Connect with us

Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Money Under False Pretences?

Published

9 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Brian Giesbrecht

When is a hoax, not a hoax? They knew the study revealed ‘anomalies,’ not bodies.

A recent article appeared in the Western Standard admonishing conservatives for using the term “hoax” when referring to the Kamloops claim — namely the MAY 27, 2021 claim — that the remains of 215 former students had been discovered on the grounds of the local residential school.

The author of the article noted that many former residential school students might be offended by the use of the term. I agree with him that innocent people should not be unnecessarily hurt by writers trying to make a point. Everyone agrees that many people were hurt by their residential school experiences. That is no hoax.

However, what the author might not be aware of is the fact that what was claimed at Kamloops was patently false. It was a clear example of misinformation. That May 27, 2021 announcement claimed that the “remains of 215 former students” had been found.

This was false. No such “remains”, “bodies”, “graves”, or “mass graves” had been found.

And none have been found since that claim was first made. Only soil “anomalies”, were detected. “Anomalies” are basically radar signals that could be from rocks, tree roots, or other old excavations that have nothing to do with graves.

Thus, the people who made the claim that the “remains of 215 children had been found” were making a claim they knew was false. Although they have refused to release the ground penetrating radar report made by Sarah Beaulieu, we know with absolute certainty that Beaulieu reported finding only anomalies and not “remains”because Beaulieu said so.

She also said that only excavation would show what those anomalies were. And the people making the claim have refused to do any excavation.

“Anomalies” and “human remains” are two entirely different things. There is no excuse for Kamloops Chief Roseanne Casimir and her colleagues announcing that human remains had been found, when only anomalies, that could be from many different sources, had been detected.

On the basis of this false claim the claimants obtained $8 million from the federal government. That money may or may not have been spent — we don’t know because they won’t tell us.

That false Kamloops claim, and the $320,000,000 the Trudeau government was foolish enough to promise, then inspired copycat claims from other poor indigenous communities. Instead of focusing on their many very real problems, those communities are now engaged in a pointless exercise searching through old cemeteries for evidence of imagined secret burials. That original Kamloops claim has done a lot of harm.

So, the use of the term “hoax” might be offensive to some, but what should we call an application for $8 million from the federal government based on information that the applicants knew to be false? Perhaps there is a more polite term to describe deliberately obtaining money by false pretences.

Maybe “a patently false claim?”

Either term is probably accurate. Just to be clear — the people making this claim knew they had not discovered “remains.”

Despite that, they repeated their misinformation far and wide. And it took three years for those same leaders to formally admit that only “anomalies” — and no remains — were found.

While it is entirely possible that many, or even most, of the people in that Kamloops community believed, and still mistakenly believe, that the remains of 215 children had been found, the point is that the leaders who made that claim knew with absolute certainty when making the claim that only “anomalies” and no remains, bodies, or graves, were found. They used that false information to fool government officials into giving them $8 million in tax dollars.

Whether that is a “hoax” or a “patently false claim” I don’t know. But it is certainly one or the other.

Readers wanting to take a deep dive into the false Kamloops claim and its ramifications might want to read “Grave Error — How the Media Misled us” edited by Tom Flanagan and Chris Champion. Disclosure: I am a contributor to the book.)

So, if the point of the author is to stress the need to avoid unnecessarily offending innocent people who had a rough time at residential school, I completely agree with him.

However, if the suggestion is that the people who are responsible for making a false claim — a claim has cost this country billions of dollars, a humiliating downgrading of our international reputation, and internal division for decades to come, I do not.

The people responsible for creating this national and international mess should be held to account. We shouldn’t care a whit if they are offended by any particular term we use to describe their dishonest behaviour.

Those people responsible for keeping the “hoax”, or “patently false claim” alive are both indigenous and non-indigenous. They include not only the senior indigenous leadership, but senior non-indigenous leaders, like Justin Trudeau and Marc Miller. They include incompetent journalists . They also include a spineless RCMP leadership that has failed completely in its responsibility to investigate and report to the Canadian public.

As for those people the author refers to who are suffering from their residential school experiences, surely it can’t be helpful for their leaders to promote baseless stories about murderous priests secretly burying 215 indigenous children? Surely such wild stories — stories that have no credible evidence to support them — can only inflame their feelings of victimhood, fomenting church-burning rage among the less sophisticated. indigenous people? They deserve better than that from their leaders.

All Canadians deserve better from our elected leaders.

If the people responsible for obtaining $8 million from taxpayers on the basis of this false claim find themselves in a courtroom it will be up to the presiding judge to choose the appropriate terms to describe their behaviour. The court might use the term “hoax”, “a patently false claim” or perhaps a different term entirely. The important thing is that the opportunists who made these false claims be held accountable for their behaviour.

But those responsible for perpetuating the false Kamloops claim — whatever it is called — should not wait for a court date. They should immediately apologize to all Canadians, but particularly to their own community members whom they misled.

They should also apologize to the people they have falsely accused of horrible crimes — namely the many priests, nuns and teachers, indigenous and non-indigenous, who worked at residential schools, and did their best to provide educations to the indigenous children who needed them.

And a defence lawyer would also probably advise them to begin to work on a restitution plan that would repay the $8,000,000 of taxpayer dollars that they obtained under false pretences.

Brian Giesbrecht, retired judge, is a Senior Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

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

Business

Steel Subsidies Are The New Money Pit Burying Taxpayers

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Conrad Eder

The federal and Ontario governments’ $500 million loan to Algoma Steel exemplifies costly corporate welfare, with taxpayers bearing risks that private investors avoid, continuing a decades-long pattern of subsidies that distorts markets and burdens Canadians.

Governments call subsidies an economic strategy, but Canadians know they’re just another way to raid their pockets

Another day, another giveaway. This time, it’s Algoma Steel.

Despite the company’s market capitalization of roughly $500 million at the time, the governments of Canada and Ontario extended a loan equal to that amount—an extraordinary and objectively questionable move  that isn’t just bad policy, but a sign that elected officials don’t know how to support businesses.

Officials justify the loan by claiming it will help Algoma refocus on its domestic market, lessening its reliance on the United States. Yet the fastest and most efficient way to execute such a strategy would involve doing so with private capital. Private markets allocate capital efficiently because investors directly bear the consequences of their decisions. Companies that cannot secure private funding typically lack a viable business model or face fundamental structural problems that subsidies will not solve.

Even if Algoma has a credible plan for pivoting its operations, the fact that taxpayers are shouldering risks private investors refuse to bear raises serious concerns. Canadians have a right to question whether this is a sound investment or just another costly political decision dressed up as economic strategy.

This isn’t the first time the company has leaned on public funds. Over the past three decades, Algoma has received more than $1.3 billion in government bailouts and subsidies, including $110 million for restructuring in 1992, $50 million in 2001, $60 million in 2015, $150 million in 2019, $420 million in 2021, and now $500 million in tariff-relief loans. That kind of prolonged public support makes it difficult to argue Algoma operates on a level playing field.

Proponents may argue that since Algoma continues to operate and provide employment, it proves government intervention works. But they ignore the enormous opportunity cost of these subsidies—costs largely hidden from public view. Every dollar spent propping up one company is a dollar that can’t fund other priorities, whether health care, education, infrastructure, or tax relief.

How will Ottawa and Queen’s Park cover their latest $500 million pledge? There are limited options. They may choose to forgo funding other priorities, borrow the money they just lent to cover other commitments, or monetize the debt by printing money or financing it through the central bank. In any case, Canadians are left worse off, whether by higher taxes, reduced services, or inflationary pressures. That’s the real cost of corporate subsidies, borne not by the companies that benefit, but by the public that pays.

But what if Algoma Steel faces further economic pressures, or its plans to refocus on domestic manufacturing fall through? Are we to expect that, having committed $500 million, the government will walk away? History suggests otherwise. More likely, officials will try to protect their investment regardless of the cost. It’s a slippery slope, one that often leads to even larger bailouts down the road.

Instead of selective corporate welfare, Canada should pursue policies that benefit all businesses: reducing regulatory burdens, lowering corporate tax rates, and eliminating trade barriers. These broad-based reforms create conditions where efficient companies thrive while inefficient ones face appropriate market discipline. The goal should be to make Canada more competitive overall, not just more generous to the few firms with political clout.

Adding insult to injury, this government’s simultaneous interventionism and protectionism places twice the burden on Canadians. First, taxpayers subsidize Algoma’s operations. Second, they pay premium prices for steel products thanks to federally imposed import tariffs introduced in recent years to shield domestic producers from lower-priced foreign steel. We are, in effect, subsidizing Algoma Steel to produce so that we can turn around and buy from them at higher prices than steel could be purchased from international competitors, if not for the tariffs. It’s a double hit to Canadians’ wallets.

Government officials invoke national security arguments to justify these measures, but in reality, they are engaging in the same economic protectionism they decry. During Trump’s first presidency, Canadian politicians rightly condemned similar American steel tariffs as protectionism disguised as security concerns. Now, Canadian officials are making identical arguments to defend their own policies.

While politicians warn about future threats to the country’s steel supply, it isn’t foreign governments restricting access. Ottawa has imposed its own import tariffs, limiting steel imports from abroad. The real barrier to securing steel supply isn’t an export ban. It’s Canada’s own trade policy.

Our own production capacity further weakens the government’s case. With companies like ArcelorMittal Dofasco and Stelco, Canada produces roughly 12.2 million metric tonnes of steel annually. That’s nearly enough to meet domestic demand. For everyday Canadians, this means alarms about steel shortages rings hollow.

This is not an endorsement of these other firms, as they have also received public funds, nearly $1 billion in recent years. In fact, Algoma might be disappointed not to have received more themselves. But it needn’t worry. With this government, another payout is likely just around the corner.

And once again, Canadians will foot the bill.

Conrad Eder is a policy analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Continue Reading

Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Ottawa Should Think Twice Before Taxing Churches

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Pierre Gilbert

Ottawa has churches in its crosshairs. A federal fiscal squeeze could strip religious organizations of tax breaks, crippling Canada’s community backbone

Proposals to revoke charitable status for faith-based groups would devastate the community services thousands rely on

Canada’s churches, synagogues, temples, mosques and charities like the Salvation Army are at the heart of our communities, offering hope, support and services to thousands. But a storm is brewing in Ottawa that could strip these vital institutions of their charitable status, threatening their very survival—and much of our country’s social fabric.

The 2025 House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, which makes recommendations to shape the federal budget, dropped a bombshell in its prebudget report, an influential document often used to set priorities for the year ahead. It included two recommendations that could hit religious organizations hard.

The first is that the government revoke the charitable status of pro-life groups. These agencies are being singled out because of the support they provide to pregnant women who do not wish to abort their children.

The second is that the “advancement of religion,” one of the four long-standing categories under which Canadian charities qualify for registration, be eliminated. The recommendation was based on a single proposal by the B.C. Humanist Association, a provincial nonprofit organization in British Columbia that represents atheists, humanists, agnostics and non-religious people.

If included in the next federal budget, these ideas would strip religious organizations across Canada of tax exemptions, the ability to issue donation receipts and, if provinces follow suit, property tax breaks.

Why target these groups?

Ottawa desperately needs the cash. The federal government is on a spending binge of gargantuan proportions with no end in sight. Canada’s balance sheet is drenched in red ink, with no credible plan to address the structural budget deficit, which the C.D. Howe Institute, a Toronto-based policy think tank, estimates will reach a record $92 billion this year. While the tax exemptions amount to only between $1.7 and $3.2 billion annually, the temptation to grab what it can from churches may prove irresistible.

But it’s not just about the dollars. Religious institutions have increasingly faced criticism from secular voices in Ottawa and academia. The Catholic Church, for example, is still facing harsh criticism over its role in Canada’s residential school system and over recent allegations of unmarked graves of Indigenous children at some schools.

As for Protestant and Evangelical churches, public perception casts these institutions as clashing with modern societal norms. Critics claim that churches opposing abortion or prevailing views on human sexuality should be compelled to align with government policies on these issues.

The message seems to be: shape up or ship out. This isn’t just a policy debate; it’s a cultural attack on institutions that have shaped Canada for generations.

Despite the criticism, there are compelling reasons to preserve the charitable status of religious organizations.

First, a recent study by Cardus, a Canadian faith-based think tank, shows that for every dollar of tax exemption, religious groups deliver $10 in community services.

Second, religious congregations offer substantial intangible benefits of immeasurable value. They foster vibrant communities where individuals find friendship, emotional support and spaces to explore questions of meaning and purpose. They also provide opportunities for people to experience a sense of transcendence and spiritual connection.

When the current focus on materialism comes to an end, as it must, many Canadians will turn to the church for guidance in addressing the most profound questions about human existence.

Ottawa needs to get its fiscal house in order, not raid ours. It’s time for Canadians to speak up. Write to your MP, attend community forums and demand that the charitable status for religious organizations be preserved. Doing so will ensure that churches and other places of worship continue to serve Canadians for generations.

Pierre Gilbert, PhD, is an emeritus associate professor at Canadian Mennonite University and a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He is the author of Revoking the Charitable Status for the Advancement of Religion: A Critical Assessment and God Never Meant for Us to Die (2020).

Continue Reading

Trending

X