In the 1990s, a B.C. NDP government cabinet minister famously pronounced , “Remember, government can do anything it wants.”

That basic undemocratic ethos is alive today in the present B.C. NDP government headed by Premier David Eby, most particularly on the Aboriginal “reconciliation” agenda.

Controversy continues to swirl around what critics refer to as the governments “land back” ideology, which appears firmly rooted in the larger and more ominous ethos of “decolonization.”

For some years now, British Columbia’s non-Aboriginal population have been taunted by two NDP administrations as “colonizers,” “settlers” and “uninvited guests” — language that has even been used in the B.C. legislature by government MLAs.

The government has also instructed against using the term “British Columbians,” as this term is considered offensive to those who do not accept the sovereignty of the Crown or the legitimacy of the Canadian province of British Columbia.

In its pursuit of “decolonization,” the NDP government has been working assiduously to “return” as much land as possible as quickly as possible to Aboriginal communities, many of which are tiny in terms of on-reserve residents.

Changes have been made by the NDP to negotiation mandates, and those changes are now reflected in the approach of the B.C. Treaty Commission — allowing for negotiation of Aboriginal title outside of the treaty process in “Foundation Agreements” and “other arrangements,” designed to circumvent the regular treaty process.

Aboriginal title is being negotiated by the B.C. and federal governments with shocking results. For example, we have witnessed the creation of Aboriginal title over the entirety of the Haida Gwaii archipelago with no requirement for the Haida to prove the historical occupation necessary under Canadian constitutional law for the existence of such title.

Recently, real estate developer Rick Illich decried the province’s “closed door negotiations” on Aboriginal rights and title. In his words the “secrecy” of those negotiations is “undemocratic,” and “terribly irresponsible and disingenuous” to most of the province’s population.

The 2024 B.C. NDP election platform made no mention of actively negotiating Aboriginal title deals, referring simply to “carrying on with the implementation of DRIPA (the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act) ” and “advancing reconciliation in tangible and measurable ways.”

In other words, they appear to have given themselves a blank slate, leaving the government free to do “anything it wants” on the “reconciliation” file in pursuing its “land back” ideology.

Increasingly, British Columbians are treated to new and startling revelations about what public lands the government is transferring to Aboriginal communities. The latest in a long list of such revelations is the plan to transfer important public lands in and around Victoria to bands in the Te’mexw Treaty Association, all with a minimum of public information having been made available.

Apparently, the public lands in question have been deemed “surplus” by B.C. and Canada. Such “surplus” lands include significant parts of the federal lands that house the historic Hatley Castle and Royal Roads University and large areas of existing provincial parks in the Capital region.

How can iconic historical sites and B.C.’s public provincial parks be considered “surplus,” with no public involvement whatsoever in government’s determination of that conclusion?

In 2002, the B.C. Liberal government held a referendum seeking public input on treaty mandates. Question number four of that referendum saw 94.5 per cent of the respondents confirm that parks and protected areas should be maintained for the use and benefit of all British Columbians. Now, in 2026, that public mandate is being shredded by the present B.C. government.

Negotiations are underway throughout British Columbia in furtherance of the B.C. NDP government’s “land back” ideology, which appears to be a core feature of its “reconciliation” agenda.

While the public watches helplessly from the sidelines, hoping for further glimpses of what public lands their government is sacrificing on the altar of “reconciliation,” the Eby government continues to negotiate in secrecy — giving every indication that, like its 1990s counterpart, it is a government that also thinks, “we are the government and we can do anything we want.”

Surely, there must be a time coming when the population of British Columbia says enough, and demands that the government finally begins to act in the greater public interest?

Perhaps we are finally getting closer to that time?

National Post

• Marty York: Canada’s universities have been co-opted by antisemites
• Anthony Koch: Replacing Poilievre won’t solve the Conservatives’ problems

I am proud to be a Canadian. I always have been. I believe this is the greatest country in the world — with the possible exception of the weather.

Our history is incredibly positive. The things we have done in the world to help others, whether in war or in peace, have regularly shown that Canada defends freedom and human dignity. Canada has been a haven for people fleeing oppression for generations. That is not an accident. It is the result of choices made by men and women who came before us, often with very little, and built something lasting.

Yet, there is something wrong with this country today. There appears to be a concerted effort, subtle but consistent, to debase our past, make Canadians feel ashamed of who they are and where they come from, and to suggest that our history is mainly a story of oppression and failure.

That is not honest and it is not healthy.

Every nation draws strength from its past. Knowing what our predecessors accomplished gives us the confidence to face our own challenges and to strive to do better. Canada has grown because people tried to better themselves and their situations for their families. Canada is made up of stories of immigrants leaving hardship behind, farmers clearing land with hand tools and engineers designing bridges across impossible geography.

Were there flawed people along the way? Of course. All leaders, even the great ones, were flawed. That is no ground for cancelling them from history. They built a wonderful country with the tools and understanding they had in their times. Their execution may have been imperfect, but their intent was often noble, and their achievements are real.

Like it or not, we are in a kind of historical war. Our governments and many of our institutions are systematically debasing the foundations of our great country — a country that people worldwide still strive to be part of. Perhaps the goal is to make us look only to our politicians to solve our problems and build our future. I do not believe that is wise.

A good example of the need for recognizing our admirable history and the assurance it can provide us lies with our Jewish brothers and sisters. I posed the question to a Jewish friend at lunch recently: “If one removed the history of the Jews, where would you be?” My friend said, “It is memory that has sustained us, nurtured us and inspired us. It is our collective memory that we can pass onto our children which enables us to move forward with pride and confidence.”

The courage and resilience of the Jewish people through great persecution, rests on how history has guided and inspired them over thousands of years up until now. This illustration is also true of other nations and faiths, but the Jews are a powerful example of how tenacity and accomplishment are supported by their past.

As a practicing Christian and Catholic, I, too, have witnessed our government’s debasing of our wider history as well as our faith basis for years. A history of great sacrifice, steadfastness, contribution and accomplishment by all Canadians. Again, were there deeply flawed people along the way — yes. They were, thankfully, a small minority and should not dominate our historic memory.

In addition, our so-called efforts at inclusion are, in fact, exclusion and, as a consequence, they undercut our faith in Canada and its future. We are now “a house divided.”

If one were a conspiracy theorist, it would seem a long-term, organized effort has been at work. The above efforts have been continual and consistent. What’s being missed is what is replacing our history — negativity, self-entitlement, division and even hostility.

Sadly, the debasement effort seems to be succeeding as Canadians are losing some of the pride previous generations have felt for our country. Remember, they built the Canada we all now enjoy.

It seems the excuse of tolerance has, in fact, been a cover for intolerance and even bigotry throughout Canada’s officialdom. Canada is now fractured and is starting to appear less like a democracy than a tyranny of special interest groups.

Pride in one’s history is the glue that holds countries together and gives them the confidence to push forward. Without nurturing and preserving our history, Canada, as a nation, is doomed.

Canada is my home. But a home without memory is just a building. A nation without history is just a border on a map.

We can acknowledge mistakes without erasing achievements. We can be honest about the past without hating it. And we can be proud of Canada without being blind.

If we want a future worth building, we need a past worth remembering.

National Post

Thomas S. Caldwell, C.M. is the chair of Caldwell Financial Ltd. Urbana Corporation.

The most important thing happening in Canada this week is not the threat of 50 per cent tariffs on US$20 billion of this country’s products by President Donald Trump.

Rather, according to Prime Minister Mark Carney, the most consequential event was Monday’s announcement in St. John’s, N.L., of a multi-billion-dollar clean energy deal with Quebec that will see a tripling of the generating capacity of the Churchill Falls hydro-electric project. The additional power generated by the expansion would be enough power to light, heat and cool Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver combined, Carney said.

The deal replaces the notorious 1969 Churchill Falls power contract that heavily favoured Hydro-Quebec at the expense of Newfoundland and Labrador. It will see the average rate paid per kilowatt hour rise from 0.2 cents to around 6 cents.

The benefit for Quebec is that it secures additional clean power for the province until 2077. Even allowing for the price increase, Hydro Québec will still be paying much less than any alternative source of power, Premier Christine Fréchette said.

Quebec runs on cheap hydro and the deal guarantees predictable, stable energy for the next 50 years. The 10,000 MW provided for by the deal is more than one-quarter of Hydro-Québec’s current output.

In that sense, Carney is right — it is historic in ending nearly 60 years of enmity between the provinces and offers increased economic development opportunities for both.

The deal was stalled until the federal government stepped forward with $10 billion in financing. Ottawa will expand the Churchill Falls plant; construct a transmission line to the Labrador West mining trough; support the construction of a new dam at Gull Island; build a 2,000 MW onshore wind energy project; and refer the whole series of interlocking investments to the Major Projects Office to coordinate funding and accelerate permitting.

It appears to be no coincidence that Carney, Fréchette and Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Tony Wakeham stood shoulder to shoulder to make the announcement two days before Trump’s new tariffs were due to land.

Wakeham said that the deal would not have reached fruition without Carney’s leadership. “You helped bridge the gap between the two sides,” he said. “This is a partnership between two provinces and a federal government that is dreaming big for Canada and executing big for Canada. That, sir, will be your legacy and I’m proud to be a partner in it.”

Fréchette acknowledged that a Parti Québécois government could tear up the agreement after October’s election. “But where will they get 10,000 MW of power, and at what cost?” she said.

The veracity of the claim that this is a “win-win-win” deal is debatable — it involves huge federal investments and it will be years before taxpayers see any return.

But it is absolutely the kind of “nation-building investment” that Carney promised when he sought election last year. “We are giving ourselves more than any other nation can take away,” he said.

The deal will also build trust between the provinces, “the most valuable commodity in an increasingly volatile and unreliable world,” the prime minister said.

Carney outlined how the increase in power would help industry access iron ore and graphite reserves in Labrador. “Each investment unlocks the others,” he said.

He was asked if he planned to talk to Trump before Wednesday’s deadline.

He said he did, “and the first thing I will talk about is this historic investment. I say that in all seriousness… Maybe I’ll translate ‘maîtres chez nous’ for the president as well. This is what a good deal looks like,” he said.

Carney didn’t directly link the supply of critical minerals, including high purity iron ore, to the current negotiations with Trump, but it’s clear he intends to impress on the president that Canada is not a supplicant. Rather, the message from Monday’s announcement is that this country is united in its determination to forge an independent future.

The pressure is already building on Trump not to proceed with the threatened section 338 tariffs under the Smoot-Hawley Act. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce issued a statement saying that new tariffs would drive up costs for U.S. families, disrupt supply chains and risk jobs that are dependent on trade with Canada and Mexico.

Yields on the 30-year U.S. Treasury bill hit a two-decade high of 5.3 per cent on Tuesday, over persistent inflation, geopolitical and borrowing fears.

The prospect of an extension to Wednesday’s deadline is considered a reasonable bet. But senior sources have reiterated that the two sides are far apart when it comes to lowering the sectoral tariffs on steel, aluminum, autos and forestry, in large part because the Trump administration believes they are working when it comes to re-shoring investment.

The president clearly believes an incremental bump in light vehicle production is worth risking a trade war with his nearest neighbour.

But he is also the man who has threatened to bomb Oman (an ally), backed the world’s worst regime (North Korea) and told reporters to mind their own business when they asked how his 20-year-old son Barron has accumulated $150 million. All within the past 48 hours.

Whatever comes out of the White House this week will be transitory. The Churchill Falls deal will outlast us all.

National Post
jivison@criffel.ca
Twitter.com/IvisonJ

As Canada waits to see whether Prime Minister Mark Carney can strike a trade deal with Donald Trump — or whether the U.S. president will slap 50 per cent tariffs on $20 billion worth of our goods Wednesday — another deadline is looming: When will the Conservative party figure out a path back to power?

Because right now, it is going nowhere.

This week’s Nanos poll put the Liberals at 45.7 per cent, the Conservatives at 28.5 per cent, and the NDP at 13.7 per cent. Even more troubling for the Tories, Carney is the preferred prime minister at 52.6 per cent, with Poilievre at 18.1. Fundraising is reportedly down, as is morale, with Conservative infighting making headlines all summer.

The temptation for the party is to play another round of “knife the leader.” Conservatives excel at this: since the departure of Prime Minister Stephen Harper in 2015, they have cycled through three of them, in a series of increasingly bitter contests.

But there’s a wrench in the plan: the lack of replacement. Another Nanos poll published in July showed that voters think no Conservative leader can defeat Carney. The strongest candidate would be Harper, at 16 per cent; sorry, but I doubt he wants the job. And as his former communications director noted, he might not even be able to get it.

That’s because between Covid, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s exit and Trump’s election, Canada’s political landscape has been completely rearranged. Today’s Conservative party is no longer the party of a decade ago, or even of the last five years. It morphed into a coalition of the aggrieved: anti-vaxxers, Trudeau haters, and struggling Canadians, many of them young people, angry at not being able to afford a house and get ahead in the current economy.

Problem is, the first two elements no longer have a cause. And while younger voters outnumber Boomer voters, they are still less likely to go to the polls, making them an unreliable cohort. And Boomer voters, as we know, are solidly for Carney.

The Conservatives’ conundrum is that the leader they have now was the leader for a moment that has passed. And in the brave new world of Trump, the ballot question isn’t whether Canadians were better off than they were four years ago; it’s who can best defend the country from an unpredictable American president.

The Conservative thinking is likely: if Carney fails to get a deal this week, the shine will start coming off and give them an opening. But I’m starting to doubt that. Trump has so damaged Canadians’ view of America that they are giving Carney a much longer honeymoon. And that makes it even harder to find a leader willing to take the reins of the official Opposition.

Poilievre, meanwhile, is still repeating lines from the last election. “My job is to continue to fight for the common people, fight for affordability, and to fight for safe streets for our country, and that’s what I will continue to do,” he said Sunday, calling for the federal government to permanently pause the federal gas tax.

But the “Canada is broken” narrative no longer works, because Carney isn’t seen as a wrecking ball: Trump is. When Canadians perceive an external threat, they don’t want to hear primarily about everything wrong with their country. They want to hear how it can become stronger, and the Liberals have leaned into that nation-building narrative, accelerating major projects, housing construction, and infrastructure building.

Poilievre faces two choices: present an alternative vision of how to build Canada that’s better than Carney’s, or double down on the anger that fuelled his rise to power. If he chooses door no. 1, he might stick around, assuming he can curb his penchant for schoolyard sniping. If he picks door no. 2, heir apparent or not, he’s out within the year.

Postmedia News

Tasha Kheiriddin is Postmedia’s national politics columnist.

A recent federal government report , which found that 95.7 per cent of Jewish post-secondary students in this country experienced antisemitism last year, was eye-opening to be sure, but not a complete shocker to those of us who have been following what has been happening on university campuses over the past three years.

“What this report ultimately tells us is that campus antisemitism is not just a widespread problem but a systemic problem, which corroborates what our students have been telling us for years,” said Daniel Koren, founder and executive director of Allied Voices for Israel, in an interview. “When (the vast majority) of students report seeing or experiencing antisemitism, it means universities are institutions where antisemitism is thriving and going unchecked.”

Even worse is the fact that these institutions are state-sponsored. Grants from the federal and provincial governments keep Canadian universities alive and functioning.

“There is a hateful mob mentality targeting students of all backgrounds, including brave non-Jewish students who choose allyship and stand with their Jewish peers,” Koren said. “Through their inaction, and by allowing the status quo to continue, the federal and provincial governments are enabling antisemitism to thrive. It is time for the governments to wake up and re-evaluate their grants to post-secondary schools.”

Agreed. Why in the world is our tax money going to support cesspools of fear and hate? Too many universities have become breeding grounds for antisemitism, laden with influencers, including professors, who should know better but seem all too willing to share anti-Jewish messages.

And that includes journalism schools, which terrifies me. I’ve been in or around mainstream media in Canada for more than half a century — I started at the Globe and Mail when I was a tot — and I’ve taught journalism in post-secondary institutions, yet I was stunned by a recent report from HonestReporting Canada.

It details how J-Source (the J stands for “journalism”), which is affiliated with the journalism programs at Toronto Metropolitan University and Carleton University, shows a “persistent pattern of one-sided framing: elevating Palestinian narratives while portraying Israeli perspectives, pro-Israel advocacy and journalistic standards such as balance and objectivity with skepticism.”

Since the heinous attack on Israel by Hamas terrorists on Oct. 7, 2023, HonestReporting argues that, “The outlet has become consistently fixated on Israel, producing not only what we regard as deeply problematic content, but what we consider constitutes a dangerous demonization of supporters of Israel.”

HonestReporting cites several examples of what the organization views as biased reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“Pieced together, J-Source’s coverage in our view does not simply prioritize Palestinian narratives, contexts and rhetoric,” HonestReporting writes, “it consistently elevates a particular pro-Palestinian interpretive frame as journalistic common sense, as objectivity.

“Across J-Source coverage and from our perspective, Israeli narratives, claims and history are treated as the central driver of conflict; Palestinians’ position in the wider narrative is folded into broader, politically driven explanations of history, structural issues and motivations. The result is a recurring asymmetry in J-Source’s editorial posture, one that is not merely sympathy toward Palestinians, but rather a predetermined narrative of morality and victimhood.

“The concern with J-Source is not that it examines Israel, publishes Palestinian perspectives or challenges established narratives. The concern in our view is that a publication connected to Canadian journalism education appears to repeatedly blur the distinction between analyzing bias and advancing a particular pro-Palestinian agenda.

“When a platform associated with journalism education presents what we regard as a pro-Palestinian worldview as the natural standard of objectivity, it risks shaping the next generation of journalists toward advocacy rather than serious and honest inquiry.”

Terrifying.

National Post

• Michael Higgins: Toronto Metropolitan University is a disgrace
• Jesse Kline: Radicalized in universities, ‘journalists’ seek more bias against Israel

Canada has a particularly robust immune system, but rather than rejecting what is harmful, the country’s Laurentian standard-bearers swoop in to attack anything that could be positive, particularly if it is not aligned with a mushy left-wing worldview or with the interests of the Liberal party. So it is with the hysterics over Shopify CEO’s Tobi Lütke’s expression of opinions in places where other people can read them.

On July 25, Lütke floated the idea of banning seniors from voting, posting on X: “New deal: when you get your pension deal it’s locked in and guaranteed. But now you are a dependent and that means no voting, just like dependents under age. Enjoy the deal, let people with a stake in the future decide.”

It was in response to the influence of people of a certain vintage that show up to community consultation meetings and block development. In particular, the comment was directed at a story about opposition to a housing project in San Francisco, but the phenomenon is also understood across Canadian cities. Not to mention the fact that Prime Minister Mark Carney draws disproportionate support from those over 65, no matter how bleak things look, because he personifies their hold on power.

When a retired banking executive suggested to Lütke an alternative approach that would involve weighting votes by how much income tax a voter pays, Lütke replied “Good system.” Under this plan, votes would be divided like so: “no income tax paid – 0 vote, $1-100k – 1 vote, $100-200k 2 votes and so on… cap it at 5 votes for $500k+”

Whether or not the Shopify co-founder considered these serious proposals or just a bit of snark to make a point about how people who no longer pay income taxes are driving public policy didn’t seem to matter. The blowback was swift and angry. Liberal advisors and left-wing commentators on X pounced, calling Lütke a “wanker” or implying he was a literal Nazi, given his German heritage.

Mostly, the social media reaction ignored the real issues being raised about voting demographics and devolved into your standard pearl-clutching about “billionaires,” which then bled into the opinion pages of the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail.

The Star’s David Olive , surprisingly, nearly made Lütke’s case for taking the vote away from seniors. He cited research that considered what happens in democracies with an aging population: “governments tend to prioritize pension protection — whose costs rise over time — at the expense of more growth-enhancing policies.” However, Olive ended his column not with what might have been an interesting position, but a lament that Lütke doesn’t spend his money in a more socially conscious way.

A political scientist, also writing in the Star, likened Lütke’s comments to “ authoritarianism,” and one of the Globe and Mail’s marquee columnists called Lütke a “first-class fool” for a whole range of opinions that a marquee Globe columnists wouldn’t have.

So maybe Lütke’s voting ideas are not going to find their way into any contemporary policy platform, but they are hardly uniquely loopy. Certainly, no more loopy then the former Google executive who spoke at the Liberal party convention this spring, advocating a $500,000 exit tax for Canadians who want to emigrate out of the country.

In any case, the over the top reaction to Lütke’s posts on weighted voting wasn’t really about this specific opinion, but the breadth of opinions he has expressed in recent years and the amount of attention he commands because he is Canada’s most successful tech entrepreneur.

He has said , under Justin Trudeau, that “Canada veered into socialism.” When Trump first imposed tariffs under the admittedly dubious justification of Canada’s fentanyl problem, Lütke posted“These are not crazy demands.” Build Canada , the advocacy group associated with Lütke, has recommended cutting government spending, reducing taxes and phasing out Old Age Security for higher earning seniors.

Additionally, Lutke’s critics complain that Shopify does not vet those who use its software for whether or not they hold acceptable political opinions.

Canadian business leaders are supposed to be quiet and compliant and accept their role as little more than leaders of public utilities who, in exchange for acquiescence, are gifted with favourable tax credits, regulation to keep out competitors, as well as oligopoly and trade protection. Pretty much any major company operating in this country, a Bombardier, or an Air Canada, any of the main automakers, or dairy farmers, are inextricable from the state, and in Canada that means the Liberal party. Don’t even get me started on the arts industry.

When it comes to industries Ottawa doesn’t much care for, such as the energy sector, agreeing not to raise a racket is the price of being permitted to exist at all. But it is an existence that is heavily contained and directed not towards private profits, but the goals of the government, be them environmental, social, or financial.

As for the Ottawa-based Shopify, its staggering global success as a default digital commerce platform, renders it largely immune to being managed. Revenue for the company’s most recent quarter was US$3.4 billion, a 34 per cent increase from the same quarter last year, while US$116 billion in sales were conducted using Shopify’s platforms across 6.8 million stores.

Tobi Lütke is doing his best to goad this country back to prosperity. He is not the foreign invader his critics would paint him as, but someone whose success all business leaders in Canada should aspire to.

National Post

• Ben Woodfinden: All hail the judicial smackdown of bike lane rights
• Michael Higgins: Toronto Metropolitan University is a disgrace

In January 2025, a transgender man from Wisconsin applied for asylum in Canada with the hope of attaining permanent refugee status. The person, who is biologically female, had visited the country several times prior and had even gotten engaged to a Canadian. But after a year and a half of asylum proceedings, the applicant was met with rejection: just a couple of weeks ago, the Federal Court issued a decision green-lighting the individual’s deportation.

Alexis Aldinger’s reasons for wanting to stay in Canada, as quoted in the Federal Court decision, were as follows: “As a pansexual transgender man, I fear for my safety in my own country due to the Trump administration’s continued attack on immigrants, LGBTIQ2+ members, its own citizens and threats of annexing other countries.

“In addition, I have suffered severe trauma from the emotional and psychological turmoil of growing up in a family home who rejected my identity as a transgender male. I cannot seek state protection from the U.S.A. authorities, as they are the people who I fear persecution from the most. If I return to the U.S.A., I fear that I will be killed or forced to live as something I am not, causing me further traumatization and emotional and psychological damage.”

In general, Aldinger feared the “risk of violence and death and serious discrimination in virtually all aspects of life due to hateful political actions and rhetoric.”

It was the kind of asylum application that would have been scoffed at 15 years ago by just about anyone who read it, from immigration officials to regular citizens. Unheard of back then was the term “pansexual,” which means a person who claims to be attracted to all genders (which also implies the person believes in more than two genders). Even transgenderism wasn’t a widely known concept. It would have been unthinkable to most people that such niche issues could become the basis for an asylum claim.

Even by contemporary understandings, Aldinger’s claim didn’t make any sense. Among the reasons cited was U.S. President Donald Trump’s hostility toward immigrants. And if it were the case that merely this could form the basis of an asylum claim, well, Canada would essentially have an open border to any migrant who settled in the U.S., which would render the country unrecognizable within a generation.

Aldinger also claimed to have personal safety fears in the U.S. due to Trump’s threats to annex other countries. This would have seemed more genuine if this person chose to flee to somewhere other than Canada, which Trump has mused about annexing. If Aldinger actually feared the effects of Trumpian military conquest, Canada would be one of the last places to go.

Overall, Aldinger’s claim seemed to be based on personal anxiety over politics. And while I have no doubt that this individual was unhappy at the thought of living in a country governed by Trump, it was clear that this person’s minor grievances amounted to what is sometimes called a “first-world problem.” This wasn’t a case of running away from starvation, evading flying bullets, escaping camps or fleeing the prospect of being buried in a mass grave.

Justice Sébastien Grammond saw the unserious claim for what it was. He acknowledged that reports of violence against transgender people in the U.S. did exist, but not to the point of establishing a “well-founded fear of persecution.” And while evidence of discrimination against transgender individuals in the U.S. had been put before Grammond’s court, he didn’t see anything that warranted refugee protection. Aldinger’s home state of Wisconsin even offers publicly funded “transgender-related health care,” so that wasn’t a concern in this case.

“The evidence filed by Mr. Aldinger also suggests that many people in the United States have a negative perception of the LGBTQ+ community, and transgender persons in particular, and that politicians have fuelled this negative sentiment in many ways,” continued Grammond. “However, the negative social perception of a group, even encouraged by political discourse, does not necessarily give rise to a well-founded fear of persecution.”

Aldinger would have been deported on Aug. 4 if no more legal avenues were left to delay it further. It’s impossible to really know because the Canada Border Services Agency considers the execution of a publicly ordered deportation to be private information. Alas, this decision at least assures the public that some judges can still be trusted to dispose of these bogus claims.

Transgender-related asylum claims by Americans are a recurring problem in Canada. One such case involving a trans individual from Arizona was reported by the Globe and Mail last year. Another individual from Colorado has been fighting since 2019 for the right to live in Canada as a refugee; recent Instagram posts show that this person remains here.

Just like Aldinger’s feeble case, these claims take up capacity in our already overburdened system and impose various other costs upon the public. For example, asylum seekers who haven’t been assessed yet, as well as those who have been rejected and are in the process of appealing, receive health care that is either free or heavily discounted, depending on the specific service in question.

The Federal Court’s firm “no” to Aldinger discourages other Americans from making similar thinly supported asylum claims in Canada. It’s also a small victory for common sense. And so, it’s worth a small celebration.

National Post