Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Indigenous

Trudeau cabinet adviser says residential school grave skepticism is ‘hate’ speech

Published

11 months ago

6 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Special Interlocutor for Missing Children and Unmarked Graves Kimberly Murray believes there are mass graves despite unfounded claims of secret burials and deaths of Indigenous children.

An adviser to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s cabinet said that even though there is skepticism toward unfounded claims of “deaths and secret burials” of Indigenous children at residential schools, deliberate deceptions of the graves should be considered “hate” speech.

The comments were made by independent Special Interlocutor for Missing Children and Unmarked Graves Kimberly Murray at a recent Senate Indigenous Peoples committee meeting. She said it is “one thing to say you don’t believe there are burials,” and it is “your opinion and you can have freedom of speech to say that.”

However, Murray then said that when a person says “there are no burials, that First Nations people or the Indians are lying because they want you to go burn down churches or they want to take away your cottages,” this is “inciting hate against Indigenous people.”

“That’s the type of speech we need to stop,” she added.

The reality is that Canada’s Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations confirmed it spent millions searching for “unmarked graves” at a now-closed residential school, but the search has turned up no human remains.

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

Murray, who said she thinks there are mass graves at residential schools, claimed that those fully denying graves exist are somehow inciting “hate speech” that she said is “not protected by the Charter and it is getting worse in the country.”

“We need to ensure survivors and communities are safe. We need to send a clear message to Canadians that it is not OK to incite this kind of hate,” she said.

“When the children died, government and church officials did not return the children home for burial …They were buried in cemeteries at the institutions, often in unmarked and mass graves which were sometimes dug by the other children.”

“The indigenous leadership has exploited an obviously false claim — pocketing a mountain of tax dollars, while our moribund mainstream media sits in silence,” the judge said.

Giesbrecht was vocal about criticizing the claims made by the legacy media and the Trudeau government that the Catholic Church is complicit in the deaths of thousands of Indigenous Canadians who attended government-mandated residential schools.

As a result of the claims, since the spring of 2021, 112 churches, most of them Catholic, many of them on indigenous lands that serve the local population, have been burned to the ground, vandalized, or defiled in Canada.

The church burnings started in 2021 after the mainstream media and the 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 now-closed residential schools.

Giesbrecht observed that the reality is that historical records “clearly show” that “the children who died of disease or accident while attending residential school were all given Christian burials, with their deaths properly recorded.”

Despite the attacks on Canadian churches, Leah Gazan, a backbencher MP from the New Democratic Party, brought forth a bill earlier this year that seeks to criminalize the denial of the unproven claim that the residential school system once operating in Canada was a “genocide.”

Canadian indigenous residential schools, run by the Catholic Church and other Christian groups, 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 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.”

Before Post

Related Topics:

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

More from this author
armed forces / 4 hours ago

Why we keep getting Remembrance Day wrong

armed forces / 4 hours ago

What A Second World War Aircraft Taught Me About Remembrance Day

Crime / 7 hours ago

CBSA Bust Uncovers Mexican Cartel Network in Montreal High-Rise, Moving Hundreds Across Canada-U.S. Border

Energy

Thawing the freeze on oil and gas development in Treaty 8 territory

Published on November 8, 2025

By

From Resource Works 

Will direct tenure awards to First Nations unlock Montney gas?

By Nelson Bennett

An innovative approach to facilitating natural gas production in B.C. while respecting treaty rights could become a case study for future cooperation and partnerships between First Nations, government and industry.

In an attempt to open an area that producers have essentially been shut out of in northeastern B.C., the B.C. government directly awarded oil and gas tenure to the Halfway River First Nation, giving them greater control over how oil and gas extraction in the area might happen.

That tenure is now getting “farmed out” to companies like ARC Resources.

“The granting of the tenure by the B.C. government to the nation is new,” said Greg Kist, executive manager for Tsaa Dunne Za Energy, the Halfway River First Nation’s energy business.

Greg Kist, former president of Pacific NorthWest LNG and current managing executive for Tsaa Dunne Ta Energy, THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jeff McIntosh.

Depending on the outcome of the experiment, it’s the kind of thing that might one day be showcased at a future Indigenous Partnership Success Showcase event.

For more than two decades, a large area in Halfway River First Nation traditional territory in northeastern B.C. has been off limits to industrial activities like logging and oil and gas exploration and extraction, due to treaty rights.

In 1999, the BC Supreme Court quashed a timber harvesting permit approved by the province for Canfor, based on Halfway River First Nation’s Treaty 8 rights.

An extraction moratorium of sorts was placed over core HRFN territory, which happens to be in the “fairway” of the Montney natural gas formation.

“All of the lands were deferred from any further development,” Kist said. “And that meant everything from logging it, to oil and gas activities.”

This “deferral” of industrial activities in the area has been one of the question marks hanging over the oil and gas-rich Montney formation in northeastern B.C.

The 2021 BC Supreme Court Yahey decision had also left Treaty 8 territory dotted with question marks.

In Yahey, the court ruled cumulative impacts of activities like oil and gas development constituted a breach of the treaty rights of the Blueberry River First Nation, one of eight B.C. signatories to Treaty 8.

These various treaty rights rulings in northeastern B.C. create a serious challenge: How can B.C. continue to benefit from an abundance of natural gas to feed a burgeoning LNG industry without infringing the rights of Treaty 8 First Nations?

In the case of Halfway River, the B.C. government, the First Nation and industry are taking an innovative approach, using oil and gas tenure.

Last year, the B.C. government and HRFN signed a treaty settlement agreement that grants the nation more control over land use and development. As part of the agreement, the B.C. government directly awarded HRFN oil and gas tenure over 34,000 hectares of land. It was the first time the province has directly awarded oil and gas tenure to a First Nation.

In turn, the HRFN is now farming out its tenure rights to companies like ARC Resources, whose existing land holdings in the Attachie play are directly adjacent to the HRFN tenure.

“The resource quality is comparable to ARC’s existing Attachie asset, further extending the development runway at one of ARC’s most profitable assets,” ARC said in its second quarter financials at the end of July.

The tenure awarded to HRFN through its energy business, Tsaa Dunne Ta Energy, encompasses prime Montney real estate that had been essentially sterilized from development for decades.

“That 34,000 hectares is right in the middle of the Montney fairway,” Kist said.

Under an “earning and development” agreement with Tsaa Dunne Za Energy, ARC Resources will gain access to 36 parcels of land contiguous with its existing land parcel in the Attachie play. This expands its Attachie holdings by 10%.

Green area denotes Halfway River First Nation tenure; blue represents ARC Resources tenure.

“Think of it as Tsaa Dunne farming that land out to ARC, and we have an agreement that benefits us financially,” Kist said.

“The tenure award and landscape planning pilot will help to ensure that oil and gas development in these areas is sustainable and managed in accordance with the values of the Halfway River First Nation,” Chief Darlene Hunter said last year with the signing of the treaty settlement agreement.

Kist notes that the agreement with ARC represents only 25% of the land tenure granted to HRFN. So 75% of the land tenure could be open to further agreements with other natural gas producers.

“There will likely be more deals over time as we look at the different opportunities that are out there,” Kist said.

Kist is the former president of Rockies LNG and, before that, president of Pacific Northwest LNG. He and Jim Stannard, a former Petronas executive, are now managers for Tsaa Dunne Za Energy.

The tenure award does not represent a transfer of subsurface rights. All subsurface rights to things like minerals, coal, and oil and gas belong to the Crown.

“And at the end of the day, the B.C. government still gets its royalties,” Kist said. “But now the nation is very much in control of that activity.”

The recent agreement with ARC to develop 36 parcels adjacent to its Attachie lands is just the first one to be signed so far. There may be more such agreements in the future, Kist said.

Kist said the First Nation tenure model could end up being used elsewhere.

“I think the B.C. government’s going to look at these sorts of opportunities in areas where maybe there is a lack of development moving things forward,” he said.

“I think this could potentially be the model for development, with First Nations leading the way.”

Continue Reading

Aristotle Foundation

B.C. government laid groundwork for turning private property into Aboriginal land

Published on November 2, 2025

By

By Caroline Elliott

It claims to oppose the Cowichan decision that threatens private property, but it’s been working against property owners for years

A City of Richmond letter to property owners in the Cowichan Aboriginal title area recognized by the B.C. Supreme Court has brought the judgment’s potential impacts into stark reality.

“For those whose property is in the area outlined in black,” the letter explained, “the Court has declared Aboriginal title to your property which may compromise the status and validity of your ownership.”

While Premier David Eby has been quick to disavow the decision, the reality is his government helped set the stage for it in multiple ways. Worse, it quietly supported a similar outcome in a related case, even after the concerning implications of the Cowichan judgment were well-known.

The problematic nature of the Cowichan decision has been well-established. It marks the first time a court has declared Aboriginal title over private property in B.C., and declares certain fee simple land titles (i.e., private property) in the area “defective and invalid.”

Understandably, the letter raised alarm bells not only for directly-affected property owners, but also for British Columbians generally, who recognize that the court’s findings in Richmond may well be replicated in other areas of the province in the future.

As constitutional law professor Dwight Newman pointed out in August, if past fee simple grants in areas of Aboriginal title claims are inherently invalid, “then the judgment has a much broader implication that any privately owned lands in B.C. may be subject to being overridden by Aboriginal title.”

In response to media questions about the City of Richmond’s letter, Eby re-stated his previous commitment to appeal the decision, saying, “I want the court to look in the eyes … of the people who will be directly affected by this decision, and understand the impact on certainty for business, for prosperity and for our negotiations with Indigenous people.”

While the words were the right ones, his government helped lay the groundwork for this decision in at least three ways.

First, the province set the policy precedent for the recognition of Aboriginal title over private property with its controversial Haida agreement in 2024. The legislation implementing the agreement was specifically referenced by the plaintiffs in the Cowichan case, and the judge agreed that it illustrated how Aboriginal title and fee simple can “coexist.”

Eby called the Haida agreement a “template” for other areas of B.C., despite the fact that it raised a number of democratic red flags, as well as legal concerns about private property rights and the constraints it places on the ability of future governments to act in the public interest.

While the agreement contains assurances that private property will be honoured by the Haida Nation, private property interests and the implementation of Aboriginal title are ultimately at odds. As Aboriginal law experts Thomas Isaac and Mackenzie Hayden explained in 2024, “The rights in land which flow from both a fee simple interest and Aboriginal title interest … include exclusive rights to use, occupy and manage lands. The two interests are fundamentally irreconcilable over the same piece of land.”

Second, the provincial and federal lawyers involved in the Cowichan proceedings were constrained by the government in terms of the arguments they were allowed to make to protect private property. In August, legal expert Robin Junger wrote, “One of the most important issues in this case was whether Aboriginal title was ‘extinguished’ when the private ownership was created over the lands by the government in the 1800s.”

The Cowichan judgment expressly notes that B.C. and Canada did not argue extinguishment. In B.C.’s case, this was due to civil litigation directives issued by Eby when he was attorney general.

Finally, provincial legislation implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) also played a role in supporting the judge’s conclusions, a point Newman wrote about in August. “They’re used in support of (even if not as the main argument for) the idea that Aboriginal title could yet take priority over current private property rights,”

In addition to setting the stage for the Cowichan decision, and despite their stated concerns with that judgment, the B.C. government has actively sought judicial recognition of Aboriginal title over private property elsewhere.

The overlaying of Aboriginal title over private property with the Haida agreement was already problematic enough prior to the Cowichan decision. However, even after the serious implications of the Cowichan decision were clear, the provincial and federal governments quietly went before the B.C. Supreme Court in support of a consent order that would judicially recognize the Aboriginal title over the entirety of Haida Gwaii.

The successful application had the effect of constitutionally entrenching Aboriginal title for the Haida Nation, including over private property, with the explicitly stated goal of making it near-impossible for future democratically elected governments to amend the agreement.

The reality is, the B.C. government claims to oppose the Cowichan decision even as it laid the groundwork for it, and it has actively pursued similar outcomes on Haida Gwaii. Repeated claims of seeking certainty and protecting private property have been belied by this government’s actions again and again.

Caroline Elliott, PhD, is a senior fellow with the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy and sits on the board of B.C.’s Public Land Use Society.

Continue Reading

Trending

X