Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Why is Trudeau sticking to the unmarked graves falsehood?


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One would think that now that the person who originally made the false claim has admitted that no graves were found — only anomalies — that Trudeau would take the opportunity to clear up the confusion and go with the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


Trump and Energy

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Terry Etam

Did you know that the United States Secret Service has a Chief of Communications? Does that not seem a little odd? To excel at his job, would he be perfectly silent?

Well, he’s not…Over the weekend the Chief of Communications of the United States Secret Service took to Twitter to start acting not very secret at all. How is this for a tweet: “…three charter flights filed with @SecretService agents, technicians, officers & mission support personnel safely arrived in Milwaukee.” He included a picture of one of the planes and all the debarked people standing on the tarmac.

I guess my definition of “Secret Service” is not that of the government’s, but then again, I’m not caught up in the same civil war-esque brouhaha over just what sort of curtain of madness would have descended over the world if Trump hadn’t turned his head that instant. Indeed, the past few days have been astonishing, watching players from across the spectrum and around the world reorient to accommodate what has happened.

Things are so complex, tense, and volatile that even the secret service feels the need to point out what it is doing, in great detail (though I’m sure the Director is muzzled re: the juicy stuff). In this environment predictions seem unwise, but hey that issue has never stopped me before, so here goes with a few observations of relevance to the energy industry.

As a building block of discussion, it is now highly probable that Trump will win the upcoming election. That ridiculously iconic photo of his bloody self with fist raised in front of the US flag is creating new Trump supporters out of not-insignificant online commentators that have spent years bashing him. Even Trump’s vice-presidential nominee, J.D. Vance, once expressed dislike for the big goofball (yes, he is: Exhibit A would be his tweet of a photo-shopped Trump tower in a Greenland village with the plea: “I promise not to do this to Greenland!” Of course he was many other things as well, but who could forget that…).

On the energy front, we know where Trump stands – drill baby drill. He wants to unleash American energy to drive down prices for consumers and increase competitiveness for US business. One aspect that goes unnoticed in this general discussion though is that there are material differences in what this means to the oil business/market versus the natural gas business/market.

He will focus on oil first. It will be symbolically important at a minimum for Trump to lower gasoline prices; they are a flashpoint because of the incessant visibility, the constant updating to a fraction of a cent in huge neon font as one drives down the road. Lowering gasoline prices will not be as easy as many think; for example, opening federal lands to drilling activity will not have any influence on gasoline prices for a long time, if at all.  Trump could lower some forms of taxes in a bid to lower prices, but the effect of that would not be huge.

His main goal would be to expand oil production in a bid to lower prices, but this is where things get complicated in the modern age. The US is now a net exporter of oil, some 1.6 million b/d in 2023, a reversal of the situation of prior years. Now, the US still imports significant quantities of oil because its refineries require certain grades in greater quantities than it produces, and exports the grades it cannot utilize (mostly light oil).

This dynamic will make it tough for the US to drive down global prices on its own (oil is very much priced on the global stage), no matter what Trump does in the short term. A drilling frenzy, even if he could orchestrate one, would simply result in more oil exports until the quantity was large enough that it made a new global impact. But at that point, OPEC would be involved and pulling whatever strings it wanted to get the price where it wanted.

So, under Trump we should expect a flurry of feel-good vibes for the oil sector, with more friendly legislation, rules, and land leasing opportunities, but the impact on oil production will take time to achieve any price reductions. All other potential levers to reduce gasoline prices will be on the table, including existing federal regulations that are negatively impacting any downstream activity.

Natural gas is going to be more interesting. It is the unsung hero of industry; a vital cog that is critical to many industries and real estate ventures, but one that gets scant attention until something weird happens, like a shortage.

Natural gas shortages have historically been short term phenomena related to extreme weather events, and the price mechanism fixed the problem in a big hurry. Gas drillers are very good at what they do.

What has made natural gas so beneficial tot he US economy over the last decade is the fact that producers have reliably glutted the market, giving the US (and Canada) the lowest sustained natural gas prices on the planet. The economic benefit of that is hard to overestimate, since cheap natural gas enables so many beneficial industrial processes and keeps power and heating bills reasonable for consumers.

But if all that LNG export capacity is built, and if all the proposed AI data centres are built as planned, there will be significant strain on North American producers to meet that surge in demand. New LNG capacity and expected data center demand could, by 2030, add 20-30 bcf/d of new demand, in a 100 bcf/d market. Adding those volumes will be an enormous challenge and will require higher prices to incentivize producers to make it happen.

But higher prices will be exactly what Trump does not want. So, one can safely assume he will be pushing hard on US producers to expand output and will make it much easier to build infrastructure. That will help, but it is going to be a tough balancing act to ensure production increases sufficiently while at the same time keeping the cost of the vital fuel low. Natural gas markets would most certainly benefit from the relative stability of oil prices, however that is much harder to do in a “just in time” market which natural gas essentially is.

And then on top of it all, despite the importance of energy prices and availability, all will be background noise compared to the circus that will accompany his second run at presidency. The world is becoming more bifurcated and the US’ position in it is changing. There are enough active wars to make any human sick, and the US has to balance where to be involved and where not, which is as far from simple as can be. Additionally, the world is tectonically drifting into the wealthy west, the golden billion, and the ‘rest of the world’, the 7 billion that aspire to live like the west does.

On top of that, the people that hate Trump really, really hate Trump. One reason the west is in such turmoil is because of the polarizing nature of not just Trump, but of the reaction to Trump.

We will see though – at time of writing, Trump, in a post-shooting interview, said that he had ripped up his planned speech for the Republican National Convention. It was going to be a “humdinger” (his word, or course) attacking Biden’s record. However, his latest version will focus on unifying the nation. Let’s hope it works, rooting for you my American friends. No one will be better off if the US does not regain its footing.

Terry Etam is a columnist with the BOE Report, a leading energy industry newsletter based in Calgary.  He is the author of The End of Fossil Fuel Insanity.  You can watch his Policy on the Frontier session from May 5, 2022 here.

Continue Reading

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