to experience climate changes, from natural forces and/or human activity. However, adjusting to small temperature, sea level and precipitation changes would inflict far less harm on our planet’s eight billion people than would ridding the world of fossil fuels that provide 80% of our energy and myriad products that helped to nearly double human life expectancy over the past 200 years.

Today, with fuels, products, housing and infrastructures that didn’t even exist one or two centuries ago, we can adjust to almost anything.

When it’s cold, we heat insulated homes and wear appropriate winter clothing; when it’s hot, we use air conditioning and wear lighter clothing. When it rains, we remain dry inside or with umbrellas; when it snows, we stay warm indoors or ski, bobsled and build snowmen.

Climate changes may impact us in many ways. But eliminating coal, oil and natural gas – with no 24/7/365 substitutes to replace them – would be immoral and evil. It would bring extreme shortages of reliable, affordable, essential energy, and of over 6,000 essential products derived from fossil fuels.

It would inflict billions of needless deaths from diseases, malnutrition, extreme heat and cold, and wild weather – on a planet where the human population has grown from 1 billion to 8 billion since Col. Edwin Drake drilled the first oilwell in 1859.

Weather-related fatalities have virtually disappeared, thanks to accurate forecasting, storm warnings, modern buildings, and medicines and other petroleum-based products that weren’t available even 100 years ago.

* Fossil fuels for huge long-range jets and merchant ships move people, products, food and medications to support global trade, mobility, health and lifestyle choices. Indeed, more than 50,000 merchant ships20,000 commercial aircraft and 50,000 military aircraft use fuels manufactured from crude oil.

* Food to feed Americans and humanity would be far less abundant and affordable without the fertilizers, insecticides, herbicides, and tractor and transportation fuels that come from oil and natural gas.

* Everything powered by electricity utilizes petroleum-based derivatives: wind turbine blades and nacelle covers, wire insulation, iPhone and computer housings, defibrillators, myriad EV components and more.

Petroleum industry history demonstrates that crude oil was virtually useless until it could be transformed in refineries and chemical plants into derivatives that are the foundation for plastics, solvents, medications and other products that support industries, health and living standards. The same is true for everything else that comes out of holes in the ground.

Plants and rocks, metals and minerals have no inherent value unless we learn how to cook them, extract metals from them, bend and shape them, or otherwise convert them into something we can use.

Similarly, the futures of poor developing countries hinge on their ability to harness foundational elements: fuels, electricity, minerals and feed stocks made from fossil fuels and other materials that are the basis for all buildings, infrastructures and other technologies in industrialized countries.

For the 80% of humanity in Africa, Asia and Latin America who still live on less than $10 a day – and the billions who still have little to no access to electricity – life is severely complicated and compromised by the hypocritical “green” agendas of wealthy country elites who have benefited so tremendously from fossil fuels since the modern industrial era began around 1850. Before that:

* Life spans were around 40 years, and people seldom travelled more than 100 miles from their birthplaces.

* There was no electricity, since generating, transmitting and utilizing this amazing energy resource requires technologies made from oil and natural gas derivatives.

* That meant the world had no modern transportation, hospitals, medicines and medical equipment, kitchen and laundry appliances, radio and other electronics, cell phones and other telecommunications, air and space travel, central heating and air conditioning, or year-round shipping and preservation of meats, fruits and vegetables, to name just a few things most of us just take for granted.

There are no silver-bullet solutions to save people from natural or man-made climate changes. However, adjusting to those fluctuations is the only solution that minimizes fatalities which would be caused by the callous or unthinking elimination of the petroleum fuels and building blocks that truly make life possible and enjoyable, instead of nasty, brutish and short. The late Steven Lyazi explained it perfectly:

“Wind and solar are … short-term solutions …. to meet basic needs until [faraway Ugandan villages] can be connected to transmission lines and a grid. Only in that way can we have modern homes, heating, lighting, cooking, refrigeration, offices, factories, schools, shops and hospitals – so that we can enjoy the same living standards people in industrialized countries do (and think is their right). We deserve the same rights and lives.

“What is an extra degree, or even two degrees, of warming in places like Africa? It’s already incredibly hot here, and people are used to it. What we Africans worry about and need to fix are malnutrition and starvation, the absence of electricity, and killer diseases like malaria, tuberculosis, sleeping sickness and HIV/AIDS…. We just need to be set free to [get the job done].”

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), and author of articles and books on environmental, climate and human rights issues.

Ronald Stein is an engineer, senior policy advisor on energy literacy for the Heartland Institute and CFACT, and co-author of the Pulitzer Prize-nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X