Connect with us

National

Trudeau forced to admit ‘Christmas is not racist’ after gov’t report suggesting it is

Published

5 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

The report claimed that holidays such as Christmas and Easter are forms of discrimination and religious intolerance and observing the birth of Jesus Christ is ‘an obvious example’ of a type of religious bias that is rooted in colonialism

Canadian MPs roundly condemned a report from the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) arguing that Christmas was racist. 

On November 29, Bloc Québécois leader Yves-François Blanchet challenged the CHRC report which claimed that those who celebrate Christmas are exhibiting intolerance and perpetuating so-called “settler colonialism” and forced even Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to admit that the holiday is not racist.   

“Just because you laugh doesn’t mean it’s funny,” Blanchet told the House of Commons. “According to the Canadian Human Rights Commission the simple celebration of Christmas – the tree, the family, the music, the gifts – is systemic racism. I wonder if good old Santa Claus is racist. I wonder if snow has become racist.” 

Blanchet pressed Trudeau to explain the document, saying, “Is Christmas racist?” 

“Obviously Christmas is not racist,” Trudeau responded.   

“I am welcoming a few dozen Québecers from immigrant backgrounds to celebrate Christmas in my riding in a few days,” Blanchet continued. “Should I cancel because, according to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, celebrating Christmas is racist? That is the question I am asking.”  

“No,” Trudeau replied. “We have to celebrate everything, Christmas, Hanukkah, all the different festivals.”  

Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre also joined in the discussion, saying, “Allow me to be the first of the season to wish everybody a merry Christmas. We love our great Canadian traditions including Christmas.” 

As LifeSiteNews previously reported, on October 23, 2023, the CHRC published “Discussion Paper On Religious Intolerance.” It characterized the celebration of holidays such as Christmas and Easter as forms of discrimination and religious intolerance.   

The CHRC said that observing the birth of Jesus Christ is “an obvious example” of a type of religious bias that is rooted in colonialism.  

“Discrimination against religious minorities in Canada is grounded in Canada’s history of colonialism,” reads the Commission’s paper.    

Despite the mainstream push to switch to the term “Happy Holidays” in lieu of “Merry Christmas,” a Leger poll from December 2022 found that the overwhelming majority of non-Christian Canadians are content with being greeted by the words “Merry Christmas” during the season of Advent.   

When the non-Christians were asked if they were “Offended when people greet me with ‘Merry Christmas’,” 92 percent said no, with only eight percent reporting they felt offended.   

The CHRC is an independent federal institution created in 1977 that oversees holding up Canada’s human rights laws.  

The CHRC claims that the history of holidays “manifests itself in present day systemic religious discrimination. An obvious example is statutory holidays in Canada.”  

“Statutory holidays related to Christianity including Christmas and Easter are the only Canadian statutory holidays linked to religious holy days,” it said.  

“As a result non-Christians may need to request special accommodation to observe their holy days.”  

The European settlers who came to Canada, from France and then later from what is the modern-day United Kingdom, were Christian and included missionaries who came to try to spread the faith to the local indigenous populations.    

Canada has observed Christmas since 1641, well before its official founding, according to some historical records. Despite this, the CHRC said that the nation’s “history with religious intolerance is deeply rooted in our identity as a settler colonial state.”  

In 2021, a federal court directive mandated that all references to Christmas holidays be removed from all court calendars, however, this directive did not come from a complaint but instead was an internal decision.   

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

Economy

Trudeau Government Capping the Canadian Economy (and Energy Industry) Just to Impress International Agencies

Published on

From EnergyNow.ca

By Kasha Piquette

The incoming Trump Presidency has promised  to “unleash American energy” with plans to “free up the vast stores of liquid gold on America’s public land for energy development.”  This week, the Trudeau government unveiled the draft details of its plans for a cap on greenhouse gas emissions from the Canadian oil and gas sector. These proposed regulations would cap all greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 35 percent below levels in 2019 with the lofty goal of achieving a 40-45 percent reduction by 2030.

It is a plan that the province of Alberta and others contend would be a cap on production and cause elevated prices for consumer goods across Canada, cost up to 150,000 jobs and reduce national GDP by up to C$1 trillion ($720 billion).

These proposals would make Canada the only oil and natural gas-producing country to attempt an emissions cap on such a scale. The regulations propose to force upstream oil and gas operations to reduce emissions to 35 percent less than they were in 2019 by 2030 to 2032. Notably, while hydrocarbon production increased from 2019 to 2022, Canadian emissions from the sector declined by seven percent.

Perhaps significantly, and much to the apparent annoyance of Alberta’s Premier, the Federal announcement was made slightly ahead of the UN COP29 Climate Summit in Azerbaijan. Per the Paris Agreement, each country submits its climate ambitions to UN as National Determined Contributions (NDCs).  However, the federal government has also passed the Net Zero Accountability Act, which, by December 1st, 2024, could require even more aggressive reduction targets for 2035. Does this mean that the federal government may be positioning itself to announce even more ambitious emission targets – all to be announced at that conference?

It is unclear whether, how and in what form, the emissions cap will come into effect. With the next federal election slated for late October 2025 and polls that show the current Liberal-NDP coalition government to be far behind the opposition Conservatives, the federal carbon tax and the proposed emission cap have an uncertain future.

Other business interests have voiced concerns about Canada’s increasingly discordant, incoherent climate policies and regulations, which have caused the Canadian oil and gas sector to be at a competitive disadvantage in the global energy market.  Clearly, Alberta considers that the Federal government has, once again, overstepped its constitutional bounds with the proposed emissions cap and, along with its victorious Supreme Court challenge against the Impact Assessment Act, has vowed to launch more court challenges.  Alberta and other Provinces have contended that, with regional exemptions, the federal carbon tax is being applied unfairly as a patchwork of standards with Alberta, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Nova Scotia, and the opposition Conservative party, mounting a growing chorus against the Liberal government’s broader price on carbon. By contrast, the proposed regulations for an emissions cap have been aimed specifically at one industry sector – one that is largely concentrated in western Canada.

Meanwhile, Canadian oil production, aided by the new export capacity of the TransMountain Pipeline completed this year, has grown to a record 5.1 million barrels per day making Canada the prime (60%) source of US crude oil imports in 2023.  Meanwhile, the industry has been engaged in considerations for the potential development of carbon capture and storage (CCS) to trap greenhouse gasses underground. However, this untested technology would cost billions, needs to be proven on a larger scale and requires industry cooperation combined with all levels of government support.

The Federal announcement, and the hostile reaction from Alberta and possibly other oil-producing provinces, mean that once again, Canadian investment in the oil and gas sector will be confronted with ever more uncertainty as they encounter time-consuming court challenges.  These competing political agendas ensure that major Canadian investment decisions will, once again, be deferred while other international jurisdictions race to develop their hydrocarbon export capabilities, investments that are unencumbered by any emissions caps.

Canadians need to consider carefully how these policies and debates are affecting our energy security and standard of living as Canada. In addition to carbon pricing, Canada has already promulgated regulations for EV mandates in the transportation sector, policies that have required tens of billions in subsidies. It has also introduced the complex clean fuel standard and the proposed national clean electrical standards. These policies are affecting not just Canada’s productivity, GDP and exports. By attacking the Western provinces, Ottawa is unnecessarily creating regional tensions and a less politically stable federation. We need to think about how co-operative federalism can be re-established in ways that account for the basic needs of all Canadians – and not just accommodate arbitrary targets for emissions designed to impress international agencies.


Kasha Piquette is an Alberta-based strategic energy advisor and a former Deputy Minister of Alberta Environment and Protected Areas.

Continue Reading

David Clinton

Is Canada Abusing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Published on

The Audit

 David Clinton

Canadians have no absolute right to equal treatment under the law.

Monitoring the intersection between equality and equity

Let me explain that. Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was, from the perspective of the Charter’s creators, an exceedingly difficult needle to thread. The tension between its two subsections carries the potential for confusion and even abuse. Here’s the text itself:

(1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

(2) Section (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

15(1) guaranteed the equal treatment of all individuals. That’s something I can’t imagine any reasonable-minded person opposing. The problem was that, at the same time, the authors also wanted to leave room for unfair treatment for select groups through affirmative action programs. That’s the purpose of 15(2).

The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

If 15(2) didn’t exist, challenges to, say, hiring practices targeting historically disadvantaged racial groups could be launched based on the rights found in 15(1). Imagine people who didn’t technically qualify as disadvantaged but who might be better suited for and in greater immediate need of an advertised job. If the “affirmative action” candidate was nevertheless hired, couldn’t the others argue that they’d just suffered Charter-level discrimination? 15(2) is designed to ensure such challenges don’t happen.

Such state-imposed inequality may or may not be justifiable. That’s a debate that doesn’t interest me right now. Instead, my primary focus is on how the principle could be widely abused.

I should clarify that these rules only apply to government programs and agencies. While private companies might be bound by other areas of related law, the Charter was only written for government operations. But it’s nevertheless worth remembering that 4.4 million Canadians work for one level or another of government (when you include hospitals and public schools). That’s around 21 percent of all Canadian workers. And many more of us interact with governments regularly.

What kinds of abuse are possible? Well, consider how so many equality-related decisions are highly subjective and rely on the good faith and clarity of mind of the policy makers and public officials in positions of power. In that context:

  • How can we know that factors like “ameliorative”, “disproportionate”, or “disadvantaged” are accurately and appropriately defined?
  • How can we know that favoring one group won’t cause deep and irreparable harm to others?
  • How can we know that even good-faith decisions aren’t made based on outdated assumptions or inaccurate stereotypes?

Easy-to-imagine practical examples of abuse could include:

  • Provincial scholarship programs that target low-income students from only certain ethnic groups while excluding members of other groups who might currently experience even greater financial hardship.
  • Seats in highly competitive university programs that are restricted to only candidates expressing specified identities without objective evidence that such individuals are currently meaningfully underrepresented in those programs or professional fields.
  • Government-funded employment programs that subtly target communities likely to share particular political beliefs.
  • Internal career advancement policies that prioritize identity and ethnicity over competence that lead to reduced organizational capacity.
  • Social disruption due to arbitrary official favoritism for some ethnicities and identities over others.

Of course, misuse of 15(2) can always be tested in court. Programs are, after all, expected to pass the Oakes Test (for objectives that are pressing and substantial) and the Kapp Test (for goals that are truly ameliorative and appropriately targeted).

But that requires someone who notices the problem and has the considerable means necessary to launch a court challenge. There aren’t many people like that running around.

A government that felt that misuse of the law was causing significant damage to society could choose to by-pass 15(2) altogether by invoking the Notwithstanding Clause or by amending the constitution itself. But…well, good luck surviving either attempt.

More realistically, the government could write new legislation that guides the interpretation or application of 15(2). That could mean carefully defining what constitutes an “ameliorative program” or setting clear eligibility criteria for such programs. There would be no need to change the constitution, simply to properly define it.

Alternatively, governments could govern by example. This might mean tailoring their own policies and programs to reflect a more constrained interpretation of 15(2). They could actively participate in court cases to advocate for particular interpretations and present compelling arguments to influence how courts understand and apply the provision.

Finally, of course, they could appoint judges to the Supreme Court and federal courts who are more aligned with values associated with absolute equality under the law.

Subscribe to The Audit.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Trending

X