I can just imagine the grand-standing and filibusters in Congress if Canada (gentle, kind, peaceful Canada!) suggested installing polite, respectful Canadian Customs officials in 'Mercan airports, eh.
From my experience, professional photographers, photo lab technicians, and their ilk, who spend lots of time looking photos and their technical aspects (sharpness, lighting, colour, pixelation, etc, etc, etc), would easily spot the, to me, obviously edited photos. Case in point: the top photo in the The Stack article - clinton-fake-photo-832x333.jpg - is so obviously faked that I'm surprised that anyone would be fooled by it.
First dead giveaway: Clinton's head is illuminated from the right-read as is Mandela's(?) head. De Angelis's head? From the top-front. (I can't believe that De Angelis's victims didn't spot that fakery.)
Second less-dead giveaway: the pixelation isn't quite the same. The imposter's pixels are larger, not by much, than Clinton's - at least in the sample from the article.
Grrrr! My consumer-/tax-dollars at work.
I had the same reaction as epine: "Margaret Wente, really? People still pay attention to her"?
If you did go to the Stats Can link that Wente provided, you should have noticed that the link only shows stats for the years 2010 to 2014, a very short period of time. Now, Statistics Canada is a very good, reputable government agency, so I didn't dismiss their stats out of hand, but still... What was going on?
Do as I did and as iONiUM should have done before posting this article here: Click on the Add/Remove Data tab, right next to the default-selected Data Table tab. You can change the range of years reported. At Step 3 - select the time frame I selected a range from 1984 to 2014. Lo and behold!: the bee population nowadays is less than half of what it was in the mid--eighties - from 20,810 in 1984 to 8,777 in 2014, the year of Wente's purported rebound...
Frackin' info-cherry-picking Margaret Wente! She's one of the reasons I stopped reading the Globe and Mail.