fbpx
Tuesday, October 7, 2025

MALCOLM: The four policies driving illegal immigration

By
Candice Malcolm
-
Source: Facebook

Read the first part of Candice Malcolm’s deep dive into Canada’s immigration system here.

There are four driving factors behind this unprecedented surge in what can be considered illegal immigration. 

First, the Prime Minister’s messaging. 

In 2017, on the same day US President Donald Trump announced an executive order restricting travel from seven countries known as state-sponsors of terrorism (a policy often dubbed  “the Muslim ban”), Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau sent out a totally different message. 

“To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada,” Trudeau wrote in January of 2017.

According to records obtained from bureaucrats inside the immigration department, Trudeau’s tweet created a frenzy at embassies, consulates and immigration offices around the world, as many interpreted this statement as a literal invitation. 

Trudeau invited the world’s wannabe refugees to come to Canada, and hundreds of thousands heeded his call. This contributed to the tripling of asylum claims in that calendar year, and the earth-shattering figures we are experiencing today. 

Second, the decision to abandon the visa requirement for Mexican nationals. 

Mexicans are the number one source country of illegal migration and asylum claims. In 2023, 23,875 Mexican nationals overstayed their visas and made eventual refugee claims – a record high. 

There is an easy way to fix this policy – a tool that was previously introduced by Stephen Harper’s government in 2009: a visa requirement. 

A visa simply requires that Mexican visitors submit some basic paperwork prior to visiting Canada, proving that their stay will be temporary and that they have purchased a return flight home.

As a Canadian who has travelled extensively around the world, I have been required to obtain special visas to many countries I have visited, including places like Brazil, Russia, India, Vietnam and China. 

In 2016, the federal government eliminated the visa requirement for Mexicans – and the result has been as predicted: a precipitous surge in asylum claims from Mexicans. They come to Canada pretending to be tourists, and they never leave. 

Third, eliminating important rules meant to limit other streams of immigration that can potentially be misused. 

Over the past several years, Canada has seen an explosion of temporary workers and students coming to Canada. As I recently reported, the number of international students has tripled in the last decade (from 301,545 in 2013, to a cap of 900,000 in 2023) and likewise the number of temporary foreign workers has jumped from roughly 500,000 in 2013 to about 700,000 in 2021 (the most recently figure available). 

Removing the safeguards and allowing these types of immigration streams to balloon leaves ample opportunity for fraud and abuse. Once a migrant is legally inside Canada, they can easily apply for refugee status – guaranteeing them gold-plated government entitlements like the billion-dollar-per-year Interim Federal Health Program that provides better care than that received by Canadians. 

And fourth, finally, the bureaucracy’s focus on reducing its backlog for visitor visas rather than prioritizing the safety and security of Canadians. 

According to a report in the Globe and Mail in October 2023: 

Asylum claims jump at Canadian airports after Ottawa eases some visitor visa requirements

Earlier this year, Ottawa waived some eligibility requirements for visitor visa applicants – in particular, those individuals no longer have to prove they have sufficient funds to stay in Canada or demonstrate they will leave the country when their visas expire. The policy went into effect on Feb. 28 and lasts through the end of 2023.

What was the reason for eliminating this important safeguard to protect Canada’s immigration system from fake-tourists who plan to stay in Canada indefinitely? According to a memo from IRCC, the bureaucrats wanted to eliminate a backlog of applications to reduce complaints from foreign nationals who live in foreign countries. From the same Globe and Mail report:

The IRCC memo, which dates to December, said waiving eligibility requirements would apply to roughly 450,000 TRV applications in the system.

The document said the stockpile of applications was “eroding the public’s trust” in the department and its ability to manage migration. Hopeful immigrants and visitors often complain that it can take years for the government to render a decision on their files.

The bureaucrats are more concerned with quelling the concerns of “hopeful immigrants and visitors” rather than protecting the integrity of our system. 

These four factors together led to 143,000 illegal migrants entering Canada and pleading for asylum. 

It’s clear the system is broken. It’s clear that Canada needs a total overhaul, a total redesign of our system – from top to bottom. The only question that remains is who will have the political courage to take on this thorny issue?

OP-ED: When did Canada become “Turtle Island” – and why?

By
Rodney A. Clifton
-
Source: Sandy Soul Apparel Company

Changing a country’s name never raised any eyebrows when it involved third world colonies transitioning to sovereignty, as occurred when many in sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere after World War II did so. But such transformations have been virtually non-existent when it comes to first world nations. This makes it strange that there hasn’t been any public concern about the bizarre and increasingly formalized renaming of Canada to “Turtle Island.”

Turtle Island is what many Algonquian- and Iroquoian-speaking peoples have long called the entire continent of North America because, in various Indigenous origin stories, a turtle, surrounded by water, is said to support the world.

A few decades ago, Turtle Island was only used by Indigenous activists and their supporters. More recently, this name has gained traction without causing critical reaction from the media, governments, Canadian think tanks, or ordinary citizens.

On the contrary, Canadians have been told that using Turtle Island is necessary for national reconciliation with Indigenous people, resulting in its formal use by universities, churches, and governments across the country. For example:

  • In 2022, the University of Manitoba used this name for its first Indigenous Science Conference focusing on Indigenous approaches to understanding the five basic elements – fire, water, earth, air, and spirit – found among many Aboriginal peoples;
  • The Anglican Diocese of Rupert’s Land is supporting a group of Indigenous and non-Indigenous parishioners that set out to develop a truly Indigenous Christianity called “the Gospel of and for Turtle Island”;
  • The Toronto Zoo has created the Turtle Island Conservation Program;
  • Nationwide, many school boards have begun using curricula that teach students about Turtle Island;
  • A new atlas, the Indigenous Atlas of Canada, uses Turtle Island in the text and on the maps, but not in the title of the atlas;
  • McGill University has recently partnered with CBC to create a program called “Turtle Island Reads,” which broadcasts stories about Indigenous people by Indigenous people; and,
  • The Government of Canada has a program called “Turtle Island Staffing” for several departments, National Defense, Health Canada, the RCMP, etc., that began in 2017, and has increased its funding by 84 percent over the last five years.

If you consult a dictionary, you will find that the word “turtle” has Portuguese and Spanish origins, and “island” has a Middle English origin.

You will also find that the first formal name for our country, Canada, comes from the word “Kanata” in the Iroquoian language, meaning “settlement” or “village.” This word has not been translated into English; it is an authentic Indigenous word.

If you widen your view, you will find thousands of other names that have been respectfully borrowed from Indigenous languages, including place names such as Ottawa, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Kamloops, Inuvik, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan.

Thus, by referring to Canada as “Turtle Island,” we are replacing a long-standing Indigenous word with a two-word name coming from European colonial languages.

How could a transformation from an Indigenous name to a Portuguese/English term ever foster reconciliation? And who ordained that Turtle Island should be considered the new name for Canada?

The answer to both questions is that the new name empowers Indigenous activists over other Canadians who think the old name, Canada, is just fine. Indeed, most Canadians are probably unaware of, even indifferent to, the Indigenous roots of the “Canada” appellation.

When more ordinary Canadians and grassroots Indigenous people begin to question these gratuitous efforts, they will eventually say, “Enough is enough. We want reconciliation, but we will not meet the demand for tens of millions of dollars in compensation to change the names of our country, towns, streets, roads, rivers, and lakes that will not make our lives better or bring us closer together as Canadians.”

If the professional activists and their supporters keep pushing this and other name changes, they will further polarize Canadian citizens into Indigenous vs. non-Indigenous support groups. This process will not end well, especially for ordinary Indigenous people. When countries collapse, as our country indeed could, it is the poor and marginalized — Indigenous groups particularly — who will suffer the most.

It is time to put our resources back into building a united and prosperous Canada. This nation will benefit all its citizens, not just a handful of “Turtle Island” Indigenous elites and their non-Indigenous sycophants.

***

Rodney A. Clifton is a professor emeritus at the University of Manitoba and a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He and Mark DeWolf are the editors of From Truth Comes Reconciliation: An Assessment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report (Frontier Centre for Public Policy, 2021). A second expanded edition will be published by Sutherland House Press later this year.

Hymie Rubenstein is a retired professor of anthropology at the University of Manitoba and the editor of REAL Indigenous Report.

LAWTON: Liberals hide behind “child safety” to push censorship bill

By
Andrew Lawton
-
Source: Facebook

The Online Harms Act, initially framed as a measure to protect children from online exploitation, has revealed a deeper agenda: to curtail Canadians’ internet freedom, with legal experts raising alarm bells over its concerning provisions. Former CRTC vice-chair Peter Menzies joined True North’s Andrew Lawton to discuss the Liberals’ latest attempt to stifle free speech.

LAWTON: Liberals turn blind eye while “safe supply” drugs flood streets

By
Andrew Lawton
-
Source: Flickr

Last week, Prince George police seized over 10,000 prescription drugs meant for a safer supply harm reduction program, which were being distributed by organized crime groups in Canada. National Post columnist Adam Zivo joined True North’s Andrew Lawton to discuss the safer supply diversion crisis, and why the Liberal government is choosing to turn a blind eye.

The Alberta Roundup | Trudeau despises a free press

By
Rachel Parker
-

This week on the Alberta Roundup with Rachel Emmanuel, Rachel has an exclusive interview with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith following her visit with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau this week. Rachel also explains how the prime minister backlisted True North from his press conference in Calgary.

Also on the show, Rachel reveals how rent is rising in Alberta faster than any other Canadian province and what Premier Smith plans to do about it.

And finally, Rachel has an update on the Alberta NDP leadership race and responds to some of your comments.

Tune into the Alberta Roundup now!

SUBSCRIBE TO THE ALBERTA ROUNDUP

Columnist, former MP duelling for Conservative nomination in GTA riding

By
Clayton DeMaine
-
Source: X

A hotly contested Conservative nomination race in a Greater Toronto Area riding is pitting experience against a fresh voice.

Former National Post columnist Sabrina Maddeaux and former member of Parliament Costas Menegakis are vying for the chance to be the Conservative candidate in Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, a riding the Conservatives hope to steal from the Liberals in the next election.

Maddeaux, 35, launched her campaign in January. Menegakis declared in February.

The riding has swapped back and forth from Liberal to Conservative over the last four elections.

Menegakis was elected in 2011 in Richmond Hill but contested the new riding of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill in 2015. He lost to Liberal candidate Leona Alleslev. Alleslev crossed the floor to the Conservatives in 2018 and won re-election as a Tory in 2019. However, she lost the seat to Liberal Leah Taylor Roy in 2021.

After 2015, Menegakis also lost in the 2019 and 2021 elections in Richmond Hill.

The Conservative Party of Canada’s nomination rules do not permit candidates who lost two elections in a row to run, unless they get a waiver from the party’s national council, which Menegakis received.

 A representative of the Conservative party declined to comment for this story, saying they “do not discuss internal party matters.”

Menegakis did not respond to an interview request from True North.

Maddeaux, a first-time candidate, said the riding needed a “fresh voice.”

“What I look at as the mark of whether a country is succeeding or failing, the number one question to ask, ‘Is every generation better off than the last?’” Maddeaux said. “My generation, the millennial generation, is the first generation to actually not be better off than the last and not be better off than their parents.”

As a renter and someone who’s covered political issues for years, Maddeaux said she believes she is the type of candidate the Conservative party needs to take on Justin Trudeau’s Liberals in the next election.

“Costas was sort of a great MP. Unfortunately, he hasn’t been able to win the last few times around. So I feel that it is time for a change in the riding,” Maddeaux said.

Maddeaux isn’t taking anything for granted. She considers herself the underdog in this race compared to the experience Menegakis brings.

“It’s a contested race. Having first been an MP in 2011, even though he hasn’t been an MP since 2015, there’s a legacy institutional advantage there, of course,” she said.

Maddeaux and her team have been campaigning since mid-January.


“We’ve knocked on hundreds of doors, made many calls,” she said. “We have a great group of volunteers within the riding and volunteers travelling up to two hours outside of the riding, which is pretty unheard of for a nomination campaign.”

She’s encouraged by the number of young people involved in the campaign and believes the impact they feel from Trudeau’s policies drives them to action.

“The past stereotype has been that young people are less likely to be conservative or less likely to be involved in politics in general.” Maddeaux said. ”Not only are we seeing younger generations flock to Pierre’s Conservative Party, but they’re not just going on Twitter and talking about it. They’re showing up and making phone calls after work when they can between their two jobs.”

Her campaign team has been working to sell memberships to conservatives who aren’t members of the party to expand the base of support.

Residents of the riding can buy memberships and vote in the nomination race.

“In a swing riding, you have to put in the work to win that every single time. The polls look good right now. But you can’t take things for granted, especially if you want to hold the riding for years or even decades to come,” Maddeaux said.

She says people are happy to see her team at the door because they haven’t had a Conservative knock on their door in a very long time.

“My campaign shows we’re willing to put in the work and listen to people. People are very understandably frustrated right now because they feel like the institutions that are supposed to listen to them, represent them, and help them…aren’t doing that,” Maddeaux said.
Maddeaux’s campaign was given a nod by Oshawa MP Colin Carrie when Jamil Jivani, also a millennial, was elected earlier this month in a Durham byelection.

“You’re seeing younger people attracted to the party who are also great communicators. If you look at Sabrina or Jamil, they have a history of (being) very strong communicators and very good listeners. And I think young people are attracted to that,” Carrie said.

A date for the nomination has not yet been called.

SHEPHERD: Freeland gushes over “affordable” $1,700, 330-square foot apartments

By
Lindsay Shepherd
-
Source: X

Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland is gushing about a new 245-unit apartment building in downtown Victoria, B.C., and how “affordable” its units are. 

Hudson House, which Freeland touts as housing for “low- to middle-income Canadians,” currently lists 330 square foot micro-studio apartments for $1,700 a month and one-bedroom units for $2,470 to $2,680 a month. 

The micro-studio apartment floor plan includes space only for a Murphy bed, a piece of furniture that folds down from the wall.

“Hudson House, in the heart of downtown Victoria, is a fantastic new building with great amenities and design. With affordable apartments it’s the perfect place to call home for young couples, students, and families. A great example of how we are getting more homes built, faster!” Freeland posted on social media earlier this week.

Parking at Hudson House costs $175 per month, and tenants must also cover all of their utilities, except for water.

“It’s absurd to think that $1,700 a month for something the size of a bedroom is considered ‘affordable housing,’” journalist and housing expert Neil Sharma told True North. “It’s also insulting because, just three short years ago, $1,700 a month would have gotten you a hell of a lot more than a micro-unit.”

Sharma said rental units like these are of little help to Canadians.

“People’s quality of life will suffer in a cramped space that eats up most of their monthly income, and between the cost of shelter and consumer goods, they’ll be stuck in an endless cycle of poverty. This all happened under the Trudeau government’s stewardship,” said Sharma.

Chrystia Freeland said that the new apartments are “a prime example” of how “the federal government is building more homes for everyone, including families.” However, a two-bedroom unit at Hudson House is advertised at $3,300 to $3,500 per month. 

True North asked British Columbia Housing Minister Ravi Kahlon if he agreed with Freeland that a $3,300/month two-bedroom apartment is a great example of family housing, but did not receive a response.

According to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, housing costs, including rent or mortgage payment and utilities, should be less than 30% of before-tax household income.

In Victoria, the median household income is $111,390, pre-tax. This means a household earning that amount should be spending $2,785 a month or less on housing and utility costs.

Freeland’s Mar. 11 statement said Hudson House will rent 227 of its 245 units “at or below 30% of the median local household income,” which means the majority of the units should be rented out at under $2,785 a month.

True North reached out to Hudson House to ask how its advertised $3,300 to $3,500 prices for two-bedroom units will align with this rule, but none of the multiple representatives contacted was willing to speak.

While home ownership has long been known as a marker of the middle class in Canada, more government-sponsored affordable housing projects, such as Hudson House, are being built for middle earners. 

“The middle class has been eviscerated in Canada – not to mention throughout much of the developed world – and I suspect what’s left of it will be gone by 2030,” said Sharma, who suspects rising housing costs and shrinking spaces are affecting fertility rates. 

“If you look up the average income in Canada and juxtapose it with what it costs to rent a family-sized home, it probably means fewer and fewer Canadians will have children. Canada’s population grew by more than a million people between July 2022 and July 2023, but only 2% of that growth was the result of domestic fertility.”

As for Chrystia Freeland, she is a landlord who owns residential property in Kyiv, Ukraine; rents out her two terrace houses in London, U.K.; and jointly owns her family farm in Peace River, Alta. Her husband also owns a rental property in Manhattan, and in 2013, he and Freeland bought a $1.3 million townhome in the upper-class neighborhood of Summerhill in Toronto.

Six candidates vying for Alberta NDP leadership as deadline closes 

By
Rachel Parker
-
Source: Facebook

The deadline to enter the Alberta NDP leadership contest has officially closed with six candidates in the ring to replace outgoing leader Rachel Notley. 

Four NDP MLAs are in the running, along with a union leader and a former mayor of Calgary.

Calgary MLA and energy critic Kathleen Ganley was the first candidate to declare. Ganley, a Canadian lawyer, was the justice minister and Aboriginal affairs minister under Notley’s former NDP government. 

“It’s my belief that we (win) by talking more about our economic message,” Ganley said in an interview with the St. Albert Gazette.

“People are a little bit skeptical about our ability to handle the economy. I think they’re wrong, but that’s not a ‘them’ problem. It’s an ‘us communicating it to them’ problem.” 

Ganley is one of two candidates from Calgary. Her campaign manager, Jeremy Nolais already attacked the other, saying former Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi gave a lousy endorsement to the NDP during the last election. 

Nenshi entered the race just this week and has already set Premier Danielle Smith in his sights. He attacked Smith for high utility bills and auto insurance rates across the province. 

“This is sheer incompetence, combined with the lack of any moral fibre and you know, I will call them on that every single day,” he said on the Ryan Jespersen podcast this week. 

Cheryl Oates, who served as Notley’s executive director of communication and planning, told Rachel Emmanuel’s Alberta Roundup that Nenshi is showing he can go toe-to-toe with Smith. 

“But also, to position himself to say ‘I can take her on, I can win and I’m the candidate position to do that,’” Oates said.

“And I mean, the NDP, historically, leadership races have been pretty friendly, so I think it makes sense for him to take his aim outside the party.” 

NDP MLA and former health minister and NDP MLA Sarah Hoffman was another early entrant into the field. 

“Women like me aren’t supposed to be in politics, right? I’m fat. I’m sassy,”  she told the media upon joining the race. “And I have a really hard time pretending to be somebody that I’m not.”

Hoffman agrees with fellow leadership contestant Rakhi Pancholi that it’s time to end the consumer carbon tax.

MLA Pancholi announced that she would axe the tax as she entered the race. A lawyer, she was elected to represent Edmonton-Whitemud in 2019.  She also served as the NDP critic for education and children services before joining the leadership race. 

“There’s no challenge Alberta can’t take on,” she said in a video launching her campaign. “But the story the current government tells about Alberta is too small for such a big place.” 

Jodi Calahoo Stonehouse, a relative newcomer to politics who is also an Edmonton MLA, launched her bid last month. She said she’s focusing on climate change and drought. 

Alberta Federation of Labour president Gil McGowan announced his leadership bid in early March. McGowan said he won’t be stepping down from his union role while he runs, and announced that he wouldn’t be making public appearances until he recovers from COVID-19. 

Oates said the party needs a particular type of candidate to go up against Smith and the United Conservative Party in three years.

“I’m looking for a unicorn,” she said.

“I’m looking for someone who can uphold the values of the party and the history of the party and the things that the NDP has long fought for, and also have the ability to be competitive in 2027. We know that Danielle Smith is an expert communicator, and the next leader of the NDP will have to be just as good of a communicator to be able to stand up to her.”

MALCOLM: Unprecedented SURGE in illegal immigration in 2023

By
Candice Malcolm
-
Source: Calgary Internatonal Airport
  • 143,830 people entered Canada illegally and applied for refugee status, according to IRCC data
  • This is up from 10,365 a decade ago, representing a 14-fold growth in 10 years
  • The Trudeau government changed visitor visa rules to make it easier for anyone to come to Canada, allowing bad-faith actors to come under false pretenses and take advantage of Canada’s generous landed refugee program. 

Canada once had the world’s strongest and most secure immigration system. We had our pick of the best and hardest working immigrants, and illegal immigration was miniscule and mostly contained. 

Canada has natural advantages that protect us from illegal migration and unchecked border crossings – two large oceans separating us from failed states, communist dictatorships and kleptocracies that produce refugees. Our only border is shared with the United States, which happens to be our ally, top trading partner and the top destination for most global migrants. 

Our American neighbours and our European cousins face totally different challenges that come from shared borders and frontiers with refugee-producing countries, and therefore deal with millions of migrants streaming into their countries annually. 

Canada’s problems with illegal immigration pale in comparison, however, there are alarming changes happening in the federal government that have allowed Canada’s numbers to surge to new unprecedented highs in illegal entry and potentially dubious asylum claims. 

In 2023, we saw the largest number of illegal migrants entering our country in the history of Canada. A shocking 143,830 people illegally entered Canada and made asylum claims, this according to raw data from Canada’s immigration department.

These wannabe refugees either entered illegally – sneaking across unmanned border crossings or entering using a fraudulent or falsified passport – or they entered under false pretenses, pretending to be temporary visitors only to later submit a claim for political asylum.

These migrants are trying to obtain refugee status in Canada, but they are not yet legal refugees. They still need to have their cases scrutinized by an immigration judge – a process that has historically been difficult and resulted in most claims being rejected or abandoned (although, in recent years the rules have loosened significantly to allow more asylum seekers to obtain refugee status).

Even if their claims are eventually rejected by an immigration judge, or if they choose to abandon their claim and either move on to another country (usually the U.S.) or to “go dark” and live on the lam in Canada, there are significant benefits of being an asylum claimant in Canada. 

Asylum seekers are eligible for government benefits, including welfare, social housing, and the gold-plated Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP) – a program funded to the tune of $1 billion per year, where the federal government pays the provinces to provide extensive healthcare to these illegal migrants. Under the IFHP, asylum seekers receive care above and beyond what Canadians receive, including the cost of any medications, dentist visits, eye doctor visits and other services that Canadians pay for out of pocket.

It seems quaint in comparison to look back at historic averages. 

According to the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), prior to the Trudeau government forming in late 2015, Canada’s previous highs in asylum seekers were in 2001 (44,000) and 2008 (37,000), with lows coming in 2013 (10,365). IRCC noted that “the number of asylum claimants more than tripled since 2015, increasing from about 16,000 in 2015 to over 50,000 in 2017. 

The numbers slowed down considerably during the COVID-19 pandemic, as the Trudeau government implemented tight restrictions and travel into (and out of) Canada. 

In 2020, Canada only received 23,690 asylum claims and 24,900 in 2021. 

Rather than taking advantage of the natural reduction in illegal immigration caused mostly by restricted global travel during the pandemic, the IRCC under the direction of the Trudeau government, allowed our immigration system to come apart in recent years, leading to a 6x jump in illegal immigration in just two years, from 2021 to 2023, and a staggering 14-fold increase from ten years prior. 

It’s important to address the reasons for this explosion in illegal migration so we can learn from these mistakes and correct the ship – before it’s too late. 

These policies will be explored in the next part of this series on Canada’s broken immigration system.

OP-ED: NDP leadership hopeful makes erroneous claims about school choice in Alberta

By
Paige MacPherson
-
Source: Facebook

The leadership race in Alberta’s New Democratic Party has already produced some intriguing policy debates, and unfortunately, at least one significant falsehood.

NDP leadership hopeful and MLA Sarah Hoffman, posted this Tuesday:

“The (United Conservative Party) is deliberately starving our public, separate and Francophone schools of resources in order to divert tax dollars to private schools and charter schools.”

Not true.

It’s an oft-repeated myth that school choice policies are “starving” government schools of resources. In reality, these policies save the government significant sums of money, which leaves dollars available for other government programs, including government schools.

To be clear, the Alberta government partially funds independent schools, which essentially means that a portion of parents’ tax dollars can follow their children to the independent school of their choice. As a result, many families who couldn’t afford to pay full tuition at independent schools—which offer a wide range of education and cultural choices—can now afford it.

And crucially, contrary to Hoffman’s tweet, when a student enrolls in an independent school, the government does not need to pay for the full cost of that student’s education. Again, the government saves money.

It’s a similar story for charter schools, which according to past research cost the Alberta government thousands of dollars less, per student, than government schools.

All told, how much money does the government save? According to a 2019 research paper, school choice policies, including government funding of both charter schools and independent schools, saved the Alberta government $1.9 billion over eight years.

Hoffman also posted that: “Charter schools have long desired to be regarded as part of the public system. Alberta should formalize this by providing a path to truly enter the public system.”

First, charter schools are already public schools. But unlike government schools, charter schools operate autonomously, have independent boards, and are typically started by parents and educators responding to community need. Hoffman’s tweet suggests that charter schools want to lose that autonomy and be owned and operated by government—a curious suggestion based on no evidence. 

Finally, Hoffman wrote that: “The Edmonton Public School Board, which I was chair of, has had great success in offering programs of choice within the public system.”

While choice programs within the government system are better than no choice at all, they aren’t substitutes for accessible charter and independent schools.  

If McDonald’s operated every restaurant but offered a range of styles and choices, those choices would still not be as unique, innovative or authentic as choices offered by a wide variety of restaurant owners who hone their craft and offer unique experiences to patrons.

Likewise, if the government owns and operates a short list of school options, it won’t foster innovation or provide the level of diversity many middle- and lower-income families require.

Hoffman mentioned Edmonton Public Schools, which indeed offers more choice (arts programs, athletics, religious schools, etc.) than most other public school boards. But it can’t compete, in terms of options, with Alberta charter schools, which cater to at-risk youth, rural life, gifted education, agricultural stewardship, music, traditional Indigenous teaching, classical education, STEM, English as an additional language and more.

And research has shown that charter schools benefit disadvantaged students more than government schools while also outperforming government schools on student achievement tests.

Finally, school choice is not unique to Alberta. Independent school funding exists in every province outside Ontario and Atlantic Canada, and independent school funding and/or charter schools are commonplace in the United States and much of Europe.

Party leadership races are the right place for bold policy ideas, but they should also be a place for facts and truth. In reality, school choice policies, which empower parents to send their kids to independent and charter schools, save taxpayer money, deliver stronger student achievement, better serve disadvantaged student populations and foster genuine diversity within Alberta’s education system.   

Paige MacPherson is associate director of education policy at the Fraser Institute.

1...297298299...1,460Page 298 of 1,460

Related stories

© 2025 True North | Privacy Policy