fbpx
Friday, May 9, 2025

Victoria libraries shunned wave of “difficult patrons” upset with “Grave Error” ban

Source: Amazon.ca

The Greater Victoria Public Library was flooded with concerns from patrons about the decision to ban a book critical of the predominant “mass graves” residential schools narrative – but internal emails show staff being instructed to ignore and stonewall the public. 

Earlier this year, True North reported that the GVPL was one of two BC libraries to ban the bestselling book “Grave Error: How the Media Misled Us (And the Truth About Residential Schools),” written by C.P. Champion and Tom Flanagan.

The book, published by True North and Dorchester Books last year, challenges the misleading narrative pushed by the legacy media and politicians that hundreds of graves were supposedly discovered at former residential school sites. To date, no human remains have been unearthed at any of the suspected “mass unmarked graves.” Additionally, the Tk’emlups te Secwépemc First Nation now uses the term “anomalies” rather than graves to describe its discovery at the Kamloops Residential School site. 

Despite its popularity and alignment with the library’s stated policy of offering diverse viewpoints, the Victoria library refused to purchase the book. By early 2024, patrons had submitted at least 14 official purchase requests to GVPL, all of which were denied.

Emails obtained through a freedom of information request show how the GVPL ignored public outcry and stonewalled patrons who brought their censorship concerns to the library staff and administration. 

Months worth of communications show a deluge of complaints from patrons who accused the library of censorship. 

From the outset, the GVPL was accused of hypocrisy for banning the book. Its policy explicitly aims to “present as many points of view as possible” and to “resist calls for censorship.” 

“The individual or group that decided to ban this book from the GVPL collection clearly reeks of serious hypocrisy…” wrote one unidentified complainant.

All names were redacted by the GVPL when it provided True North with nearly 1,500 pages of internal emails concerning the book. 

Similar sentiments were echoed in dozens of emails, with one complainant declaring: “This is indeed censorship of the very worst kind.”

Library staff, however, appeared largely dismissive. By late February, one internal email suggested ignoring complaints altogether: “You no longer need to respond to the patron who is so passionate about having us purchase Grave Error.” Another email from March 6 remarked cynically, “Very sad that people are buying and reading this book. He says we are ignoring his emails. Maybe we are., but more likely it will be a long time before he gets a response.”

As public dissatisfaction grew, complaints poured in, ranging from personal emails to requests for board intervention. On March 18, a patron formally requested a public delegation before the library board to protest the ban.  Yet, internal communications associated with the board suggest their focus was on minimizing engagement. 

“Do we plan to simply listen to the presentation and not engage in debate?” one unidentified member asked ahead of the Mar. 26 meeting.

Even organizations skeptical of the book’s content weighed in against the ban. 

“While we do not agree with many of the premises and claims in this book, we do not support its censorship or restriction from public libraries,” wrote one unidentified group in April. 

Other libraries in the region, including West Vancouver, opted to carry the book, further fueling criticism of GVPL’s stance.

The GVPL did not respond to True North’s request for comment and clarification.

Behind the scenes, library staff grappled with mounting public backlash. Internal documents reveal complaints about the time and resources consumed by the controversy. “Grave Error took a LOT of staff time (and ongoing),” one employee wrote in April. Security protocols were even discussed for handling “distressing” interactions with patrons.

Perhaps most concerning is the library’s apparent fear-mongering. Instead of engaging in open discussion, emails hint at concerns about “difficult patrons” and even a “safety and security” meeting being held related to the book.

Adding insult to injury, on April 16, corporate communication instructed staff to engage a silent alarm and call security “when it becomes an issue of safety.” Examples of breaches of safety included strongly criticizing the organization and pressuring staff for continued service.

None of the internal emails and public communications provided to True North indicate that any of the complaints were harassment or threatening in nature.

Despite offers from patrons to donate copies of the book, the library remained firm in its decision not to include it in its collection. An April 14 internal memo instructed staff to avoid further engagement on the issue.

By May 2024, the situation remained unresolved, with the library rejecting all 14 formal purchase requests for the book.

Liberals cave to demands to split up Online Harms Act

Source: Facebook

The Liberal government’s controversial Online Harms Act will be split into two separate bills, Justice Minister Arif Virani has confirmed.

The sections of the bill dealing with child pornography and child sexual exploitation and establishing a Digital Safety Commission to regulate tech platforms will now proceed as their own bill. The provisions dealing with hate crimes and online hate speech, which have been subject to significant alarm from civil liberties advocates, will be in their own bill as well.

“These bills will proceed on different tracks. We are putting our emphasis and prioritization and our time and efforts on the first portion of the bill, which deals with child sex predators,” said Virani in a Wednesday scrum. 

The bill’s splitting follows legal experts urging the Liberals to separate the act into two or three separate bills.

The proposed amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act would allow anyone to file complaints against people posting “hate speech.” If found guilty, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal would be able to order the content’s removal and impose fines of up to $70,000.

However, according to University of Ottawa professor Michael Geist, the provisions that are even more concerning are those to the Criminal Code.

“I think the notion of life in prison, where any violation is motivated by hate, the idea that this could include life (in prison) has some pretty significant implications, and I find it really difficult to justify,” he said while speaking at a webinar hosted by the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.

Virani said that the splitting of the bill was not a compromise to any party or interest groups’ demands, but so that there can be a greater focus on sexual predators and fighting hateful statements. 

“I’m very happy to listen to suggestions to amend the Criminal Code or human rights legislation to improve our anti-hate battle,” said Virani.

Virani said there is a stronger consensus on the parts of the bill affecting youth. He added that he had been having conversations with opposition parties to determine a rational way to split the bill.

Canadian Constitution Foundation lawyer Josh Dehaas told True North that splitting the bill is an improvement because it reduces the risk of penalties for speech that may violate constitutional rights from passing.

However, he said that the parts of the Online Harms Act that would create requirements for websites to take down and remove harmful content remain a risk to freedom of expression.

“It’s going to pressure social media companies to err on the side of caution and take down all kinds of constitutionally protected speech or face big fines,” said Dehaas. “And we’re not okay with that. We think that’s going to chill too much speech and be unconstitutional.”

The Liberals aimed to create a new organization to enforce rules on harmful online content. This body would include the Digital Safety Commission, the Digital Safety Ombudsperson, and the Digital Safety Office, which would be tasked with ensuring compliance with regulations and have the ability to order online platforms to remove content.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association previously warned that the authority to allow government appointees to interpret the law, make up new rules, enforce them, and subsequently serve as judge, jury, and executioner was troubling.

“Granting such sweeping powers to one body undermines the fundamental principle of democratic accountability,” said Noa Mendelsohn Aviv, executive director and general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

Virani said the changes would have come faster without the House of Commons being at a standstill.

The Liberals were found in contempt of the House for failing to hand over documents about Sustainable Development Technology Canada and its gross misconduct.

Without getting into specific changes, Virani said he encourages a deep and detailed study of this bill when it gets to committee.

Former chief justice Beverly McLachlin previously said the bill would face constitutional challenges surrounding free speech. 

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre previously condemned Bill C-63 for fostering censorship, pledging to repeal it if it’s passed before the Conservatives potentially form government.

He suggested that Canadians explore their own thoughts and determine what Prime Minister Justin Trudeau might consider hate speech or unconstitutional.

“I point out the irony that someone who spent the first half of his adult life as a practicing racist, who dressed up in hideous racist costumes so many times he says he can’t remember them all, should then be the arbiter on what constitutes hate,” said Poilievre. “What he should actually do is look into his own heart and ask himself why he was such a hateful racist… And maybe in that way, rather than through coercion, he could help us all in the fight against real hate.” 

OP-ED: COP29 was a waste of time

Source: Wikipedia

The twenty-ninth edition of the U.N. Climate Change Committee’s annual “Conference of the Parties,” also known as COP29, wrapped up recently, and I must say, it seemed a much gloomier affair than the previous twenty-eight. It’s hard to imagine a more downcast gathering of elitists and activists. You almost felt sorry for them.

Oh, there was all the usual nutty Net-Zero-by-2050 proposals, which would make life harder and more expensive in developed countries, and be absolutely disastrous for developing countries, if they were even partially implemented. But a lot of the roughly 65,000 attendees seemed to realize they were just spewing hot air.

Why were they so down? It couldn’t be that they were feeling guilty about their own hypocrisy, since they had flown in, many aboard private jets, to the Middle Eastern petrostate of Azerbaijan, where fossil fuels count for two-thirds of national GDP and 90% of export revenues, to lecture the world on the evils of flying in planes and prospering from the extraction of oil and natural gas. Afterall, they did the same last year in Dubai and there was no noticeable pang of guilt there.

It’s likely that Donald Trump’s recent reelection had a lot to do with it. Living as they do in a media bubble, our governing class was completely blindsided by the American people’s decision to return their 45th president to the White House. And the fact that he won the popular vote this time made it harder to deny his legitimacy. (Note that they’ve never questioned the legitimacy of Justin Trudeau, even though his party has lost the popular vote in the past two federal elections. What’s the saying about the modern Left? “If they didn’t have double standards, they’d have no standards at all.”)

Come January, Trump is committed to (once again) pulling the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accords, to rolling back the Biden Administration’s anti-fracking and pro-EV regulations, and to giving oil companies the green light to extract as much “liquid gold” (his phrase) as possible, with an eye towards making energy more affordable for American consumers and businesses alike. The chance that they’ll be able to leech billions in taxpayer dollars from the U.S. Treasury while he’s running the show is basically zero.

But it wasn’t just the return of Trump which has gotten the climate brigade down. After a few years on top, environmentalists have been having one setback after another. Green parties saw a huge drop off in support in the E.U. parliament’s elections this past June, losing one-third of their seats in Brussels.

And wherever they’ve actually been in government, in Germany and Ireland for instance, the Greens have dragged down the popularity of the coalitions they were part of. That’s largely because their policies have been like an arrow to the heart of those nations’ economies – see the former industrial titan Germany, where major companies like Volkeswagen, Siemens, and the chemical giant BASF are frantically shifting production to China and the U.S. to escape high energy costs.

But while voters around the world are kicking climate ideologues to the curb, there are still a few places where they’re managing to cling to power for dear life.

Here in Canada, for instance, Justin Trudeau and Steven Guilbeault steadfastly refuse to consider revisiting their ruinous Net Zero policies, from their ever-increasing Carbon Tax, to their huge investments in Electric Vehicles and the mandates which will force all of us to buy pricey, unreliable EVs in just over a decade, and to the emissions caps which seek to strangle the natural resource sector on which our economy depends.

Minister Guilbeault was all-in on COP29, heading the Canadian delegation, which “hosted 65 events showcasing Canada’s leadership on climate action, nature-based solutions, sustainable finance, and Canadian clean technologies—while discussing gender equality, youth perspectives, and the critical role of Indigenous knowledge and climate leadership” and stood up for Canadian values such as “2SLGBTQI+” and “gender inclusivity.” Once again, in Azerbaijan, which has been denounced for its human rights abuses.

And no word yet on the cost of all of this – for last year’s COP28 the government – or should I say the taxpayers – spent $1.4M on travel and accommodations alone for the 633 member delegation. That number, not counting the above mentioned events, are sure to be higher, as Azerbaijan is much less of a travel destination than Dubai, and so has fewer flights in and available hotel rooms.

At the same time all of this was going on, Trudeau was 12,000 kms away in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, telling an audience that carbon taxation is a “moral obligation” which is more important than the cost of living: “It’s really, really easy when you’re in a short-term survive, [to say] I gotta be able to pay the rent this month, I’ve gotta be able to buy groceries for my kids, to say, OK, let’s put climate change as a slightly lower priority.”

This is madness, and it underscores how tone-deaf the prime minister is, and also why current polling looks so good for the Conservatives that Pierre Poilievre might as well start measuring the drapes at the PMO.

He has the Trudeau Liberals’ obsessive pursuit of Net Zero policies in large part to thank for that.

The world is waking up to the true cost of the Net Zero ideology, and leaving it behind. That doesn’t mean the fight is over – the activists and their allies in government are going to squeeze as many tax dollars out of this as they possibly can. But the writing is on the wall, and their window is rapidly closing.

OP-ED: Parents in every province deserve as many school choices as possible

Source: Unsplash

This week, the Smith government in Alberta will likely pass Bill 27, which requires schools to get signed permission from parents or guardians prior to any lessons on human sexuality, gender identity or sexual orientation. 

It’s a sensible move. The government is proactively ensuring that students are in these classes because their parents want them there. Given the sensitive nature of these topics, for everyone’s sake it makes sense to ensure parental buy-in at the outset.

Unfortunately, many school trustees don’t agree. A recent resolution passed by the Alberta School Boards Association (ASBA) calls on the Smith government to maintain the status quo where parents are assumed to have opted in to these lessons unless they contact the school and opt their children out. Apparently, the ASBA thinks parents can’t be trusted to make the right decisions for their children on this issue.

This ASBA resolution is, in fact, a good example of the reflexive opposition by government school trustees to parental rights. They don’t want parents to take control of their children’s education, especially in sensitive areas. Fortunately, the Alberta government rebuffed ASBA’s demands and this attempt to abolish Bill 27 will likely fall on deaf ears.

However, there’s an even better safeguard available to Alberta parents—school choice. Out of all Canadian provinces, Alberta offers the most school choice. Not only does Alberta have a fully funded separate (Catholic) school system, it also provides between 60 and 70 per cent operational funding to accredited independent schools. In addition, Alberta is the only province in Canada to allow fully funded charter schools. And Alberta subsidizes homeschooling parents. Simply put, parents who are dissatisfied with the government school system have plenty of options—more than parents in any other province. This means Alberta parents can vote with their feet.

Things are quite different in other parts of the country. For example, Ontario and the four Atlantic provinces do not allow any provincial funding to follow students to independent schools. In other words, parents in these provinces who choose an independent school must pay the full cost themselves—while still paying taxes that fund government schools. And no province other than Alberta allows charter schools.

This is why it’s important to give parents as much school choice as possible. Given the tendency of government school boards to remove choices from parents, it’s important that all parents, including those with limited means, have other options available for their children.

Imagine if the owners of a large grocery store tried to impose their dietary preferences by removing all meat products and telling customers that the only way they could purchase meat is to make a special order. What would happen in that scenario? It depends on what other options are available. If this was the only grocery store in the community, customers would have no choice but to comply. However, if there were other stores, customers could simply shop elsewhere. Choice empowers people and limits the ability of one company to limit the choices of people who live in the community.

Think of government school boards as a monopolistic service provider like a grocery store. They often do everything possible to prevent parents from going anywhere else for their children’s education. Trusting them to do what’s best for parents and children is like assuming that the owners of a grocery store would always put the interests of their customers first and not their own self-interest. Monopolies are bad in the private sector and they’re bad in the education sector, too.

Clearly, it makes sense to require schools to get proactive consent from parents. This ensures maximum buy-in from parents for whatever courses their children take. It’s also important that Alberta remains a bastion of school choice. By making it easier for parents to choose from a variety of education options, Alberta puts power in the hands of parents, exactly where it belongs. Parents in other provinces should want that same power, too.

Michael Zwaagstra is a public high school teacher and a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute.

The Daily Brief | Poilievre calls for a cap on asylum seekers

Source: YT - Pierre Poilievre

The Trudeau government paid out $3.5 billion in emergency COVID business loans to illegitimate claimants.

Plus, amid concerns about Canada’s immigration system, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre is calling for a cap on asylum seekers.

And a group of anti-Israel Jews and activists took over the entrance of a Parliament building in Ottawa, where many MPs from various parties have their offices.

Tune into The Daily Brief with Cosmin Dzsurdzsa and William McBeath!

Feds launch global ad campaign to dissuade asylum seekers from coming to Canada

Source: Facebook

The federal government is launching a global online ad campaign to warn asylum-seekers that making a claim in Canada will be difficult in an effort to dissuade others from doing so amid an onslaught of filings.

The ads mark another shift in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s administration as it attempts to save face while public opinion is plummeting, much of which has to do with previous immigration policy stances and its contribution to the housing shortage. 

According to the Department of Immigration, the ads will run in 11 languages, including Spanish, Urdu, Ukrainian, Hindi and Tamil for four months and cost $250,000.

“Claiming asylum in Canada is not easy. There are strict guidelines to qualify. Find out what you need to know before you make a life-changing decision,” one ad reads.

However, immigration lawyer Sergio Karas said he remains “skeptical” about the effectiveness of such an ad campaign. 

“I am skeptical of the effect these advertisements will have. The advertisements do not accord with reality,” Karas told True North. “No amount of advertising will be effective unless it is accompanied by legislative changes that will make it harder for applicants to abuse the system, file bogus claims, or apply for refugee status to obtain a work permit.”

The department noted that another aspect of the ad campaign will include internet searches being led to government-sponsored content.

For example, if someone searches “how to claim asylum in Canada” or “refugee Canada” they will be directed to content titled “Canada’s asylum system – Asylum Facts.” 

The government announced a reduction in its annual immigration targets in October and is feeling heightened pressure to get temporary residents to return to their home country instead of fleeing south of the border, following U.S. President-elect Donald Trump’s tariff announcement. Trump cited Canada’s poorly secured border as one of the factors behind his 25% tariff on all Canadian imports once he takes office in January. 

According to Karas, “human smugglers, unscrupulous consultants, and applicants” are well aware that it’s effortless to utter the magic words “I claim refugee status,” granting them a hearing that takes over four years and that the likelihood of deportation is “extremely low.” 

A department spokesperson told Reuters that, “Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is working to combat the spread of misinformation and disinformation about Canada’s immigration system, and to highlight the risks of working with unauthorized representatives.”

However, Conservative Shadow Minister for IRCC Tom Kmiec accused the Trudeau government of making it easier for bad actors to abuse the system in the first place. 

“Trudeau and his incompetent Ministers have thoroughly broken our immigration system. Trudeau made it easier to game the system and claim asylum in Canada as the skyrocketing numbers will show. It will take more than an advertisement claiming the opposite to fix it,” Kmiec told True North. 

“They did nothing about Roxham Road for more than six years and relaxed visitor visa requirements, resulting in a sharp hike in asylum claims at our airports. Under his watch, asylum claims at our airports grew by more than 16 times, going from 2,320 in 2015 to 41,350 last year.”

Canada’s refugee system is currently facing a backlog of 260,000 cases, as global displacement continues to rise. 

Immigration Minister Marc Miller has hinted at the idea of streamlining certain claims deemed unlikely to succeed to cope with the backlog.    

“They will continue to play the system like a fiddle until the federal government cuts off all financial incentives to claim refugee status, enforce the law, and deport those who have overstayed their welcome,” said Karas. “Then and only then, the word will spread around the world that Canada is serious.” 

AG finds “value-for-money concerns” in nearly half of seniors programs

Source: Unsplash

The Trudeau government could not verify whether the billions of taxpayer dollars it pours into senior benefits annually are providing tangible support, according to a new auditor general’s report.

The report on seniors benefits is one of five reports published by auditor general Karen Hogan on Monday.

Old Age Security will cost $88 billion next year, and the AG report projects that figure to more than double over the next 20 years to around $181.2 billion.

“The finding matters because Employment and Social Development Canada spends billions of dollars annually to provide supplemental income and other supports to seniors, including those with low incomes or with other vulnerabilities. Measuring the results of these programs is critical for the department to know whether results are improving as expected,” reads the report.

Support for seniors has been a hot topic of debate in federal politics and the report’s findings are sure to throw a wrench into the Liberals’ reputation on the matter, considering that the department most responsible for said programs “did not know whether the objectives of these programs were being met.”

“If the federal government is going to spend billions of our tax dollars, the least it could do is keep a tally,” Franco Terrazzano, federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation told True North. 

“It shouldn’t be too much to ask that our government keep proper records when it spends our money. Taxpayers demand better financial management from Ottawa.”

Minister of Seniors Steven MacKinnon issued a statement in response to the AG report on Tuesday, saying that while “seniors in Canada have a broad range of needs” the majority wish to hold onto their “independence and to stay connected with their family, friends, and loved ones”

The minister’s statement went on to say that the New Horizons for Seniors Program will continue investing in local projects that support seniors, offering financial relief to projects that cost up to a maximum of $25,000.

MacKinnon said that these low-cost projects are being directly led by seniors and operated by local organizations that are embedded in different communities. 

“Our government is committed to building a stronger and more inclusive society so that seniors across this country, no matter where they live, can age with dignity and with choice,” said MacKinnon.

The audit report reviewed the nearly 39,000 projects that the NHSP has funded since 2004, worth a combined $850 million and found poor tracking of how the projects ultimately delivered on their stated goals. 

While Mackinnon stressed the importance of “properly managing taxpayers’ dollars” he said the government felt it necessary “to avoid government bureaucracy or overly complex reporting standards.” 

However, the report noted that under the NHSP, “value-for-money concerns were noted in 44% of the projects that were funded from March 2022 to March 2024.” 

“Some projects were not completed by the recipients, while others had indicated that some funding had been used on ineligible activities,” reads the report. 

“Information in the New Horizons for Seniors Program project files often did not allow Employment and Social Development Canada to determine how many seniors benefitted from the program.”

The Faulkner Show | Carbon dioxide is NOT WARMING the planet: Nuclear scientist

Source: Flickr

Read Dr. Jim Mason’s article in the C2C journal.

Every thing we are being told about the dangers of carbon emissions is likely complete nonsense. A new research paper blows a massive hole in the argument that CO2 is warming the planet. This calls in to question the entire climate change regime of the Trudeau government, which is subjecting Canadians to crippling carbon taxes and EV mandates.

Watch the latest episode of The Faulkner Show now!

Ontario mayor refuses to pay fine or take tribunal-ordered DEI training

Source: Unsplash

After a human rights commission fined a rural township for “discrimination” after voting not to recognize June as Pride Month, its mayor is refusing to capitulate to the move he called an act of “extortion.”

According to the Toronto Sun, Mayor Harold McQuaker of Emo, a rural township of about 1200 on the Ontario-Minnesota border, is taking a stand against the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario’s decision that Emo would have to pay  $10,000, plus $5,000 from him, to Borderland Pride, a local Pride organization.

The tribunal found McQuaker’s tie-breaking vote to refuse to declare June as Pride Month to be discriminatory ordered him to pay the fine and undergo LGBT training.

McQuaker did not respond to True North’s requests to comment, although he told the Toronto Sun that he would not capitulate to the demands of the pride organization and tribunal.

“I utterly refuse to pay the $5,000 because that’s extortion…and will not take the training,” McQuaker told the Sun Monday. “I did not do anything wrong. If anybody needs training, it’s the LGBTQ2+ to quit pushing their weight around and make demands that people can’t live with..”

He called the demands “unfair” and rejected the claims of those labelling him a “bigot,” saying he’s a reasonable person and a good leader who would likely have a lot of support if an election were held.

As reported by True North last week, the tribunal found the other two councillors’ votes to reject Borderland Pride’s verbiage to declare Pride Month not to be “discriminatory” as their reasons cited were based on the language used or the lack of an updated municipal policy on flag raising and declarations.

The defeated motion included that the township would recognize that “diversity of sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression represents a positive contribution to society and is a matter for our community to take pride in, show its support, and celebrate.”

Borderland Pride, the group that filed the claim against the municipality and its councillors, successfully argued that a proclamation from the city or a flag-raising constitute municipal services, making it discriminatory to not offer them to a particular group based on a protected ground, such as sexual orientation.

Borderland Pride told True North Tuesday that the mayor’s statements and refusal to abide by the tribunal decision were “disturbing and inappropriate.”

“What we are seeing is a public temper tantrum from a public office holder who has been emboldened by the pattern of attacks on institutions and the rule of law from the political right,” the Pride group said. 

Borderland Pride said McQuaker could be sanctioned further for not complying with the tribunal’s order.

“It is very clearly beneath the expectations and requirements of his office,” the organization said.

The group argued that the decision was “entirely reasonable and defensible” and was backed up by 30-year-old case law, which the group used in its lawsuit against the township and mayor.

“The mayor is the author of his misfortune. He has had four years to come to terms with the risks that he would have personal exposure in this proceeding. He refused all offers to resolve the matter that would have spared him that liability,” Borderland Pride said. “We are not going to re-litigate a legal matter in the media now that the mayor is unhappy with the outcome.”

The township is scheduled to vote on whether it will pay the $10,000 fine accosted to it on Tuesday.

The Township of Emo did not respond to True North’s requests to comment.

Related stories