Retired judge slams Trudeau gov’t for promoting ‘false’ accusation about residential school deaths

Retired Manitoba judge Brian Giesbrecht observed that allegations were made with ‘no real evidence’ and that reports ‘that thousands of indigenous children had died at residential schools under suspicious circumstances’ are patently ‘false.’

A retired Canadian judge blasted what he said is a “conspiracy theory” lie and “shocking” yet unproven “accusation” being pushed by the Liberal federal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and legacy media that thousands of Indigenous residential school kids died due to negligence by the Catholic priests and nuns.

“The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) accused Canadian priests, nuns, teachers, and staff at residential schools of somehow being responsible for the disappearance of thousands of indigenous children who attended the schools. That is a shocking accusation,” retired Manitoba judge Brian Giesbrecht wrote in a commentary piece published in the Western Standard last week.

“But it is even more shocking that the accusation was made with no real evidence to support it.”

Giesbrecht observed that reports from TRC commissioners that “that thousands of indigenous children had died at residential schools under suspicious circumstances” are patently “false.”

“Those allegations were false, and based on a conspiracy theory,” Giesbrecht said.

The judge lamented the fact that hundreds of Christian (mostly Catholic) churches have been burned to the ground since the first TRC report came out in 2010, with more than 100 being reduced to ashes since 2021.

In 2021 and 2022, the mainstream media and federal government ran with inflammatory and dubious claims that hundreds of children were buried and disregarded by Catholic priests and nuns who ran some of the schools.

The Tk’emlups te Secwepemc First Nation was more or less the reason there was a large international outcry in 2021 when it claimed it had found 215 “unmarked graves” of kids at the Kamloops Residential School. The claims of remains, however, were not backed by physical evidence but were rather disturbances in the soil picked up by ground-penetrating radar.

The First Nation now has changed its claim of 215 graves to 200 “potential burials.”

“Where did that Tk’emlups story come from? Most importantly, why would anyone believe such obvious nonsense?” he wrote.

According to Giesbrecht, the “conspiracy theory that launched the entire missing children claim” came from a “largely created” claim by defrocked United Church minister Kevin Annett.

“For reasons that defy rational explanation this unusual man made it his life’s work to take the alcoholic ramblings of a few Vancouvers east side street residents, polish them up, and present them as fact to the world,” the retired justice wrote.

Giesbrecht gave an example of how Annett repeated the story that “Queen Elizabeth had kidnapped 10 children from the Kamloops school, and those children were never seen again,” but was later exposed by an investigative reporter.

According to Giesbrecht, Annett “repeated stories about priests clubbing students to death and throwing them into graves dug by other students, dead boys hanging on meat hooks in barns, and babies thrown into furnaces by priests and nuns.”

“Respected investigative reporter Terry Glavin exposed Annett as a crank and debunked Annett’s wild stories in detail in a 2008 Tyee article. Annett’s stories are so obviously fake that it seems incredible that anyone believed them,” he said.

Giesbrecht noted that it is “hard” to believe that anyone thought the defrocked pastor’s tales were true, but the truth is, people “did” fall for it.

“In fact, some of the people who fell for these stories occupied important positions. One was Gary Merasty, a Member of Parliament. Merasty became so convinced that these claims, as presented in Kevin Annett’s most famous documentary, ‘Unrepentant’ were true, that he was able to convince the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) and other important politicians that the newly appointed TRC commissioners must investigate Annett’s claims,” he said.

According to Giesbrecht, the newly appointed TRC commissioners had “unwisely accepted this new area of study, despite the fact that they had no mandate to do so.”

“When the federal government refused their request for a mandate and funds to search for these phantom ‘missing children’ they ignored the rebuff, and pursued the subject anyway,” he wrote.

“It appears from their statements on the subject that they completely bought into the Annett conspiracy theory. Commissioner Murray Sinclair gave many interviews about these supposedly “missing children” and hinted frequently that dark forces were at play.

LifeSiteNews reported last week that Leah Gazan, backbencher MP from the New Democratic Party, brought forth a new bill that seeks to criminalize the denial of the unproven claim that the residential school system once operating in Canada was a “genocide.”

Media and Trudeau feds worked together to create unproven claims, says judge

Giesbrecht observed that the mainstream media, meanwhile, did not “question any of these always improbable claims,” and “quite the contrary, they not only played along with these baseless claims, but actively encouraged them.”

“It did not seem to occur to them that they were actively supporting a conspiracy theory,” he noted.

The retired judge noted that “Trudeau and his ministers,” notably Marc Miller, “made matters immeasurably worse by immediately ordering all federal flags to be flown at half mast and promising enormous amounts of money to any other indigenous community that wanted to make a similar claim.”

“The truth is that the TRC’s missing children wild goose chase had thoroughly captivated journalists and entire indigenous communities to the extent that the baseless Tk’emlups claim seemed to make sense to them. Justin Trudeau and his ministers were in that gaggle of gullibles. Canada became the laughing stock of the world for dumbly accepting these wild claims,” he wrote.

Giesbrecht observed how since the unfounded claims exploded on the Canadian media and political scene, both the “Trudeau government” and the state-funded “CBC have doubled down on their refusal to correct the misinformation that they have promoted.”

He warned that the next “logical step” for the Trudeau Liberals and mainstream media “is to stop Canadians from even knowing about” the truth of residential schools, as well as for those who have been muzzled or speaking out.

LifeSiteNews reported in August that Trudeau’s cabinet said it will expand a multimillion-dollar fund geared toward documenting claims that hundreds of young children died and were clandestinely buried at now-closed residential schools, some of them run by the Catholic Church.

Canadian indigenous residential schools, run by the Catholic Church and other Christian churches, were set up by the federal government and were open from the late 19th century until 1996.

While there were indeed some Catholics who committed serious abuses against native children, the unproved “mass graves” narrative has led to widespread anti-Catholic sentiment since 2021.

Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) MP Jamil Jivani has urged support from his political opponents for a bill that would give stiffer penalties to arsonists caught burning churches down, saying the recent rash of destruction is a “very serious issue” that is a direct “attack” on families as well as “religious freedom in Canada.”

Up Next

Middle East War Shows No Signs Of Stopping One Year After Oct. 7 — And No Clear Path To Exit

Don't Miss

Trudeau gov’t suggests federal funding of media outlets an attempt to buy ‘social cohesion’

Todayville

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

Eyebrows Raise as Karoline Leavitt Answers Tough Questions About Epstein

Business / 5 hours ago

Carney’s new agenda faces old Canadian problems

Indigenous / 5 hours ago

Internal emails show Canadian gov’t doubted ‘mass graves’ narrative but went along with it

Alberta

COWBOY UP! Pierre Poilievre Promises to Fight for Oil and Gas, a Stronger Military and the Interests of Western Canada

Published on July 7, 2025

Government of Alberta

Fr0m Energy Now

By Maureen McCall

As Calgarians take a break from the incessant news of tariff threat deadlines and global economic challenges to celebrate the annual Stampede, Conservative party leader Pierre Poilievre gave them even more to celebrate.

Poilievre returned to Calgary, his hometown, to outline his plan to amplify the legitimate demands of Western Canada and not only fight for oil and gas, but also fight for the interests of farmers, for low taxes, for decentralization, a stronger military and a smaller federal government.

Speaking at the annual Conservative party BBQ at Heritage Park in Calgary (a place Poilievre often visited on school trips growing up), he was reminded of the challenges his family experienced during the years when Trudeau senior was Prime Minister and the disastrous effect of his economic policies.

“I was born in ’79,” Poilievre said. “and only a few years later, Pierre Elliott Trudeau would attack our province with the National Energy Program. There are still a few that remember it. At the same time, he hammered the entire country with money printing deficits that gave us the worst inflation and interest rates in our history. Our family actually lost our home, and we had to scrimp and save and get help from extended family in order to get our little place in Shaughnessy, which my mother still lives in.”

This very personal story resonated with many in the crowd who are now experiencing an affordability crisis that leaves families struggling and young adults unable to afford their first house or condo. Poilievre said that the experience was a powerful motivator for his entry into politics. He wasted no time in proposing a solution – build alliances with other provinces with mutual interests, and he emphasized the importance of advocating for provincial needs.

“Let’s build an alliance with British Columbians who want to ship liquefied natural gas out of the Pacific Coast to Asia, and with Saskatchewanians, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who want to develop their oil and gas and aren’t interested in having anyone in Ottawa cap how much they can produce. Let’s build alliances with Manitobans who want to ship oil in the port of Churchill… with Quebec and other provinces that want to decentralize our country and get Ottawa out of our business so that provinces and people can make their own decisions.”

Poilievre heavily criticized the federal government’s spending and policies of the last decade, including the increase in government costs, and he highlighted the negative impact of those policies on economic stability and warned of the dangers of high inflation and debt. He advocated strongly for a free-market economy, advocating for less government intervention, where businesses compete to impress customers rather than impress politicians. He also addressed the decade-long practice of blocking and then subsidizing certain industries. Poilievre referred to a famous quote from Ronald Reagan as the modus operandi of the current federal regime.

“The Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases. If anything moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

The practice of blocking and then subsidizing is merely a ploy to grab power, according to Poilievre, making industry far too reliant on government control.

“By blocking you from doing something and then making you ask the government to help you do it, it makes you reliant. It puts them at the center of all power, and that is their mission…a full government takeover of our economy. There’s a core difference between an economy controlled by the government and one controlled by the free market. Businesses have to clamour to please politicians and bureaucrats. In a free market (which we favour), businesses clamour to impress customers. The idea is to put people in charge of their economic lives by letting them have free exchange of work for wages, product for payment and investment for interest.”

Poilievre also said he plans to oppose any ban on gas-powered vehicles, saying, “You should be in the driver’s seat and have the freedom to decide.” This is in reference to the Trudeau-era plan to ban the sale of gas-powered cars by 2035, which the Carney government has said they have no intention to change, even though automakers are indicating that the targets cannot be met. He also intends to oppose the Industrial Carbon tax, Bill C-69 the Impact Assessment Act, Bill C-48 the Oil tanker ban, the proposed emissions cap which will cap energy production, as well as the single-use plastics ban and Bill C-11, also known as the Online Streaming Act and the proposed “Online Harms Act,” also known as Bill C-63. Poilievre closed with rallying thoughts that had a distinctive Western flavour.

“Fighting for these values is never easy. Change, as we’ve seen, is not easy. Nothing worth doing is easy… Making Alberta was hard. Making Canada, the country we love, was even harder. But we don’t back down, and we don’t run away. When things get hard, we dust ourselves off, we get back in the saddle, and we gallop forward to the fight.”

Cowboy up, Mr. Poilievre.

Maureen McCall is an energy professional who writes on issues affecting the energy industry.

Business

Carney’s new agenda faces old Canadian problems

Published on July 7, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By John Ibbitson

In his June speech announcing a major buildup of Canada’s military, Prime Minister Mark Carney repeated his belief that this country faces a “hinge moment” of the sort the allied countries confronted after the Second World War.

A better comparison might be with the beginning of the war itself.

Then, the Allies found themselves at war with an autocratic state bent on their defeat and possible destruction. Now, Carney faces an antagonistic American president bent on annexing Canada through economic warfare.

Then, Canada rose to the challenge, creating the world’s third-largest navy and landing an army at Normandy on D-Day. Now, Carney has announced the most aggressive reorienting of Canada’s economic, foreign and defence policies in generations.

Polls show strong support among Canadians for this new agenda. But the old Canada is still there. It will fight back. It may yet win.

The situation certainly would have been more encouraging had Carney not inherited Justin Trudeau’s legacy of severe economic and environmental restrictions—picking economic winners and losers rather than letting the market decide—and chronic deficits. The new prime minister would do well to dismantle as much of that legacy as he can.

Some advocate a return to the more laissez-faire approach of Stephen Harper’s government. But Harper didn’t confront a belligerent president hoping to annex Canada through the “economic force” of tariff walls.

The prime minister succeeded in getting Bill C-5, which is intended to weaken at least some of the restrictions on resource development and infrastructure, passed into law. He and the premiers pledge to finally dismantle generations of internal trade and labour mobility barriers. If we must trade less with the Americans, we can at least learn to trade with ourselves.

And the prime minister deserves high praise for reversing decades of military decline through increased spending and efforts to improve procurement. If Carney accomplishes nothing more than restoring Canada’s defences, especially in the Arctic, he will be well remembered.

That said, major challenges confront the Carney agenda.

There’s much talk about a new national energy corridor. But what does that mean? One KPMG executive defined it as a “dedicated, streamlined pathway for the energy, electricity, decarbonization, transportation and digital infrastructure.”

Yes, but what does that mean?

Whatever it means, some First Nations will oppose it tooth-and-nail. Not all of them, mind you. The First Nations Major Project Coalition is dedicated to assisting First Nations in working with government and the private sector for the benefit of all. But many First Nations people consider resource development further exploitation of their ancestral lands by a colonizing power. At the first major proposal to which they do not buy in, they will take the government to court.

What investor will be willing to commit to a project that could be blocked for years as First Nations and Ottawa fight it out all the way to the Supreme Court?

The prime minister, formerly a fervent advocate of combatting climate change, now talks about developing “conventional energy,” which means oil and gas pipelines. But environmental activists will fiercely oppose those pipelines.

There is so much that could go wrong. Sweep away those internal trade barriers? Some premiers will resist. Accelerate housing development? Some mayors will resist. Expand exports to Europe and Asia? Some businesses and entrepreneurs will say it’s not worth the risk.

As for the massive increase in defence spending, where will the money come from? What will be next year’s deficit? What will be the deficit’s impact on inflation, interest rates and sovereign creditworthiness? The obstacles are high enough to make anyone wonder how much, if any, of the government’s platform will be realized. But other factors are at work as well, factors that were also present in 1939.

To execute his mandate, Carney is surrounding himself with what, back in the Second World War, were called “dollar a year men”—executives who came to Ottawa from the private sector to mobilize the economy for wartime.

In Carney’s case he has brought in Marc-André Blanchard as chief of staff and Michael Sabia as clerk of the privy council. Both are highly experienced in government and the private sector. Both are taking very large pay cuts because, presumably, they understand the gravity of the times and believe in the prime minister’s plans.

Most important, Carney’s agenda has broad support from a public that fears for the country’s future and will have little patience toward any group seeking to block the prime minister’s agenda.

Millions of Canadians want this government’s reform efforts to succeed. Those who would put it at risk of failing will have to contend with public anger. That gives Carney a shot at making real change.