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

Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Christmas: As Canadian as Hockey and Maple Syrup

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Gerry Bowler

Well, they’re at it again. A year after a Canadian Human Rights Commission position paper labeled Christmas “discriminatory” and an example of “colonialist religious intolerance”, an Alberta public school has cancelled a winter concert because marking Christmas isn’t inclusive enough. The principal of Whitecourt’s Pat Hardy Elementary stated, “Not all students celebrate Christmas, and their families may or may not choose to have them participate in the Christmas concert. Other families celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday but do not want children engaging in the non-religious parts such as Santa, Christmas trees, etc.” It was suggested that a spring concert might be more inclusive, presumably on the theory that no one gets too worked up about the vernal equinox.

The principal’s actions are scarcely news; for years schools and public officials have been reluctant to stage any activity around the celebration of the Nativity. “Christmas concerts” have been relabelled or cancelled; “Christmas trees” have been termed the “Holiday Tree.” Or a “Care Tree.” A “Multicultural Tree.” A “Tree of Lights.” A “Community Tree.” A “Winter Solstice Tree.” A “Grand Tree.” A “Special Tree.” A “Family Tree.” The “Annual Tree.” A “Festive Bush.” A “Unity Tree.” A “Culture Tree.” Activists in Saskatoon objected to city buses displaying a “Merry Christmas” wish; a Toronto judge ordered a Christmas tree removed from the courthouse lest it makes non-Christians feel unwelcome; inspired by the American school that mandated that the lyrics to “Silent Night” be changed to “Silent Night, mmm, mmm, mmm, / All is calm, all is bright, mmm, mmm, mmm”, a principal at an Ottawa school excised the C-word from the ditty “Silver Bells”. Thus: “Ring-a-ling, hear them sing; Soon it will be a festive day.”

There are several ways of dealing with this perennial issue. One is to remove religion from the public square altogether – that would certainly suit the secular fundamentalists – another is to play the majoritarian card and insist that since Christians outnumber other faith communities their will should hold sway. Some might want to dilute any mention of Christianity from the season while others might wish to include every other religion’s holy days on the school calendar.

I have a solution to this seasonal dilemma. It is to adopt the attitude taken by leaders of racial and religious minorities in Canada when asked if they are offended by mentions of Christmas. Their invariable answer is, of course not, Christmas is an integral part of Canadian culture.

Christmas is indeed Canadian, as native to our land as Hockey Night in Canada, Stompin’ Tom Connors, or pineapple on pizza. It has been Canadian longer than poutine, mediocre socialized healthcare, or the last time Toronto won the Stanley Cup. The Vikings who found a home in Newfoundland a thousand years ago likely celebrated Christmas, and there’s no doubt that the holiday has been observed for half a millennium by later European settlers.

Though a current American politician may regard Canada as the 51st state and a current Canadian politician may opine that we are a post-national entity with no core identity, Canada, over the centuries, has developed a unique Christmas culture. We have beautiful carols of our own – “D’où Viens-Tu Bergère?”, the “Huron Carol” (“Jesus Ahatonia”), the first ever written in a North American indigenous language, and J.P. Clarke’s 1853 “A Canadian Christmas Carol”– not to mention secular seasonal music such as “Voici Le Père Noël Qui Nous Arrive” by the legendary Mary Bolduc, the melancholy “River” by Joni Mitchell, Bob and Doug Mackenzie’s take on “The Twelve Days of Christmas” and the immortal “Honky the Christmas Goose,” as sung by Johnny Bower (the last Leaf goalie to win a Stanley Cup).

We have unique Christmas foods – the taffy pull on St Catherine’s day, the tourtière of the revéillon, rapee pie, cipâte, butter tarts, Nanaimo bars, ragoût de pattes, “chicken bones,” and “barley toys.”

Though Santa Claus has his own Canadian postal code (H0H 0H0), we do not count him as a citizen, but we do have our own native Gift-Bringer in the form of Mother Goody (also known as Aunt Nancy or Mother New Year).

Canada can boast the first Christmas tree in North America, the custom introduced by Baroness Frederika von Riedesel whose husband Baron Friedrich Adolphus von Riedesel had brought 4,000 German Brunswicker soldiers in 1776 to protect Canada from American invasion. The first department store Santa was employed in Fredericton, New Brunswick, in 1869. Our post office issued the world’s first Christmas stamp in 1898. Eaton’s department store in Toronto staged the first Santa Claus parade in 1905.

Only in Canada can we see mummers of all sorts at Christmas – Janneys, Ownshooks, Fools, Belsnicklers, and Naluyuks; only in Canada do door to-door canvassers under the guise of “la guignolée” solicit donations to charity while singing a song threatening to torture the oldest daughter of the house.

So the next time objections are raised to the appearance of Christmas in the public square, simply state that it’s a long-standing Canadian custom, sanctified by time and universal practice, as deeply embedded in our culture as the red maple leaf. It’s what we do. Canadians do Christmas.

 

Gerry Bowler, historian, is a Senior Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Continue Reading

Frontier Centre for Public Policy

False Claims, Real Consequences: The ICC Referrals That Damaged Canada’s Reputation

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Nina Green

The University of Manitoba has not provided the name of a single Indian residential school student who went missing and whose parents did not know at the time what had happened to their child. Not one.

Why has Canada twice been referred to the International Criminal Court on the basis of false claims about Indian residential schools?

The answer is simple.

The ultimate cause is the University of Manitoba’s National Student Memorial which falsely claims that it is a list of students who died on the premises of Indian residential schools and students who went missing from Indian residential schools. The University of Manitoba site tells users to:

Click on a region below to see a list of residential schools. Each residential school page contains a list of students who died or went missing at that school.

Those claims by the University of Manitoba are not true.

Firstly, the majority of the 4139 students currently on the University of Manitoba’s Student Memorial Register did not die on the premises of an Indian residential school. Most died elsewhere, as established by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report entitled Missing Children and Unmarked Burials, which is in Table 4. Location of residential school deaths, 1867–2000 on page 21 states that only 423 named students died on the premises of an Indian residential school over the course of 133 years, an average of 3 students a year.

Thus, the majority of students did not die on the premises of Indian residential schools. They died elsewhere – in public hospitals or of illness or accidents on their home reserves, accidents which included house fires, drownings, gunshot wounds, vehicle accidents, falling trees, being hit by trains, and other accidental deaths, as established in hundreds of provincial death certificates.

Secondly, none of the students on the University of Manitoba’s lists went missing from an Indian residential school. To date, the University of Manitoba has not provided the name of a single Indian residential school student who went missing and whose parents did not know at the time what had happened to their child. Not one. And far from being ‘missing’, in fact hundreds of provincial death certificates establish that the students were buried on their home reserves by their families and communities.

Based on the University of Manitoba’s misleading lists, the media and the federal government uncritically accepted the false claim by the Kamloops Band on 27 May 2021 that the Band had discovered ‘the remains of 215 children’. After three years, the Band downgraded that false claim on 18 May 2024 to the claim that it had merely discovered ‘215 anomalies’, which could be anything, and are almost certainly the remains of the 2000 linear feet of trenches of a septic field installed in 1924 to dispose of the school’s sewage.

The first referral to the International Criminal Court by a group of 22 lawyers

Only a few days after the Kamloops Band made its false claim, on 3 June 2021 a group of 22 lawyers sent a 14-page complaint to the ICC requesting the Prosecutor to initiate an investigation of a ‘mass grave’ of Indian residential school students which had been discovered at Kamloops. The claim by the 22 lawyers that a ‘mass grave’ had been discovered at Kamloops was, of course, false.

The International Criminal Court quickly declined jurisdiction in November 2021, and on 13 September 2022 Dr Chile Eboe-Osuji, former President and Judge of the International Criminal Court, informed Special Interlocutor Kimberly Murray and those present at her National Gathering in Edmonton of the reasons for doing so. As reported by Chief Derek Nepinak, Dr Eboe-Osuji stated unequivocally that:

There is no pathway to the International Criminal Court for the situation of the historical Indian residential school system in Canada.

Dr Eboe-Osuji’s presentation has never been made available on the Special Interlocutor’s website, and requests to both Kimberly Murray and Dr Eboe-Osuji for a copy of his presentation have gone unanswered.

The second referral to the International Criminal Court by Special Interlocutor Kimberly Murray

Undeterred by the ICC’s refusal to accept jurisdiction and the reasons offered by Dr Eboe-Osuji in his presentation to her 13 September 2022 National Gathering, Kimberly Murray pursued the issue based on the University of Manitoba’s lists falsely claiming that all the students on its lists died on the premises of specific Indian residential schools or went missing from those schools.

On 29 October 2024, Kimberly Murray delivered her final report to Minister of Justice Arif Virani. However, as she told the Senate Standing Committee on Indigenous Peoples on 27 November 2024, Kimberly Murray also sent her report to the International Criminal Court, requesting Canada’s prosecution by the Court.

How the ICC will react to Kimberly Murray’s referral of Canada for prosecution is as yet unknown.

Damage to Canada’s international reputation

Canada’s reputation has been irreparably damaged by these two referrals to the International Criminal Court based on the University of Manitoba’s National Student Memorial which falsely claims that it is a list of students who died on the premises of specific residential schools or went missing from those specific schools.

It cannot be reiterated often enough:

(1) that most students whose names are on the University of Manitoba’s National Student Memorial did not die on the premises of a residential school;

(2) that most students on the University of Manitoba’s National Student Memorial died in public hospitals or of illness and accidents on their home reserves;

(3) that the University of Manitoba has never provided the name of a single student who ever went missing from an Indian residential school whose parents didn’t know what happened to their child; and

(4) that the majority of students whose names are on the University of Manitoba’s National Student Memorial were buried by their families and communities on their home reserves. Over time, their families and communities have forgotten them, and through neglect of the grave markers, no longer know where in their reserve cemeteries they are buried.

The University of Manitoba’s National Student Memorial has misled Canadians and has resulted in two referrals of Canada for prosecution by the International Criminal Court based on false claims about ‘mass graves’ and ‘missing’ and ‘disappeared’ Indian residential school students.

The federal government and the Catholic Church must demand that the University of Manitoba take down its false and misleading National Student Memorial.

Nina Green is an independent researcher who lives in British Columbia.

Continue Reading

Trending

X