National
Graves and school murders? What were we thinking?
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
The year 2021 was the year of the Kamloops graves.
It was the top news story of the year. It was reported by CBC and all mainstream media that ground penetrating radar had detected remains of 215 indigenous children who were found buried in the old apple orchard on the grounds of the former Kamloops Indian Residential School.
The burials had taken place in secrecy in the middle of the night. Priests and nuns, who were apparently responsible for the deaths, wanted to hide the results of their crimes and forced students, “as young as six” to dig the graves of their dead classmates.
Indigenous leaders claimed there were tens of thousands more murdered and secretly buried indigenous children across the length and breadth of Canada — children who “went to residential school and never returned.”
The Trudeau government ordered flags flown at half mast, where they remained for six months. It made $320,000,000 available to indigenous communities that wanted to search for more missing children. Many accepted the offer.
2023 was the year this whole story fell apart.
There were no secretly buried children.
There were no “thousands of missing children.”
The junior ground penetrating radar operator, Sarah Beaulieu, who made her sensational claim in 2021, had most likely mistaken the remnants of 1924 septic field trenches for graves.
The indigenous children who died at residential schools mostly died of tuberculosis, as did those who never attended a residential school. Most were buried on their home reserves and their burial places had simply been forgotten.
Simply put, all of the hysteria of 2021 over secret burials and missing children was for nothing. Canada had fallen for the biggest fake news story in the history of the nation.
A new book of essays by Professor Tom Flanagan and CP Champion examines how this false story took hold and how it was debunked.
Tom Flanagan is Canada’s foremost expert on indigenous issues. Champion is the editor of the Dorchester Review, where many of these valuable essays can be found.
The essays tell the story of how Canadians fell for a story that made no sense from the outset. Why would priests kill and secretly bury children? There was no historical record of any such events ever happening.
If the children went to the residential school “and never returned” wouldn’t there be some record of such a thing happening — a parent complaining, a police report, a complaint to a chief etc.? But there was no such thing.
The odd thing is that neither CBC nor practically any other reporter asked any such questions. They not only repeated the false claims, they amplified and exaggerated them. So 215 “soil disturbances” (which is what the radar had detected) became “human remains,” “bodies,, “graves” and even “mass graves.”
Conrad Black wrote the foreword to the book. Black is one of the few Canadians who recognized from the outset the Kamloops claim was absurd. Black was also one of the few writers who has consistently denounced the disgraceful claim that Canada is guilty of any kind of genocide.
He properly criticized former Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin when she first put forward the baseless claim in 2015 and he has consistently defended Canada against such slander.
The writers (disclosure: I am one) systematically take apart the false Kamloops and copycat claims. Professor Jacques Rouillard, using research done by Nina Green proves the deaths of the KIRS students who died while enrolled at the school were properly documented, that the deaths were mainly from the diseases of the day and that the children were almost all buried on their home reserves.
These children had not been buried in secrecy, they were never “missing” and there was absolutely nothing sinister about their deaths.
Children from the community who attended day schools, or didn’t attend school at all, died in similar numbers from the same diseases. Death from disease was simply a sad fact of life and had nothing to do with whether or not a child attended a residential school.
The only “evidence” that could possibly support the secret burial thesis — apart from the usual conspiracy theories that are told in every community — was the report from Sarah Beaulieu of soil disturbances detected by ground penetrating radar that she opined could be possible graves.
However, on closer inspection these claims fall apart. The authors expose Beaulieu’s negligence in failing to research previous excavations before recklessly venturing an opinion on such an important matter.
Her other mistaken assumptions, such as false reports about a child’s tooth and bone, are also exposed. It is noteworthy the T’kemlups Band originally promised to release Beaulieu’s report to the public but reneged on that promise when it became apparent the report was unreliable, just as they have reneged on their stated intention to excavate.
The other essays examine the other claims made about evil priests, secret burials and missing children. The authors systematically dissect the claims, and expose them as the false claims that they are.
As for the claim there are “thousands of missing children” who are alleged to have entered residential schools “and never returned” to their parents, and now lie in “unmarked graves” Professor Flanagan puts it succinctly: These are not “missing children” — they are “forgotten children.” They now lie in unmarked graves for the simple reasons that their families didn’t keep up their gravesites and forgot about them.
The current grave-searching mania now occurring in indigenous communities is fueled by the $320,000,000 that then Indigenous Affairs Minister Marc Miller dangled before poor indigenous communities like golden carrots.
Other essays in the book examine other common misconceptions about residential schools, generally. One of the most persistent is the claim — consistently made by CBC for two decades — that “150,000 children were forced to attend” residential schools.
This claim is completely untrue.
Prior to 1920, status Indian parents were not required by law to send their children to any school — and most didn’t. After 1920, status Indian parents could choose between sending their children to day schools or residential schools. It is only where no day school was available that parents were required to send their children to residential schools.
But even then, there was seldom enforcement of that law. Only in the case of orphans or severe child neglect (usually due to alcohol abuse) was parental consent dispensed with (for obvious reasons).
CBC has been advised of their repeated reporting error, but continues to push this misinformation. Their justification for doing so is a word salad of obfuscation that is either meant to mislead or shows incompetence on their part.
In sum, the hysteria following the May 2021 announcement 215 “graves” had been discovered at Kamloops is not something that is easily explained. Why most Canadians seemed willing to accept such a preposterous claim in the first place will be a subject for historians and psychologists for decades.
Why the Trudeau government — without a shred of real evidence — ordered flags lowered for months; why the CBC and other mainstream media failed to ask even the most elementary questions about claims that they must have known were false; why indigenous leaders decided to put forward a false narrative that they must have known would eventually be exposed as a fraud — these are all questions examined in the revealing essays in this important book.
Although CBC — and even government publications — continue to put out fatuous claims about “graves,” “probable graves” and “human remains” the international community concluded some time ago that Canada succumbed to some kind of mass hysteria in May 2021, when the preposterous Kamloops claim was first made.
Was this national gullibility related to the strange lockdown years? Was it “Canada’s George Floyd moment? Was it “Canada’s woke nightmare?”
These are questions readers can ask themselves when reading these essays. Professor Flanagan and Chris Champion deserve a lot of credit for swimming against a tide of wokeness to put out this important book.
They are part of a research group — not afraid to be called “deniers” — who wrote the essays published in the book and initiated the Indian Residential School Research Group where additional information can be found.
For original documents and primary sources readers can go to indianresidentialschoolrecords.com.
In May of 2021, Canadians fell for “fake news”. There is an old saying: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me”.
This book should be read with that saying in mind.
Together with the question: “What were we thinking?”
Brian Giesbrecht, retired judge, is a Senior Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By J.D. Foster
Trump should insist on these measures and order that unless they are carried out the United States will not participate in NATO. If Canada is allowed entry to the Brussels headquarters, then United States representatives would stay out.
Steps Trump Could Take To Get NATO Free Riders Off America’s Back
In thinking about NATO, one has to ask: “How stupid do they think we are?”
The “they,” of course, are many of the other NATO members, and the answer is they think we are as stupid as we have been for the last quarter century. As President-elect Donald Trump observed in his NBC interview, NATO “takes advantage of the U.S.”
Canada is among the “they.” In November, The Economist reported that Canada spends about 1.3% of GDP on defense. The ridiculously low NATO minimum is 2%. Not to worry, though, Premier Justin Trudeau promises Canada will hit 2% — by 2032.
A quarter of NATO’s 32 members fall short of the 2% minimum. The con goes like this: We are short now, but we will get there eventually. Trust us, wink, wink.
The United States has put up with this nonsense from some members since the collapse of the Soviet Union. That is how stupid we have been.
Trump once threatened to pull the United States out of NATO, then he suggested the United States might not come to the defense of a NATO member like Canada. Naturally, free-riding NATO members grumbled.
In another context, former Army Lt. Gen. Russell Honore famously outlined the first step in how the United States should approach NATO: Don’t get stuck on stupid.
NATO is a coalition of mutual defense. Members who contribute little to the mutual defense are useless. Any country not spending its 2% of GDP on defense by mid-year 2025 should see its membership suspended immediately.
What does suspended mean? Consequences. Its military should not be permitted to participate in any NATO planning or exercises. And its offices at NATO headquarters and all other NATO facilities should be shuttered and its citizens banned until such time as their membership returns to good standing. And, of course, the famous Article V assuring mutual defense would be suspended.
Further, Trump should insist on these measures and order that unless they are carried out the United States will not participate in NATO. If Canada is allowed entry to the Brussels headquarters, then United States representatives would stay out.
Nor should he stop there. The 2% threshold would be fine in a world at peace with no enemies lurking. That does not describe the world today. Trump should declare the threshold for avoiding membership suspension will be 2.5% in 2026 and 3% by 2028 – not 2030 as some suggest.
The purpose is not to destroy NATO, but to force NATO to be relevant. America needs strong defense partners who pull their weight, not defense welfare queens. If NATO’s members cannot abide by these terms, then it is time to move on and let NATO go the way of the League of Nations.
Trump may need to take the lead in creating a new coalition of those willing to defend Western values. As he did in rewriting the former U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, it may be time to replace a defective arrangement with a much better one.
This still leaves the problem of free riders. Take Belgium, for example, another security free rider. Suppose a new defense coalition arises including the United States and Poland and others bordering Russia. Hiding behind the coalition’s protection, Belgium could just quit all defense spending to focus on making chocolates.
This won’t do. The members of the new defense coalition must also agree to impose a tariff regime on the security free riders to help pay for the defense provided.
The best solution is for NATO to rise to our mutual security challenges. If NATO can’t do this, then other arrangements will be needed. But it is time to move on from stupid.
J.D. Foster is the former chief economist at the Office of Management and Budget and former chief economist and senior vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He now resides in relative freedom in the hills of Idaho.
From LifeSiteNews
A Pre-Budget Consultations in Advance of the 2025 Budget report recommends no longer providing charitable status to anti-abortion organizations and amending the Income Tax Act to remove the privileged status of ‘advancement of religion’ as a charitable purpose.
In 2022, I wrote an essay titled “What is coming next for Canadian churches?” In that essay, as well as in my recent book How We Got Here, I noted that as Canada shifted from being a post-Christian society to an increasingly anti-Christian one, Christian churches and organizations will inevitably lose tax-exempt or charitable status:
Churches and other religious institutions that refuse to bend the knee will likely lose their tax-exempt status at some point. Canadian LGBT activists have been making this case for years, and it is only a matter of time before the idea catches on or — more likely — a progressive politician decides that the time is right. I suspect that a key reason this has not yet been discussed is the awkward fact that many non-Christian institutions hold similar positions on marriage, sexuality, and abortion. That said, I have no doubt that a way to target churches specifically will be worked out. LGBT activists are already asking why the government is “rewarding bigotry” by awarding tax-exempt status to churches with a traditional view of sexuality, and LGBT activists have publicized sermons they disagree with as evidence of hatred. The churches and the state are on a collision course, and it isn’t hard to guess how this will end.
We may be seeing the first move in that direction. With the Christmas season upon us and Ottawa in chaos, few Canadians noticed the government’s publication of “Pre-Budget Consultations In Advance of the 2025 Budget,” the report of the Standing Committee on Finance. The report of annual pre-budget consultations included 462 recommendations that have been tabled and, according to the Standing Committee, will be taken into account by “the Minister of Finance in the development of the 2025 federal budget” (which, if Trudeau is still in power, will be Dominic LeBlanc).
Two recommendations included in that report are deeply concerning, and the Christian Legal Fellowship has written to both the Minister of Finance and the Finance Committee Chair Peter Fonseca to express that concern:
Recommendation 429: No longer provide charitable status to anti-abortion organizations.
Recommendation 430: Amend the Income Tax Act to provide a definition of a charity which would remove the privileged status of ‘advancement of religion’ as a charitable purpose.
Those two recommendations, of course, were buried at the very end of the report. The first is unsurprising — Trudeau’s government is currently targeting crisis pregnancy centers that assist moms and babies in need, so it was inevitable that the government was eventually going to target local Right to Life organizations and other pro-life groups that still have charitable status. More brazen is the recommendation that the Income Tax Act be amended to eliminate “advancement of religion” as a charitable purpose — this could, according to the Christian Legal Fellowship, “have a devastating impact, not only on the 32,000+ religious charities in this country, but the millions of Canadians they serve.” CLF urged the government “to reject any such approach and clarify exactly what is being contemplated.” As CLF noted in their letter:
Religious charities account for nearly 40% of all charities in Canada, including churches, mosques, temples, synagogues, and other faith communities, operating programs such as soup kitchens, shelters, refugee homes, and food banks. They provide indispensable social, economic, and spiritual support, filling a significant gap in our communities and meeting the needs of millions of Canadians.
Suggesting that such organizations must do something other than “advance religion” to be considered charitable ignores the reality that these services are themselves the very manifestation of religious beliefs, inherent to and inextricable from the charity’s religion itself. It also betrays a long-standing recognition of the intrinsic goods provided by religious communities, who offer people hope, encouragement, and belonging in ways that simply cannot be quantified or replaced. Ultimately, any efforts to substitute their much-needed services would place an extraordinary strain on all levels of government.
I have no doubt that the Trudeau government is willing to purse these recommendations regardless; these plans, however, may be thwarted by the next election. Trudeau no doubt remembers the Canada Summer Jobs Program fight, when his government insisted that recipients sign an attestation of support for abortion and LGBT ideology and suddenly found themselves facing angry imams, rabbis, and other religious leaders instead of just the priests and pastors they’d assumed would be impacted. It seems unlikely that going after religious charities is a fight Trudeau wants now.
Trudeau will, however, be campaigning on abortion — it’s the wedge issue he returns to again and again as the PMO increasingly resembles Custer’s Last Stand. Thus, Recommendation 429 may be taken up sooner rather than later. Either way, these two recommendations are essentially a statement of purpose. The Liberals may not get to them just now, but be assured that this is what progressives intend to do just as soon as they get the chance.
The CBC gets $1.4 billion per year, but the Trudeau government wants to give it more
Conservatives say Singh won’t help topple Trudeau government until after he qualifies for pension in late February
Nearly half of non-terminally ill Canadians who choose euthanasia say they are lonely
‘Brought This On Ourselves’: Dem Predicts Massive Backlash After Party Leaders Exposed For ‘Lying’ About Biden Health
-
National1 day ago
Conservatives say Singh won’t help topple Trudeau government until after he qualifies for pension in late February
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
‘Brought This On Ourselves’: Dem Predicts Massive Backlash After Party Leaders Exposed For ‘Lying’ About Biden Health
-
National2 days agoWhen is the election!? Singh finally commits and Poilievre asks Governor General to step in
-
Daily Caller14 hours agoLNG Farce Sums Up Four Years Of Ridiculous Biden Energy Policy
-
National1 day agoCanadian town appeals ruling that forces them to pay LGBT group over ‘pride’ flag dispute
-
Alberta2 days agoFree Alberta Strategy trying to force Trudeau to release the pension calculation
-
National15 hours ago
Canadian gov’t budget report targets charitable status of pro-life groups, churches
-
COVID-192 days agoFormer Trudeau minister faces censure for ‘deliberately lying’ about Emergencies Act invocation