Finance Minister Freeland on inflation, Canada-China relations, convoy protests – November 17, 2022
121K subscribers
LIVE PUBLIC ORDER EMERGENCY COMISSION INQUIRY Day 25 - November 17, 2022
53.4K subscribers
CRASH THE SYSTEM http://CRASHWC.COM https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/cr... February 14, 2022 Declaration of Public Order Emergency: Explanation pursuant to subsection 58(1) of the Emergencies Act
https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/tr...
PM's national security adviser suggested Emergencies Act's definition of a security threat should change
Inquiry is weighing whether federal government was justified in invoking act
The
prime minister's security and intelligence adviser says that the
definition of a "threat to security of Canada" under the terms of the
Emergencies Act should be reconsidered to better reflect the times.
Jody Thomas's comments to the Public Order Emergency Commission emerged as the commission continues its probe to determine whether the federal government's decision to invoke the act to clear Ottawa of protesters opposed to pandemic measures protests was justified.
Earlier this week, the commission heard that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) didn't believe the self-styled Freedom Convoy constituted a threat to national security, according to the definition in its enabling law.
To deploy the Emergencies Act, cabinet must have reasonable grounds to believe a public order emergency exists — which the Act defines as one that "arises from threats to the security of Canada that are so serious as to be a national emergency."
RCMP
Commissioner Brenda Lucki steps out of a vehicle as she arrives at the
Public Order Emergency Commission, Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2022 in Ottawa. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)The act defers to CSIS's definition of threats — which includes serious violence against persons or property, espionage, foreign interference or an intent to overthrow the government by violence.
In an interview with commission lawyers this fall, Thomas (whose title is often shortened to 'NSIA') and other officials suggested that this definition be "reconsidered."
"The panel explained that security threats have evolved in the 40-year period since the enactment of the Emergencies Act," says a summary of that conversation.
"The panel concluded that the reference to a threat to the security of Canada as defined by section 2 of the CSIS Act in section 16 of the Emergencies Act should be reconsidered."
The act was passed in 1988 as a replacement for the War Measures Act. It had never been used before February of this year and is widely considered a measure of last resort.
Thomas told the commission she was aware CSIS concluded the protests did not meet the threshold to declare a national emergency, but she felt the intelligence agency's mandate was too narrow.
The interview summary said some CSIS targets were present at the protests but they would have to escalate from rhetoric to inciting or carrying out serious violence to meet the service's legal threshold for declaring a national emergency.
"In contrast, the reality was broader than that," said the document.
"In NSIA Thomas' view, it was the totality of the circumstances that led to what she considered to be the existence of a threat to the security of Canada, and therefore, [a] public order emergency."
WATCH | National security threat 'wasn't really defined,' PM's national security adviser says
Thomas said she considered multiple factors in coming to that conclusion: the blockades shutting down several key border crossings, the protesters' occupation of downtown Ottawa and the fact that security officials did not know what might be in the large trucks parked in the capital during the protests.
"They did not know how long it would go on or how much larger it could get," said the interview summary.
"Once a tipping point of violence was reached, it would be too late, even with the police presence available."
Thomas contradicts RCMP's Lucki
In a stunning moment Thursday, Thomas contradicted testimony given by the country's top Mountie about that police presence.
RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki said that on the eve of the federal government invoking the Emergencies Act, she told Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino's chief of staff that she felt police had not exhausted all legal tools.
But Thomas said Lucki failed to pass that information on during a meeting with senior officials on Feb. 13.
"Individuals who are at that meeting are expected to provide information that is of use to decision makers ... the prime minister in his cabinet," Thomas said Thursday.
Police enforce an injunction against protesters in Ottawa on Feb. 19, 2022. (Evan Mitsui/CBC)
"If there is useful or critical information it needs to be provided, whether you are on the speaking list or not."
Thomas also said Lucki never gave notice to the federal cabinet that police had firmed up an operational plan to end the blockades.
"There was no evidence there was a plan," said Thomas. "We had been told there was a plan multiple times."
Thomas's testimony comes near the end of a week of hearings that delved deeper into the briefings cabinet was receiving as it considered whether to trigger the Emergencies Act.
On Monday, Brendan Miller, a lawyer for some of the convoy organizers, entered into evidence a summary of an interview CSIS Director David Vigneault gave the commission.
It showed the intelligence agency had concerns about invoking the Emergencies Act.
"[Vigneault] felt an obligation to clearly convey the service's position that there did not exist a threat to the security of Canada as defined by the service's legal mandate," said the document.
Rob Stewart, deputy minister of the federal Department of Public Safety, said the government would have a broader interpretation of what constitutes a national security threat.
The commission heard earlier this week that Thomas asked for an urgent threat assessment just before noon on Feb. 14 — the day the federal government invoked the act.
"The characters involved. The weapons. The motivation. Clearly this isn't just COVID and is a threat to democracy and rule of law," Thomas wrote at the time.
A Feb. 10 email entered into evidence Thursday showed the Privy Council Office was looking into the definition of national security.
"As you know, one of the challenges on this issue is the [government of Canada] never ended up formally defining it," wrote Philippe Lafortune, an employee at the PCO.
"Looking at all of this, and ongoing events, I am of the opinion downtown Ottawa may not constitute a national security issue but border integrity could be."
Lawful and unlawful protests discussed
Thomas said she and Vigneault met with deputy ministers met on Feb. 14 and discussed how to define the threat posed by the protests.
She questioned whether events like the one that unfolded in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6, 2021 — when demonstrators protesting the results of the presidential election stormed the Capitol building — should be the benchmark for defining something as a violent protest.
"Or is the violence that people of Ottawa were experiencing on the streets, the inability of people in Windsor to conduct their lives, the inability of town of Coutts to function, is that a line?" Thomas testified Thursday.
"I don't have an answer for it."
Vigneault is expected to testify before the commission inquiry next week.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2022 17:33:51 -0400
Subject: Fwd: YO Larry Brock Someone Is Lying Big Time today?
To: Mike.Macdonald@pco-bcp.gc.ca, Jody.Thomas@pco-bcp.gc.ca
Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2022 17:33:51 -0400
Subject: Fwd: YO Larry Brock Someone Is Lying Big Time today?
To: Mike.Macdonald@pco-bcp.gc.ca, Jody.Thomas@pco-bcp.gc.ca
Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Trudeau's national security adviser felt convoy protest posed 'a threat to democracy:' documents
'Could I get an assessment please…It's a very short fuse,' Jody Thomas says in email tabled before inquiry
The comments offer a glimpse of the advice cabinet was receiving as it invoked the Emergencies Act for the very first time in the legislation's history to end the convoy protests that blocked trade corridors and gridlocked downtown Ottawa last winter.
In an email presented at the Public Order Emergency Commission Tuesday, Jody Thomas, Trudeau's national security intelligence adviser, writes that she's looking for a threat assessment.
The email was sent just before noon on Feb. 14 — the day the government announced it was invoking the Emergencies Act and around the time the prime minister was briefing premiers.
"The characters involved. The weapons. The motivation. Clearly this isn't just COVID and is a threat to democracy and rule of law," wrote Thomas, whose title is often shortened to 'NSIA'.
"Could I get an assessment please … It's a very short fuse."
Jody
Thomas, national security and intelligence advisor to the prime
minister, arrives at the west block on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on
Tuesday, May 10, 2022. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)
A few minutes later, Thomas wrote an email to senior government officials warning that "this is about a national threat to national interest and institutions.
"By people who do not care about or understand democracy. Who are preparing to be violent. Who are motivated by anti-government sentiment."
The request for a threat assessment made its way to the RCMP's Adriana Poloz, executive director of intelligence and international policing.
Her assessment said that ideologically motivated violent extremism "adherents" had been linked to the convoy. She pointed to a Three Percenters flag spotted on a truck taking part in the Ottawa protest and said that Diagolon members also attended that protest.
The Three Percenters are members of a listed terrorist entity in Canada. While members of the Diagolon online community claim the organization is satirical, the RCMP's assessment said prominent members have "espoused increasingly violent rhetoric opposing vaccine mandates."
The report also noted that the majority of protesters had been peaceful.
RCMP questioned on chain of command
Commission lawyer Gordon Cameron raised the emails Tuesday as he questioned RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki and Deputy Commissioner Michael Duheme about whether the request for a threat assessment was made properly.
"How does it happen that when the NSIA wants a security threat [analysis], it doesn't go through one of you, but goes directly to somebody in an intelligence directorate that frankly none of us had seen before we saw this email?" he asked.
Duheme said that while it isn't ideal, sometimes people in government reach out for information directly if they have a relationship with the person providing it.
Cameron pointed out that the NSIA was advising government on whether to use extraordinary emergency powers
"This was a very time-pressured situation. It might be understandable that corners were cut or direct contact was used," said Cameron.
"Were you alert to the fact this was a threat assessment going from your people to the Privy Council Office in connection with the invocation of the Emergencies Act?"
Both Lucki and Duheme said they couldn't recall if they were briefed on the RCMP's response to Thomas.
The Mounties' testimony follows questions put to a senior public servant Monday about how cabinet made its decision to invoke the act on national security grounds.
Brendan Miller, a lawyer for some convoy organizers, asked Rob Stewart, the deputy minister of the federal Public Safety department during the protests, about the advice the federal cabinet was getting about the convoy at the time.
Miller showed Stewart a document that showed the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) didn't believe the self-styled Freedom Convoy constituted a threat to national security, according to the definition in its enabling law.
CSIS didn't see convoy as a threat: docs
The document, a summary of an interview CSIS Director David Vigneault gave the commission, showed the intelligence agency had concerns about invoking the Emergencies Act.
"[Vigneault] felt an obligation to clearly convey the service's position that there did not exist a threat to the security of Canada as defined by the service's legal mandate," said the document.
Stewart said the government would have a broader interpretation of what constitutes a national security threat.
RCMP
Deputy Commissioner Mike Duheme looks on as Commissioner Brenda Lucki
responds to a question as they appear as witnesses at the Public Order
Emergency Commission, Tuesday, November 15, 2022 in Ottawa. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)
"The cabinet is making that decision and their interpretation of the law is what governs here," said Stewart.
"And their decision was, evidently, the threshold was met."
"You have the RCMP, you have CSIS, you have the entire intelligence apparatus in the federal government and none of them said that this threshold was met, did they?" Miller asked Stewart.
"They weren't asked," Stewart said.
The Public Order Emergency Commission is assessing whether the federal government met the legal threshold to invoke the Emergencies Act to clear Ottawa of protesters last winter.
To deploy the Emergencies Act, cabinet must have reasonable grounds to believe a public order emergency exists — which the law defines as one that "arises from threats to the security of Canada that are so serious as to be a national emergency."
The act refers to CSIS's definition of threats, including serious violence against persons or property, espionage, foreign interference or an intent to overthrow the government by violence. The act goes on to say a national emergency is "an urgent, temporary and critical situation that seriously endangers the health and safety of Canadians that cannot be effectively dealt with by the provinces or territories."
"It must be a situation that cannot be effectively dealt with by any other law of Canada," reads the act.
Lucki felt police hadn't used all tools
In an email to Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino's chief of staff the night before the federal government invoked the Emergencies Act, Lucki said she felt police had not yet exhausted "all available tools."
"There are instances where charges could be laid under existing authorities for various Criminal Code offences occurring right now in the context of the protest," she wrote.
Lucki told the commission that when federal ministers sat down to formally debate invoking the act the night of Feb. 13, she was in the room representing all responding police forces but did not get a chance to speak.
"I guess in hindsight, that might have been something significant," Lucki testified Tuesday.
WATCH | Former RCMP deputy commissioner on Lucki's testimony
Trudeau cited issues with police enforcement when he announced his decision to trigger the act.
"It is now clear that there are serious challenges to law enforcement's ability to effectively enforce the law," he told a news conference at the time.
Lucki and Duheme addressed some of the chaos between police forces Tuesday, saying they quickly became worried that the Ottawa police did not have a plan to end the convoy protest that occupied the capital last winter.
The pair also sat for an interview with commission lawyers in September. A summary of that conversation was entered into evidence Tuesday.
Questions about resources
During that interview, Lucki said the RCMP became concerned during the week of Jan. 31 — the week after the first weekend of protest — that the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) did not have an overall operational plan to end the occupation of Ottawa.
Both Mounties said they needed to see a plan before committing more resources to Ottawa as similar anti-COVID-19 restrictions protests began to sprout in Western Canada and at the Windsor, Ont., border crossing.
Duheme told the commission lawyers that he joined a call with Ottawa officers on Jan. 31, where OPS indicated it wanted to launch an aggressive enforcement operation from Feb. 3-6.
"Duheme said he felt that OPS lacked the resources to conduct these operations and had neither the resources nor the plans to sustain them over the long term," said the interview summary.
WATCH | Lucki says local police requests 'caught us off guard' during protests
In a Feb. 5 text message to Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Thomas Carrique, Lucki said the federal government had lost confidence in the Ottawa police.
"Between you and I only, [Government of Canada] is losing (or) lost confidence in OPS … we gotta get to safe action (or) enforcement," Lucki texted.
"Cause if they go the Emergency Measures Act, you or (I) may be brought into lead … not something I want."
The exchange has been entered as evidence before the commission.
Asked about the exchange Tuesday, Lucki told the commission she came to that conclusion based on the questions she was getting daily.
"I could hear the impatience. I could hear the frustration," she testified.
Lucki told the commission Tuesday she was surprised by a public request from Ottawa's mayor and police chief for 1,800 more officers to help end the convoy protest in the capital.
Duheme said the force provided 50 front-line officers to Ottawa police after it became clear the protest would stretch beyond the first weekend. Approximately 200 more RCMP officers were assigned to protective duties in the capital but were available for reassignment, Duheme said.
As the occupation wore on, the RCMP provided more reinforcements — culminating in a total of 1,100 officers drawn from across the country by the time police finally moved in to clear the downtown.
Lucki said that, in the end, the RCMP provided all the resources requested.
"We fulfilled those requests," she told the commission.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
With files from Alistair Steele and the Canadian Press
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2022 11:02:03 -0400
Subject: YO Larry Brock Someone Is Lying Big Time today?
To: larry.brock@parl.gc.ca, "Matthew.Green"
<Matthew.Green@parl.gc.ca>, 4iamcaper@gmail.com, Clint
<clint@strawmanstory.info>, "erin.otoole" <erin.otoole@parl.gc.ca>,
"jagmeet.singh" <jagmeet.singh@parl.gc.ca>, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>,
"Katie.Telford" <Katie.Telford@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>, "Candice.Bergen"
<Candice.Bergen@parl.gc.ca>, "brian@brianruhe.ca"
<brian@brianruhe.ca>, "david@freiheitlegal.com"
<david@freiheitlegal.com>, "micote@postmedia.com"
<micote@postmedia.com>, "Newsroom@globeandmail.com"
<Newsroom@globeandmail.com>, "David.Akin@globalnews.ca"
<David.Akin@globalnews.ca>, "news@dailygleaner.com"
<news@dailygleaner.com>, "news@kingscorecord.com"
<news@kingscorecord.com>, "david@vivafrei.com" <david@vivafrei.com>,
"jwlpeace@gmail.com" <jwlpeace@gmail.com>, "David.Lametti@parl.gc.ca"
<David.Lametti@parl.gc.ca>, "washington.field@ic.fbi.gov"
<washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, "mcu@justice.gc.ca"
<mcu@justice.gc.ca>, "jfetzer@d.umn.edu" <jfetzer@d.umn.edu>,
"Jim@moonrockbooks.com" <Jim@moonrockbooks.com>,
"larry.kusch@freepress.mb.ca" <larry.kusch@freepress.mb.ca>,
"larry.campbell@sen.parl.gc.ca
"lionel@lionelmedia.com" <lionel@lionelmedia.com>, oldmaison
<oldmaison@yahoo.com>, "andre@jafaust.com" <andre@jafaust.com>,
"jbosnitch@gmail.com" <jbosnitch@gmail.com>, "paul@paulfromm.com"
<paul@paulfromm.com>, "Frank.McKenna" <Frank.McKenna@td.com>, premier
<premier@ontario.ca>, "christine.elliottco"
<christine.elliottco@pc.ola.
<caroline@carolinemulroney.ca>
<rpna.info@gmail.com>, "kristyn@kristynwongtam.ca"
<kristyn@kristynwongtam.ca>, "david@davidmorris.ca"
<david@davidmorris.ca>, "nickiward@gpo.ca" <nickiward@gpo.ca>,
"media@votecommunist.com" <media@votecommunist.com>,
"ron.shaw@magnacom.ca" <ron.shaw@magnacom.ca>,
"matthew.ricchiazzi@gmail.com" <matthew.ricchiazzi@gmail.com>
"marci.ien@parl.gc.ca" <marci.ien@parl.gc.ca>,
"fin.minfinance-financemin.
<fin.minfinance-financemin.
<Chrystia.Freeland@parl.gc.ca>
<Marco.Mendicino@parl.gc.ca>, "Mike.Comeau" <Mike.Comeau@gnb.ca>,
"blaine.higgs" <blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>, "liveneedtoknow@gmail.com"
<liveneedtoknow@gmail.com>, "James@jamesfetzer.com"
<James@jamesfetzer.com>, "traversy.n@gmail.com"
<traversy.n@gmail.com>, kingpatrick278 <kingpatrick278@gmail.com>,
"freedomreport.ca" <freedomreport.ca@gmail.com>, "Paul.Lynch"
<Paul.Lynch@edmontonpolice.ca>
<Mark.Blakely@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "martin.gaudet"
<martin.gaudet@fredericton.ca>
"irwincotler@rwchr.org" <irwincotler@rwchr.org>,
"jeromecorsi6554@gmail.com" <jeromecorsi6554@gmail.com>, "Kaycee.Madu"
<Kaycee.Madu@gov.ab.ca>, "Ian.Shugart" <Ian.Shugart@pco-bcp.gc.ca>,
jcarpay <jcarpay@jccf.ca>, sheilagunnreid <sheilagunnreid@gmail.com>,
"Michelle.Boutin" <Michelle.Boutin@rcmp-grc.gc.
<warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, rokaku8
<rokaku8@gmail.com>, paulpalango <paulpalango@protonmail.com>,
nsinvestigators <nsinvestigators@gmail.com>, NightTimePodcast
<NightTimePodcast@gmail.com>, "Brenda.Lucki"
<Brenda.Lucki@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Michael.Duheme"
<Michael.Duheme@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
https://davidraymondamos3.
Tuesday, 15 November 2022
PUBLIC ORDER EMERGENCY COMMISSION INQUIRY Day 23 - November 15, 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Lilley - WHY does Brenda Lucki still have a job?
Little Grey Cells
3.49K subscribers
782 views 3 weeks ago
21 Comments
David Amos
David Amos
Welcome to the Circus 3 Stooges should put on a Hell of show today EH?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
BRENDA LUCKI RCMP LIVE PUBLIC ORDER EMERGENCY COMISSION INQUIRY Day 23
- November 15, 2022
WARCAMPAIGN
53.4K subscribers
1,447 watching now Started streaming 40 minutes ago
Support the WARCAMPAIGN Help us keep fighting for FREEDOM in the
political sphere and the culture war! http://BuyVestige.com
Join the chat and share info with us: https://t.me/WARCAMPAIGN_CHAT
SUBSCRIBE To the WARCAMPAIGN Newsletter! http://WCFREEDOM.COM
ALL DOCUMENTS: http://rohanpall.com/exhibits.
Public Order Emergency Commission Documents
https://
February 14, 2022 Declaration of Public Order Emergency: Explanation
pursuant to subsection 58(1) of the Emergencies Act
https://www.publicsafety.gc.
Top Chat
BRENDA LUCKI RCMP LIVE PUBLIC ORDER EMERGENCY COMISSION INQUIRY Day 23
- November 15, 2022
WARCAMPAIGN
53.4K subscribers
1,447 watching now Started streaming 40 minutes ago
Support the WARCAMPAIGN Help us keep fighting for FREEDOM in the
political sphere and the culture war! http://BuyVestige.com
Join the chat and share info with us: https://t.me/WARCAMPAIGN_CHAT
SUBSCRIBE To the WARCAMPAIGN Newsletter! http://WCFREEDOM.COM
ALL DOCUMENTS: http://rohanpall.com/exhibits.
Public Order Emergency Commission Documents
https://
February 14, 2022 Declaration of Public Order Emergency: Explanation
pursuant to subsection 58(1) of the Emergencies Act
https://www.publicsafety.gc.
Top Chat
Major_Ruckusops,opp and RCMP
Bombay ManPeople like Lucki are dumb, they touch everything and touch
the mask take it off and replce it thinking they are protected...
Future Nowwda GOLD COMMAND STRUCTURE
KZ GypsyMuseH A I L Freedom Lovers. 🇺🇸🇨🇦💥🔥
Andrew Jdoes she think the mask hides her eye darting back and forth?
WARCAMPAIGNI ONLY MAKE LOVE TO WOMEN IN MASKS
moon cowdo they call their pins flair like in the movie office space?
Nancy Grahamshe didn't have a chance to shave this morning
Bananapus👍😎@Andrew J
David AmosMethinks the black mask is fitting attire today for the
boss of the Highwaymen N'esy Pas?
ekimo56@Flots Jetson pothole fillers! no shortage of work near me
Jill NicklesSucking for air lol
MaskoffOdds of witnessing another rare side effect ?
https://davidraymondamos3.
Monday, 14 November 2022
PUBLIC ORDER EMERGENCY COMMISSION INQUIRY Day 22 - November 14, 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
FEDS ON THE HOT SEAT Highlights Public Order Emergency Commission,
November 14 2022
WARCAMPAIGN
53.4K subscribers
3K views 12 hours ago
FEDS ON THE HOT SEAT Highlights Public Order Emergency Commission,
November 14 2022 Newsletter: http://wcfreedom.com
171 Comments
David Amos
David Amos
Too Too Funny
https://twitter.com/
https://davidraymondamos3.
Methinks Old Joe the sneaky NDP lawyer has been replaced N'esy Pas?
https://www.international.gc.
Colin Bird, Consul General of Canada in Detroit, United States
Colin Bird, Consul General of Canada in Detroit, United States
Biography
Colin Bird (ALB Hons [Government Studies], Harvard University, 1994;
LLB Hons, University of Ottawa, 2003) joined Foreign Affairs and
International Trade Canada in 2009. He has served as counsel to the
NAFTA Secretariat and in the department’s Trade Law Bureau, where he
focused on trade remedies and aerospace and softwood lumber trade
issues, and he was a director in the North America Bureau of the Trade
Negotiations Branch. Until 2019, Mr. Bird served as
minister-counsellor for trade and economic policy at the embassy in
Washington, D.C., where he was responsible for all aspects of the
United States-Canada trade relationship, including the 2 countries’
cooperation in multilateral forums. He has also represented Canada
before dispute settlement panels and the Appellate Body at the World
Trade Organization. Most recently, he was the executive director in
the Trade Policy Branch responsible for multilateral trade matters,
particularly Canada’s membership in the World Trade Organization, and
served as Canada’s senior trade official at the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development, where he chaired the Trade
Committee, and at the G7 and G20.
600 Renaissance Center, Suite 1100, Detroit, Michigan, U.S.A., 48243-1798
Telephone: 1-844-880-6519
Fax: (313) 446-4746
Email: ccs.scc@international.gc.ca
https://www.cbc.ca/player/
Joe Comartin, Canada's consul general in Detroit, says there was a
great deal of concern over how the self-described 'Freedom Convoy'
would affect supply chain lines between the U.S. and Canada.
Duration 0:47
Joe Comartin, Canada's consul general in Detroit, says there was a
great deal of concern over how the self-described 'Freedom Convoy'
would affect supply chain lines between the U.S. and Canada.
Joseph John Comartin (born December 26, 1947) is a Canadian lawyer and
politician. Comartin joined the New Democratic Party in 1969 and
represented the party in the House of Commons of Canada from 2000 to
2015. He is currently consul general of Canada in Detroit.[1]
Life and career
Comartin was born in Stoney Point, Ontario. A civil litigation lawyer
based in Windsor, Ontario, Comartin enjoyed strong support from local
union members when he ran for a seat in the House of Commons, but
narrowly lost in the 1997 general election and in a 1999 by-election.
He won the seat in the 2000 election, becoming the first federal NDP
candidate to win a seat in Ontario in ten years (Mike Breaugh of
Oshawa had been the last to win in a 1990 by-election ). He was
re-elected in 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2011.
Comartin stood as a candidate in the leadership of the NDP in 2003,
and finished fourth.
He was the Opposition House Leader from October 18, 2011 to April 19, 2012.
On September 17, 2012, due to the resignation of Denise Savoie,
Comartin was chosen to become Deputy Speaker.[2][3]
In July 2014, Comartin announced that he was not running for another
term in the 2015 election.[4]
https://www.cbc.ca/news/
Government department worried about flag being 'misused' in copycat
protests, Emergencies Act inquiry hears
Public Order Emergency Commission heard about GAC's international
concerns Monday
Catharine Tunney · CBC News · Posted: Nov 14, 2022 6:55 PM ET
Person with flag.
People wrapped in Canadian flags hold gas canisters as protesters and
their supporters continue to protest coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
vaccine mandates in Ottawa on February 11, 2022. (Lars
Habgerg/Reuters)
Global Affairs Canada, the country's diplomatic arm, feared the
Canadian flag was being "misused" by convoy protesters and was
becoming a symbol for similar protests around the world, documents
tabled at the Emergencies Act show.
"GAC continues to monitor the situation in the U.S. and around the
world," wrote a diplomat in a Feb. 14 email labelled "top level
messaging."
"Concerned that the Canadian 'model' is being exported and that the
Canadian flag is being (mis-)used as a symbol to fuel protests in
capitals around the world."
The email mentioned protesters in France, Belgium, Netherlands and New Zealand.
WATCH | Global Affairs official address how the convoy protests
affected Canada's international reputation
Global Affairs official address how the convoy protests affected
Canada's international reputation
Duration 0:57
Cindy Termorshuizen, assistant deputy minister at Global Affairs
Canada, says there were concerns about the self-described ‘Freedom
Convoy' affecting Canada’s reputation abroad — especially when the
Canadian flag appeared internationally as a “symbol of defiance of the
law.”
Cindy Termorshuizen, assistant deputy minister at Global Affairs
Canada, told the Public Order Emergency Commission on Monday that the
department was concerned about how the protests were affecting
Canada's international reputation.
Primarily, she said, GAC worried about how the blockades were damaging
trade routes and tarnishing Canada's reputation as a place to invest.
Termorshuizen said the department's concerns also extended to what the
Canadian flag was being used to represent when it was waved at
protests around the world.
A 'symbol of defiance of the law'
"I think we were also really concerned from a broader reputational
perspective that our flag was being used in some of these copycat
protests that were happening around the world," Termorshuizen told the
inquiry.
"The flag is a symbol of our country and it was being used, frankly,
as a symbol of defiance of the law and we were quite concerned about
those reputational impacts."
Canadian protesters opposed to COVID-19 restrictions gridlocked
streets in downtown Ottawa for nearly three weeks last winter. Similar
protests blocked access to the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, Ont. —
the busiest trade route between Canada and the U.S. — and the border
crossing in Coutts, Alta.
Joe Comartin, former Canadian consul general in Detroit, testified
that he was hearing concerns from U.S. lawmakers about the blockades.
"One of the messages was the impact it was having on the supply chain," he said.
"They were also expressing, repeatedly, why isn't Canada doing more?
Their analysis was that the three levels of government were not
cooperating, didn't have a coordinated plan. That was the perception
they had."
Debate over Canadian flag resumes as convoy protests return to Ottawa
CSIS didn't feel convoy protests constituted a national security
threat under the law: documents
The commission is looking into the federal government's decision to
invoke the Emergencies Act on Feb. 14 to clear the protests.
The inquiry will continue to hear from from witnesses over the next
two weeks. Commissioner Paul Rouleau's final report is due in
February.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Catharine Tunney
Reporter
Catharine Tunney is a reporter with CBC's Parliament Hill bureau,
where she covers national security and the RCMP. She worked previously
for CBC in Nova Scotia. You can reach her at catharine.tunney@cbc.ca
Follow Cat on Twitter
CBC's Journalistic Standards and Practices
---------- Original message ----------
From: Brendan Miller <bmiller@fosterllp.ca>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2022 21:53:38 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Methinks Trudeau The Younger and his buddy
Higgy wish that I did not save this video N'esy Pas Norm Traversy?
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Please be advised that from October 10, 2022 at 12:00AM through to and
including November 25, 2022 at 11:59AM I will have limited access to
my email, being email address
bmiller@fosterllp.ca<mailto:bm
the office.
Though I typically accept services of applications, court process, and
other documents via email, I will not be accepting service of same for
the period of October 10, 2022 at 12:00AM through to and including
November 25, 2022 at 11:59AM.
If there is correspondence you absolutely need to send during the
above time-period, you may send same by fax to Foster LLP
(403-266-4741) to the attention of all three following lawyers please:
(i) Leigh Sherry.
(ii) Peter Crozier; &
(iii) Rupert Joshi.
If there is an emergency application or matter during the above
time-period, you may serve the same by fax to Foster LLP
(403-266-4741) to the attention of all three following lawyers please:
(i) Leigh Sherry.
(ii) Peter Crozier; &
(iii) Rupert Joshi.
If there is an emergency requiring that you speak to me by phone
during the above time-period and you do not already have my cellphone
number, please email Bethany DeWolfe at
bdewolfe@fosterllp.ca<mailto:b
provide to you. Thereafter, please text or Imessage me regarding who
it is and what you need, and I will get back to you.
If prior to October 10, 2022 you need to contact me about something on
a file or what to deal with something before October 10, 2022, please
do so now.
If we have provided agreed to dates or have dates booked for steps in
litigation, questioning, court, or something of the like, those dates
stand and will be going ahead with counsel from my firm, or agent
counsel in lieu of my appearance, and should stay in your calendar.
This letter is not to be interpreted as agreement to adjourn or cancel
anything.
---------- Original message ----------
From: Shantona Chaudhury <Shantona@papechaudhury.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 13:59:26 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Methinks Rohan Kumar Pall and his pals
should not be surprised by Robert Bernier and his fellow Ottawa cops
trying to play dumb todasyu N'esy Pas Frank Au?
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Please note that I am currently serving as Co-Lead Counsel to the
Public Order Emergency Commission and may not be able to respond to
your email. If you need to reach me, please contact my assistant,
Nichole Denney (416-681-8001, nichole@papechaudhury.com) or Wing Lam
(416-364-8755, wing@papechaudhury.com)
---------- Original message ----------
From: Natalia Rodriguez <NRodriguez@conwaylitigation.
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 13:59:25 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Methinks Rohan Kumar Pall and his pals
should not be surprised by Robert Bernier and his fellow Ottawa cops
trying to play dumb todasyu N'esy Pas Frank Au?
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Thank you for your email. I am currently serving as Senior Commission
Counsel to the Public Order Emergency Commission until the end of
2022. I will be checking this email less frequently and my response
time will be delayed as a result.
If your matter is urgent, please contact my assistant Doreen Navarro
at dnavarro@conwaylitigation.ca.
---------- Original message ----------
From: "Morris, Pat (OPP)" <Pat.Morris@opp.ca>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 14:01:57 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Methinks Rohan Kumar Pall and his pals
should not be surprised by Robert Bernier and his fellow Ottawa cops
trying to play dumb todasyu N'esy Pas Frank Au?
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
CAUTION -- EXTERNAL E-MAIL - Do not click links or open attachments in
unexpected emails.
?Hello, from October 24h to October 26th, I will be working out of the
office and unable to receive or return messages most of the time.
Acting Supt. Kirsten Clarke will be acting for me in POIB. I will
return on October 27th.
Thank you
Pat Morris
Superintendent
Bureau Commander
Provincial Operations Intelligence Bureau
https://www.cbc.ca/news/
CSIS didn't feel convoy protests constituted a national security
threat under the law: documents
Emergencies Act inquiry is reviewing whether the government was
justified enacting legislation
Catharine Tunney · CBC · Posted: Nov 14, 2022 4:00 AM ET
CSIS director David Vigneault holds a press conference on Parliament
Hill in Ottawa on Thursday, July 16, 2020. (Sean Kilpatrick/The
Canadian Press)
Canada's intelligence agency didn't believe the self-styled Freedom
Convoy constituted a threat to national security according to the
definition in its enabling law, says a document previewed as part of
the Emergencies Act inquiry Monday.
The intelligence assessment comes as the Public Order Emergency
Commission assesses whether the federal government met the legal
threshold to invoke the Emergencies Act to clear Ottawa of protesters
last winter.
Like all witnesses appearing before the commission David Vigneault,
the director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), sat
for an interview with the inquiry's lawyers over the summer.
A summary of that conversation was shared with journalists Monday.
"Mr. Vigneault stated that at no point did the service assess that the
protests in Ottawa or elsewhere [those referred to as the "Freedom
Convoy" and related protests and blockades in January-February 2022]
constituted a threat to security of Canada as defined by section 2 of
the CSIS Act and that CSIS cannot investigate actively constituting
lawful protest," reads the document.
The CSIS Act defines "threats to the security of Canada" as:
Espionage or sabotage that is against Canada or is detrimental to
the interests of Canada, or activities directed toward or in support
of such espionage or sabotage.
Foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that
are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or
deceptive, or involve a threat to any person.
Activities within or relating to Canada directed toward, or in
support of, the threat or use of acts of serious violence against
persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political,
religious or ideological objective within Canada or a foreign state.
Activities directed toward undermining by covert unlawful acts, or
directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or
overthrow by violence of, the constitutionally established system of
government in Canada.
In order to declare a public order emergency, the Emergencies Act
requires that there be "an emergency that arises from threats to the
security of Canada that are so serious as to be a national emergency"
and defers to CSIS's definition of "threats to the security of
Canada."
A demonstrator screams and bangs gas canisters together during
the ongoing protest in Ottawa Feb. 10, 2022. (Blair Gable/Reuters)
Vigneault told the commission lawyers he learned the Emergencies Act
cited the CSIS Act once the government began to seriously consider
invoking the legislation around Feb. 10-13.
"He requested that the service prepare a threat assessment on the
risks associated with the invocation of the Emergencies Act," said
Vigneault's interview summary.
"He felt an obligation to clearly convey the service's position that
there did not exist a threat to the security of Canada as defined by
the service's legal mandate."
That assessment showed CSIS felt that invoking the Emergencies Act
would "galvanize" members of the self-styled Freedom Convoy and
radicalize some toward engaging in violence.
In his interview with commission lawyers, Vigneault also said that the
threshold imposed by the CSIS Act is very specific.
"For example, the determination that something may not constitute a
threat to national security under section 2 of the act does not
preclude a determination that a national security threat under a
broader definition, or from the perspective of the public, does
exist," says the summary of Vigneault's interview.
DM says cabinet felt threshold was met
Vigneault and another CSIS official, deputy director of operations
Michelle Tessier, told the commission in that summer interview that
"the service had subjects of investigation who showed interest or
participated in the convoy."
Under cross examination by lawyer Brendan Miller — who represents
convoy protest organizers, including Tamara Lich and Chris Barber —
former deputy minister of Public Safety Rob Stewart said the
government would have a more broad interpretation of what constitutes
a national security threat.
"The cabinet is making that decision and their interpretation of the
law is what governs here and the advice they get," said Stewart, who
has since moved to another government department.
"And their decision was, evidently, the threshold was met."
Rob Stewart, deputy minister of Public Safety, left, and Dominic
Rochon, senior assistant deputy minister, National and Cyber Security
Branch at Public Safety Canada, appear before the Public Order
Emergency Commission in Ottawa on Monday, Nov. 14, 2022. (Justin
Tang/The Canadian Press)
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invoked the act on Feb. 14, arguing its
temporary powers were needed to end blockades in Ottawa and at border
crossings.
The day after the act was triggered, Public Safety Minister Marco
Mendicino defended his government's decision on national security
grounds, saying that several of the individuals involved in the
blockade at the border crossing in Coutts, Alta. had "strong ties to a
far-right extreme organization with leaders who are in Ottawa."
"You have the RCMP, you have CSIS, you have the entire intelligence
apparatus in the federal government and none of them said that this
threshold was met, did they?" Miller asked Stewart.
"They weren't asked," Stewart said.
Vigneault told the commission that one of the main challenges with
CSIS's mandate to pursue ideologically motivated violent extremism
(IMVE) is distinguishing between credible threats of violence that are
ideologically motivated and online rhetoric that is violent or may
constitute hate speech.
IMVE is a broad term used by CSIS to cover extremism based on various
grievances, including those expressed by far-right, anti-government
and racist groups.
In the summary document, Vigneault described IMVE as a funnel — the
largest part of it covers acts and language which are "awful but
lawful," while online and real-world activities that meet the CSIS Act
threshold are found at the narrowest part of the funnel.
Tessier added that CSIS is not investigating the movement opposed to
pandemic public health measures because it would only qualify as a
form of IMVE if it promoted serious violence.
CSIS didn't look at GiveSendGo leak
CSIS also concluded there was no indication of foreign state
interference in the convoy protests.
"CSIS did not assess that any foreign states supported the protests
through funding; that foreign states deployed covert or overt
disinformation techniques; or that any foreign state actors attempted
to enter into Canada to support the protests," said the summary of the
inquiry's interviews with Vigneault and Tessier.
That determination didn't take into account the list of donors that
became public as a result of a leak of the GiveSendGo database,
Vigneault told the commission lawyers.
In February, hackers took down the GiveSendGo website and released a
spreadsheet containing names, emails and dollar amounts related to
nearly 93,000 individuals who purportedly donated money to support the
protest.
Vigneault told commission lawyers CSIS's position was that the
GiveSendGo donor list did not constitute publicly available
information, given that it was the result of a data breach, and would
have required judicial authorization for its use and retention.
Tessier said the service decided not to apply to the court to access
the data for several reasons — including the data's intelligence
value, its analysis by other agencies and the time required to file an
application for a section judicial authorization, which would render
the data far less useful.
According to information provided by GiveSendGo to the commission,
more than half of donations to its "Freedom Convoy" campaign — 59 per
cent — were from the United States, and about 35 per cent were from
Canada.
More than 6,300 donations, making up more than half a million dollars,
came from other countries.
Vigneault and Tessier are expected to testify in person next week.
Intelligence sharing problems plagued early days of protest: officials
Earlier this morning, the commission heard of problems with how
information and intelligence was gathered and shared leading up to the
protest's first weekend.
"Intelligence is not an exact science. It's not foolproof. Just
because you have a piece of intelligence doesn't mean you have the
full picture," Dominic Rochon, former senior assistant deputy minister
of the Department of Public Safety's national security and cyber
security, told the Public Order Emergency Commission.
"It becomes a very difficult mosaic to try and pull together in terms
of pulling together intelligence emanating from [the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service], emanating from police forces, emanating from
Canada Border Services Agency."
CSIS feared Emergencies Act would push some protesters to embrace
violence, inquiry hears
Trudeau aide's notes detail call with premiers just hours before
Emergencies Act invoked
Rochon said that before the convoy arrived in Ottawa, the federal
department had not received any intelligence from CSIS or the RCMP
warning it of the need to prepare for a significant event.
Protesters against COVID-19 restrictions used big rigs and other
vehicles to block access to parts of Ottawa's downtown for nearly
three weeks.
Both Rochon and Stewart sat with the commission for an interview in
September. A summary of their conversation was made public Monday.
"As DM Stewart said, it is clear that they did not foresee that the
convoy would be as big as it was and stay in Ottawa for as long as it
did. In his view, there was an issue with information and intelligence
gathering and sharing about the events," said the document.
RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki looks on during Canada Day celebrations
in Ottawa on Friday, July 1, 2022. (Justin Tang/The Canadian Press)
"The CBSA [Canada Border Services Agency] and police of jurisdiction
at ports of entry did not foresee that vehicles would arrive and park
on highways, ramps and bridges, and the OPS [Ottawa Police Service]
did not foresee that trucks would park in downtown Ottawa for as long
as they did."
Stewart told the commission's lawyers that law enforcement agencies —
especially the RCMP — would have been "extremely reticent" to share
specific intelligence about the convoy with people at the political
level, according to his interview.
"The convoy highlighted that there are issues with the flow of
information from law enforcement to the government," said the summary
document.
"For example, when the threats arise from ideologically motivated
violent extremism (IMVE) rhetoric online, Public Safety and its
agencies feel very under-equipped and under-prepared to gather and
share intelligence about those threats and respond to them."
'The situation was proliferating'
Stewart told the commission's lawyers that invoking the Emergencies
Act became a real option around Feb. 11, before the blockades at
border crossings in Windsor, Ont. and Coutts, Alta. were cleared.
"The situation was proliferating and made even worse by the trade
implications, the reputational impacts on Canada, and the IMVE
[ideologically motivated violent extremism] implications," said his
interview summary.
WATCH | DM questions Ontario's response to Ottawa protests in testimony
Federal deputy public safety minister questions Ontario's response to
Ottawa protests in testimony
Duration 0:31
In his testimony before the Emergency Act Inquiry, former Deputy
Minister of Public Safety Rob Stewart says he was left wondering
‘where’s Ontario’ during communication about what more needed to be
done to respond to Ottawa protests.
"There were also concerns that some of the individuals taking part in
the convoy were trained security professionals and some were
ex-military. It appeared as though local law enforcement could not
resolve it and they were unable to enforce municipal or provincial
authorities."
Commission hearing from federal officials in final 2 weeks
Later in the week, the commission will hear from RCMP Commissioner
Brenda Lucki and other Mounties.
Some of Lucki's texts with her Ontario Provincial Police counterpart
have been presented to the commission already.
In those texts, she wrote that the federal government was already
losing confidence in the Ottawa police just one week into the
protests.
Jody Thomas, national security and intelligence adviser to the prime
minister, arrives at the West Block on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on
Tuesday, May 10, 2022. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)
"Between you and I only, (Government of Canada) is losing (or) lost
confidence in OPS, we gotta get to safe action (or) enforcement,"
Lucki texted OPP Commissioner Thomas Carrique.
"'Cause if they go the Emergency Measures Act, you or (I) may be
brought into lead, not something I want."
Deputy Commissioner Curtis Zablocki (the top Mountie in Alberta), the
RCMP's head of federal policing Michael Duheme and former head of the
Canada Border Services Agency John Ossowski are also on the witness
list.
In its penultimate week, the commission will also hear from Jody
Thomas, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's national security intelligence
adviser, who has publicly defended the decision to use the act.
She told a March 10 security and defence conference that protesters
were "dug in" and "there's no doubt [they] came to overthrow the
government."
Witnesses rounding out the week include:
Michael Keenan, deputy minister at Transport Canada.
Christian Dea, chief economist at Transport Canada.
Michael Sabia, deputy minister at the Department of Finance Canada.
Rhys Mendes, assistant deputy minister at the Department of Finance Canada.
Isabelle Jacques, assistant deputy minister at the Department of
Finance Canada.
Jacquie Bogden, deputy secretary to the cabinet on emergency
preparedness and COVID recovery.
Janice Charette, clerk of the Privy Council.
Nathalie Drouin, deputy clerk of the Privy Council
The commission finishes hearing from witnesses on Nov. 25.
Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino, Emergency Preparedness
Minister Bill Blair and Prime Minister Trudeau will all testify in the
final week.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Catharine Tunney
Reporter
Catharine Tunney is a reporter with CBC's Parliament Hill bureau,
where she covers national security and the RCMP. She worked previously
for CBC in Nova Scotia. You can reach her at catharine.tunney@cbc.ca
Follow Cat on Twitter
With file from the Canadian Press
CBC's Journalistic Standards and Practices
https://www.cbc.ca/news/
Trudeau aide's notes detail call with premiers just hours before
Emergencies Act invoked
Premiers were deeply divided, with one fearing ‘bloodshed’ if military
was called in
Catharine Tunney · CBC News · Posted: Nov 10, 2022 5:07 PM ET
A protester obstructs the lens of a cameraperson while police enforce
an injunction against protesters in Ottawa on Feb. 19, 2022. (Evan
Mitsui/CBC)
Handwritten notes from one of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's top
advisers are shining a light on conversations that took place between
the federal and provincial governments just hours before Ottawa
announced it would invoke the Emergencies Act to end a series of
anti-pandemic measure protests.
A collection of deputy chief of staff Brian Clow's notes were entered
into evidence Thursday before the Public Order Emergency Commission,
which is investigating the federal government's decision to trigger
the never-before-used law on Feb. 14. The notes cover Trudeau's call
with the premiers hours before invoking the Emergencies Act.
The Emergencies Act requires the federal government to consult with
the provincial and territorial premiers before triggering its
emergency policing powers. The quality of those consultations has been
raised as an issue at the inquiry already.
According to Clow's notes, the premiers weighed in with various views.
He wrote that then-Alberta premier Jason Kenney described the
situation in Coutts, Alta, telling the room that intelligence showed a
hardcore, violent group was ready to die for the cause.
'We received no help': Texts shown at Emergencies Act inquiry show
strain between Alberta, federal governments
Ontario official says police lacked the resources to handle both
Ottawa and Windsor protests
For two weeks, anti-COVID-19 protesters used heavy trucks and other
vehicles to block a major commercial access route between Coutts and
the U.S.
Clow wrote that Kenney said he didn't "quibble" with the act's use but
felt there were other ways to resolve the problem.
The call happened as police in Alberta were in the midst of trying to
bring the blockade to an end. They arrested some protesters, seized
weapons and ammunition and negotiated with the remaining protesters to
get them to leave the area.
In an interview with the National Post Thursday, Kenney confirmed some
details from those Feb. 14 meeting notes, saying that while he opposed
the use of the act, he was prepared to defer to the provincial
government in Ontario if it felt it would help end the protests in
Ottawa.
Former Alberta premier Jason Kenney says the Emergencies Act should
not have been applied to the entire country. (Jeff McIntosh/The
Canadian Press)
According to the notes, British Columbia Premier John Horgan said he
supported the move but feared bringing in emergency powers would
embolden the demonstrators.
"I do worry [about] too heavy of a hand," Horgan said on the call,
according to Clow.
The notes say Manitoba Premier Heather Stefanson and Saskatchewan
Premier Scott Moe opposed the use of the Emergencies Act and worried
about the move inflaming the protests further. Clow wrote that Nova
Scotia Premier Tim Houston also was worried about provoking
protesters.
The notes say Quebec Premier François Legault told Trudeau and his
fellow premiers that he strongly opposed using the Emergencies Act,
while New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs said his province had been
able to handle the protest and he didn't want the act to apply to in
New Brunswick.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford told the call he strongly supported the use
of the Emergencies Act, according to Clow's notes. Newfoundland and
Labrador Premier Andrew Furey and P.E.I. Premier Dennis King also
expressed some support for its use to handle the protest that
gridlocked parts of Ottawa for three weeks.
Military is 'last resort,' PM tells call
According to Clow's notes, Northwest Territories Premier Caroline
Cochrane wanted to be sure the armed forces wouldn't be called in.
"I really don't want to see bloodshed," she said, according to the notes.
Trudeau reassured the premiers that the military was a "last resort,"
the notes say.
The Emergencies Act requires that all provinces "in which the direct
effects of the emergency occur" be consulted before the act is
invoked.
Counsel for the province of Saskatchewan argued during opening
submissions before the Public Order Emergency Commission that the
federal government already had decided to invoke the act before the
call on Feb. 14.
"The call was not so much about consulting as it was about telling,"
said lawyer Michael Morris.
The provincial government of Alberta shares that view.
"Alberta's views were only asked for after the decision was apparently
made, and they were basically ignored," said lawyer Mandy England.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Catharine Tunney
Reporter
Catharine Tunney is a reporter with CBC's Parliament Hill bureau,
where she covers national security and the RCMP. She worked previously
for CBC in Nova Scotia. You can reach her at catharine.tunney@cbc.ca
Follow Cat on Twitter
CBC's Journalistic Standards and Practices
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
LIVE PUBLIC ORDER EMERGENCY COMISSION INQUIRY Day 22 - November 14, 2022
WARCAMPAIGN
53.4K subscribers
1,051 watching now Started streaming 60 minutes ago
Support the WARCAMPAIGN Help us keep fighting for FREEDOM in the
political sphere and the culture war! http://BuyVestige.com
Join the chat and share info with us: https://t.me/WARCAMPAIGN_CHAT
SUBSCRIBE To the WARCAMPAIGN Newsletter! http://WCFREEDOM.COM
ALL DOCUMENTS: http://rohanpall.com/exhibits.
Public Order Emergency Commission Documents
https://
February 14, 2022 Declaration of Public Order Emergency: Explanation
pursuant to subsection 58(1) of the Emergencies Act
https://www.publicsafety.gc.
Top Chat
Phoebelooks like she might have jaundice
No NameOTTAWA IS CANADA'S SAN FRANSISCO - GUZZLE GUZZLE !!!
Tracy Vogellol at clyde
NA LiteralistA lot of coughing today.
David AmosFollow the money Rob Stewart was Director General,
Financial Markets, Department of Finance Canada when I caused the
hearing in DC
Greta, The Other Oneand the sailors call her Brandy, for good reason
Gabriele Halleyany update on lawyer that passed out??
https://pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-
January 5, 2022
Ottawa, Ontario
The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, today announced the following
changes in the senior ranks of the Public Service:
Graham Flack, currently Deputy Minister of Employment and Social
Development, becomes Secretary of the Treasury Board, effective
January 10, 2022.
Jean-François Tremblay, currently Deputy Minister of Natural
Resources, becomes Deputy Minister of Employment and Social
Development, effective January 10, 2022.
Jody Thomas, currently Deputy Minister of National Defence, becomes
National Security and Intelligence Advisor to the Prime Minister,
effective January 11, 2022.
Bill Matthews, currently Deputy Minister of Public Services and
Procurement, becomes Deputy Minister of National Defence, effective
January 11, 2022.
John Hannaford, currently Deputy Minister of International Trade,
becomes Deputy Minister of Natural Resources, effective January 10,
2022.
David Morrison, currently Foreign and Defence Policy Advisor to the
Prime Minister and Personal Representative of the Prime Minister for
the G7 Summit, becomes Deputy Minister of International Trade and
Personal Representative of the Prime Minister for the G7 Summit,
effective January 11, 2022.
Christopher MacLennan, currently Associate Deputy Minister of Foreign
Affairs and Personal Representative of the Prime Minister for the G20
Summit, becomes Deputy Minister of International Development and
Personal Representative of the Prime Minister for the G20 Summit,
effective January 10, 2022.
Paul Thompson, currently Associate Deputy Minister of Innovation,
Science and Economic Development, becomes Deputy Minister of Public
Services and Procurement, effective January 11, 2022.
Philip Jennings, currently Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet (Plans and
Consultations), Privy Council Office, becomes Senior Advisor to the
Privy Council Office, effective January 10, 2022.
Mr. Jennings will be nominated by the Deputy Prime Minister and
Minister of Finance as the next Executive Director for Canada,
Ireland, nine Caribbean countries, and Belize at the International
Monetary Fund (IMF). Until the IMF election process is complete and he
is formally named to the position, Mr. Jennings will serve as Senior
Advisor to the Privy Council Office.
Michael Vandergrift becomes Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet (Plans and
Consultations), Privy Council Office, in addition to his current role
as Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Privy Council Office,
effective January 10, 2022.
Jacqueline Bogden, currently Assistant Deputy Minister, Controlled
Substances and Cannabis Branch, Health Canada, becomes Deputy
Secretary to the Cabinet (Emergency Preparedness and COVID Recovery),
Privy Council Office, effective January 10, 2022.
Dan Costello, currently Assistant Deputy Minister, International
Security and Political Affairs, Global Affairs Canada, becomes Foreign
and Defence Policy Advisor to the Prime Minister, effective January
11, 2022.
Cynthia (Cindy) Termorshuizen, currently Assistant Deputy Minister,
Consular, Security and Emergency Management, Global Affairs Canada,
becomes Associate Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, effective
January 10, 2022.
Daniel Rogers, currently Deputy Chief, Foreign Signals Intelligence,
Communications Security Establishment Canada, becomes Associate Chief
of the Communications Security Establishment, effective January 10,
2022.
Stefanie Beck, currently Deputy High Commissioner for Canada in the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Global Affairs
Canada, becomes Associate Deputy Minister of National Defence,
effective January 31, 2022.
Mala Khanna, currently Assistant Deputy Minister, Sub-Saharan Africa
Branch, Global Affairs Canada, becomes Associate Deputy Minister of
Canadian Heritage, effective January 10, 2022.
Francis Bilodeau, currently Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategy
and Innovation Policy Sector, Innovation, Science and Economic
Development Canada, becomes Associate Deputy Minister of Innovation,
Science and Economic Development, effective January 10, 2022.
Paul Samson, currently Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs Branch,
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, becomes Associate Deputy Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, effective January 10, 2022.
The Prime Minister also congratulated the following individuals who
have retired from the Public Service, and thanked them for their
dedication and service to Canadians:
Peter Wallace, Secretary of the Treasury Board
Louise Levonian, Executive Director for Canada, Ireland, nine
Caribbean countries, and Belize at the International Monetary Fund
Vincent Rigby, National Security and Intelligence Advisor to the
Prime Minister
Nancy Chahwan, Senior Associate Deputy Minister of National Defence
Leslie MacLean, Deputy Minister of International Development
Les Linklater, Senior Official at the Privy Council Office
David McGovern, President of the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada
Thao Pham, Deputy Minister, COVID Recovery, Privy Council Office
Martine Dubuc, Associate Deputy Minister of Environment and Climate Change
Monik Beauregard, Associate Deputy Minister of Public Safety
On 11/14/22, David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
> https://davidraymondamos3.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>
>
> Monday, 14 November 2022
>
> Someone Is Lying
>
> MP Brock Says Someone Is Lying
> mistersunshinebaby
> 250K subscribers
> 4,881 views Nov 13, 2022
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: "Brock, Larry - M.P." <larry.brock@parl.gc.ca>
> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 02:23:25 +0000
> Subject: Automatic reply: RE Trudeau Invoking the Emergency Act and
> Freeland defending her liberal democracy byway of her bankster buddies
> To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
>
> Thank you for contacting the office of Larry Brock, Member of
> Parliament (MP) for Brantford-Brant.
>
> MP Brock welcomes hearing from constituents on issues that are
> important to them. A reply to your email will be provided as soon as
> possible.
>
> Due to the high volume of email correspondence we receive, priority
> will be given to residents of Brantford-Brant, and to emails of a
> non-form letter or “email forward” variation. Likewise, if you reside
> outside of MP Brock’s riding, please contact your local Member of
> Parliament. To find your MP, please visit Find Members of Parliament -
> Members of Parliament - House of Commons of Canada
> (ourcommons.ca)<https://www.
>
> In order for us to serve you better, please provide your complete
> residential mailing address, including postal code and a phone number.
> If you did not provide this in your original email, please re-forward
> your original email providing this information.
>
> If you require assistance with an urgent matter, please call our
> constituency office at 519-754-4300, Monday to Friday, 8:30am to 4pm.
>
> Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Office of Larry Brock, MP for Brantford-Brant
> Deputy Shadow Minister for Justice and Attorney General of Canada
>
> Constituency Office:
> 108 St. George Street, Suite 3
> Brantford, ON N3R 1V6
> T: 519-754-4300 | F: 519-751-8177
>
> Hill Office:
> Room 686, Confederation Building
> House of Commons
> Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
> T: 613-992-3118 | F: 613-992-6382
>
> larry.brock@parl.gc.ca<mailto:
>
> [Image]<https://www.facebook.
> <https://twitter.com/
> <https://www.instagram.com/
>
----------Original message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2022 18:58:57 -0300
Subject: Fwd: Re Urgent Consultation
To: bernierr@ottawapolice.ca, kiezc@ottawapolice.ca,
lucasr@ottawapolice.ca, ferguson@ottawapolice.ca,
kays@ottawapolice.ca, rheaumec@ottawapolice.ca, bells@ottawapolice.ca,
bourisc@ottawapolice.ca, pattersonm@ottawapolice.ca,
brownc@ottawapolice.ca, kennedyk@ottawapolice.ca,
drummondr@ottawapolice.ca, dunlopJ@ottawapolice.ca
Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, chriskiez@solusyion.com,
cnardi@postmedia.com, Newsroom <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>, "Robert.
Jones" <Robert.Jones@cbc.ca>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Au, Frank (MAG)" <Frank.Au@ontario.ca>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2022 20:27:39 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Re Urgent Consultation
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
I am away on a secondment until Spring 2023, and do not have access to
emails. If you require assistance, please call 416.326.4600 and ask
for the Duty Crown. Thank you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
🔴LIVE PUBLIC ORDER EMERGENCY COMISSION INQUIRY Day 9 - October 25, 2022
887 watching now
Started streaming 30 minutes ago
WARCAMPAIGN
52.4K subscribers
Support the WARCAMPAIGN Help us keep fighting for FREEDOM in the
political sphere and the culture war! http://BuyVestige.com
Public Order Emergency Commission Documents
https://
February 14, 2022 Declaration of Public Order Emergency: Explanation
pursuant to subsection 58(1) of the Emergencies Act
https://www.publicsafety.gc.
https://nationalpost.com/news/
'Quite troubled': MPs demand explanation from OPP over 'wildly
different' statements on Freedom Convoy
OPP commissioner told a Commons committee last spring that the
intelligence unit had identified the protest as a 'threat to national
security'
Author of the article:
Christopher Nardi
Publishing date:
Oct 25, 2022
174 Comments
OPP Commissioner Thomas Carrique is expected to testify before the
Public Order Emergency Commission.OPP Commissioner Thomas Carrique is
expected to testify before the Public Order Emergency Commission.
Photo by Ashley Fraser/Postmedia/File
OTTAWA — MPs unanimously voted to demand answers from the Ontario
Provincial Police on its “wildly different” testimony about the
security threat posed by the Freedom Convoy protests.
In a rare show of parliamentary unity, members of all parties on the
Commons public safety and national security committee approved a
motion requiring an “immediate response” from the OPP regarding an
apparent “contradiction” between what its commissioner told the
committee in March about the protests and what its head of
intelligence said to the Emergencies Act inquiry last week.
The motion was brought by NDP MP Alistair MacGregor, who told his
colleagues he was “quite troubled” by seemingly conflicting statements
first reported by the National Post last week.
Recommended from Editorial
OPP Commissioner Thomas Carrique is expected to testify to Public
Order Emergency Commission as soon as next week.
OPP head told MPs that Freedom Convoy was 'threat to national
security.' His own intelligence said otherwise
Ontario Premier Doug Ford has been summoned by the Emergencies Act
commission to testify 'voluntarily.'
Summons issued to compel Doug Ford to testify at Emergencies Act inquiry
During a March 24 committee meeting, OPP commissioner Thomas Carrique
declared twice that the service’s intelligence unit, the Provincial
Operational Intelligence Bureau (POIB), identified the Freedom Convoy
as a “threat to national security” on Feb. 7.
He said his force was able to use the “tools” contained in the federal
Emergencies Act after the Trudeau government invoked it on Feb. 14 to
shut down the weeks-long protest on Parliament Hill and at the border
and address the national security “threat.”
But testimony and documents from the head of the POIB made public last
week at the Public Order Emergency Commission appear to directly
contradict Carrique’s statements.
OPP Superintendent Pat Morris waits to appear as a witness at the
Public Order Emergency Commission in Ottawa, on Oct. 19, 2022. OPP
Superintendent Pat Morris waits to appear as a witness at the Public
Order Emergency Commission in Ottawa, on Oct. 19, 2022. Photo by Sean
Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
The commission is tasked with determining whether the Trudeau
government met the legal threshold to invoke the exceptional powers
contained in the Emergencies Act.
POIB leader Supt. Pat Morris told the commission his team never
received “credible” information that the Freedom Convoy posed a direct
threat to national security.
Other intelligence partners, such as the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service and the RCMP’s Integrated National Security
Enforcement Teams, never shared any either.
On the day Carrique told the committee that the OPP had determined the
Freedom Convoy across Canada became a “threat to national security,” a
POIB report noted for the first time that the protests had the
“potential” to become such a threat.
But Morris told the commission the Freedom Convoy would have only
become a real threat to national security if a series of hypothetical
events occurred across Canada. They never did.
An email from Morris to his staff on Feb. 7 tabled at the commission
also reveals that CSIS and INSET did not share POIB’s view that the
protests had even hit the threshold of “potential” national security
threat at that point.
The OPP declined to comment on the discrepancies last week but noted
Carrique is expected to testify at the Emergencies Act inquiry in the
coming weeks.
MacGregor’s motion also forces the OPP to provide a written response
to the public safety and national security committee about Carrique’s
testimony.
“I’m quite troubled that the very same police force is giving one
answer to the Public Order commission, but a completely different
answer earlier in the year to a committee of the House of Commons,”
MacGregor told his committee colleagues on Monday.
“Mr. Chair, this committee has to empower you to seek clarification on
why those two wildly different testimonies were given,” he added to
committee chair Ron McKinnon.
https://nationalpost.com/news/
OPP saw no evidence Freedom Convoy posed direct threat to national
security: intelligence officer
During cross-examinations by different parties’ lawyers, Supt. Pat
Morris also agreed with the assertion that intelligence he saw never
pointed to extremism
Author of the article:
Christopher Nardi, Catherine Lévesque
Publishing date:
Oct 19, 2022
566 Comments
OPP Superintendent Pat Morris waits to appear as a witness at the
Public Order Emergency Commission in Ottawa, on Oct. 19, 2022. OPP
Superintendent Pat Morris waits to appear as a witness at the Public
Order Emergency Commission in Ottawa, on Oct. 19, 2022. Photo by Sean
Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
OTTAWA – The Ontario Provincial Police intelligence unit never found
evidence demonstrating that the Freedom Convoy posed a direct threat
to national security before the unprecedented use of the Emergencies
Act was invoked by the federal government.
The head of the OPP’s Provincial Operations Intelligence Bureau (POIB)
Superintendent Pat Morris testified in front of the Public Order
Emergency Commission (POEC) that at no point during the protests did
he receive reliable intelligence that led to believe there was a risk
that would rise to the level of a potential threat to national
security.
During cross-examinations by different parties’ lawyers, he also
agreed with the assertion that intelligence he saw never pointed to
extremism.
“Everybody was asking about extremism. We weren’t seeing much evidence
of it,” Morris said.
As the convoy settled in to Ottawa, so-called “Project Hendon”
reports, shared with other police forces (named after an ongoing
surveillance operation) started warning that the protest posed a real
potential “public safety and officer safety threat.” But those
concerns were always about a spontaneous event or actions from a “lone
wolf.”
Midway through the protests, POIB noted that they had “not identified
any concrete, specific, or credible threat with regard to the Freedom
Convoy protest” or similar events.
“However, the situation remains potentially volatile. The possibility
that a lone actor or group of individuals could enact a threat with
little or no warning cannot be excluded.”
The Emergencies Act, which was invoked on Feb. 14, can only be used in
a national emergency when a situation “seriously threatens the ability
of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and
territorial integrity of Canada” and cannot be dealt with any other
law in the country.
The commission is set to verify if that was indeed the case.
Recommended from Editorial
Ottawa Police Chief Peter Sloly listens to a reporter’s question
as a protest against COVID-19 restrictions continues into its second
week, in Ottawa, on Friday, Feb. 4, 2022.
Ottawa police plagued by infighting and an insurrection against
chief during protests, inquiry hears
Early in the Freedom Convoy protests, CSIS found that there was no
CSIS worried Freedom Convoy protests were a 'recruiting ground'
for violent criminals
Morris said during his testimony on Wednesday that OPP “found no
credible intelligence of threats” in terms of producing intelligence
and even said that “the lack of violent crime was shocking” in Ottawa
with only a few charges laid for violent crimes, most of them against
police officers.
Morris also said he found it “problematic” to hear certain
unidentified politicians and members of the media claim the protests
were being influenced by Russian or American sources or even former
President Donald Trump when he never saw proof of that.
He confirmed that the OPP had warned Ottawa police well before the
Freedom Convoy arrived that protesters would stay “long-term”,
contradicting alleged statements by Ottawa Police Service (OPS) chief
Peter Sloly saying he had no intelligence warning him the protest
could extend past one weekend.
Since the beginning of the week, multiple top city officials reported
to the commission that Sloly was certain that most, if not all,
protesters would be gone after the weekend of Jan. 29.
“Chief Sloly was telling me things like, you know, ‘We’re not getting
any messages from intelligence agencies that it’s anything other than
protests. We expect them to be gone on Monday’. That’s the message I
was getting,” city councillor and former head of the Ottawa police
services board told the commission Wednesday morning.
Earlier this week, Ottawa City Manager Steve Kanellakos said Sloly
expected the last of protesters to be out of the city by Wednesday
Feb. 2 at the latest. He said the city prepared for the protests based
on that OPS assessment.
Sloly is expected to testify in front of the commission in the coming weeks.
But Morris says POIB began specifically monitoring the Freedom Convoy
on Jan 13, 2022, in “Hendon” intelligence reports, which were
distributed to dozens of police partners including the OPS since 2021.
Morris later confirmed that Sloly personally received Hendon reports
as well.
People stand in front of trucks blocking a downtown street as truckers
and their supporters protest against COVID-19 restrictions in Ottawa,
February 16, 2022. People stand in front of trucks blocking a downtown
street as truckers and their supporters protest against COVID-19
restrictions in Ottawa, February 16, 2022. Photo by Patrick
Doyle/Reuters
In a Jan. 20 Hendon report, POIB first started warning that the convoy
protesters had “no exit strategy for departing Ottawa” and that they
intended to stay in the city until their demands that all COVID-19
public health restrictions be lifted were met.
“There was no exit strategy, but there were extensive demands being
placed. And the fact that we felt those demands could not be met meant
that they, meaning the protesters, would be there for a long period of
time,” Morris explained.
Asked by commission counsel to clarify what he meant by a long period
of time, the head of POIB stated multiple weeks or even a month.
Morris said POIB quickly assessed that the Freedom Convoy movement was
unlike other protests because the participants had “multiple
frustrations” that had percolated for 18 months since the beginning of
the pandemic. For example, vaccine mandates for truckers, vaccine
passports and concerns about “pediatric vaccines”.
“These were all factors that … impacted their motivation and increased
their frustration and we believed that they would follow through on
what they were saying they would do,” Morris said about protesters
desire to stay in Ottawa until mandates were lifted.
Another factor Morris said contributed to the belief the protests
would last “long-term” was the convoy’s funding.
Morris said OPP took great interest in the “unprecedented” growth in
crowdfunding in support for the convoy participants.
He said that OPP was also looking into how the funds would be
utilized. The force knew it would be used for gas and logistics among
other things, but expressed concern it would fuel support for the
convoy and add to its duration.
“We didn’t know all the factors but the biggest takeaway from the
money was the degree of support and the means that that would be in
possession to make it more long term even for things such as
accommodations,” he said.
https://nationalpost.com/news/
OPP head told MPs that Freedom Convoy was 'threat to national
security.' His own intelligence said otherwise
The apparent discrepancy is important considering the inquiry’s
mission to establish if the federal government was justified in
invoking the Emergencies Act
Author of the article:
Christopher Nardi
Publishing date:
Oct 21, 2022
370 Comments
OPP Commissioner Thomas Carrique is expected to testify to Public
Order Emergency Commission as soon as next week.OPP Commissioner
Thomas Carrique is expected to testify to Public Order Emergency
Commission as soon as next week. Photo by Ashley Fraser/Postmedia/File
OTTAWA — The OPP commissioner told MPs in March that force
intelligence concluded the Freedom Convoy posed a “threat to national
security.” His own head of intelligence told a public inquiry
otherwise Wednesday.
Documents tabled at the public inquiry investigating the federal
government’s use of the Emergencies Act also appear to contradict
information provided by acting Ottawa Police Service chief Steve Bell
to MPs regarding firearm-related charges against Freedom Convoy
participants.
On March 24, Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) commissioner Thomas
Carrique declared to members of the federal security committee that
the service’s intelligence unit, the Provincial Operational
Intelligence Bureau (POIB), identified the Freedom Convoy occupying
Ottawa last winter as a “threat to national security” on Feb. 7.
“This was identified as a threat to national security, and we were
able to utilize a number of the powers in the Emergencies Act,”
Carrique told MPs when asked if he supported the federal government’s
controversial use of the exceptional act to end the protests on Feb.
14.
But the head of the OPP’S POIB, Supt. Pat Morris, appeared to directly
contradict his boss’ assertion to MPs during testimony in front of the
Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC) this week.
He repeatedly told counsel that his bureau never received “credible”
information that the Freedom Convoy posed a direct threat to national
security, nor did he receive any from intelligence partners Canadian
Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) or the RCMP’s Integrated National
Security Enforcement Teams (INSET).
The closest it ever got to that was in a Feb. 7 report in which it
warned of the “potential” for the protest to become a national
security threat if a series of hypothetical events occurred throughout
the country. He said none of those events came to fruition, so the
potential threat never materialized.
Police patrol Ottawa's Freedom Convoy blockade on Day 11 of the protest.
Sloly’s lawyer, OPP spar over Ottawa police request for 1,800
officers: protest inquiry
OPP Superintendent Pat Morris waits to appear as a witness at the
Public Order Emergency Commission in Ottawa, on Oct. 19, 2022.
OPP saw no evidence Freedom Convoy posed direct threat to national
security: intelligence officer
But he admitted that CSIS and INSET did not share the view at the time
that the Freedom Convoy posed even a potential national security
threat. “INSET and CSIS concur that there are no national security
concerns. Confirmed today,” Morris wrote to colleagues on Feb. 7.
The apparent discrepancy is important considering the commission’s
mission to establish if the federal government was justified in
invoking the Emergencies Act on Feb. 14 to deal with the Ottawa
protests.
The Emergencies Act can only be used in a national emergency when a
situation “seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada
to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of
Canada” and cannot be dealt with by any other law in the country.
An OPP spokesperson declined to comment. Carrique is expected to
testify as soon as next week.
Asked about the different OPP statements, NDP MP Alistair MacGregor
said there are clear contradictions between the OPP’s testimony in the
spring and this week that need to addressed.
“New Democrats are calling for an immediate response from the OPP
regarding their testimony before committee and will submit a formal
request through the committee. We will keep working to get to the
bottom of this contradiction to their testimony on the security threat
of the illegal occupation and continue pushing the Liberals to be
transparent with Canadians,” MacGregor said.
Acting OPS chief Steve Bell is also likely to be questioned by
commission participants about a statement he made to the same March 24
federal security committee meeting that is seemingly contradicted by
his own organization’s data.
At the time, Conservative committee member Dane Lloyd asked Bell if
police had found firearms amongst protesters camped out in front of
the Parliament buildings in Ottawa, citing a news report quoting
police sources saying officers had found a loaded shotgun in a
vehicle.
Bell stated that the force had received intelligence “around
possession of weapons” by convoy participants or supporters, but that
“at no point did we lay any firearms-related charges.”
“Yet there are investigations that continue in relation to weapons
possessions at the occupation,” he added.
But a document produced and tabled by OPS to the commission states
that police laid two apparently firearms-related charges tied to the
Freedom Convoy on Feb. 11, days before the Emergencies Act was invoked
and well over one month before Bell’s appearance in front of the
committee.
The first charge is listed in the document as “Possess Restricted or
Prohibited Firearm without holding a Licence and Registration
Certificate” and the second as “Possess Firearm, etc. while Prohibited
Sec 117.01 CC.”
The document does not say if the charges were laid against different
individuals or a single person.
An OPS spokesperson declined to comment while the commission is
ongoing. Bell is slated to testify on Monday.
The document reveals OPS laid 533 separate criminal charges against
140 individuals tied to the Freedom Convoy between Jan. 28 and March
31.
Most of those charges were for mischief, obstruction or resisting
arrest. But at least 21 were related to assault, 87 were for
disobeying a court order and one person was charged for attempting to
take a weapon from a police officer.
— With additional reporting by Catherine Levesque.
https://nationalpost.com/news/
Emergencies Act was just 'helpful' in ending convoy protest: acting
Ottawa police chief
'We had a plan. We were going to execute a plan,' Interim chief Steve
Bell told the Public Order Emergency Commission
Author of the article:
Christopher Nardi, Catherine Lévesque
Publishing date:
Oct 24, 2022
237 Comments
File: Ottawa Interim Police Chief Steve Bell.File: Ottawa Interim
Police Chief Steve Bell. Photo by DAVE CHAN /AFP via Getty Images
OTTAWA – Hours before the federal government invoked the Emergencies
Act, RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki said in an email that “all
available tools” had not yet been exhausted in ending the Freedom
Convoy in Ottawa.
An internal email sent in the early hours of Feb. 14 shows Lucki
discussing the possible invocation of the Act with Mike Jones, chief
of staff to the Minister of Public Safety Marco Mendicino. It was
presented during the Public Order Emergency Commission Monday (POEC)
on Monday.
“I am of the view that we have not yet exhausted all available tools
that are already available through the existing legislation. There are
instances where charges could be laid under existing authorities for
various Criminal Code offences occurring right now in the context of
the protest,” wrote Lucki.
“The Ontario Provincial Emergencies Act just enacted will also help in
providing additional deterrent tools to our existing toolbox,” she
added.
Later that day, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau confirmed in a press
conference he would be invoking the Emergencies Act for the first time
in Canada’s history. He said at the time there were “serious
challenges to law enforcement’s ability to effectively enforce the
law.”
Interim Ottawa police chief Steve Bell was the key witness during the
POEC on Monday and was asked to comment on Lucki’s comments by Brendan
Miller, a lawyer representing the convoy leaders.
“I believe it’s a perspective, for sure,” said Bell.
The interim chief added that the provisions under the Emergency Act
helped Ottawa Police Service (OPS) put “a very stable platform, a
stable environment” around the execution of the police’s plan. He
added later that the act was “helpful” in ending the protests, but did
not say it was necessary.
“We had a plan. We were going to execute a plan,” said Bell.
Recommended from Editorial
OPP Commissioner Thomas Carrique is expected to testify to Public
Order Emergency Commission as soon as next week.
OPP head told MPs that Freedom Convoy was 'threat to national
security.' His own intelligence said otherwise
The Peace Tower is seen behind police at a gate along Queen Street
as they restrict access to the streets around Parliament Hill in
Ottawa, Saturday, Feb. 19, 2022. The inquiry into the federal
government's use of the Emergencies Act during February's
'Exhausted' and in disarray, Ottawa police struggled to create a
plan for the 'occupation'
Bell’s testimony came after retired Ontario Provincial Police (OPP)
officer, Carson Pardy, testified last week that while the emergency
powers helped the police, he did not think they were necessary to help
clear the protesters who were occupying the streets for weeks last
winter.
The POEC is tasked with establishing if the federal government was
legally justified in invoking the exceptional powers of the law.
Bell said that those powers benefitted the police forces in a few key areas.
They allowed to “streamline” the swearing-in of police members coming
from other provinces, helped compel some tow truck companies in
removing the vehicles in the street and provided a clear legislative
framework for frontline officers on what they could do and how to
execute their powers.
Bell’s testimony also provided more details as to how Ottawa’s police
force was in disarray and plagued by internal conflicts with its
former chief, Peter Sloly.
Bell told the Public Order Emergency Commission Monday (POEC) that
throughout the “occupation”, the OPS and Sloly had significant
communications issues, namely because they were promising enforcement
action to distraught Ottawa residents that the force was utterly
unable to follow through with.
A summary of Bell’s interview with commission lawyers this summer
lists a series of statements from Sloly and the OPS that “caused trust
issues.”
For example, when it became clear the protesters were increasingly
entrenched in downtown Ottawa streets, OPS announced they would cut
off the convoy’s access to gasoline, which was necessary for them to
run the vehicles they were sleeping in.
But Bell said that was something OPS would never be able to do from
the start. “This should not have been announced. This was very
damaging,” reads a summary of Bell’s statement to POEC.
Another time, Sloly announced that OPS would “flood neighbourhoods”
with police officers who would be able to respond to Freedom Convoy
incidents in a “surge and contain” strategy.
A great idea in theory, Bell said, but impossible in reality. “The
flood of officers into areas affected by convoy participants that
Chief Sloly announced never materialized,” the document reads.
During a Feb. 4 press conference, Sloly announced police were
considering shutting down highway off-ramps and interprovincial
bridges to block new protesters from joining the “siege”, Bell said.
That encountered one major issue: OPS had virtually no power to do so,
as both are under Ontario Provincial Police jurisdiction and OPS had
not consulted them yet.
“Interim Chief Bell characterized the contemplated closure of
off-ramps and bridges as an example of OPS making announcements that
it could not deliver on,” read the documents.
Sloly is slated to testify at the commission by the end of the week.
Bell’s testimony also reveals profound discomfort within some members
of OPS top brass about the involvement of crisis communication firm
Navigator in police strategies after they were hired by Sloly midway
through the protests.
On Feb. 11, Bell said Navigator participated in a meeting with Sloly
and acting deputy chief Patricia Ferguson to brainstorm ideas for
police operations against the convoy.
The next day, Navigator principal Jamie Watt entered Bell’s office and
questioned the OPS’ decision not to act against protesters removing
fencing at the National War Memorial. Watt’s is recorded as telling
Bell the OPS should “take a more active approach.”
The document notes Bell found Watt’s comments on police operational
decisions as “inappropriate” and that he worried Navigator’s
communication strategy around the protests threatened to “drive police
operations.” He also had privacy concerns about sharing operations
details with Navigator.
When Sloly resigned and was replaced with Bell, the new chief quickly
ended the contract with Navigator because he did not find they
provided “effective” help putting an end to the occupation.
In his testimony, Bell reiterated that, in his view, there was
“nothing” to identify that the convoy participants would stay longer
than the first weekend even though intelligence reports from his own
police force as well as the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) do
indicate that that could be the case.
Bell told the commission that he was made aware of the first “Project
Hendon” intelligence report only on Jan. 27, thus missing out on
crucial information in previous reports.
Pat Morris, from the OPP’s operations intelligence unit, pointed last
week to the Jan. 20 Hendon report mentioned convoy protesters had “no
exit strategy” for departing Ottawa. And since their demands that all
COVID-19 restrictions be lifted would not be met, they would be there
for a long period of time.
However, OPS Intelligence Assessment from Jan. 29 do also point to the
possibility of a longer protest. Author Sgt. Chris Kiez described a
“powerful manifestation of deep discontent” and warned that it could
“slumber for a very long while.”
“Convoy members appear to be stocking up on food and supplies which
could indicate that they have long term plans to stay in Ottawa,” Kiez
warned.
His assessment also noted that the federal government was “strenuously
ignoring the event” as it headed to Ottawa. It noted that similar
strategies had adverse effects on large, “grassroots” protests such as
the convoy.
“Refusal of a leader to meet or address the reality of a popular
uprising has, historically, led to situations becoming unmanageable,”
Kiez wrote.
Bell said the OPS was “inundated” with information in the days
preceding the arrival of the Freedom Convoy and said he was trying to
ensure that it was funneled to the right areas in order to be properly
assessed. He described a “difficult” period “because of how fluid and
dynamic the situation was.”
“It was a roller coaster that week in terms of information coming out
and refining down,” he said.
The commission’s counsel, Frank Au, asked him if it would have made
sense to imply that the convoy participants would stay longer than a
weekend in Ottawa, given that thousands of them had driven across the
country for more than a week in order to protest vaccine mandates.
“I think that’s an inference we would now make,” said Bell.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Premier of Ontario | Premier ministre de l’Ontario <Premier@ontario.ca>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2022 20:27:38 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Re Urgent Consultation
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Thank you for your email. Your thoughts, comments and input are greatly valued.
You can be assured that all emails and letters are carefully read,
reviewed and taken into consideration.
There may be occasions when, given the issues you have raised and the
need to address them effectively, we will forward a copy of your
correspondence to the appropriate government official. Accordingly, a
response may take several business days.
Thanks again for your email.
______
Merci pour votre courriel. Nous vous sommes très reconnaissants de
nous avoir fait part de vos idées, commentaires et observations.
Nous tenons à vous assurer que nous lisons attentivement et prenons en
considération tous les courriels et lettres que nous recevons.
Dans certains cas, nous transmettrons votre message au ministère
responsable afin que les questions soulevées puissent être traitées de
la manière la plus efficace possible. En conséquence, plusieurs jours
ouvrables pourraient s’écouler avant que nous puissions vous répondre.
Merci encore pour votre courriel.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ministerial Correspondence Unit - Justice Canada <mcu@justice.gc.ca>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2022 20:27:47 +0000
Subject: Automatic Reply
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Thank you for writing to the Honourable David Lametti, Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada.
Due to the volume of correspondence addressed to the Minister, please
note that there may be a delay in processing your email. Rest assured
that your message will be carefully reviewed.
We do not respond to correspondence that contains offensive language.
-------------------
Merci d'avoir écrit à l'honorable David Lametti, ministre de la
Justice et procureur général du Canada.
En raison du volume de correspondance adressée au ministre, veuillez
prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de
votre courriel. Nous tenons à vous assurer que votre message sera lu
avec soin.
Nous ne répondons pas à la correspondance contenant un langage offensant.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Rupar, Christopher" <Christopher.Rupar@justice.gc.
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2022 20:27:47 +0000
Subject: Réponse automatique - Automatic reply: Re Urgent Consultation
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
I will be out of the office until October 27 2022. If your matter is
urgent, please contact Deborah Mayo at (613) 670-6361
(Deborah.Mayo@justice.gc.ca.) Valerie Phillips
(Valerie.Phillips@justice.gc.
le 27 octobre 2022. Si vous avez besoin d'assistance contactez Deborah
Mayo (613) 670-6361(Deborah.Mayo@justice.
(Valerie.Phillips@justice.gc.
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2022 18:58:57 -0300
Subject: Fwd: Re Urgent Consultation
To: bernierr@ottawapolice.ca, kiezc@ottawapolice.ca,
lucasr@ottawapolice.ca, ferguson@ottawapolice.ca,
kays@ottawapolice.ca, rheaumec@ottawapolice.ca, bells@ottawapolice.ca,
bourisc@ottawapolice.ca, pattersonm@ottawapolice.ca,
brownc@ottawapolice.ca, kennedyk@ottawapolice.ca,
drummondr@ottawapolice.ca, dunlopJ@ottawapolice.ca
Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, chriskiez@solusyion.com,
cnardi@postmedia.com, Newsroom <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>, "Robert.
Jones" <Robert.Jones@cbc.ca>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Au, Frank (MAG)" <Frank.Au@ontario.ca>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2022 20:27:39 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Re Urgent Consultation
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
I am away on a secondment until Spring 2023, and do not have access to
emails. If you require assistance, please call 416.326.4600 and ask
for the Duty Crown. Thank you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
🔴LIVE PUBLIC ORDER EMERGENCY COMISSION INQUIRY Day 9 - October 25, 2022
887 watching now
Started streaming 30 minutes ago
WARCAMPAIGN
52.4K subscribers
Support the WARCAMPAIGN Help us keep fighting for FREEDOM in the
political sphere and the culture war! http://BuyVestige.com
Public Order Emergency Commission Documents
https://
February 14, 2022 Declaration of Public Order Emergency: Explanation
pursuant to subsection 58(1) of the Emergencies Act
https://www.publicsafety.gc.
https://nationalpost.com/news/
'Quite troubled': MPs demand explanation from OPP over 'wildly
different' statements on Freedom Convoy
OPP commissioner told a Commons committee last spring that the
intelligence unit had identified the protest as a 'threat to national
security'
Author of the article:
Christopher Nardi
Publishing date:
Oct 25, 2022
174 Comments
OPP Commissioner Thomas Carrique is expected to testify before the
Public Order Emergency Commission.OPP Commissioner Thomas Carrique is
expected to testify before the Public Order Emergency Commission.
Photo by Ashley Fraser/Postmedia/File
OTTAWA — MPs unanimously voted to demand answers from the Ontario
Provincial Police on its “wildly different” testimony about the
security threat posed by the Freedom Convoy protests.
In a rare show of parliamentary unity, members of all parties on the
Commons public safety and national security committee approved a
motion requiring an “immediate response” from the OPP regarding an
apparent “contradiction” between what its commissioner told the
committee in March about the protests and what its head of
intelligence said to the Emergencies Act inquiry last week.
The motion was brought by NDP MP Alistair MacGregor, who told his
colleagues he was “quite troubled” by seemingly conflicting statements
first reported by the National Post last week.
Recommended from Editorial
OPP Commissioner Thomas Carrique is expected to testify to Public
Order Emergency Commission as soon as next week.
OPP head told MPs that Freedom Convoy was 'threat to national
security.' His own intelligence said otherwise
Ontario Premier Doug Ford has been summoned by the Emergencies Act
commission to testify 'voluntarily.'
Summons issued to compel Doug Ford to testify at Emergencies Act inquiry
During a March 24 committee meeting, OPP commissioner Thomas Carrique
declared twice that the service’s intelligence unit, the Provincial
Operational Intelligence Bureau (POIB), identified the Freedom Convoy
as a “threat to national security” on Feb. 7.
He said his force was able to use the “tools” contained in the federal
Emergencies Act after the Trudeau government invoked it on Feb. 14 to
shut down the weeks-long protest on Parliament Hill and at the border
and address the national security “threat.”
But testimony and documents from the head of the POIB made public last
week at the Public Order Emergency Commission appear to directly
contradict Carrique’s statements.
OPP Superintendent Pat Morris waits to appear as a witness at the
Public Order Emergency Commission in Ottawa, on Oct. 19, 2022. OPP
Superintendent Pat Morris waits to appear as a witness at the Public
Order Emergency Commission in Ottawa, on Oct. 19, 2022. Photo by Sean
Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
The commission is tasked with determining whether the Trudeau
government met the legal threshold to invoke the exceptional powers
contained in the Emergencies Act.
POIB leader Supt. Pat Morris told the commission his team never
received “credible” information that the Freedom Convoy posed a direct
threat to national security.
Other intelligence partners, such as the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service and the RCMP’s Integrated National Security
Enforcement Teams, never shared any either.
On the day Carrique told the committee that the OPP had determined the
Freedom Convoy across Canada became a “threat to national security,” a
POIB report noted for the first time that the protests had the
“potential” to become such a threat.
But Morris told the commission the Freedom Convoy would have only
become a real threat to national security if a series of hypothetical
events occurred across Canada. They never did.
An email from Morris to his staff on Feb. 7 tabled at the commission
also reveals that CSIS and INSET did not share POIB’s view that the
protests had even hit the threshold of “potential” national security
threat at that point.
The OPP declined to comment on the discrepancies last week but noted
Carrique is expected to testify at the Emergencies Act inquiry in the
coming weeks.
MacGregor’s motion also forces the OPP to provide a written response
to the public safety and national security committee about Carrique’s
testimony.
“I’m quite troubled that the very same police force is giving one
answer to the Public Order commission, but a completely different
answer earlier in the year to a committee of the House of Commons,”
MacGregor told his committee colleagues on Monday.
“Mr. Chair, this committee has to empower you to seek clarification on
why those two wildly different testimonies were given,” he added to
committee chair Ron McKinnon.
https://nationalpost.com/news/
OPP saw no evidence Freedom Convoy posed direct threat to national
security: intelligence officer
During cross-examinations by different parties’ lawyers, Supt. Pat
Morris also agreed with the assertion that intelligence he saw never
pointed to extremism
Author of the article:
Christopher Nardi, Catherine Lévesque
Publishing date:
Oct 19, 2022
566 Comments
OPP Superintendent Pat Morris waits to appear as a witness at the
Public Order Emergency Commission in Ottawa, on Oct. 19, 2022. OPP
Superintendent Pat Morris waits to appear as a witness at the Public
Order Emergency Commission in Ottawa, on Oct. 19, 2022. Photo by Sean
Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
OTTAWA – The Ontario Provincial Police intelligence unit never found
evidence demonstrating that the Freedom Convoy posed a direct threat
to national security before the unprecedented use of the Emergencies
Act was invoked by the federal government.
The head of the OPP’s Provincial Operations Intelligence Bureau (POIB)
Superintendent Pat Morris testified in front of the Public Order
Emergency Commission (POEC) that at no point during the protests did
he receive reliable intelligence that led to believe there was a risk
that would rise to the level of a potential threat to national
security.
During cross-examinations by different parties’ lawyers, he also
agreed with the assertion that intelligence he saw never pointed to
extremism.
“Everybody was asking about extremism. We weren’t seeing much evidence
of it,” Morris said.
As the convoy settled in to Ottawa, so-called “Project Hendon”
reports, shared with other police forces (named after an ongoing
surveillance operation) started warning that the protest posed a real
potential “public safety and officer safety threat.” But those
concerns were always about a spontaneous event or actions from a “lone
wolf.”
Midway through the protests, POIB noted that they had “not identified
any concrete, specific, or credible threat with regard to the Freedom
Convoy protest” or similar events.
“However, the situation remains potentially volatile. The possibility
that a lone actor or group of individuals could enact a threat with
little or no warning cannot be excluded.”
The Emergencies Act, which was invoked on Feb. 14, can only be used in
a national emergency when a situation “seriously threatens the ability
of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and
territorial integrity of Canada” and cannot be dealt with any other
law in the country.
The commission is set to verify if that was indeed the case.
Recommended from Editorial
Ottawa Police Chief Peter Sloly listens to a reporter’s question
as a protest against COVID-19 restrictions continues into its second
week, in Ottawa, on Friday, Feb. 4, 2022.
Ottawa police plagued by infighting and an insurrection against
chief during protests, inquiry hears
Early in the Freedom Convoy protests, CSIS found that there was no
CSIS worried Freedom Convoy protests were a 'recruiting ground'
for violent criminals
Morris said during his testimony on Wednesday that OPP “found no
credible intelligence of threats” in terms of producing intelligence
and even said that “the lack of violent crime was shocking” in Ottawa
with only a few charges laid for violent crimes, most of them against
police officers.
Morris also said he found it “problematic” to hear certain
unidentified politicians and members of the media claim the protests
were being influenced by Russian or American sources or even former
President Donald Trump when he never saw proof of that.
He confirmed that the OPP had warned Ottawa police well before the
Freedom Convoy arrived that protesters would stay “long-term”,
contradicting alleged statements by Ottawa Police Service (OPS) chief
Peter Sloly saying he had no intelligence warning him the protest
could extend past one weekend.
Since the beginning of the week, multiple top city officials reported
to the commission that Sloly was certain that most, if not all,
protesters would be gone after the weekend of Jan. 29.
“Chief Sloly was telling me things like, you know, ‘We’re not getting
any messages from intelligence agencies that it’s anything other than
protests. We expect them to be gone on Monday’. That’s the message I
was getting,” city councillor and former head of the Ottawa police
services board told the commission Wednesday morning.
Earlier this week, Ottawa City Manager Steve Kanellakos said Sloly
expected the last of protesters to be out of the city by Wednesday
Feb. 2 at the latest. He said the city prepared for the protests based
on that OPS assessment.
Sloly is expected to testify in front of the commission in the coming weeks.
But Morris says POIB began specifically monitoring the Freedom Convoy
on Jan 13, 2022, in “Hendon” intelligence reports, which were
distributed to dozens of police partners including the OPS since 2021.
Morris later confirmed that Sloly personally received Hendon reports
as well.
People stand in front of trucks blocking a downtown street as truckers
and their supporters protest against COVID-19 restrictions in Ottawa,
February 16, 2022. People stand in front of trucks blocking a downtown
street as truckers and their supporters protest against COVID-19
restrictions in Ottawa, February 16, 2022. Photo by Patrick
Doyle/Reuters
In a Jan. 20 Hendon report, POIB first started warning that the convoy
protesters had “no exit strategy for departing Ottawa” and that they
intended to stay in the city until their demands that all COVID-19
public health restrictions be lifted were met.
“There was no exit strategy, but there were extensive demands being
placed. And the fact that we felt those demands could not be met meant
that they, meaning the protesters, would be there for a long period of
time,” Morris explained.
Asked by commission counsel to clarify what he meant by a long period
of time, the head of POIB stated multiple weeks or even a month.
Morris said POIB quickly assessed that the Freedom Convoy movement was
unlike other protests because the participants had “multiple
frustrations” that had percolated for 18 months since the beginning of
the pandemic. For example, vaccine mandates for truckers, vaccine
passports and concerns about “pediatric vaccines”.
“These were all factors that … impacted their motivation and increased
their frustration and we believed that they would follow through on
what they were saying they would do,” Morris said about protesters
desire to stay in Ottawa until mandates were lifted.
Another factor Morris said contributed to the belief the protests
would last “long-term” was the convoy’s funding.
Morris said OPP took great interest in the “unprecedented” growth in
crowdfunding in support for the convoy participants.
He said that OPP was also looking into how the funds would be
utilized. The force knew it would be used for gas and logistics among
other things, but expressed concern it would fuel support for the
convoy and add to its duration.
“We didn’t know all the factors but the biggest takeaway from the
money was the degree of support and the means that that would be in
possession to make it more long term even for things such as
accommodations,” he said.
https://nationalpost.com/news/
OPP head told MPs that Freedom Convoy was 'threat to national
security.' His own intelligence said otherwise
The apparent discrepancy is important considering the inquiry’s
mission to establish if the federal government was justified in
invoking the Emergencies Act
Author of the article:
Christopher Nardi
Publishing date:
Oct 21, 2022
370 Comments
OPP Commissioner Thomas Carrique is expected to testify to Public
Order Emergency Commission as soon as next week.OPP Commissioner
Thomas Carrique is expected to testify to Public Order Emergency
Commission as soon as next week. Photo by Ashley Fraser/Postmedia/File
OTTAWA — The OPP commissioner told MPs in March that force
intelligence concluded the Freedom Convoy posed a “threat to national
security.” His own head of intelligence told a public inquiry
otherwise Wednesday.
Documents tabled at the public inquiry investigating the federal
government’s use of the Emergencies Act also appear to contradict
information provided by acting Ottawa Police Service chief Steve Bell
to MPs regarding firearm-related charges against Freedom Convoy
participants.
On March 24, Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) commissioner Thomas
Carrique declared to members of the federal security committee that
the service’s intelligence unit, the Provincial Operational
Intelligence Bureau (POIB), identified the Freedom Convoy occupying
Ottawa last winter as a “threat to national security” on Feb. 7.
“This was identified as a threat to national security, and we were
able to utilize a number of the powers in the Emergencies Act,”
Carrique told MPs when asked if he supported the federal government’s
controversial use of the exceptional act to end the protests on Feb.
14.
But the head of the OPP’S POIB, Supt. Pat Morris, appeared to directly
contradict his boss’ assertion to MPs during testimony in front of the
Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC) this week.
He repeatedly told counsel that his bureau never received “credible”
information that the Freedom Convoy posed a direct threat to national
security, nor did he receive any from intelligence partners Canadian
Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) or the RCMP’s Integrated National
Security Enforcement Teams (INSET).
The closest it ever got to that was in a Feb. 7 report in which it
warned of the “potential” for the protest to become a national
security threat if a series of hypothetical events occurred throughout
the country. He said none of those events came to fruition, so the
potential threat never materialized.
Police patrol Ottawa's Freedom Convoy blockade on Day 11 of the protest.
Sloly’s lawyer, OPP spar over Ottawa police request for 1,800
officers: protest inquiry
OPP Superintendent Pat Morris waits to appear as a witness at the
Public Order Emergency Commission in Ottawa, on Oct. 19, 2022.
OPP saw no evidence Freedom Convoy posed direct threat to national
security: intelligence officer
But he admitted that CSIS and INSET did not share the view at the time
that the Freedom Convoy posed even a potential national security
threat. “INSET and CSIS concur that there are no national security
concerns. Confirmed today,” Morris wrote to colleagues on Feb. 7.
The apparent discrepancy is important considering the commission’s
mission to establish if the federal government was justified in
invoking the Emergencies Act on Feb. 14 to deal with the Ottawa
protests.
The Emergencies Act can only be used in a national emergency when a
situation “seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada
to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of
Canada” and cannot be dealt with by any other law in the country.
An OPP spokesperson declined to comment. Carrique is expected to
testify as soon as next week.
Asked about the different OPP statements, NDP MP Alistair MacGregor
said there are clear contradictions between the OPP’s testimony in the
spring and this week that need to addressed.
“New Democrats are calling for an immediate response from the OPP
regarding their testimony before committee and will submit a formal
request through the committee. We will keep working to get to the
bottom of this contradiction to their testimony on the security threat
of the illegal occupation and continue pushing the Liberals to be
transparent with Canadians,” MacGregor said.
Acting OPS chief Steve Bell is also likely to be questioned by
commission participants about a statement he made to the same March 24
federal security committee meeting that is seemingly contradicted by
his own organization’s data.
At the time, Conservative committee member Dane Lloyd asked Bell if
police had found firearms amongst protesters camped out in front of
the Parliament buildings in Ottawa, citing a news report quoting
police sources saying officers had found a loaded shotgun in a
vehicle.
Bell stated that the force had received intelligence “around
possession of weapons” by convoy participants or supporters, but that
“at no point did we lay any firearms-related charges.”
“Yet there are investigations that continue in relation to weapons
possessions at the occupation,” he added.
But a document produced and tabled by OPS to the commission states
that police laid two apparently firearms-related charges tied to the
Freedom Convoy on Feb. 11, days before the Emergencies Act was invoked
and well over one month before Bell’s appearance in front of the
committee.
The first charge is listed in the document as “Possess Restricted or
Prohibited Firearm without holding a Licence and Registration
Certificate” and the second as “Possess Firearm, etc. while Prohibited
Sec 117.01 CC.”
The document does not say if the charges were laid against different
individuals or a single person.
An OPS spokesperson declined to comment while the commission is
ongoing. Bell is slated to testify on Monday.
The document reveals OPS laid 533 separate criminal charges against
140 individuals tied to the Freedom Convoy between Jan. 28 and March
31.
Most of those charges were for mischief, obstruction or resisting
arrest. But at least 21 were related to assault, 87 were for
disobeying a court order and one person was charged for attempting to
take a weapon from a police officer.
— With additional reporting by Catherine Levesque.
https://nationalpost.com/news/
Emergencies Act was just 'helpful' in ending convoy protest: acting
Ottawa police chief
'We had a plan. We were going to execute a plan,' Interim chief Steve
Bell told the Public Order Emergency Commission
Author of the article:
Christopher Nardi, Catherine Lévesque
Publishing date:
Oct 24, 2022
237 Comments
File: Ottawa Interim Police Chief Steve Bell.File: Ottawa Interim
Police Chief Steve Bell. Photo by DAVE CHAN /AFP via Getty Images
OTTAWA – Hours before the federal government invoked the Emergencies
Act, RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki said in an email that “all
available tools” had not yet been exhausted in ending the Freedom
Convoy in Ottawa.
An internal email sent in the early hours of Feb. 14 shows Lucki
discussing the possible invocation of the Act with Mike Jones, chief
of staff to the Minister of Public Safety Marco Mendicino. It was
presented during the Public Order Emergency Commission Monday (POEC)
on Monday.
“I am of the view that we have not yet exhausted all available tools
that are already available through the existing legislation. There are
instances where charges could be laid under existing authorities for
various Criminal Code offences occurring right now in the context of
the protest,” wrote Lucki.
“The Ontario Provincial Emergencies Act just enacted will also help in
providing additional deterrent tools to our existing toolbox,” she
added.
Later that day, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau confirmed in a press
conference he would be invoking the Emergencies Act for the first time
in Canada’s history. He said at the time there were “serious
challenges to law enforcement’s ability to effectively enforce the
law.”
Interim Ottawa police chief Steve Bell was the key witness during the
POEC on Monday and was asked to comment on Lucki’s comments by Brendan
Miller, a lawyer representing the convoy leaders.
“I believe it’s a perspective, for sure,” said Bell.
The interim chief added that the provisions under the Emergency Act
helped Ottawa Police Service (OPS) put “a very stable platform, a
stable environment” around the execution of the police’s plan. He
added later that the act was “helpful” in ending the protests, but did
not say it was necessary.
“We had a plan. We were going to execute a plan,” said Bell.
Recommended from Editorial
OPP Commissioner Thomas Carrique is expected to testify to Public
Order Emergency Commission as soon as next week.
OPP head told MPs that Freedom Convoy was 'threat to national
security.' His own intelligence said otherwise
The Peace Tower is seen behind police at a gate along Queen Street
as they restrict access to the streets around Parliament Hill in
Ottawa, Saturday, Feb. 19, 2022. The inquiry into the federal
government's use of the Emergencies Act during February's
'Exhausted' and in disarray, Ottawa police struggled to create a
plan for the 'occupation'
Bell’s testimony came after retired Ontario Provincial Police (OPP)
officer, Carson Pardy, testified last week that while the emergency
powers helped the police, he did not think they were necessary to help
clear the protesters who were occupying the streets for weeks last
winter.
The POEC is tasked with establishing if the federal government was
legally justified in invoking the exceptional powers of the law.
Bell said that those powers benefitted the police forces in a few key areas.
They allowed to “streamline” the swearing-in of police members coming
from other provinces, helped compel some tow truck companies in
removing the vehicles in the street and provided a clear legislative
framework for frontline officers on what they could do and how to
execute their powers.
Bell’s testimony also provided more details as to how Ottawa’s police
force was in disarray and plagued by internal conflicts with its
former chief, Peter Sloly.
Bell told the Public Order Emergency Commission Monday (POEC) that
throughout the “occupation”, the OPS and Sloly had significant
communications issues, namely because they were promising enforcement
action to distraught Ottawa residents that the force was utterly
unable to follow through with.
A summary of Bell’s interview with commission lawyers this summer
lists a series of statements from Sloly and the OPS that “caused trust
issues.”
For example, when it became clear the protesters were increasingly
entrenched in downtown Ottawa streets, OPS announced they would cut
off the convoy’s access to gasoline, which was necessary for them to
run the vehicles they were sleeping in.
But Bell said that was something OPS would never be able to do from
the start. “This should not have been announced. This was very
damaging,” reads a summary of Bell’s statement to POEC.
Another time, Sloly announced that OPS would “flood neighbourhoods”
with police officers who would be able to respond to Freedom Convoy
incidents in a “surge and contain” strategy.
A great idea in theory, Bell said, but impossible in reality. “The
flood of officers into areas affected by convoy participants that
Chief Sloly announced never materialized,” the document reads.
During a Feb. 4 press conference, Sloly announced police were
considering shutting down highway off-ramps and interprovincial
bridges to block new protesters from joining the “siege”, Bell said.
That encountered one major issue: OPS had virtually no power to do so,
as both are under Ontario Provincial Police jurisdiction and OPS had
not consulted them yet.
“Interim Chief Bell characterized the contemplated closure of
off-ramps and bridges as an example of OPS making announcements that
it could not deliver on,” read the documents.
Sloly is slated to testify at the commission by the end of the week.
Bell’s testimony also reveals profound discomfort within some members
of OPS top brass about the involvement of crisis communication firm
Navigator in police strategies after they were hired by Sloly midway
through the protests.
On Feb. 11, Bell said Navigator participated in a meeting with Sloly
and acting deputy chief Patricia Ferguson to brainstorm ideas for
police operations against the convoy.
The next day, Navigator principal Jamie Watt entered Bell’s office and
questioned the OPS’ decision not to act against protesters removing
fencing at the National War Memorial. Watt’s is recorded as telling
Bell the OPS should “take a more active approach.”
The document notes Bell found Watt’s comments on police operational
decisions as “inappropriate” and that he worried Navigator’s
communication strategy around the protests threatened to “drive police
operations.” He also had privacy concerns about sharing operations
details with Navigator.
When Sloly resigned and was replaced with Bell, the new chief quickly
ended the contract with Navigator because he did not find they
provided “effective” help putting an end to the occupation.
In his testimony, Bell reiterated that, in his view, there was
“nothing” to identify that the convoy participants would stay longer
than the first weekend even though intelligence reports from his own
police force as well as the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) do
indicate that that could be the case.
Bell told the commission that he was made aware of the first “Project
Hendon” intelligence report only on Jan. 27, thus missing out on
crucial information in previous reports.
Pat Morris, from the OPP’s operations intelligence unit, pointed last
week to the Jan. 20 Hendon report mentioned convoy protesters had “no
exit strategy” for departing Ottawa. And since their demands that all
COVID-19 restrictions be lifted would not be met, they would be there
for a long period of time.
However, OPS Intelligence Assessment from Jan. 29 do also point to the
possibility of a longer protest. Author Sgt. Chris Kiez described a
“powerful manifestation of deep discontent” and warned that it could
“slumber for a very long while.”
“Convoy members appear to be stocking up on food and supplies which
could indicate that they have long term plans to stay in Ottawa,” Kiez
warned.
His assessment also noted that the federal government was “strenuously
ignoring the event” as it headed to Ottawa. It noted that similar
strategies had adverse effects on large, “grassroots” protests such as
the convoy.
“Refusal of a leader to meet or address the reality of a popular
uprising has, historically, led to situations becoming unmanageable,”
Kiez wrote.
Bell said the OPS was “inundated” with information in the days
preceding the arrival of the Freedom Convoy and said he was trying to
ensure that it was funneled to the right areas in order to be properly
assessed. He described a “difficult” period “because of how fluid and
dynamic the situation was.”
“It was a roller coaster that week in terms of information coming out
and refining down,” he said.
The commission’s counsel, Frank Au, asked him if it would have made
sense to imply that the convoy participants would stay longer than a
weekend in Ottawa, given that thousands of them had driven across the
country for more than a week in order to protest vaccine mandates.
“I think that’s an inference we would now make,” said Bell.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Premier of Ontario | Premier ministre de l’Ontario <Premier@ontario.ca>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2022 20:27:38 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Re Urgent Consultation
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Thank you for your email. Your thoughts, comments and input are greatly valued.
You can be assured that all emails and letters are carefully read,
reviewed and taken into consideration.
There may be occasions when, given the issues you have raised and the
need to address them effectively, we will forward a copy of your
correspondence to the appropriate government official. Accordingly, a
response may take several business days.
Thanks again for your email.
______
Merci pour votre courriel. Nous vous sommes très reconnaissants de
nous avoir fait part de vos idées, commentaires et observations.
Nous tenons à vous assurer que nous lisons attentivement et prenons en
considération tous les courriels et lettres que nous recevons.
Dans certains cas, nous transmettrons votre message au ministère
responsable afin que les questions soulevées puissent être traitées de
la manière la plus efficace possible. En conséquence, plusieurs jours
ouvrables pourraient s’écouler avant que nous puissions vous répondre.
Merci encore pour votre courriel.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ministerial Correspondence Unit - Justice Canada <mcu@justice.gc.ca>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2022 20:27:47 +0000
Subject: Automatic Reply
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Thank you for writing to the Honourable David Lametti, Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada.
Due to the volume of correspondence addressed to the Minister, please
note that there may be a delay in processing your email. Rest assured
that your message will be carefully reviewed.
We do not respond to correspondence that contains offensive language.
-------------------
Merci d'avoir écrit à l'honorable David Lametti, ministre de la
Justice et procureur général du Canada.
En raison du volume de correspondance adressée au ministre, veuillez
prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de
votre courriel. Nous tenons à vous assurer que votre message sera lu
avec soin.
Nous ne répondons pas à la correspondance contenant un langage offensant.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Rupar, Christopher" <Christopher.Rupar@justice.gc.
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2022 20:27:47 +0000
Subject: Réponse automatique - Automatic reply: Re Urgent Consultation
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
I will be out of the office until October 27 2022. If your matter is
urgent, please contact Deborah Mayo at (613) 670-6361
(Deborah.Mayo@justice.gc.ca.) Valerie Phillips
(Valerie.Phillips@justice.gc.
le 27 octobre 2022. Si vous avez besoin d'assistance contactez Deborah
Mayo (613) 670-6361(Deborah.Mayo@justice.
(Valerie.Phillips@justice.gc.
----------Original message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2022 17:24:49 -0300
Subject: Re Urgent Consultation
To: rob.stewart@ps-sp.gc.ca, "Nathalie.G.Drouin"
<Nathalie.G.Drouin@pco-bcp.gc.
jeffery.hutchinson@pco-bcp.gc.
pat.morris@opp.ca, "Brenda.Lucki" <Brenda.Lucki@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>,
jdp@tdslaw.com, joel@joelharden.ca, premier <premier@ontario.ca>,
"pierre.poilievre" <pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca>, frank.au@ontario.ca,
shantona@papechaudhury.com, leonj@bennettjones.com, edann@edlaw.ca,
gpoliquin@ovcounsel.com, pierrette.ringuette@sen.parl.
Patrick.Brazeau@sen.parl.gc.ca
larry.campbell@sen.parl.gc.ca, Bev.Busson@sen.parl.gc.ca,
nrodriguez@conwaylitigation.ca
srp@tdslaw.com, mtsurumi@legalanalysis.ca, tcurry
<tcurry@litigate.com>, kris.austin@gnb.ca, rokaku8@gmail.com,
patrickking <patrickking@canada-unity.com>
traversy.n@gmail.com, kingpatrick278 <kingpatrick278@gmail.com>, rick
<rick@petersoncapital.ca>, nsinvestigators
<nsinvestigators@gmail.com>, "rob.moore" <rob.moore@parl.gc.ca>
Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, "Marco.Mendicino"
<Marco.Mendicino@parl.gc.ca>, cvangeyn@theccf.ca,
christopher.rupar@justice.gc.
"As discussed, for your review and comments. Trying to keep it simple!
Note that I dropped your last bullet point"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
LIVE PUBLIC ORDER EMERGENCY COMISSION INQUIRY Day 9 - October 25, 2022
1,086 watching now
Started streaming 7 hours ago
WARCAMPAIGN
52.5K subscribers
Support the WARCAMPAIGN Help us keep fighting for FREEDOM in the
political sphere and the culture war! http://BuyVestige.com
Public Order Emergency Commission Documents
https://
February 14, 2022 Declaration of Public Order Emergency: Explanation
pursuant to subsection 58(1) of the Emergencies Act
https://www.publicsafety.gc.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Perspectives (POEC/CEDU)" <Perspectives@poec-cedu.gc.ca>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 13:46:38 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Attn Colleen McKeown I just called Trust
that Greg DelBigio and a legion of RCMP members should remember me
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Hello / Bonjour,
Merci pour votre message/soumission écrite à la Commission sur l’état
d’urgence. Ceci pour vous aviser que nous avons bien reçu votre
message/soumission écrite.
Veuillez noter que nous recevons tous les jours un nombre élevé de
courriels. Nous répondrons à votre demande ou accuserons réception de
votre soumission écrite dès que possible; cela peut prendre plusieurs
jours.
Pour plus d’information sur notre processus de consultation publique,
veuillez consulter l'adresse suivante :
https://
https://
Twitter : @CommissionEDU<https://
Facebook : Commission sur l’état d’urgence |
Facebook<https://www.facebook.
***
Thank you for your message/submission to the Public Order Emergency
Commission. This is to advise you that we have received your
message/submission.
Please note that we receive a high volume of emails every day. We will
respond to your request or acknowledge receipt of your comment or
submission as soon as possible; this may take up to several days.
You can find out more about our public submissions process on our
website at, https://
https://
Twitter: @POECommission<https://
Facebook: Public Order Emergency Commission - Home |
Facebook<https://www.facebook.
---------- Original message ----------
From: "Tomkins, Alyssa" <Alyssa.Tomkins@gowlingwlg.com
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2022 21:41:01 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Methinks Kim Ayotte and Alan Honner are
interesting dudes N'esy Pas Norm Traversy?
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Please note that I am in a hearing from October 13-November 25. I will
be checking email periodically, but I may be slower than usual to
respond. If your request is urgent, please contact my assistant,
Jessie Bernard, at jessie.bernard@gowlingwlg.com.
The information in this email is intended only for the named recipient
and may be privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended
recipient please notify us immediately and do not copy, distribute or
take action based on this email. If this email is marked 'personal'
Gowling WLG is not liable in any way for its content. E-mails are
susceptible to alteration. Gowling WLG shall not be liable for the
message if altered, changed or falsified.
Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP is a member of Gowling WLG, an international
law firm which consists of independent and autonomous entities
providing services around the world. Our structure is explained in
more detail at www.gowlingwlg.com/legal.
References to 'Gowling WLG' mean one or more members of Gowling WLG
International Limited and/or any of their affiliated businesses as the
context requires. Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP has offices in Montréal,
Ottawa, Toronto, Hamilton, Waterloo Region, Calgary and Vancouver.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jeff Pniowsky <JDP@tdslaw.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2022 16:55:52 +0000
Subject: Re: Attn Jeff Pniowsky I was readig about you in CBC today
perhaps we should talk ASAP?
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Cc: "Jacqueline.Maarse@ca.gt.com" <Jacqueline.Maarse@ca.gt.com>,
"pierre.poilievre" <pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca>, premier
<premier@ontario.ca>, Newsroom <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>,
nsinvestigators <nsinvestigators@gmail.com>, NightTimePodcast
<NightTimePodcast@gmail.com>, "Nathalie.Drouin"
<Nathalie.Drouin@pco-bcp.gc.ca
<paulpalango@protonmail.com>, Norman Traversy <traversy.n@gmail.com>,
"Mark.Blakely" <Mark.Blakely@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>,
"fin.minfinance-financemin.
<fin.minfinance-financemin.
<Wayne.Long@parl.gc.ca>, motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>,
"Jason.Proctor" <Jason.Proctor@cbc.ca>, mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>,
"blaine.higgs" <blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>,
"Diane.Lebouthillier@cra-arc.
<Diane.Lebouthillier@cra-arc.
<Andrew.LeFrank@cbsa-asfc.gc.
<Andrew.Baumberg@cas-satj.gc.
<Ellen.Desmond@crtc.gc.ca>, "Christian.Lorenz@cbsa-asfc.
<Christian.Lorenz@cbsa-asfc.
<Allison.St-Jean@tc.gc.ca>, "media@tc.gc.ca" <media@tc.gc.ca>,
"hc.media.sc@canada.ca" <hc.media.sc@canada.ca>,
"mary-liz.power@canada.ca" <mary-liz.power@canada.ca>,
"media@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca" <media@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca>,
"Chris.Lorenz@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca" <Chris.Lorenz@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca>
"christopher.rupar" <christopher.rupar@justice.gc.
David,
Further to our conversation, and to be clear I have not agreed to act
as your counsel. Please address all such correspondence to your
counsel/advisors and not to our firm.
Jeff
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 24, 2022, at 9:45 AM, David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Jacqueline C. Maarse
Called to the bar: 1990 (ON)
Grant Thornton LLP
General Counsel:
2000-200 King St. W.
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3T4
Phone: 416-369-7013
Fax: 416-360-4944
Email: jacqueline.maarse@ca.gt.com
The pdf files hereto attached forever prove that the RCMP, the US
Treasury Dept, the latest NB AG Teddy Feming and Jacqueline Maarse
know that Grant Thornton and KPMG were the auditors of the Brookline
Savings Bank were I reported the fraud in 2003 Inbox
Add star David Amos<motomaniac333@gmail.com> AttachmentSat, Jun 28,
2014 at 12:14 AM
To: "hugh.flemming" <hugh.flemming@gnb.ca>,
Jacqueline.Maarse@ca.gt.com, bdysart <bdysart@smss.com>, Brian Gallant
<briangallant@nbliberal.ca>, "Davidc.Coon" <Davidc.Coon@gmail.com>,
nraynard@grantthornton.ca, "john.logan" <john.logan@gnb.ca>,
marie-claude.blais@gnb.ca, premier <premier@gnb.ca>, "Jacques.Poitras"
<Jacques.Poitras@cbc.ca>, acampbell <acampbell@ctv.ca>,
"mclaughlin.heather" <mclaeptughlin.heather@
"Wayne.Gallant" <Wayne.Gallant@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
benjamin.bertrand@rcmp-grc.gc.
<roger.l.brown@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
<matt.hayes@mcinnescooper.com>
<leanne.murray@mcinnescooper.
Cc: "brad.anderson" <brad.anderson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
<mnielsen@pgcitizen.ca>, justmin <justmin@gov.ns.ca>,
Wayne.Clary@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, "Gilles.Moreau"
<Gilles.Moreau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
<david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
<dean.buzza@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, frankffrost <frankffrost@hotmail.com>,
radical <radical@radicalpress.com>, merv <merv@northwebpress.com>,
Mackap <Mackap@parl.gc.ca>, "mark.vespucci"
<mark.vespucci@ci.irs.gov>, oig <oig@sec.gov>, "rick.hancox"
<rick.hancox@nbsc-cvmnb.ca>, "steven.blaney"
<steven.blaney@parl.gc.ca>, "Gilles.Blinn"
<Gilles.Blinn@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "david.barry"
<david.barry@nbsc-cvmnb.ca>, "Darren.Woroshelo"
<Darren.Woroshelo@rcmp-grc.gc.
<Geoffrey.McDonald@gov.bc.ca>
Bcc: David Amos <myson333@yahoo.com>, wmjervis <wmjervis@hotmail.com>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
http://thedavidamosrant.
http://thedavidamosrant.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Maarse, Jacqueline" <Jacqueline.Maarse@ca.gt.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 21:54:05 +0000
Subject: Your call today with Grant Thornton
To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com" <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Dear Mr. Amos,
Further to your call with the 2 gentlemen in our Moncton office today,
we appreciate your interest in Grant Thornton. We ask that you direct
any correspondence you may wish to send to my attention at the address
indicated below. We will not be in a position to copy documents from
your computer and we ask that you do not attend at our offices for
that purpose. As indicated in the call, communications relating to
ongoing litigation are dealt with by our General Counsel's Office and
our partners and staff are not able to engage with you on these
matters.
Regards,
Jacqueline Maarse
Jacqueline Maarse | General Counsel
Grant Thornton LLP
12th Floor | 50 Bay Street | Toronto | ON | M5J 2Z8
E Jacqueline.Maarse@ca.gt.com<
http://www.grantthornton.ca/<h
[cid:image001.jpg@01CF909B.
<http://www.grantthornton.ca/<
[cid:image002.jpg@01CF909B.
Grant Thornton LLP is proud to be
recognized as one of Canada's best
workplaces for our sixth consecutive year!
______________________________
Disclaimer: This email is intended solely for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
information. Any review, dissemination, copying, printing or other use
of this email by persons or entities other than the addressee is
prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please contact
the sender immediately and delete the material from any computer.
http://www.
FREDERICTON - The New Brunswick government has launched a lawsuit
against an accounting firm in an effort to recover $50 million
provided as loan guarantees to the Miramichi-based Atcon group of
companies.
The lawsuit filed with the Court of Queen's Bench in Saint John
alleges that Grant Thornton was in breach of its duties to the
province in an inspection of the financial books of the Atcon group of
companies.
The former Liberal government of then premier Shawn Graham provided
the loan guarantees to the companies in 2009.
The statement of claim alleges the government approved the loan
guarantees as a result of financial reports from Grant Thornton.
"But for the Grant Thornton opinions and representations, the province
would not have sustained a loss in excess of $50 million," the
document asserts.
It says the accounting firm "failed to exercise the care, diligence,
and skill of an auditor of reasonable competence and prudence."
None of the allegations contained in the statement of claim have been
proven in court.
Atcon, based in Miramichi, went bankrupt in April 2010.
Grant Thornton LLP, Grant Thornton International and a chartered
accountant who works for the company are named as the defendants. They
have not filed a statement of defence and the accountant named in the
statement of claim could not be reached for comment.
Norm Raynard, managing partner in New Brunswick for Grant Thornton,
said in an emailed statement that the company would not offer specific
comments on the lawsuit because they are still reviewing the court
documents.
"We will vigorously defend ourselves against this action," he wrote.
"Our initial reaction is that this timing has much to do with the
political calendar in the province."
The next provincial election is set for Sept. 22.
Attorney General Hugh Flemming said the timing is not political.
"This is not a time schedule which in any way was influenced by the
government and it is not a political issue," he said Tuesday.
He said the government had no choice but to take the matter to court
because of the $50 million that was spent.
"The government owes a duty to the people of New Brunswick to do what
they can to recover this," Flemming said.
© Copyright 2014
http://thedavidamosrant.
http://www.
http://www.
'Strong suspects' but no charges in Highway of Tears cases: RCMP
VANCOUVER - The Mountie overseeing the investigation into the murders
and disappearances of women and girls along British Columbia's
so-called Highway of Tears says his officers have a number of "strong
suspects," but they have yet to uncover enough evidence to lay charges
nearly two years after the last major break in the case.
Staff-Sgt. Wayne Clary leads project E-PANA, which has spent years
investigating the deaths and disappearances of 18 women and girls
along three highways in the province's north.
Roughly 60 officers were assigned to the case at the height of the
investigation, though Clary said that number has dropped to between 12
and 15, who spend most of their time on the project. Still, he said
E-PANA is very much an active investigation.
"It has scaled down, because we've pounded through a lot of work, but
there's still enough work in front of us to keep going," Clary told
The Canadian Press.
"There's more than one investigation where we have strong suspects or
persons of interest, and we're clearly focusing on those. ... I'd like
nothing more than to sit down with the families and say, 'We've got
the guy."'
Clary declined to offer details about how many suspects the RCMP have
identified or in which specific cases, though he said the suspects
they have in mind are located in Canada.
The last significant development came in September 2012, when
investigators said they believed a dead American convict named Bobby
Jack Fowler was responsible for killing as many as three of the women.
The RCMP said investigators had uncovered DNA evidence linking Fowler,
who died in an Oregon prison in 2006, to Colleen MacMillen, who was
murdered in 1974. They also said they believed Fowler may have been
involved in the deaths of Gale Weys and Pamela Darlington, both 19,
who were killed in the mid-1970s.
Clary said the force doesn't have the same kind of direct evidence
tying Fowler to Weys and Darlington, but he added: "Personally, I
think it's him in the other two."
Clary said E-PANA hasn't come up with evidence to suggest any of the
other women and girls were linked together, meaning there could be 15
different suspects for the 15 remaining cases.
"If we have a strong suspect, absolutely we're looking for crossed
lines, but right now we're not seeing that," he said.
E-PANA was launched in 2005 amid growing concern about the number of
women and girls who vanished or were found dead along highways in the
province's north. It also came several years after serial killer
Robert Pickton was arrested in the Vancouver area - a case that Clary
worked on as part of Project Evenhanded.
The Highway of Tears often refers to a remote stretch of Highway 16
between Prince Rupert and Prince George, but E-PANA also includes
cases along the adjacent Highways 97 and 5.
Investigators identified 18 women and girls who were involved in
hitchhiking or other high-risk behaviour and were last seen within a
couple of kilometres of those highways. The final list included cases
between 1969 and 2006.
Investigators once held annual group meetings, but Clary said they now
contact each family individually, either in person or by telephone.
http://www.pgfreepress.com/
City bids adieu to RCMP Supt. Eric Stubbs
Posted On 26 Jun 2014By : Staff ReporterComment: 0Tag: RCMP
Firepit manager Robert Ryan, left, elders Violet Bozoki and Tom Reece
and executive director Vanessa West presemted RCMP Supt. Eric Stubbs
with some gifts before he leaves for a new posting in Ottawa at the
end of the month. Stubbs and Ryan both spoke of the steps which have
been taken to bring the First Nations community and the RCMP in Prince
George closer. The gifts were made by patrons of the Firepit, and Ryan
told Stubbs, “You’re taking a part of us with you.” Allan WISHART/Free
Press
After three years as the top cop in Prince George and a combined 14
years in Northern BC, Superintendent Eric Stubbs is leaving Prince
George and province.
Friday June 27, marks the final day Superintendent Stubbs will be in
charge of the RCMP’s Municipal Detachment in Prince George, a position
he held since arriving in June 2011. During his time here,
Superintendent Stubbs has reduced crime in nearly every category,
created a unit dedicated to combating domestic violence, and was a
catalyst in the transformation of the Community Policing Section to a
new model with focuses on youth and enforcement. Of course, he was
also the detachment commander leading up to, during and following the
move to the new City of Prince George Municipal Detachment.
“I would like to thank Superintendent Stubbs for his excellent service
to Prince George and northern B.C.,” said Mayor Shari Green of Prince
George, in a press release. “Among the many achievements on his watch,
I’d like to point out his dedication to reducing domestic violence,
the continued support of the Downtown Enforcement Unit, and his
essential role in the Mayor’s Task Force on Crime. I wish
Superintendent Stubbs every success in this next exciting phase of his
service to Canadians.”
Stubbs will be taking on a new role as National Criminal Operations
Officer in Ottawa; a role that comes with a promotion to Chief
Superintendent.
Superintendent Stubbs has provided a tremendous service to the
citizens of northern BC through his work in four communities over 14
years said Supt. Lesley Bain, acting officer in charge of the RCMP in
northern B.C. He has had a significant impact in each community he has
policed, none more than Prince George. He will be greatly missed and
we wish him the best in his new role in Ottawa.
Inspector Brad Anderson, the Detachment’s Operations officer, will
take over command of the detachment until such time that a successor
is named.
On behalf of the members, staff and volunteers of the Prince George
RCMP, I want to extend a thank you to Eric for his leadership over the
past three years said Anderson. It has been a pleasure working for him
in such a positive environment.
------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 23:43:38 -0400
Subject: Re: The politicians and cops etc cannot deny that I warned
New Brunswick not to trust Grant Thornton and KPMG many times
beginning in 2004
To: jacqueline.maarse@ca.gt.com, pnoble@grantthornton.ca,
paul.robichaud@gnb.ca, ggilbert@grantthornton.ca,
nraynard@grantthornton.ca, jdelaney@grantthornton.ca,
kferguson@grantthornton.ca, blewis@grantthornton.ca,
krieger@grantthornton.ca, hjaffer@grantthornton.ca,
rgodbold@grantthornton.ca, pmartin@grantthornton.ca,
gdent@grantthornton.ca, karrt <karrt@sec.gov>, oig <oig@sec.gov>, oig
<oig@ftc.gov>, whistleblower <whistleblower@finra.org>, whistle
<whistle@fsa.gov.uk>, Whistleblower <Whistleblower@ctv.ca>,
"dean.buzza" <dean.buzza@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, police
<police@fredericton.ca>, GillesLee <GillesLee@edmundston.ca>, andre
<andre@jafaust.com>, "peter.dauphinee" <peter.dauphinee@gmail.com>,
law <law@stevenfoulds.ca>, "rick.hancox" <rick.hancox@nbsc-cvmnb.ca>,
"marie-claude.blais" <marie-claude.blais@gnb.ca>, "jeff.mockler"
<jeff.mockler@gnb.ca>, "luc.labonte" <luc.labonte@gnb.ca>,
"lucie.dubois" <lucie.dubois@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "bernadine.chapman"
<bernadine.chapman@rcmp-grc.
<cullen1@parl.gc.ca>, "bob.rae" <bob.rae@rogers.blackberry.net
rhouston <rhouston@burkerobertson.com>, richard.dearden@gowlings.com,
"allan.cutler" <allan.cutler@
Stephane.vaillancourt@rcmp-
"justin.trudeau.a1" <justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca>
<marc.garneau.a1@parl.gc.ca>, ottawairc@state.gov, bginsberg
<bginsberg@pattonboggs.com>
Cc: Minister.Industry@ic.gc.ca, David Amos
<david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
amacbeath@grantthornton.ca, bmatthews@grantthornton.ca,
derrickrideout001@yahoo.ca
From: "Matthews, Bev" <Beverley.Matthews@ca.gt.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 03:36:55 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: The politicians and cops etc cannot deny
that I warned New Brunswick not to trust Grant Thornton and KPMG many
times beginning in 2004
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Hello,
I have stepped down from my position as General Counsel of Grant
Thornton as of July 31, 2012.
My successor, Jacqueline Maarse, can be reached at
jacqueline.maarse@ca.gt.com or at 416 369-7013.
I will respond directly to any e-mails associated with the limited
matters for which I have responsiblity as Special Counsel to the firm
or to any e-mails of a personal nature.
Bev Matthews
______________________________
Disclaimer: This email is intended solely for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
information. Any review, dissemination, copying, printing or other use
of this email by persons or entities other than the addressee is
prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please contact
the sender immediately and delete the material from any computer.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 23:36:40 -0400
Subject: The politicians and cops etc cannot deny that I warned New
Brunswick not to trust Grant Thornton and KPMG many times beginning in
2004
To: pnoble@grantthornton.ca, paul.robichaud@gnb.ca,
ggilbert@grantthornton.ca, nraynard@grantthornton.ca,
jdelaney@grantthornton.ca, kferguson@grantthornton.ca,
blewis@grantthornton.ca, krieger@grantthornton.ca,
hjaffer@grantthornton.ca, rgodbold@grantthornton.ca,
pmartin@grantthornton.ca, gdent@grantthornton.ca, karrt
<karrt@sec.gov>, oig <oig@sec.gov>, oig <oig@ftc.gov>, whistleblower
<whistleblower@finra.org>, whistle <whistle@fsa.gov.uk>, Whistleblower
<Whistleblower@ctv.ca>, "dean.buzza" <dean.buzza@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>,
police <police@fredericton.ca>, GillesLee <GillesLee@edmundston.ca>,
andre <andre@jafaust.com>, "peter.dauphinee"
<peter.dauphinee@gmail.com>, law <law@stevenfoulds.ca>, "rick.hancox"
<rick.hancox@nbsc-cvmnb.ca>, "marie-claude.blais"
<marie-claude.blais@gnb.ca>, "jeff.mockler" <jeff.mockler@gnb.ca>,
"luc.labonte" <luc.labonte@gnb.ca>, "lucie.dubois"
<lucie.dubois@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "bernadine.chapman"
<bernadine.chapman@rcmp-grc.
<cullen1@parl.gc.ca>, "bob.rae" <bob.rae@rogers.blackberry.net
rhouston <rhouston@burkerobertson.com>, richard.dearden@gowlings.com,
"allan.cutler" <allan.cutler@
Stephane.vaillancourt@rcmp-
"justin.trudeau.a1" <justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca>
<marc.garneau.a1@parl.gc.ca>, ottawairc@state.gov, bginsberg
<bginsberg@pattonboggs.com>
Cc: Minister.Industry@ic.gc.ca, David Amos
<david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
amacbeath@grantthornton.ca, bmatthews@grantthornton.ca,
derrickrideout001@yahoo.ca
"Harper, Stephen - M.P." <Harper.S@parl.gc.ca> wrote:
Subject: RE: Re: Lets all go through the looking glass to check the
Integrity of the Talking Heads in BC tonight
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:32:54 -0500
From: "Harper, Stephen - M.P." <Harper.S@parl.gc.ca>
To: <motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com>
Thank you for your e-mail message to Stephen Harper, Leader of the
Opposition. Your views and suggestions are important to us. Once they
have been carefully considered, you may receive a further reply.
*Remember to include your mailing address if you would like a response.
If you prefer to send your thoughts by regular mail, please address them to:
Stephen Harper, M.P.
Leader of the Opposition
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
maggie.trudel-maggiore@
Mr. Amos,
thank you for your phone message and several email messages. As the
Director of Values and Ethics in the departments of Foreign Affairs
Canada and International Trade Canada, my current mandate applies only
to internal management issues. For example, establishing a code of
conduct for our employees as well as providing advice to staff on
conflict of interest and conflict resolution.
As such I don't think I could be in a position to assist you. Please
remove my name from your distribution list.
Thanks in advance
Maggie Trudel-Maggiore
A/Director, Values and Ethics
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/
The crook Paul Robichaud spewed Pure Double talking Bullshit today
"Robichaud told reporters on Thursday that suing Grant Thornton, the
company that audited Atcon’s financial records, could be considered
but he said the province is unlikely to follow that specific option.
“[A lawsuit] is something that we could consider, but I already said
in the past it is not an option that we are going to look at this
point. But we are looking at every option at this point,” Robichaud
said."
http://www.grantthornton.ca/<h
http://www.nbica.org/english/
The RCMP, Rick Hancox,Bruce Lewis of Fat Fred City and his bosses in
Upper Canada should at least recall what I explained to them on the
phone in 2006 before you nasty bastards sent all the cops against me.
CORRECT???
GO FIGURE
http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/
http://qslspolitics.blogspot.
My concerns about the severe lack of INTEGRITY of Grant Thornton and
KPMG obviously had to do with their fraudulent auditing of the
Brookline Bancorp etc (Putnam Investments is now owned by Power Corp
BTW) while many Yankees, the USDOJ and the US Treasury Dept attacked
my family and I in order to cover up their many wrongs. Meanwhile the
cops and politicians in my nativeland did everything in ther power to
assist in the many wrongs for nearly 11 years and counting. N'esy Pas?
http://www.powercorporation.
http://www.nbsc-cvmnb.ca/nbsc/
13 December 2012
Canadian Securities Regulators Publish Discussion Paper on Mutual Fund Fees
Toronto – The Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) today published
for comment CSA Discussion Paper 81-407 Mutual Fund Fees, which
examines the mutual fund fee structure in Canada and identifies
potential investor protection issues arising from that structure. The
Discussion Paper sets out various topics for discussion in order to
evaluate the appropriate structure for Canada.
Canada’s mutual fund fees have been the subject of much debate in
recent years. Some research studies examining Canada’s mutual fund
fees, along with international reforms, have prompted greater interest
in reviewing the issue of mutual fund fees in Canada.
“Mutual funds are a key investment in the portfolios of many
Canadians,” said Bill Rice, Chair of the CSA and Chair and CEO of the
Alberta Securities Commission. “It is important that we look at
Canada’s mutual fund fee structure carefully in determining what
changes could or should be considered to enhance investor protection
and foster confidence in our market.”
To date, the CSA has focused its efforts on enhancing the transparency
of mutual fund fees and commissions through initiatives such as the
Point of Sale, and Cost Disclosure and Performance Reporting projects.
While these initiatives remain a priority on behalf of investors, the
CSA has determined that it is also necessary to consult extensively
with investors and market participants to explore whether further
issues remain.
The CSA welcomes feedback on the Discussion Paper, which can be found
on CSA members’ websites. The comment period is open until April 12,
2013. All comments will be considered in the CSA’s decision and next
steps, and also assist in the development of a roundtable the CSA
plans to hold with investors and industry participants in 2013.
The CSA, the council of the securities regulators of Canada’s
provinces and territories, coordinates and harmonizes regulation for
the Canadian capital markets.
– 30 –
For more information:
Wendy Connors-Beckett
New Brunswick Securities Commission
506 643-7745
Subject:
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:02:35 -0400
From: "Murphy, Michael B. \(DH/MS\)" MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca
To: motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com
January 30, 2007
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Mr. David Amos
Dear Mr. Amos:
This will acknowledge receipt of a copy of your e-mail of December 29,
2006 to Corporal Warren McBeath of the RCMP.
Because of the nature of the allegations made in your message, I have
taken the measure of forwarding a copy to Assistant Commissioner Steve
Graham of the RCMP "J" Division in Fredericton.
Sincerely,
Honourable Michael B. Murphy
Minister of Health
CM/cb
Warren McBeath warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca wrote:
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:34:53 -0500
From: "Warren McBeath" warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
To: kilgoursite@ca.inter.net, MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca,
nada.sarkis@gnb.ca, wally.stiles@gnb.ca, dwatch@web.net,
motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com
CC: ottawa@chuckstrahl.com, riding@chuckstrahl.com,
John.Foran@gnb.ca, Oda.B@parl.gc.ca,
"Bev BUSSON" bev.busson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
"Paul Dube" PAUL.DUBE@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
Subject: Re: Remember me Kilgour? Landslide Annie McLellan has
forgotten me but the crooks within the RCMP have n
Dear Mr. Amos,
Thank you for your follow up e-mail to me today. I was on days off over
the holidays and returned to work this evening. Rest assured I was not
ignoring or procrastinating to respond to your concerns.
As your attachment sent today refers from Premier Graham, our position
is clear on your dead calf issue: Our forensic labs do not process
testing on animals in cases such as yours, they are referred to the
Atlantic Veterinary College in Charlottetown who can provide these
services. If you do not choose to utilize their expertise in this
instance, then that is your decision and nothing more can be done.
As for your other concerns regarding the US Government, false
imprisonment and Federal Court Dates in the US, etc... it is clear
that Federal authorities are aware of your concerns both in Canada and
theUS. These issues do not fall into the purvue of Detachment policing
in Petitcodiac, NB.
It was indeed an interesting and informative conversation we had on
December 23rd, and I wish you well in all of your future endeavors.
Sincerely,
Warren McBeath, Cpl.
GRC Caledonia RCMP
Traffic Services NCO
Ph: (506) 387-2222
Fax: (506) 387-4622
E-mail warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
----- Original Message -----
From: David Raymond Amos
To: warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 2:59 PM
Subject: Fw: Please press print on this attachment and give it to MacKay
----- Original Message -----
From: David Raymond Amos
To: ottawairc@state.gov
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 10:28 AM
Subject: Fw: Please press print on this attachment and give it to MacKay
----- Original Message -----
From: David Raymond Amos
To: doralee.smith@pwgsc.gc.ca ; MacKay.P@parl.gc.ca
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 9:49 AM
Subject: Please press print on this attachment and give it to MacKay
----- Original Message -----
From: David Raymond Amos
To: eamacleod@cbrmps.cape-breton.
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 5:26 PM
Subject: Fw: Press print on this attachment and call me a liar now Ms. Matthews
----- Original Message -----
From: David Raymond Amos
To: comartin.j@parl.gc.ca ; Brown.G@parl.gc.ca ; cotler.i@parl.gc.ca ;
Hawn.L@parl.gc.ca ; Menard.S@parl.gc.ca ;
scarpinelli@publicintegrity.
MacKenzie.D@parl.gc.ca ; Chan.R@parl.gc.ca ; Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca ;
Batters.D@parl.gc.ca ; Siksay.B@parl.gc.ca ; Anderson.Da@parl.gc.ca ;
Komarnicki.E@parl.gc.ca
Cc: SECU@parl.gc.ca ; Breitkreuz.G@parl.gc.ca ; hollam@parl.gc.ca ;
arnold.zeman@psepc-sppcc.gc.ca ; Duceppe.G@parl.gc.ca ;
Harper.S@parl.gc.ca ; Layton.J@parl.gc.ca ; Godin.Y@parl.gc.ca ;
McDonough.A@parl.gc.ca ; Stoffer.P@parl.gc.ca ;
gemerson@tor.fasken.com ; garth@garth.ca ; rmooremp@nb.sympatico.ca ;
Matthews.B@parl.gc.ca ; smay@pattersonpalmer.ca ;
news957@rci.rogers.com ; Scott.A@parl.gc.ca ; zedp@parl.gc.ca ;
leo@primetimecrime.com ; crilf@ucalgary.ca ;
giuliano.zaccardelli@rcmp-grc.
stephane.vaillancourt@rcmp-
info@pco-bcp.gc.ca ; Daniel.Conley@state.ma.us ; kmearn@mpdmilton.org
; Freeman.C@parl.gc.ca
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 3:52 PM
Subject: Fw: Press print on this attachment and call me a liar now Ms. Matthews
----- Original Message -----
From: David Raymond Amos
To: chanr0@parl.gc.ca
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 3:00 PM
Subject: Fw: Press print on this attachment and call me a liar now Ms. Matthews
----- Original Message -----
From: David Raymond Amos
To: johnforan.mla@nb.aibn.com ; Chris.Baker@gnb.ca ;
yvon.leblanc3@gnb.ca ; rachel.bard@gnb.ca ; Louise.LEMON@gnb.ca
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 2:47 PM
Subject: Fw: Press print on this attachment and call me a liar now Ms. Matthews
----- Original Message -----
From: David Raymond Amos
To: amacbeath@grantthornton.ca
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 2:09 PM
Subject: Fw: Press print on this attachment and call me a liar now Ms. Matthews
----- Original Message -----
From: David Raymond Amos
To: bmatthews@grantthornton.ca
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 1:32 PM
Subject: Press print on this attachment and call me a liar now Ms. Matthews
----- Original Message -----
From: David Raymond Amos
To: freemc@parl.gc.ca
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 1:00 PM
Subject: Fw: Angie press print on this attachment I know for a fact it works
----- Original Message -----
From: David Raymond Amos
To: pmartin@GrantThornton.ca
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 12:07 PM
Subject: Fw: Angie press print on this attachment I know for a fact it works
----- Original Message -----
From: David Raymond Amos
To: nraynard@GrantThornton.ca ; jdelaney@GrantThornton.ca ;
kferguson@GrantThornton.ca ; blewis@GrantThornton.ca
Cc: krieger@GrantThornton.ca ; hjaffer@GrantThornton.ca ;
rgodbold@GrantThornton.ca
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 11:59 AM
Subject: Fw: Angie press print on this attachment I know for a fact it works
----- Original Message -----
From: David Raymond Amos
To: gdent@GrantThornton.ca
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:04 AM
Subject: Fw: Angie press print on this attachment I know for a fact it works
----- Original Message -----
From: David Raymond Amos
To: ckennedy@notes.tcs.treas.gov
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 5:32 PM
Subject: Fw: Angie press print on this attachment I know for a fact it works
----- Original Message -----
From: David Raymond Amos
To: Raf.Souccar@rcmp-grc.gc.ca ; tim.killam@rcmp-grc.gc.ca ;
martin.blais@rcmp-grc.gc.ca ; harrir1@parl.gc.ca ; harrir@parl.gc.ca ;
peterj@parl.gc.ca
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 2:44 PM
Subject: Fw: Angie press print on this attachment I know for a fact it works
----- Original Message -----
From: David Raymond Amos
To: leo@primetimecrime.com ; gary.bignell@peelpolice.on.ca ; crilf@ucalgary.ca
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 12:17 PM
Subject: Fw: Angie press print on this attachment I know for a fact it works
----- Original Message -----
From: David Raymond Amos
To: angie.coss@cjad.com
Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 8:03 PM
Subject: Angie press print on this attachment I know for a fact it works
Just Dave
By Location Visit Detail
Visit 15,578
Domain Name (Unknown)
IP Address 198.235.184.# (Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants)
ISP Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants
Location Continent : North America
Country : Canada (Facts)
State/Region : Ontario
City : Toronto
Lat/Long : 43.6667, -79.4167 (Map)
Language English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System Microsoft WinXP
Browser Internet Explorer 7.0
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322;
.NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)
Javascript version 1.3
Monitor Resolution : 1280 x 800
Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit Nov 25 2011 11:41:25 am
Last Page View Nov 25 2011 11:41:25 am
Visit Length 0 seconds
Page Views 1
Referring URL http://www.bing.com/...avid<ht
amos&FORM=LENIE
Search Engine bing.com<http://bing.com>
Search Words david amos
Visit Entry Page http://davidamos.blogspot.com/
Visit Exit Page http://davidamos.blogspot.com/
Out Click
Time Zone UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time Nov 25 2011 10:41:25 am
Visit Number 15,578
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Amos" <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
To: <derrickrideout001@yahoo.ca>; <thedderson@gov.nl.ca>; "pm"
<pm@pm.gc.ca>; <premier@gov.nl.ca>; <pnoble@grantthornton.ca>;
"ggilbert" <ggilbert@grantthornton.ca>; "Minister.Industry"
<Minister.Industry@ic.gc.ca>; <sheila.fraser@oag-bvg.gc.ca>
Cc: "IgnatM" <IgnatM@parl.gc.ca>; "maritime_malaise"
<maritime_malaise@yahoo.ca>; <ducepg@parl.gc.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 2:00 PM
Subject: Tell me another one Mr Rideout after you talk to Brian
Crawley perhaps you PCs should consider returning my calls EH?
Representative of the Leader’s Office
Mr. Derrick Rideout
Principal Assistant to the Premier
Email: derrickrideout001@yahoo.ca
From: Derrick Rideout <derrickrideout001@yahoo.ca>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 07:33:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Fwd: RE Financial oversight the media, the SEC, Madoff,
Putnam and the Whistleblower @ 1-866-96-FINRA etc etc
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Don't know why i was sent this.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Auto-reply from csheahan@pa-law.ca" <csheahan@pa-law.ca>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:22:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Fwd: RE Financial oversight the media, the SEC, Madoff,
Putnam and the Whistleblower @ 1-866-96-FINRA etc etc
To: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
Please be advised that I will be away from the office from April 1,
2011 to April 11, 2011 (inclusive). If you require immediate
assistance, please contact Debbie White at 709-634-3136. Thank you,
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Williams, Norm" <nwilliams@grantthornton.ca>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:23:15 -0400
Subject: Out of Office AutoReply: RE Financial oversight the media,
the SEC, Madoff, Putnam and the Whistleblower @ 1-866-96-FINRA etc etc
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Thank you for contacting Grant Thornton LLP. Norm Williams, CA has
withdrawn from the firm effective December 31, 2010 and will be
transitioning his files to other professionals within the firm over
the next few weeks. If you have immediate needs please contact Bill
Budgell at bbudgell@GrantThornton.ca or (709) 778-8802 and we will be
pleased to service your needs.
This email is intended solely for the person or entity to which it is
addressed and may contain confidential and/or
privileged information. Any review, dissemination, copying, printing
or other use of this email by persons or entities other
than the addressee is prohibited. If you have received this email in
error, please contact the sender immediately and
delete the material from any computer.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:56:23 -0300
Subject: Fwd: RE Financial oversight the media, the SEC, Madoff,
Putnam and the Whistleblower @ 1-866-96-FINRA etc etc
To: pnoble@grantthornton.ca, ggilbert@grantthornton.ca
Cc: "Minister.Industry" <Minister.Industry@ic.gc.ca>, "sheila. fraser"
<sheila.fraser@oag-bvg.gc.ca>, ducepg <ducepg@parl.gc.ca>
http://www.ic.gc.ca/app/ccc/
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:22:34 -0300
Subject: Fwd: RE Financial oversight the media, the SEC, Madoff,
Putnam and the Whistleblower @ 1-866-96-FINRA etc etc
To: pcparty@nf.aibn.com, derrickrideout001@yahoo.ca, jbabb@babblaw.ca,
cynthia_downey@hotmail.com, "ddexter@ns.sympatico.ca"
<ddexter@ns.sympatico.ca>, "David.ALWARD@gnb.ca" <David.ALWARD@gnb.ca>
Cc: nwilliams@grantthornton.ca, csheahan@pa-law.ca, abugden@pa-law.ca,
maritime_malaise <maritime_malaise@yahoo.com>
I just called agsin. Heres why
http://www.dunderdale2011.ca/
Just Dave
By Location Visit Detail
Visit 13,631
Domain Name shawcable.net<http://
IP Address 24.85.83.# (Shaw Communications)
ISP Shaw Communications
Location Continent : North America
Country : Canada (Facts)
State/Region : British Columbia
City : Vancouver
Lat/Long : 49.25, -123.1333 (Map)
Language English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System Macintosh MacOSX
Browser Safari 1.3
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_6_5; en-us)
AppleWebKit/533.19.4 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.3 Safari/533.19.4
Javascript version 1.5
Monitor Resolution : 1152 x 720
Color Depth : 24 bits
Time of Visit Apr 12 2011 10:27:57 pm
Last Page View Apr 12 2011 10:27:57 pm
Visit Length 0 seconds
Page Views 1
Referring URL http://www.google.ca...
Search Engine google.ca<http://google.ca>
Search Words babblaw.ca<http://babblaw.ca>
Visit Entry Page
http://davidamos.blo...06/04/
Visit Exit Page
http://davidamos.blo...06/04/
Out Click
Time Zone UTC-8:00
Visitor's Time Apr 12 2011 6:27:57 pm
Visit Number 13,631
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:46:59 -0300
Subject: Fwd: RE Financial oversight the media, the SEC, Madoff,
Putnam and the Whistleblower @ 1-866-96-FINRA etc etc
To: mark@snellingcenter.org
Cc: maritime_malaise <maritime_malaise@yahoo.ca>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:16:39 -0300
Subject: Fwd: RE Financial oversight the media, the SEC, Madoff,
Putnam and the Whistleblower @ 1-866-96-FINRA etc etc
To: Harriet.Johnson@state.vt.us, michael.clasen@state.vt.us,
Harold@haroldalbrechtmp.ca, colleen@snellingcenter.org
Cc: "PATRICK. MURPHY" <PATRICK.MURPHY@dhs.gov>, "jacques.boucher"
<jacques.boucher@rcmp-grc.gc.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:35:28 -0300
Subject: Fwd: RE Financial oversight the media, the SEC, Madoff,
Putnam and the Whistleblower @ 1-866-96-FINRA etc etc
To: GovernorVT@state.vt.us, jeb.spaulding@state.vt.us
Cc: cmain2@bloomberg.net
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/
Whats this? A possibly ethical Governor in Vermont? I tried talking to
his people Heres hoping that he emails me back because his help
suddenly got busy didn't ask for my number.
"Vermont’s governor, Democrat Peter Shumlin, has said he seeks to use
an escape clause in the law to create a government- run health system
that would cover every resident and put private insurers, including
Cigna Corp. (CI), out of business in that state."
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 11:15:49 -0300
Subject: RE Financial oversight the media, the SEC, Madoff, Putnam and
the Whistleblower @ 1-866-96-FINRA etc etc
To: whistleblower@finra.org, michael_copeland@fortunemail.
letters@fortune.com, susan.pulliam@wsj.com, Russ.Stanton@latimes.com,
meredith.goodman@latimes.com, ninkster@navigantconsulting.
dgolub@sgtlaw.com, firstselectmanffld@town.
editor@whatsupfairfield.com, info@csiworld.org, jacques_poitras@cbc.ca
Cc: oig <oig@sec.gov>, "Dean.Buzza" <Dean.Buzza@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>,
"Fred. Pretorius" <Fred.Pretorius@gov.yk.ca>, "rick.hancox"
<rick.hancox@nbsc-cvmnb.ca>
http://qslspolitics.blogspot.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Olsen, Wendy (USANYS)" Wendy.Olsen@usdoj.gov
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 09:21:08 -0400
Subject: RE: USANYS-MADOFF AND IMPORTANT INFORMATION FROM US
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SDNY
To: David Amos david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, USANYS-MADOFF
USANYS.MADOFF@usdoj.gov, "Litt, Marc (USANYS)" Marc.Litt@usdoj.gov Cc:
webo webo@xplornet.com, vasilescua@sec.gov, friedmani@sec.gov,
krishnamurthyp@sec.gov
Thank you for your response.
Wendy Olsen
Victim Witness Coordinator
-----Original Message-----
From: David Amos [mailto:david.raymond.amos@
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:48 AM
To: USANYS-MADOFF; Olsen, Wendy (USANYS); Litt, Marc (USANYS)
Cc: webo; vasilescua@sec.gov; friedmani@sec.gov; krishnamurthyp@sec.gov
Subject: RE: USANYS-MADOFF AND IMPORTANT INFORMATION FROM US
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SDNY
Ms Olsen
Thank you for keeping me informed.
Yes unseal all my emails with all their attachments immediately and
make certain that the US Attorny's office finally practices full
disclosurement as to who I am and what my concerns are as per the Rule
of Law within a purported democracy.
As you folks all well know I am not a shy man and I have done nothing
wrong. It appears to me that bureacratic people only use the right to
privacy of others when it suits their malicious ends in order to
protect their butts from impreacment, litigation and prosecution.
The people in the US Attorney's Office and the SEC etc are very well
aware that I protested immediately to everyone I could think of when
the instant I knew that my correspondences went under seal and Madoff
pled guilty so quickly and yet another cover up involing my actions
was under full steam. Everybody knows that.the US Government has been
trying to keep my concerns about the rampant public corruption a
secret for well over seven long years. However now that a lot of
people and their countries in general are losing a lot of money people
are beginning to remember just exactly who I am and what i did
beginning over seven years ago..
Veritas Vincit
David Raymond Amos
506 756 8687 begin_of_the_skype_
end_of_the_skype_highlighting
P.S. For the record Obviously I pounced on these Yankee bastards as
soon as the newsrag in Boston published this article on the web last
night.
http://www.bostonherald.com/
Notice that Nester just like everyone else would not say my name? It
is because my issues surrounding both Madoff and are NOT marketing
timing They are as you all well know money laundering, fraud, forgery,
perjury, securites fraud, tax fraud, Bank fraud, illegal wiretappping
and Murder amongst other very serious crimes.
"SEC spokesman John Nester dismissed similarities between Markopolos
and Scannell's cases as "not a valid comparison."
He said the SEC determined the market-timing by Putnam clients that
Scannell reported didn't violate federal law. Nester said the SEC only
acted after another tipster alleged undisclosed market-timing by some
Putnam insiders.
Scannell, now a crusader for SEC reforms, isn't surprised the agency
is in hot water again.
Noting that several top SEC officials have gone on to high-paying
private-sector jobs, he believes hopes for future employment impact
investigations. "It's a distinct disadvantage to make waves before you
enter the private sector," Scannell said."
--- On Mon, 3/30/09, David Amos david.raymond.amos@gmail.com wrote:
From: David Amos david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
Subject: Fwd: USANYS-MADOFF IMPORTANT INFORMATION FROM US ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE SDNY
To: NesterJ@sec.gov, letterstoeditor@bostonherald.
oig@sec.gov, Thunter@tribune.com, david@davidmyles.com,
ddexter@ns.sympatico.ca, "Dan Fitzgerald" danf@danf.net
Cc: dsheehan@bakerlaw.com, dspelfogel@bakerlaw.com,
mc@whistleblowers.org, gkachroo@mccarter.com,
david.straube@accenture.com, gurdip.s.sahota@accenture.com,
benjamin_mcmurray@ao.uscourts.
Date: Monday, March 30, 2009, 10:00 PM
Need I say BULLSHIT?
http://www.bostonherald.com/
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 00:03:13 -0300
Subject: RE: USANYS-MADOFF IMPORTANT INFORMATION FROM US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SDNY
To: Russ.Stanton@latimes.com, meredith.goodman@latimes.com,
ninkster@navigantconsulting.
Cc: firstselectmanffld@town.
editor@whatsupfairfield.com, info@csiworld.org, jacques_poitras
jacques_poitras@cbc.ca
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 16:45:07 -0300
Subject: RE Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, Wikileaks and Daniel Ellsberg etc
To: ellsbergpress@gmail.com, info@armycourtmartialdefense.
"birgittaj@althingi.is" <birgittaj@althingi.is>, "Julian Assange)"
<editor@wikileaks.org>, julian@sunshinepress.org,
julian@wikileaks.org, smari <smari@immi.is>
Cc: cindy@eff.org, clg_news@legitgov.org, maritime_malaise
<maritime_malaise@yahoo.ca>, Wayne_Boone@carleton.ca
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 23:33:32 -0400
Subject: Notice that I knew Assange before he got World Famous?
To: CLG_News <clg_news@legitgov.org>
From: "Julian Assange)" <editor@wikileaks.org>
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 18:15:46 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Al Jazeera on Iceland's plan for a press safe haven
To: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
FYI: Al-Jazeera's take on Iceland's proposed media safe haven
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
More info http://immi.is/<http://immi.is
Julian Assange
Editor
WikiLeaks
http://wikileaks.org/<http://
On 10/7/22, David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/
>
> New Brunswick·CBC Investigates
> How to keep secrets from the public: Don't write anything down
>
>
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/
>
> Judge slams CRA and Justice Department for 'egregious' conduct in epic
> Tax Court battle
>
>
> Decision likely to affect dozens of Canadians appealing gross
> negligence penalties from tax agency
>
> Jason Proctor · CBC News · Posted: Oct 07, 2022 4:00 AM PT |
>
>
> A tax Court judge has slammed the Canada Revenue Agency for failing to
> comply with pre-trial court rules and orders. (Chris Wattie/Reuters)
>
> A Tax Court judge has slammed the Canada Revenue Agency and the
> Justice Department for "egregious" conduct that threatened to deny
> three taxpayers the right to a fair trial in an epic battle over
> millions of dollars worth of tax penalties.
>
> In a scathing decision that could have widespread implications, Judge
> Patrick Boyle found the CRA committed an "intentional and deliberate"
> pattern of ignoring court rules to "frustrate" the right that all
> Canadians have to get a full picture of an opponent's case before
> heading to court.
>
> The three taxpayers — a Manitoba psychiatrist, an Ontario nurse and a
> B.C. Air Canada pilot — were appealing three million dollars' worth of
> gross negligence penalties levelled against them, for rejected returns
> filed through a pair of disgraced tax consultancy firms.
>
> But after years of pre-trial delays resulting from the CRA's repeated
> failure to comply with his orders, Boyle took the extraordinary
> measure of allowing the appeals without having a trial on the merits
> of the case this week, to "protect the integrity of the judicial
> process."
>
> Canada Revenue Agency accused of blaming victims as 'gross
> negligence' cases drag on
>
> "I find the [CRA's] egregious approach to pre-trial discovery in these
> appeals to prejudice all three appellants who have been denied," Boyle
> wrote in his ruling.
>
> "These abuses of the discovery process ... have caused considerable
> delay and expense to three Appellants in respect of their appeals.
> They have also led to an inefficient use of public resources financed
> by all Canadians."
> 'With great power comes great responsibility'
>
> Boyle's decision is the latest chapter in a saga that has seen
> hundreds of Canadians slapped with gross negligence penalties after
> filing returns through DeMara Consulting and Fiscal Arbitrators.
>
> The principals of both companies were jailed for tax fraud for
> promoting schemes Boyle says "resemble in many respects the
> de-taxation practices of sovereign citizens, though with less of the
> non-fiscal cultish aspects."
> Hundreds of Canadians filed appeals in Tax Court after the CRA
> levelled gross negligence penalties against them in association with
> returns filed through a pair of disgraced tax consultancies. (Minichka
> / Shutterstock)
>
> According to court records, B.C.-based DeMara's scheme was called "the
> remedy" and essentially involved claiming personal expenditures and
> debts as expenses and capital losses for a non-existent business.
>
> Canada's Income Tax Act gives CRA the ability to levy penalties
> against Canadians who make false statements and omissions on their tax
> returns, either knowingly or under circumstances that amount to gross
> negligence.
>
> The penalties in the DeMara and Fiscal Arbitrators case have reached
> into the millions, leading to a huge backlog of appeals that have been
> making their way through tax court since 2013.
>
> Tax agency obtains 'jeopardy order' for debt from Downton
> Abbey-loving billionaire
>
> Jeff Pniowsky, the Winnipeg-based lawyer who represented all three
> plaintiffs, said fighting a decade-long court battle with the threat
> of financial ruin hanging over their heads has cost his clients "years
> of happiness."
>
> "This was fundamentally a case about justice. Justice for the
> taxpayers who had to endure years of gamesmanship and chicanery by one
> of Canada's most powerful institutions: the CRA," Pniowsky told the
> CBC.
>
> Pniowsky, who has four children, said Boyle's ruling reminded him of a
> line from one of his family's favourite superhero movies: Spiderman.
>
> "With great power comes great responsibility," he said.
>
> "It's clear from this case that the CRA and the Justice Department
> have lost sight of that common-sense principle."
> 'Unprepared, unco-operative or untruthful'
>
> Boyle's detailed 53-page ruling goes through the history of the case,
> and the circumstances that led to each of the orders he found the CRA
> later ignored.
>
> The fight centred on pre-trial discovery, and the rights of the
> taxpayers to examine a CRA representative or "nominee" who was
> "knowledgeable" about their case.
> The CRA has the ability to levy gross negligence penalties against
> taxpayers who lie on their income tax forms. The penalties have been
> devastating for some. (Graeme Roy/The Canadian Press)
>
> The first person the agency put forward was "unaware of any criminal
> investigation and had not informed himself" about any involvement of
> the CRA's criminal investigators in the case.
>
> The second nominee was a lead criminal investigator who "did not even
> inform himself ... whether any investigation was undertaken of any of
> these three appellants."
>
> At one point, Boyle called the investigator "thoroughly unprepared,
> unco-operative or untruthful."
>
> The judge said the CRA and its lawyers twisted the words of an order
> that boiled down to a demand for the agency to hand over any documents
> relating to any investigations that touched on the three appellants.
>
> "I variously described this as 'outrageously misleading and
> inappropriate,' 'this might be contemptuous,' ... 'deeply, deeply
> disturbed,' 'highly inappropriate' and 'I don't think you were
> reasonably mistaken,'" Boyle wrote.
>
> It is an ex-reference: B.C. judge removes 'dead parrot' joke from
> class-action ruling
>
> The judge also zeroed in on the CRA's failure to tell the defence that
> the second page of a three-page "Investigation Abort Report" against
> one of the plaintiffs had gone missing. The report was handed over in
> the middle of hundreds of documents. The missing page explained why a
> criminal investigation was dropped.
>
> The CRA claimed it had no "specific obligation" to point out missing
> pages — a position Boyle found "shocking."
>
> "Courts do not consider discovery to be a game, and it is particularly
> disappointing when the Crown is the offending party," the judge said.
>
> He said the omission gave credence to the idea the CRA "is hiding
> something from them, from the Court and from Canadians about how these
> investigations have been conducted.
> 'Stop, or I'll yell stop again!'
>
> The judge pointed out that the CRA is "represented by the Department
> of Justice which is essentially Canada's largest national law firm and
> employs a large number of tax litigation lawyers who are wholly
> familiar" with the court's rules.
>
> Boyle said making yet another order for compliance would be pointless.
> The judge compared his battle to get the CRA to comply with his orders
> to a skit by Monty Python, whose troupe members are seen here from
> left to right: John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Terry Jones, Graham
> Chapman, Michael Palin and Eric Idle. (PBS/Python (Monty) Pictures
> Ltd./The Associated Press)
>
> He was reminded of a skit by legendary English comedy troupe Monty Python.
>
> "To make such an order would conjure up memories of the Pythonesque
> skit of the British bobby of another era yelling at a scofflaw: 'Stop!
> Stop!—Stop, or I'll yell 'stop' again!'" the judge wrote.
>
> The three appeals were supposed to be the lead plaintiffs for a much
> larger group of appeals. The judge said those people will have to
> speak with their lawyers to determine how the ruling applies to them.
>
> Pniowsky says he believes the decision is the first of its kind
> against the CRA. He predicted fallout both in other DeMara and Fiscal
> Arbitrators cases and in the wider world of tax litigation.
>
> "Intoxicated with a sense of moral righteousness, the government
> apparently determined or acted like these Canadians were not worthy of
> basic procedural rights, thereby committing the same wrongs they
> accused the taxpayers of: gross neglect, wilful blindness and at times
> deceptive conduct," he said.
> ABOUT THE AUTHOR
> Jason Proctor
>
> @proctor_jason
>
> Jason Proctor is a reporter in British Columbia for CBC News and has
> covered the B.C. courts and the justice system extensively.
>
> CBC's Journalistic Standards and Practices
>
>
> https://www.tdslaw.com/
>
> Jeff Pniowsky
>
> Jeff focuses his practice in the areas of tax litigation and dispute
> resolution in the tax audit and appeals process, tax advisory
> services, and complex commercial litigation.
>
> (204) 934-2586
> jdp@tdslaw.com
>
> Winnipeg
> (204) 934-0586
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
> Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2021 23:52:35 -0400
> Subject: Diane.Lebouthillier and her old buddy John Ossowski should
> remember my email and a couple of their own documents EH Madame
> Desmond and Christian Lorenz ?
> To: "Diane.Lebouthillier" <Diane.Lebouthillier@cra-arc.
> John.Ossowski@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca, megan.maloney@crtc.gc.ca,
> bell.regulatory@bell.ca, martine.turcotte@bell.ca, Newsroom
> <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>, Nathalie Sturgeon
> <sturgeon.nathalie@
> <Nathalie.Drouin@justice.gc.ca
> <traversy.n@gmail.com>, jswaisland@landingslaw.com,
> Andrew.LeFrank@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca
> Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, "Ellen.Desmond"
> <Ellen.Desmond@crtc.gc.ca>, Christian.Lorenz@cbsa-asfc.gc.
> Allison.St-Jean@tc.gc.ca, media@tc.gc.ca, hc.media.sc@canada.ca,
> mary-liz.power@canada.ca, media@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca,
> Chris.Lorenz@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca, "christopher.rupar"
> <christopher.rupar@justice.gc.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: martine.turcotte@bell.ca
> To: motomaniac_02186@hotmail.com
> Cc: bcecomms@bce.ca ; W-Five@ctv.ca
> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 9:28 AM
> Subject: RE: I am curious
>
> Mr. Amos, I confirm that I have received your documentation. There is
> no need to send us a hard copy. As you have said yourself, the
> documentation is very voluminous and after 3 days, we are still in the
> process of printing it. I have asked one of my lawyers to review it
> in my absence and report back to me upon my return in the office. We
> will then provide you with a reply.
>
> Martine Turcotte
> Chief Legal Officer / Chef principal du service juridique
> BCE Inc. / Bell Canada
> 1000 de La Gauchetière ouest, bureau 3700
> Montréal (Qc) H3B 4Y7
>
> Tel: (514) 870-4637
> Fax: (514) 870-4877
> email: martine.turcotte@bell.ca
>
> Executive Assistant / Assistante à la haute direction: Diane Valade
> Tel: (514) 870-4638
> email: diane.valade@bell.ca
>
>
>
> A copy of this letter and all related correspondence will be added to
> the public record of the proceeding.
>
> If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me
> at (613) 697-4027 or megan.maloney@crtc.gc.ca.
>
> In the meantime, the Commission is currently continuing its review of
> this costs application.
>
> Yours Sincerely,
>
> originally signed by
>
> Megan Maloney
> Legal Counsel
>
> PIAC Welcomes New Board Members
>
> Adds Expertise in Telecommunications, Broadcasting and Class Actions
>
> OTTAWA – The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), today announced
> the recent election of four new directors to its Board, all experts in
> either telecommunications, broadcasting or class actions:
>
> Konrad von Finckenstein is a lawyer and consultant based in
> Ottawa. He was previously Chair of the Canadian Radio-television and
> Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), an Honourable Justice of the
> Federal Court of Canada and the Commissioner of Competition at the
> Competition Bureau of Canada. In addition, he has held senior posts in
> the Government of Canada in positions related to international trade,
> telecommunications, competition and electronic commerce. Mr. von
> Finckenstein has been elected as PIAC’s Chair of the Board.
> Suzanne Lamarre is a lawyer and engineer with the firm of
> Therrien, Couture and is a former Commissioner of the CRTC. Maitre
> Lamarre works in the areas of telecommunications, radiocommunications
> and broadcasting law as a strategic advisor on regulatory and
> governmental matters at both the national and international level.
> Monica Auer is a lawyer and the Executive Director of Canada’s
> Forum for Research & Policy in Communications (FRPC), a non-partisan
> organization focused on Canada’s communications system. She previously
> worked at the CRTC and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).
> Ms. Auer has been elected as PIAC’s Vice-Chair.
> Jonathan Schachter is a Toronto based lawyer with Sotos LLP, with
> his practice areas including class actions, consumer protection
> litigation, competition and price fixing, privacy litigation,
> professional liability litigation, and trademarks and intellectual
> property litigation and arbitration.
>
> “PIAC’s extensive work on behalf of consumers before the CRTC requires
> the utmost guidance and insight,” said John Lawford, Executive
> Director and General Counsel of PIAC. “We are therefore thrilled to
> add to our Board persons with unparalleled experience to guide our
> communications advocacy, as well as an expert in consumer class
> actions as this sector becomes more litigious,” he added.
>
> PIAC is a federally incorporated not-for-profit and registered charity
> that advocates for consumer interests, and in particular vulnerable
> consumer interests, in the provision of important public services.
> PIAC is known for its representation of consumer, low-income and
> seniors groups before the CRTC, arguing for better services, more
> choice and consumer protection for customers of Internet, wireless,
> telephone and broadcasting services.
>
> For more information, please contact:
>
> John Lawford
> Executive Director and General Counsel
> Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
> (613) 562-4002 ×25
>
>> http://davidraymondamos3.
>>
>> Tuesday, 14 February 2017
>>
>> RE FATCA, NAFTA & TPP etc ATTN President Donald J. Trump I just got
>> off the phone with your lawyer Mr Cohen (646-853-0114) Why does he lie
>> to me after all this time???
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Michael Cohen <mcohen@trumporg.com>
>> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:15:14 +0000
>> Subject: Automatic reply: RE FATCA ATTN Pierre-Luc.Dusseault I just
>> called and left a message for you
>> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>
>> Effective January 20, 2017, I have accepted the role as personal
>> counsel to President Donald J. Trump. All future emails should be
>> directed to mdcohen212@gmail.com and all future calls should be
>> directed to 646-853-0114.
>> ______________________________
>> This communication is from The Trump Organization or an affiliate
>> thereof and is not sent on behalf of any other individual or entity.
>> This email may contain information that is confidential and/or
>> proprietary. Such information may not be read, disclosed, used,
>> copied, distributed or disseminated except (1) for use by the intended
>> recipient or (2) as expressly authorized by the sender. If you have
>> received this communication in error, please immediately delete it and
>> promptly notify the sender. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed
>> to be received, secure or error-free as emails could be intercepted,
>> corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late, incomplete, contain viruses
>> or otherwise. The Trump Organization and its affiliates do not
>> guarantee that all emails will be read and do not accept liability for
>> any errors or omissions in emails. Any views or opinions presented in
>> any email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
>> represent those of The Trump Organization or any of its
>> affiliates.Nothing in this communication is intended to operate as an
>> electronic signature under applicable law.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: "Min.Mail / Courrier.Min (CRA/ARC)" <PABMINMAILG@cra-arc.gc.ca>
>> Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 13:10:52 +0000
>> Subject: Your various correspondence about abusive tax schemes -
>> 2017-02631
>> To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com" <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>
>> Mr. David Raymond Amos
>> motomaniac333@gmail.com
>>
>>
>> Dear Mr. Amos:
>>
>> Thank you for your various correspondence about abusive tax schemes,
>> and for your understanding regarding the delay of this response.
>>
>> This is an opportunity for me to address your concerns about the way
>> the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) deals with aggressive tax planning,
>> tax avoidance, and tax evasion by targeting individuals and groups
>> that promote schemes intended to avoid payment of tax. It is also an
>> opportunity for me to present the Government of Canada’s main
>> strategies for ensuring fairness for all taxpayers.
>>
>> The CRA’s mission is to preserve the integrity of Canada’s tax system,
>> and it is taking concrete and effective action to deal with abusive
>> tax schemes. Through federal budget funding in 2016 and 2017, the
>> government has committed close to $1 billion in cracking down on tax
>> evasion and combatting tax avoidance at home and through the use of
>> offshore transactions. This additional funding is expected to generate
>> federal revenues of $2.6 billion over five years for Budget 2016, and
>> $2.5 billion over five years for Budget 2017.
>>
>> More precisely, the CRA is cracking down on tax cheats by hiring more
>> auditors, maintaining its underground economy specialist teams,
>> increasing coverage of aggressive goods and service tax/harmonized
>> sales tax planning, increasing coverage of multinational corporations
>> and wealthy individuals, and taking targeted actions aimed at
>> promoters of abusive tax schemes.
>>
>> On the offshore front, the CRA continues to develop tools to improve
>> its focus on high‑risk taxpayers. It is also considering changes to
>> its Voluntary Disclosures Program following the first set of program
>> recommendations received from an independent Offshore Compliance
>> Advisory Committee. In addition, the CRA is leading international
>> projects to address the base erosion and profit shifting initiative of
>> the G20 and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
>> Development, and is collaborating with treaty partners to address the
>> Panama Papers leaks.
>>
>> These actions are evidence of the government’s commitment to
>> protecting tax fairness. The CRA has strengthened its intelligence and
>> technical capacities for the early detection of abusive tax
>> arrangements and deterrence of those who participate in them. To
>> ensure compliance, it has increased the number of actions aimed at
>> promoters who use illegal schemes. These measures include increased
>> audits of such promoters, improved information gathering, criminal
>> investigations where warranted, and better communication with
>> taxpayers.
>>
>> To deter potential taxpayer involvement in these schemes, the CRA is
>> increasing notifications and warnings through its communications
>> products. It also seeks partnerships with tax preparers, accountants,
>> and community groups so that they can become informed observers who
>> can educate their clients.
>>
>> The CRA will assess penalties against promoters and other
>> representatives who make false statements involving illegal tax
>> schemes. The promotion of tax schemes to defraud the government can
>> lead to criminal investigations, fingerprinting, criminal prosecution,
>> court fines, and jail time.
>>
>> Between April 1, 2011, and March 31, 2016, the CRA’s criminal
>> investigations resulted in the conviction of 42 Canadian taxpayers for
>> tax evasion with links to money and assets held offshore. In total,
>> the $34 million in evaded taxes resulted in court fines of $12 million
>> and 734 months of jail time.
>>
>> When deciding to pursue compliance actions through the courts, the CRA
>> consults the Department of Justice Canada to choose an appropriate
>> solution. Complex tax-related litigation is costly and time consuming,
>> and the outcome may be unsuccessful. All options to recover amounts
>> owed are considered.
>>
>> More specifically, in relation to the KPMG Isle of Man tax avoidance
>> scheme, publicly available court records show that it is through the
>> CRA’s efforts that the scheme was discovered. The CRA identified many
>> of the participants and continues to actively pursue the matter. The
>> CRA has also identified at least 10 additional tax structures on the
>> Isle of Man, and is auditing taxpayers in relation to these
>> structures.
>>
>> To ensure tax fairness, the CRA commissioned an independent review in
>> March 2016 to determine if it had acted appropriately concerning KPMG
>> and its clients. In her review, Ms. Kimberley Brooks, Associate
>> Professor and former Dean of the Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie
>> University, examined the CRA’s operational processes and decisions in
>> relation to the KPMG offshore tax structure and its efforts to obtain
>> the names of all taxpayers participating in the scheme. Following this
>> review, the report, released on May 5, 2016, concluded that the CRA
>> had acted appropriately in its management of the KPMG Isle of Man
>> file. The report found that the series of compliance measures the CRA
>> took were in accordance with its policies and procedures. It was
>> concluded that the procedural actions taken on the KPMG file were
>> appropriate given the facts of this particular case and were
>> consistent with the treatment of taxpayers in similar situations. The
>> report concluded that actions by CRA employees were in accordance with
>> the CRA’s Code of Integrity and Professional Conduct. There was no
>> evidence of inappropriate interaction between KPMG and the CRA
>> employees involved in the case.
>>
>> Under the CRA’s Code of Integrity and Professional Conduct, all CRA
>> employees are responsible for real, apparent, or potential conflicts
>> of interests between their current duties and any subsequent
>> employment outside of the CRA or the Public Service of Canada.
>> Consequences and corrective measures play an important role in
>> protecting the CRA’s integrity.
>>
>> The CRA takes misconduct very seriously. The consequences of
>> misconduct depend on the gravity of the incident and its repercussions
>> on trust both within and outside of the CRA. Misconduct can result in
>> disciplinary measures up to dismissal.
>>
>> All forms of tax evasion are illegal. The CRA manages the Informant
>> Leads Program, which handles leads received from the public regarding
>> cases of tax evasion across the country. This program, which
>> coordinates all the leads the CRA receives from informants, determines
>> whether there has been any non-compliance with tax law and ensures
>> that the information is examined and conveyed, if applicable, so that
>> compliance measures are taken. This program does not offer any reward
>> for tips received.
>>
>> The new Offshore Tax Informant Program (OTIP) has also been put in
>> place. The OTIP offers financial compensation to individuals who
>> provide information related to major cases of offshore tax evasion
>> that lead to the collection of tax owing. As of December 31, 2016, the
>> OTIP had received 963 calls and 407 written submissions from possible
>> informants. Over 218 taxpayers are currently under audit based on
>> information the CRA received through the OTIP.
>>
>> With a focus on the highest-risk sectors nationally and
>> internationally and an increased ability to gather information, the
>> CRA has the means to target taxpayers who try to hide their income.
>> For example, since January 2015, the CRA has been collecting
>> information on all international electronic funds transfers (EFTs) of
>> $10,000 or more ending or originating in Canada. It is also adopting a
>> proactive approach by focusing each year on four jurisdictions that
>> raise suspicion. For the Isle of Man, the CRA audited 3,000 EFTs
>> totalling $860 million over 12 months and involving approximately 800
>> taxpayers. Based on these audits, the CRA communicated with
>> approximately 350 individuals and 400 corporations and performed 60
>> audits.
>>
>> In January 2017, I reaffirmed Canada’s important role as a leader for
>> tax authorities around the world in detecting the structures used for
>> aggressive tax planning and tax evasion. This is why Canada works
>> daily with the Joint International Tax Shelter Information Centre
>> (JITSIC), a network of tax administrations in over 35 countries. The
>> CRA participates in two expert groups within the JITSIC and leads the
>> working group on intermediaries and proponents. This ongoing
>> collaboration is a key component of the CRA’s work to develop strong
>> relationships with the international community, which will help it
>> refine the world-class tax system that benefits all Canadians.
>>
>> The CRA is increasing its efforts and is seeing early signs of
>> success. Last year, the CRA recovered just under $13 billion as a
>> result of its audit activities on the domestic and offshore fronts.
>> Two-thirds of these recoveries are the result of its audit efforts
>> relating to large businesses and multinational companies.
>>
>> But there is still much to do, and additional improvements and
>> investments are underway.
>>
>> Tax cheats are having a harder and harder time hiding. Taxpayers who
>> choose to promote or participate in malicious and illegal tax
>> strategies must face the consequences of their actions. Canadians
>> expect nothing less. I invite you to read my most recent statement on
>> this matter at canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/
>> statement_from_
>>
>> Thank you for taking the time to write. I hope the information I have
>> provided is helpful.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>>
>> The Honourable Diane Lebouthillier
>> Minister of National Revenue
>>
>>
>
Click the following link to unsubscribe or subscribe to TDS e-communications:
Unsubscribe at https://tdslaw.us3.list-
Subscribe at https://www.tdslaw.com/
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2022 17:24:49 -0300
Subject: Re Urgent Consultation
To: rob.stewart@ps-sp.gc.ca, "Nathalie.G.Drouin"
<Nathalie.G.Drouin@pco-bcp.gc.
jeffery.hutchinson@pco-bcp.gc.
pat.morris@opp.ca, "Brenda.Lucki" <Brenda.Lucki@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>,
jdp@tdslaw.com, joel@joelharden.ca, premier <premier@ontario.ca>,
"pierre.poilievre" <pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca>, frank.au@ontario.ca,
shantona@papechaudhury.com, leonj@bennettjones.com, edann@edlaw.ca,
gpoliquin@ovcounsel.com, pierrette.ringuette@sen.parl.
Patrick.Brazeau@sen.parl.gc.ca
larry.campbell@sen.parl.gc.ca, Bev.Busson@sen.parl.gc.ca,
nrodriguez@conwaylitigation.ca
srp@tdslaw.com, mtsurumi@legalanalysis.ca, tcurry
<tcurry@litigate.com>, kris.austin@gnb.ca, rokaku8@gmail.com,
patrickking <patrickking@canada-unity.com>
traversy.n@gmail.com, kingpatrick278 <kingpatrick278@gmail.com>, rick
<rick@petersoncapital.ca>, nsinvestigators
<nsinvestigators@gmail.com>, "rob.moore" <rob.moore@parl.gc.ca>
Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, "Marco.Mendicino"
<Marco.Mendicino@parl.gc.ca>, cvangeyn@theccf.ca,
christopher.rupar@justice.gc.
"As discussed, for your review and comments. Trying to keep it simple!
Note that I dropped your last bullet point"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
LIVE PUBLIC ORDER EMERGENCY COMISSION INQUIRY Day 9 - October 25, 2022
1,086 watching now
Started streaming 7 hours ago
WARCAMPAIGN
52.5K subscribers
Support the WARCAMPAIGN Help us keep fighting for FREEDOM in the
political sphere and the culture war! http://BuyVestige.com
Public Order Emergency Commission Documents
https://
February 14, 2022 Declaration of Public Order Emergency: Explanation
pursuant to subsection 58(1) of the Emergencies Act
https://www.publicsafety.gc.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Perspectives (POEC/CEDU)" <Perspectives@poec-cedu.gc.ca>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 13:46:38 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Attn Colleen McKeown I just called Trust
that Greg DelBigio and a legion of RCMP members should remember me
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Hello / Bonjour,
Merci pour votre message/soumission écrite à la Commission sur l’état
d’urgence. Ceci pour vous aviser que nous avons bien reçu votre
message/soumission écrite.
Veuillez noter que nous recevons tous les jours un nombre élevé de
courriels. Nous répondrons à votre demande ou accuserons réception de
votre soumission écrite dès que possible; cela peut prendre plusieurs
jours.
Pour plus d’information sur notre processus de consultation publique,
veuillez consulter l'adresse suivante :
https://
https://
Twitter : @CommissionEDU<https://
Facebook : Commission sur l’état d’urgence |
Facebook<https://www.facebook.
***
Thank you for your message/submission to the Public Order Emergency
Commission. This is to advise you that we have received your
message/submission.
Please note that we receive a high volume of emails every day. We will
respond to your request or acknowledge receipt of your comment or
submission as soon as possible; this may take up to several days.
You can find out more about our public submissions process on our
website at, https://
https://
Twitter: @POECommission<https://
Facebook: Public Order Emergency Commission - Home |
Facebook<https://www.facebook.
---------- Original message ----------
From: "Tomkins, Alyssa" <Alyssa.Tomkins@gowlingwlg.com
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2022 21:41:01 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Methinks Kim Ayotte and Alan Honner are
interesting dudes N'esy Pas Norm Traversy?
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Please note that I am in a hearing from October 13-November 25. I will
be checking email periodically, but I may be slower than usual to
respond. If your request is urgent, please contact my assistant,
Jessie Bernard, at jessie.bernard@gowlingwlg.com.
The information in this email is intended only for the named recipient
and may be privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended
recipient please notify us immediately and do not copy, distribute or
take action based on this email. If this email is marked 'personal'
Gowling WLG is not liable in any way for its content. E-mails are
susceptible to alteration. Gowling WLG shall not be liable for the
message if altered, changed or falsified.
Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP is a member of Gowling WLG, an international
law firm which consists of independent and autonomous entities
providing services around the world. Our structure is explained in
more detail at www.gowlingwlg.com/legal.
References to 'Gowling WLG' mean one or more members of Gowling WLG
International Limited and/or any of their affiliated businesses as the
context requires. Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP has offices in Montréal,
Ottawa, Toronto, Hamilton, Waterloo Region, Calgary and Vancouver.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jeff Pniowsky <JDP@tdslaw.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2022 16:55:52 +0000
Subject: Re: Attn Jeff Pniowsky I was readig about you in CBC today
perhaps we should talk ASAP?
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Cc: "Jacqueline.Maarse@ca.gt.com" <Jacqueline.Maarse@ca.gt.com>,
"pierre.poilievre" <pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca>, premier
<premier@ontario.ca>, Newsroom <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>,
nsinvestigators <nsinvestigators@gmail.com>, NightTimePodcast
<NightTimePodcast@gmail.com>, "Nathalie.Drouin"
<Nathalie.Drouin@pco-bcp.gc.ca
<paulpalango@protonmail.com>, Norman Traversy <traversy.n@gmail.com>,
"Mark.Blakely" <Mark.Blakely@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>,
"fin.minfinance-financemin.
<fin.minfinance-financemin.
<Wayne.Long@parl.gc.ca>, motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>,
"Jason.Proctor" <Jason.Proctor@cbc.ca>, mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>,
"blaine.higgs" <blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>,
"Diane.Lebouthillier@cra-arc.
<Diane.Lebouthillier@cra-arc.
<Andrew.LeFrank@cbsa-asfc.gc.
<Andrew.Baumberg@cas-satj.gc.
<Ellen.Desmond@crtc.gc.ca>, "Christian.Lorenz@cbsa-asfc.
<Christian.Lorenz@cbsa-asfc.
<Allison.St-Jean@tc.gc.ca>, "media@tc.gc.ca" <media@tc.gc.ca>,
"hc.media.sc@canada.ca" <hc.media.sc@canada.ca>,
"mary-liz.power@canada.ca" <mary-liz.power@canada.ca>,
"media@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca" <media@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca>,
"Chris.Lorenz@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca" <Chris.Lorenz@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca>
"christopher.rupar" <christopher.rupar@justice.gc.
David,
Further to our conversation, and to be clear I have not agreed to act
as your counsel. Please address all such correspondence to your
counsel/advisors and not to our firm.
Jeff
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 24, 2022, at 9:45 AM, David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Jacqueline C. Maarse
Called to the bar: 1990 (ON)
Grant Thornton LLP
General Counsel:
2000-200 King St. W.
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3T4
Phone: 416-369-7013
Fax: 416-360-4944
Email: jacqueline.maarse@ca.gt.com
The pdf files hereto attached forever prove that the RCMP, the US
Treasury Dept, the latest NB AG Teddy Feming and Jacqueline Maarse
know that Grant Thornton and KPMG were the auditors of the Brookline
Savings Bank were I reported the fraud in 2003 Inbox
Add star David Amos<motomaniac333@gmail.com> AttachmentSat, Jun 28,
2014 at 12:14 AM
To: "hugh.flemming" <hugh.flemming@gnb.ca>,
Jacqueline.Maarse@ca.gt.com, bdysart <bdysart@smss.com>, Brian Gallant
<briangallant@nbliberal.ca>, "Davidc.Coon" <Davidc.Coon@gmail.com>,
nraynard@grantthornton.ca, "john.logan" <john.logan@gnb.ca>,
marie-claude.blais@gnb.ca, premier <premier@gnb.ca>, "Jacques.Poitras"
<Jacques.Poitras@cbc.ca>, acampbell <acampbell@ctv.ca>,
"mclaughlin.heather" <mclaeptughlin.heather@
"Wayne.Gallant" <Wayne.Gallant@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
benjamin.bertrand@rcmp-grc.gc.
<roger.l.brown@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
<matt.hayes@mcinnescooper.com>
<leanne.murray@mcinnescooper.
Cc: "brad.anderson" <brad.anderson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
<mnielsen@pgcitizen.ca>, justmin <justmin@gov.ns.ca>,
Wayne.Clary@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, "Gilles.Moreau"
<Gilles.Moreau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
<david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
<dean.buzza@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, frankffrost <frankffrost@hotmail.com>,
radical <radical@radicalpress.com>, merv <merv@northwebpress.com>,
Mackap <Mackap@parl.gc.ca>, "mark.vespucci"
<mark.vespucci@ci.irs.gov>, oig <oig@sec.gov>, "rick.hancox"
<rick.hancox@nbsc-cvmnb.ca>, "steven.blaney"
<steven.blaney@parl.gc.ca>, "Gilles.Blinn"
<Gilles.Blinn@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "david.barry"
<david.barry@nbsc-cvmnb.ca>, "Darren.Woroshelo"
<Darren.Woroshelo@rcmp-grc.gc.
<Geoffrey.McDonald@gov.bc.ca>
Bcc: David Amos <myson333@yahoo.com>, wmjervis <wmjervis@hotmail.com>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
http://thedavidamosrant.
http://thedavidamosrant.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Maarse, Jacqueline" <Jacqueline.Maarse@ca.gt.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 21:54:05 +0000
Subject: Your call today with Grant Thornton
To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com" <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Dear Mr. Amos,
Further to your call with the 2 gentlemen in our Moncton office today,
we appreciate your interest in Grant Thornton. We ask that you direct
any correspondence you may wish to send to my attention at the address
indicated below. We will not be in a position to copy documents from
your computer and we ask that you do not attend at our offices for
that purpose. As indicated in the call, communications relating to
ongoing litigation are dealt with by our General Counsel's Office and
our partners and staff are not able to engage with you on these
matters.
Regards,
Jacqueline Maarse
Jacqueline Maarse | General Counsel
Grant Thornton LLP
12th Floor | 50 Bay Street | Toronto | ON | M5J 2Z8
E Jacqueline.Maarse@ca.gt.com<
http://www.grantthornton.ca/<h
[cid:image001.jpg@01CF909B.
<http://www.grantthornton.ca/<
[cid:image002.jpg@01CF909B.
Grant Thornton LLP is proud to be
recognized as one of Canada's best
workplaces for our sixth consecutive year!
______________________________
Disclaimer: This email is intended solely for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
information. Any review, dissemination, copying, printing or other use
of this email by persons or entities other than the addressee is
prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please contact
the sender immediately and delete the material from any computer.
http://www.
FREDERICTON - The New Brunswick government has launched a lawsuit
against an accounting firm in an effort to recover $50 million
provided as loan guarantees to the Miramichi-based Atcon group of
companies.
The lawsuit filed with the Court of Queen's Bench in Saint John
alleges that Grant Thornton was in breach of its duties to the
province in an inspection of the financial books of the Atcon group of
companies.
The former Liberal government of then premier Shawn Graham provided
the loan guarantees to the companies in 2009.
The statement of claim alleges the government approved the loan
guarantees as a result of financial reports from Grant Thornton.
"But for the Grant Thornton opinions and representations, the province
would not have sustained a loss in excess of $50 million," the
document asserts.
It says the accounting firm "failed to exercise the care, diligence,
and skill of an auditor of reasonable competence and prudence."
None of the allegations contained in the statement of claim have been
proven in court.
Atcon, based in Miramichi, went bankrupt in April 2010.
Grant Thornton LLP, Grant Thornton International and a chartered
accountant who works for the company are named as the defendants. They
have not filed a statement of defence and the accountant named in the
statement of claim could not be reached for comment.
Norm Raynard, managing partner in New Brunswick for Grant Thornton,
said in an emailed statement that the company would not offer specific
comments on the lawsuit because they are still reviewing the court
documents.
"We will vigorously defend ourselves against this action," he wrote.
"Our initial reaction is that this timing has much to do with the
political calendar in the province."
The next provincial election is set for Sept. 22.
Attorney General Hugh Flemming said the timing is not political.
"This is not a time schedule which in any way was influenced by the
government and it is not a political issue," he said Tuesday.
He said the government had no choice but to take the matter to court
because of the $50 million that was spent.
"The government owes a duty to the people of New Brunswick to do what
they can to recover this," Flemming said.
© Copyright 2014
http://thedavidamosrant.
http://www.
http://www.
'Strong suspects' but no charges in Highway of Tears cases: RCMP
VANCOUVER - The Mountie overseeing the investigation into the murders
and disappearances of women and girls along British Columbia's
so-called Highway of Tears says his officers have a number of "strong
suspects," but they have yet to uncover enough evidence to lay charges
nearly two years after the last major break in the case.
Staff-Sgt. Wayne Clary leads project E-PANA, which has spent years
investigating the deaths and disappearances of 18 women and girls
along three highways in the province's north.
Roughly 60 officers were assigned to the case at the height of the
investigation, though Clary said that number has dropped to between 12
and 15, who spend most of their time on the project. Still, he said
E-PANA is very much an active investigation.
"It has scaled down, because we've pounded through a lot of work, but
there's still enough work in front of us to keep going," Clary told
The Canadian Press.
"There's more than one investigation where we have strong suspects or
persons of interest, and we're clearly focusing on those. ... I'd like
nothing more than to sit down with the families and say, 'We've got
the guy."'
Clary declined to offer details about how many suspects the RCMP have
identified or in which specific cases, though he said the suspects
they have in mind are located in Canada.
The last significant development came in September 2012, when
investigators said they believed a dead American convict named Bobby
Jack Fowler was responsible for killing as many as three of the women.
The RCMP said investigators had uncovered DNA evidence linking Fowler,
who died in an Oregon prison in 2006, to Colleen MacMillen, who was
murdered in 1974. They also said they believed Fowler may have been
involved in the deaths of Gale Weys and Pamela Darlington, both 19,
who were killed in the mid-1970s.
Clary said the force doesn't have the same kind of direct evidence
tying Fowler to Weys and Darlington, but he added: "Personally, I
think it's him in the other two."
Clary said E-PANA hasn't come up with evidence to suggest any of the
other women and girls were linked together, meaning there could be 15
different suspects for the 15 remaining cases.
"If we have a strong suspect, absolutely we're looking for crossed
lines, but right now we're not seeing that," he said.
E-PANA was launched in 2005 amid growing concern about the number of
women and girls who vanished or were found dead along highways in the
province's north. It also came several years after serial killer
Robert Pickton was arrested in the Vancouver area - a case that Clary
worked on as part of Project Evenhanded.
The Highway of Tears often refers to a remote stretch of Highway 16
between Prince Rupert and Prince George, but E-PANA also includes
cases along the adjacent Highways 97 and 5.
Investigators identified 18 women and girls who were involved in
hitchhiking or other high-risk behaviour and were last seen within a
couple of kilometres of those highways. The final list included cases
between 1969 and 2006.
Investigators once held annual group meetings, but Clary said they now
contact each family individually, either in person or by telephone.
http://www.pgfreepress.com/
City bids adieu to RCMP Supt. Eric Stubbs
Posted On 26 Jun 2014By : Staff ReporterComment: 0Tag: RCMP
Firepit manager Robert Ryan, left, elders Violet Bozoki and Tom Reece
and executive director Vanessa West presemted RCMP Supt. Eric Stubbs
with some gifts before he leaves for a new posting in Ottawa at the
end of the month. Stubbs and Ryan both spoke of the steps which have
been taken to bring the First Nations community and the RCMP in Prince
George closer. The gifts were made by patrons of the Firepit, and Ryan
told Stubbs, “You’re taking a part of us with you.” Allan WISHART/Free
Press
After three years as the top cop in Prince George and a combined 14
years in Northern BC, Superintendent Eric Stubbs is leaving Prince
George and province.
Friday June 27, marks the final day Superintendent Stubbs will be in
charge of the RCMP’s Municipal Detachment in Prince George, a position
he held since arriving in June 2011. During his time here,
Superintendent Stubbs has reduced crime in nearly every category,
created a unit dedicated to combating domestic violence, and was a
catalyst in the transformation of the Community Policing Section to a
new model with focuses on youth and enforcement. Of course, he was
also the detachment commander leading up to, during and following the
move to the new City of Prince George Municipal Detachment.
“I would like to thank Superintendent Stubbs for his excellent service
to Prince George and northern B.C.,” said Mayor Shari Green of Prince
George, in a press release. “Among the many achievements on his watch,
I’d like to point out his dedication to reducing domestic violence,
the continued support of the Downtown Enforcement Unit, and his
essential role in the Mayor’s Task Force on Crime. I wish
Superintendent Stubbs every success in this next exciting phase of his
service to Canadians.”
Stubbs will be taking on a new role as National Criminal Operations
Officer in Ottawa; a role that comes with a promotion to Chief
Superintendent.
Superintendent Stubbs has provided a tremendous service to the
citizens of northern BC through his work in four communities over 14
years said Supt. Lesley Bain, acting officer in charge of the RCMP in
northern B.C. He has had a significant impact in each community he has
policed, none more than Prince George. He will be greatly missed and
we wish him the best in his new role in Ottawa.
Inspector Brad Anderson, the Detachment’s Operations officer, will
take over command of the detachment until such time that a successor
is named.
On behalf of the members, staff and volunteers of the Prince George
RCMP, I want to extend a thank you to Eric for his leadership over the
past three years said Anderson. It has been a pleasure working for him
in such a positive environment.
------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 23:43:38 -0400
Subject: Re: The politicians and cops etc cannot deny that I warned
New Brunswick not to trust Grant Thornton and KPMG many times
beginning in 2004
To: jacqueline.maarse@ca.gt.com, pnoble@grantthornton.ca,
paul.robichaud@gnb.ca, ggilbert@grantthornton.ca,
nraynard@grantthornton.ca, jdelaney@grantthornton.ca,
kferguson@grantthornton.ca, blewis@grantthornton.ca,
krieger@grantthornton.ca, hjaffer@grantthornton.ca,
rgodbold@grantthornton.ca, pmartin@grantthornton.ca,
gdent@grantthornton.ca, karrt <karrt@sec.gov>, oig <oig@sec.gov>, oig
<oig@ftc.gov>, whistleblower <whistleblower@finra.org>, whistle
<whistle@fsa.gov.uk>, Whistleblower <Whistleblower@ctv.ca>,
"dean.buzza" <dean.buzza@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, police
<police@fredericton.ca>, GillesLee <GillesLee@edmundston.ca>, andre
<andre@jafaust.com>, "peter.dauphinee" <peter.dauphinee@gmail.com>,
law <law@stevenfoulds.ca>, "rick.hancox" <rick.hancox@nbsc-cvmnb.ca>,
"marie-claude.blais" <marie-claude.blais@gnb.ca>, "jeff.mockler"
<jeff.mockler@gnb.ca>, "luc.labonte" <luc.labonte@gnb.ca>,
"lucie.dubois" <lucie.dubois@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "bernadine.chapman"
<bernadine.chapman@rcmp-grc.
<cullen1@parl.gc.ca>, "bob.rae" <bob.rae@rogers.blackberry.net
rhouston <rhouston@burkerobertson.com>, richard.dearden@gowlings.com,
"allan.cutler" <allan.cutler@
Stephane.vaillancourt@rcmp-
"justin.trudeau.a1" <justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca>
<marc.garneau.a1@parl.gc.ca>, ottawairc@state.gov, bginsberg
<bginsberg@pattonboggs.com>
Cc: Minister.Industry@ic.gc.ca, David Amos
<david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
amacbeath@grantthornton.ca, bmatthews@grantthornton.ca,
derrickrideout001@yahoo.ca
From: "Matthews, Bev" <Beverley.Matthews@ca.gt.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 03:36:55 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: The politicians and cops etc cannot deny
that I warned New Brunswick not to trust Grant Thornton and KPMG many
times beginning in 2004
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Hello,
I have stepped down from my position as General Counsel of Grant
Thornton as of July 31, 2012.
My successor, Jacqueline Maarse, can be reached at
jacqueline.maarse@ca.gt.com or at 416 369-7013.
I will respond directly to any e-mails associated with the limited
matters for which I have responsiblity as Special Counsel to the firm
or to any e-mails of a personal nature.
Bev Matthews
______________________________
Disclaimer: This email is intended solely for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
information. Any review, dissemination, copying, printing or other use
of this email by persons or entities other than the addressee is
prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please contact
the sender immediately and delete the material from any computer.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 23:36:40 -0400
Subject: The politicians and cops etc cannot deny that I warned New
Brunswick not to trust Grant Thornton and KPMG many times beginning in
2004
To: pnoble@grantthornton.ca, paul.robichaud@gnb.ca,
ggilbert@grantthornton.ca, nraynard@grantthornton.ca,
jdelaney@grantthornton.ca, kferguson@grantthornton.ca,
blewis@grantthornton.ca, krieger@grantthornton.ca,
hjaffer@grantthornton.ca, rgodbold@grantthornton.ca,
pmartin@grantthornton.ca, gdent@grantthornton.ca, karrt
<karrt@sec.gov>, oig <oig@sec.gov>, oig <oig@ftc.gov>, whistleblower
<whistleblower@finra.org>, whistle <whistle@fsa.gov.uk>, Whistleblower
<Whistleblower@ctv.ca>, "dean.buzza" <dean.buzza@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>,
police <police@fredericton.ca>, GillesLee <GillesLee@edmundston.ca>,
andre <andre@jafaust.com>, "peter.dauphinee"
<peter.dauphinee@gmail.com>, law <law@stevenfoulds.ca>, "rick.hancox"
<rick.hancox@nbsc-cvmnb.ca>, "marie-claude.blais"
<marie-claude.blais@gnb.ca>, "jeff.mockler" <jeff.mockler@gnb.ca>,
"luc.labonte" <luc.labonte@gnb.ca>, "lucie.dubois"
<lucie.dubois@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "bernadine.chapman"
<bernadine.chapman@rcmp-grc.
<cullen1@parl.gc.ca>, "bob.rae" <bob.rae@rogers.blackberry.net
rhouston <rhouston@burkerobertson.com>, richard.dearden@gowlings.com,
"allan.cutler" <allan.cutler@
Stephane.vaillancourt@rcmp-
"justin.trudeau.a1" <justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca>
<marc.garneau.a1@parl.gc.ca>, ottawairc@state.gov, bginsberg
<bginsberg@pattonboggs.com>
Cc: Minister.Industry@ic.gc.ca, David Amos
<david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
amacbeath@grantthornton.ca, bmatthews@grantthornton.ca,
derrickrideout001@yahoo.ca
"Harper, Stephen - M.P." <Harper.S@parl.gc.ca> wrote:
Subject: RE: Re: Lets all go through the looking glass to check the
Integrity of the Talking Heads in BC tonight
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:32:54 -0500
From: "Harper, Stephen - M.P." <Harper.S@parl.gc.ca>
To: <motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com>
Thank you for your e-mail message to Stephen Harper, Leader of the
Opposition. Your views and suggestions are important to us. Once they
have been carefully considered, you may receive a further reply.
*Remember to include your mailing address if you would like a response.
If you prefer to send your thoughts by regular mail, please address them to:
Stephen Harper, M.P.
Leader of the Opposition
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
maggie.trudel-maggiore@
Mr. Amos,
thank you for your phone message and several email messages. As the
Director of Values and Ethics in the departments of Foreign Affairs
Canada and International Trade Canada, my current mandate applies only
to internal management issues. For example, establishing a code of
conduct for our employees as well as providing advice to staff on
conflict of interest and conflict resolution.
As such I don't think I could be in a position to assist you. Please
remove my name from your distribution list.
Thanks in advance
Maggie Trudel-Maggiore
A/Director, Values and Ethics
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/
The crook Paul Robichaud spewed Pure Double talking Bullshit today
"Robichaud told reporters on Thursday that suing Grant Thornton, the
company that audited Atcon’s financial records, could be considered
but he said the province is unlikely to follow that specific option.
“[A lawsuit] is something that we could consider, but I already said
in the past it is not an option that we are going to look at this
point. But we are looking at every option at this point,” Robichaud
said."
http://www.grantthornton.ca/<h
http://www.nbica.org/english/
The RCMP, Rick Hancox,Bruce Lewis of Fat Fred City and his bosses in
Upper Canada should at least recall what I explained to them on the
phone in 2006 before you nasty bastards sent all the cops against me.
CORRECT???
GO FIGURE
http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/
http://qslspolitics.blogspot.
My concerns about the severe lack of INTEGRITY of Grant Thornton and
KPMG obviously had to do with their fraudulent auditing of the
Brookline Bancorp etc (Putnam Investments is now owned by Power Corp
BTW) while many Yankees, the USDOJ and the US Treasury Dept attacked
my family and I in order to cover up their many wrongs. Meanwhile the
cops and politicians in my nativeland did everything in ther power to
assist in the many wrongs for nearly 11 years and counting. N'esy Pas?
http://www.powercorporation.
http://www.nbsc-cvmnb.ca/nbsc/
13 December 2012
Canadian Securities Regulators Publish Discussion Paper on Mutual Fund Fees
Toronto – The Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) today published
for comment CSA Discussion Paper 81-407 Mutual Fund Fees, which
examines the mutual fund fee structure in Canada and identifies
potential investor protection issues arising from that structure. The
Discussion Paper sets out various topics for discussion in order to
evaluate the appropriate structure for Canada.
Canada’s mutual fund fees have been the subject of much debate in
recent years. Some research studies examining Canada’s mutual fund
fees, along with international reforms, have prompted greater interest
in reviewing the issue of mutual fund fees in Canada.
“Mutual funds are a key investment in the portfolios of many
Canadians,” said Bill Rice, Chair of the CSA and Chair and CEO of the
Alberta Securities Commission. “It is important that we look at
Canada’s mutual fund fee structure carefully in determining what
changes could or should be considered to enhance investor protection
and foster confidence in our market.”
To date, the CSA has focused its efforts on enhancing the transparency
of mutual fund fees and commissions through initiatives such as the
Point of Sale, and Cost Disclosure and Performance Reporting projects.
While these initiatives remain a priority on behalf of investors, the
CSA has determined that it is also necessary to consult extensively
with investors and market participants to explore whether further
issues remain.
The CSA welcomes feedback on the Discussion Paper, which can be found
on CSA members’ websites. The comment period is open until April 12,
2013. All comments will be considered in the CSA’s decision and next
steps, and also assist in the development of a roundtable the CSA
plans to hold with investors and industry participants in 2013.
The CSA, the council of the securities regulators of Canada’s
provinces and territories, coordinates and harmonizes regulation for
the Canadian capital markets.
– 30 –
For more information:
Wendy Connors-Beckett
New Brunswick Securities Commission
506 643-7745
Subject:
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:02:35 -0400
From: "Murphy, Michael B. \(DH/MS\)" MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca
To: motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com
January 30, 2007
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Mr. David Amos
Dear Mr. Amos:
This will acknowledge receipt of a copy of your e-mail of December 29,
2006 to Corporal Warren McBeath of the RCMP.
Because of the nature of the allegations made in your message, I have
taken the measure of forwarding a copy to Assistant Commissioner Steve
Graham of the RCMP "J" Division in Fredericton.
Sincerely,
Honourable Michael B. Murphy
Minister of Health
CM/cb
Warren McBeath warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca wrote:
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:34:53 -0500
From: "Warren McBeath" warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
To: kilgoursite@ca.inter.net, MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca,
nada.sarkis@gnb.ca, wally.stiles@gnb.ca, dwatch@web.net,
motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com
CC: ottawa@chuckstrahl.com, riding@chuckstrahl.com,
John.Foran@gnb.ca, Oda.B@parl.gc.ca,
"Bev BUSSON" bev.busson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
"Paul Dube" PAUL.DUBE@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
Subject: Re: Remember me Kilgour? Landslide Annie McLellan has
forgotten me but the crooks within the RCMP have n
Dear Mr. Amos,
Thank you for your follow up e-mail to me today. I was on days off over
the holidays and returned to work this evening. Rest assured I was not
ignoring or procrastinating to respond to your concerns.
As your attachment sent today refers from Premier Graham, our position
is clear on your dead calf issue: Our forensic labs do not process
testing on animals in cases such as yours, they are referred to the
Atlantic Veterinary College in Charlottetown who can provide these
services. If you do not choose to utilize their expertise in this
instance, then that is your decision and nothing more can be done.
As for your other concerns regarding the US Government, false
imprisonment and Federal Court Dates in the US, etc... it is clear
that Federal authorities are aware of your concerns both in Canada and
theUS. These issues do not fall into the purvue of Detachment policing
in Petitcodiac, NB.
It was indeed an interesting and informative conversation we had on
December 23rd, and I wish you well in all of your future endeavors.
Sincerely,
Warren McBeath, Cpl.
GRC Caledonia RCMP
Traffic Services NCO
Ph: (506) 387-2222
Fax: (506) 387-4622
E-mail warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
----- Original Message -----
From: David Raymond Amos
To: warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 2:59 PM
Subject: Fw: Please press print on this attachment and give it to MacKay
----- Original Message -----
From: David Raymond Amos
To: ottawairc@state.gov
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 10:28 AM
Subject: Fw: Please press print on this attachment and give it to MacKay
----- Original Message -----
From: David Raymond Amos
To: doralee.smith@pwgsc.gc.ca ; MacKay.P@parl.gc.ca
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 9:49 AM
Subject: Please press print on this attachment and give it to MacKay
----- Original Message -----
From: David Raymond Amos
To: eamacleod@cbrmps.cape-breton.
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 5:26 PM
Subject: Fw: Press print on this attachment and call me a liar now Ms. Matthews
----- Original Message -----
From: David Raymond Amos
To: comartin.j@parl.gc.ca ; Brown.G@parl.gc.ca ; cotler.i@parl.gc.ca ;
Hawn.L@parl.gc.ca ; Menard.S@parl.gc.ca ;
scarpinelli@publicintegrity.
MacKenzie.D@parl.gc.ca ; Chan.R@parl.gc.ca ; Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca ;
Batters.D@parl.gc.ca ; Siksay.B@parl.gc.ca ; Anderson.Da@parl.gc.ca ;
Komarnicki.E@parl.gc.ca
Cc: SECU@parl.gc.ca ; Breitkreuz.G@parl.gc.ca ; hollam@parl.gc.ca ;
arnold.zeman@psepc-sppcc.gc.ca ; Duceppe.G@parl.gc.ca ;
Harper.S@parl.gc.ca ; Layton.J@parl.gc.ca ; Godin.Y@parl.gc.ca ;
McDonough.A@parl.gc.ca ; Stoffer.P@parl.gc.ca ;
gemerson@tor.fasken.com ; garth@garth.ca ; rmooremp@nb.sympatico.ca ;
Matthews.B@parl.gc.ca ; smay@pattersonpalmer.ca ;
news957@rci.rogers.com ; Scott.A@parl.gc.ca ; zedp@parl.gc.ca ;
leo@primetimecrime.com ; crilf@ucalgary.ca ;
giuliano.zaccardelli@rcmp-grc.
stephane.vaillancourt@rcmp-
info@pco-bcp.gc.ca ; Daniel.Conley@state.ma.us ; kmearn@mpdmilton.org
; Freeman.C@parl.gc.ca
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 3:52 PM
Subject: Fw: Press print on this attachment and call me a liar now Ms. Matthews
----- Original Message -----
From: David Raymond Amos
To: chanr0@parl.gc.ca
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 3:00 PM
Subject: Fw: Press print on this attachment and call me a liar now Ms. Matthews
----- Original Message -----
From: David Raymond Amos
To: johnforan.mla@nb.aibn.com ; Chris.Baker@gnb.ca ;
yvon.leblanc3@gnb.ca ; rachel.bard@gnb.ca ; Louise.LEMON@gnb.ca
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 2:47 PM
Subject: Fw: Press print on this attachment and call me a liar now Ms. Matthews
----- Original Message -----
From: David Raymond Amos
To: amacbeath@grantthornton.ca
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 2:09 PM
Subject: Fw: Press print on this attachment and call me a liar now Ms. Matthews
----- Original Message -----
From: David Raymond Amos
To: bmatthews@grantthornton.ca
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 1:32 PM
Subject: Press print on this attachment and call me a liar now Ms. Matthews
----- Original Message -----
From: David Raymond Amos
To: freemc@parl.gc.ca
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 1:00 PM
Subject: Fw: Angie press print on this attachment I know for a fact it works
----- Original Message -----
From: David Raymond Amos
To: pmartin@GrantThornton.ca
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 12:07 PM
Subject: Fw: Angie press print on this attachment I know for a fact it works
----- Original Message -----
From: David Raymond Amos
To: nraynard@GrantThornton.ca ; jdelaney@GrantThornton.ca ;
kferguson@GrantThornton.ca ; blewis@GrantThornton.ca
Cc: krieger@GrantThornton.ca ; hjaffer@GrantThornton.ca ;
rgodbold@GrantThornton.ca
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 11:59 AM
Subject: Fw: Angie press print on this attachment I know for a fact it works
----- Original Message -----
From: David Raymond Amos
To: gdent@GrantThornton.ca
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:04 AM
Subject: Fw: Angie press print on this attachment I know for a fact it works
----- Original Message -----
From: David Raymond Amos
To: ckennedy@notes.tcs.treas.gov
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 5:32 PM
Subject: Fw: Angie press print on this attachment I know for a fact it works
----- Original Message -----
From: David Raymond Amos
To: Raf.Souccar@rcmp-grc.gc.ca ; tim.killam@rcmp-grc.gc.ca ;
martin.blais@rcmp-grc.gc.ca ; harrir1@parl.gc.ca ; harrir@parl.gc.ca ;
peterj@parl.gc.ca
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 2:44 PM
Subject: Fw: Angie press print on this attachment I know for a fact it works
----- Original Message -----
From: David Raymond Amos
To: leo@primetimecrime.com ; gary.bignell@peelpolice.on.ca ; crilf@ucalgary.ca
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 12:17 PM
Subject: Fw: Angie press print on this attachment I know for a fact it works
----- Original Message -----
From: David Raymond Amos
To: angie.coss@cjad.com
Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 8:03 PM
Subject: Angie press print on this attachment I know for a fact it works
Just Dave
By Location Visit Detail
Visit 15,578
Domain Name (Unknown)
IP Address 198.235.184.# (Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants)
ISP Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants
Location Continent : North America
Country : Canada (Facts)
State/Region : Ontario
City : Toronto
Lat/Long : 43.6667, -79.4167 (Map)
Language English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System Microsoft WinXP
Browser Internet Explorer 7.0
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322;
.NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)
Javascript version 1.3
Monitor Resolution : 1280 x 800
Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit Nov 25 2011 11:41:25 am
Last Page View Nov 25 2011 11:41:25 am
Visit Length 0 seconds
Page Views 1
Referring URL http://www.bing.com/...avid<ht
amos&FORM=LENIE
Search Engine bing.com<http://bing.com>
Search Words david amos
Visit Entry Page http://davidamos.blogspot.com/
Visit Exit Page http://davidamos.blogspot.com/
Out Click
Time Zone UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time Nov 25 2011 10:41:25 am
Visit Number 15,578
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Amos" <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
To: <derrickrideout001@yahoo.ca>; <thedderson@gov.nl.ca>; "pm"
<pm@pm.gc.ca>; <premier@gov.nl.ca>; <pnoble@grantthornton.ca>;
"ggilbert" <ggilbert@grantthornton.ca>; "Minister.Industry"
<Minister.Industry@ic.gc.ca>; <sheila.fraser@oag-bvg.gc.ca>
Cc: "IgnatM" <IgnatM@parl.gc.ca>; "maritime_malaise"
<maritime_malaise@yahoo.ca>; <ducepg@parl.gc.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 2:00 PM
Subject: Tell me another one Mr Rideout after you talk to Brian
Crawley perhaps you PCs should consider returning my calls EH?
Representative of the Leader’s Office
Mr. Derrick Rideout
Principal Assistant to the Premier
Email: derrickrideout001@yahoo.ca
From: Derrick Rideout <derrickrideout001@yahoo.ca>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 07:33:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Fwd: RE Financial oversight the media, the SEC, Madoff,
Putnam and the Whistleblower @ 1-866-96-FINRA etc etc
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Don't know why i was sent this.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Auto-reply from csheahan@pa-law.ca" <csheahan@pa-law.ca>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:22:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Fwd: RE Financial oversight the media, the SEC, Madoff,
Putnam and the Whistleblower @ 1-866-96-FINRA etc etc
To: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
Please be advised that I will be away from the office from April 1,
2011 to April 11, 2011 (inclusive). If you require immediate
assistance, please contact Debbie White at 709-634-3136. Thank you,
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Williams, Norm" <nwilliams@grantthornton.ca>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:23:15 -0400
Subject: Out of Office AutoReply: RE Financial oversight the media,
the SEC, Madoff, Putnam and the Whistleblower @ 1-866-96-FINRA etc etc
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Thank you for contacting Grant Thornton LLP. Norm Williams, CA has
withdrawn from the firm effective December 31, 2010 and will be
transitioning his files to other professionals within the firm over
the next few weeks. If you have immediate needs please contact Bill
Budgell at bbudgell@GrantThornton.ca or (709) 778-8802 and we will be
pleased to service your needs.
This email is intended solely for the person or entity to which it is
addressed and may contain confidential and/or
privileged information. Any review, dissemination, copying, printing
or other use of this email by persons or entities other
than the addressee is prohibited. If you have received this email in
error, please contact the sender immediately and
delete the material from any computer.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:56:23 -0300
Subject: Fwd: RE Financial oversight the media, the SEC, Madoff,
Putnam and the Whistleblower @ 1-866-96-FINRA etc etc
To: pnoble@grantthornton.ca, ggilbert@grantthornton.ca
Cc: "Minister.Industry" <Minister.Industry@ic.gc.ca>, "sheila. fraser"
<sheila.fraser@oag-bvg.gc.ca>, ducepg <ducepg@parl.gc.ca>
http://www.ic.gc.ca/app/ccc/
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:22:34 -0300
Subject: Fwd: RE Financial oversight the media, the SEC, Madoff,
Putnam and the Whistleblower @ 1-866-96-FINRA etc etc
To: pcparty@nf.aibn.com, derrickrideout001@yahoo.ca, jbabb@babblaw.ca,
cynthia_downey@hotmail.com, "ddexter@ns.sympatico.ca"
<ddexter@ns.sympatico.ca>, "David.ALWARD@gnb.ca" <David.ALWARD@gnb.ca>
Cc: nwilliams@grantthornton.ca, csheahan@pa-law.ca, abugden@pa-law.ca,
maritime_malaise <maritime_malaise@yahoo.com>
I just called agsin. Heres why
http://www.dunderdale2011.ca/
Just Dave
By Location Visit Detail
Visit 13,631
Domain Name shawcable.net<http://
IP Address 24.85.83.# (Shaw Communications)
ISP Shaw Communications
Location Continent : North America
Country : Canada (Facts)
State/Region : British Columbia
City : Vancouver
Lat/Long : 49.25, -123.1333 (Map)
Language English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System Macintosh MacOSX
Browser Safari 1.3
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_6_5; en-us)
AppleWebKit/533.19.4 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.3 Safari/533.19.4
Javascript version 1.5
Monitor Resolution : 1152 x 720
Color Depth : 24 bits
Time of Visit Apr 12 2011 10:27:57 pm
Last Page View Apr 12 2011 10:27:57 pm
Visit Length 0 seconds
Page Views 1
Referring URL http://www.google.ca...
Search Engine google.ca<http://google.ca>
Search Words babblaw.ca<http://babblaw.ca>
Visit Entry Page
http://davidamos.blo...06/04/
Visit Exit Page
http://davidamos.blo...06/04/
Out Click
Time Zone UTC-8:00
Visitor's Time Apr 12 2011 6:27:57 pm
Visit Number 13,631
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:46:59 -0300
Subject: Fwd: RE Financial oversight the media, the SEC, Madoff,
Putnam and the Whistleblower @ 1-866-96-FINRA etc etc
To: mark@snellingcenter.org
Cc: maritime_malaise <maritime_malaise@yahoo.ca>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:16:39 -0300
Subject: Fwd: RE Financial oversight the media, the SEC, Madoff,
Putnam and the Whistleblower @ 1-866-96-FINRA etc etc
To: Harriet.Johnson@state.vt.us, michael.clasen@state.vt.us,
Harold@haroldalbrechtmp.ca, colleen@snellingcenter.org
Cc: "PATRICK. MURPHY" <PATRICK.MURPHY@dhs.gov>, "jacques.boucher"
<jacques.boucher@rcmp-grc.gc.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:35:28 -0300
Subject: Fwd: RE Financial oversight the media, the SEC, Madoff,
Putnam and the Whistleblower @ 1-866-96-FINRA etc etc
To: GovernorVT@state.vt.us, jeb.spaulding@state.vt.us
Cc: cmain2@bloomberg.net
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/
Whats this? A possibly ethical Governor in Vermont? I tried talking to
his people Heres hoping that he emails me back because his help
suddenly got busy didn't ask for my number.
"Vermont’s governor, Democrat Peter Shumlin, has said he seeks to use
an escape clause in the law to create a government- run health system
that would cover every resident and put private insurers, including
Cigna Corp. (CI), out of business in that state."
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 11:15:49 -0300
Subject: RE Financial oversight the media, the SEC, Madoff, Putnam and
the Whistleblower @ 1-866-96-FINRA etc etc
To: whistleblower@finra.org, michael_copeland@fortunemail.
letters@fortune.com, susan.pulliam@wsj.com, Russ.Stanton@latimes.com,
meredith.goodman@latimes.com, ninkster@navigantconsulting.
dgolub@sgtlaw.com, firstselectmanffld@town.
editor@whatsupfairfield.com, info@csiworld.org, jacques_poitras@cbc.ca
Cc: oig <oig@sec.gov>, "Dean.Buzza" <Dean.Buzza@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>,
"Fred. Pretorius" <Fred.Pretorius@gov.yk.ca>, "rick.hancox"
<rick.hancox@nbsc-cvmnb.ca>
http://qslspolitics.blogspot.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Olsen, Wendy (USANYS)" Wendy.Olsen@usdoj.gov
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 09:21:08 -0400
Subject: RE: USANYS-MADOFF AND IMPORTANT INFORMATION FROM US
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SDNY
To: David Amos david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, USANYS-MADOFF
USANYS.MADOFF@usdoj.gov, "Litt, Marc (USANYS)" Marc.Litt@usdoj.gov Cc:
webo webo@xplornet.com, vasilescua@sec.gov, friedmani@sec.gov,
krishnamurthyp@sec.gov
Thank you for your response.
Wendy Olsen
Victim Witness Coordinator
-----Original Message-----
From: David Amos [mailto:david.raymond.amos@
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:48 AM
To: USANYS-MADOFF; Olsen, Wendy (USANYS); Litt, Marc (USANYS)
Cc: webo; vasilescua@sec.gov; friedmani@sec.gov; krishnamurthyp@sec.gov
Subject: RE: USANYS-MADOFF AND IMPORTANT INFORMATION FROM US
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SDNY
Ms Olsen
Thank you for keeping me informed.
Yes unseal all my emails with all their attachments immediately and
make certain that the US Attorny's office finally practices full
disclosurement as to who I am and what my concerns are as per the Rule
of Law within a purported democracy.
As you folks all well know I am not a shy man and I have done nothing
wrong. It appears to me that bureacratic people only use the right to
privacy of others when it suits their malicious ends in order to
protect their butts from impreacment, litigation and prosecution.
The people in the US Attorney's Office and the SEC etc are very well
aware that I protested immediately to everyone I could think of when
the instant I knew that my correspondences went under seal and Madoff
pled guilty so quickly and yet another cover up involing my actions
was under full steam. Everybody knows that.the US Government has been
trying to keep my concerns about the rampant public corruption a
secret for well over seven long years. However now that a lot of
people and their countries in general are losing a lot of money people
are beginning to remember just exactly who I am and what i did
beginning over seven years ago..
Veritas Vincit
David Raymond Amos
506 756 8687 begin_of_the_skype_
end_of_the_skype_highlighting
P.S. For the record Obviously I pounced on these Yankee bastards as
soon as the newsrag in Boston published this article on the web last
night.
http://www.bostonherald.com/
Notice that Nester just like everyone else would not say my name? It
is because my issues surrounding both Madoff and are NOT marketing
timing They are as you all well know money laundering, fraud, forgery,
perjury, securites fraud, tax fraud, Bank fraud, illegal wiretappping
and Murder amongst other very serious crimes.
"SEC spokesman John Nester dismissed similarities between Markopolos
and Scannell's cases as "not a valid comparison."
He said the SEC determined the market-timing by Putnam clients that
Scannell reported didn't violate federal law. Nester said the SEC only
acted after another tipster alleged undisclosed market-timing by some
Putnam insiders.
Scannell, now a crusader for SEC reforms, isn't surprised the agency
is in hot water again.
Noting that several top SEC officials have gone on to high-paying
private-sector jobs, he believes hopes for future employment impact
investigations. "It's a distinct disadvantage to make waves before you
enter the private sector," Scannell said."
--- On Mon, 3/30/09, David Amos david.raymond.amos@gmail.com wrote:
From: David Amos david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
Subject: Fwd: USANYS-MADOFF IMPORTANT INFORMATION FROM US ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE SDNY
To: NesterJ@sec.gov, letterstoeditor@bostonherald.
oig@sec.gov, Thunter@tribune.com, david@davidmyles.com,
ddexter@ns.sympatico.ca, "Dan Fitzgerald" danf@danf.net
Cc: dsheehan@bakerlaw.com, dspelfogel@bakerlaw.com,
mc@whistleblowers.org, gkachroo@mccarter.com,
david.straube@accenture.com, gurdip.s.sahota@accenture.com,
benjamin_mcmurray@ao.uscourts.
Date: Monday, March 30, 2009, 10:00 PM
Need I say BULLSHIT?
http://www.bostonherald.com/
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 00:03:13 -0300
Subject: RE: USANYS-MADOFF IMPORTANT INFORMATION FROM US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SDNY
To: Russ.Stanton@latimes.com, meredith.goodman@latimes.com,
ninkster@navigantconsulting.
Cc: firstselectmanffld@town.
editor@whatsupfairfield.com, info@csiworld.org, jacques_poitras
jacques_poitras@cbc.ca
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 16:45:07 -0300
Subject: RE Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, Wikileaks and Daniel Ellsberg etc
To: ellsbergpress@gmail.com, info@armycourtmartialdefense.
"birgittaj@althingi.is" <birgittaj@althingi.is>, "Julian Assange)"
<editor@wikileaks.org>, julian@sunshinepress.org,
julian@wikileaks.org, smari <smari@immi.is>
Cc: cindy@eff.org, clg_news@legitgov.org, maritime_malaise
<maritime_malaise@yahoo.ca>, Wayne_Boone@carleton.ca
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 23:33:32 -0400
Subject: Notice that I knew Assange before he got World Famous?
To: CLG_News <clg_news@legitgov.org>
From: "Julian Assange)" <editor@wikileaks.org>
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 18:15:46 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Al Jazeera on Iceland's plan for a press safe haven
To: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
FYI: Al-Jazeera's take on Iceland's proposed media safe haven
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
More info http://immi.is/<http://immi.is
Julian Assange
Editor
WikiLeaks
http://wikileaks.org/<http://
On 10/7/22, David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/
>
> New Brunswick·CBC Investigates
> How to keep secrets from the public: Don't write anything down
>
>
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/
>
> Judge slams CRA and Justice Department for 'egregious' conduct in epic
> Tax Court battle
>
>
> Decision likely to affect dozens of Canadians appealing gross
> negligence penalties from tax agency
>
> Jason Proctor · CBC News · Posted: Oct 07, 2022 4:00 AM PT |
>
>
> A tax Court judge has slammed the Canada Revenue Agency for failing to
> comply with pre-trial court rules and orders. (Chris Wattie/Reuters)
>
> A Tax Court judge has slammed the Canada Revenue Agency and the
> Justice Department for "egregious" conduct that threatened to deny
> three taxpayers the right to a fair trial in an epic battle over
> millions of dollars worth of tax penalties.
>
> In a scathing decision that could have widespread implications, Judge
> Patrick Boyle found the CRA committed an "intentional and deliberate"
> pattern of ignoring court rules to "frustrate" the right that all
> Canadians have to get a full picture of an opponent's case before
> heading to court.
>
> The three taxpayers — a Manitoba psychiatrist, an Ontario nurse and a
> B.C. Air Canada pilot — were appealing three million dollars' worth of
> gross negligence penalties levelled against them, for rejected returns
> filed through a pair of disgraced tax consultancy firms.
>
> But after years of pre-trial delays resulting from the CRA's repeated
> failure to comply with his orders, Boyle took the extraordinary
> measure of allowing the appeals without having a trial on the merits
> of the case this week, to "protect the integrity of the judicial
> process."
>
> Canada Revenue Agency accused of blaming victims as 'gross
> negligence' cases drag on
>
> "I find the [CRA's] egregious approach to pre-trial discovery in these
> appeals to prejudice all three appellants who have been denied," Boyle
> wrote in his ruling.
>
> "These abuses of the discovery process ... have caused considerable
> delay and expense to three Appellants in respect of their appeals.
> They have also led to an inefficient use of public resources financed
> by all Canadians."
> 'With great power comes great responsibility'
>
> Boyle's decision is the latest chapter in a saga that has seen
> hundreds of Canadians slapped with gross negligence penalties after
> filing returns through DeMara Consulting and Fiscal Arbitrators.
>
> The principals of both companies were jailed for tax fraud for
> promoting schemes Boyle says "resemble in many respects the
> de-taxation practices of sovereign citizens, though with less of the
> non-fiscal cultish aspects."
> Hundreds of Canadians filed appeals in Tax Court after the CRA
> levelled gross negligence penalties against them in association with
> returns filed through a pair of disgraced tax consultancies. (Minichka
> / Shutterstock)
>
> According to court records, B.C.-based DeMara's scheme was called "the
> remedy" and essentially involved claiming personal expenditures and
> debts as expenses and capital losses for a non-existent business.
>
> Canada's Income Tax Act gives CRA the ability to levy penalties
> against Canadians who make false statements and omissions on their tax
> returns, either knowingly or under circumstances that amount to gross
> negligence.
>
> The penalties in the DeMara and Fiscal Arbitrators case have reached
> into the millions, leading to a huge backlog of appeals that have been
> making their way through tax court since 2013.
>
> Tax agency obtains 'jeopardy order' for debt from Downton
> Abbey-loving billionaire
>
> Jeff Pniowsky, the Winnipeg-based lawyer who represented all three
> plaintiffs, said fighting a decade-long court battle with the threat
> of financial ruin hanging over their heads has cost his clients "years
> of happiness."
>
> "This was fundamentally a case about justice. Justice for the
> taxpayers who had to endure years of gamesmanship and chicanery by one
> of Canada's most powerful institutions: the CRA," Pniowsky told the
> CBC.
>
> Pniowsky, who has four children, said Boyle's ruling reminded him of a
> line from one of his family's favourite superhero movies: Spiderman.
>
> "With great power comes great responsibility," he said.
>
> "It's clear from this case that the CRA and the Justice Department
> have lost sight of that common-sense principle."
> 'Unprepared, unco-operative or untruthful'
>
> Boyle's detailed 53-page ruling goes through the history of the case,
> and the circumstances that led to each of the orders he found the CRA
> later ignored.
>
> The fight centred on pre-trial discovery, and the rights of the
> taxpayers to examine a CRA representative or "nominee" who was
> "knowledgeable" about their case.
> The CRA has the ability to levy gross negligence penalties against
> taxpayers who lie on their income tax forms. The penalties have been
> devastating for some. (Graeme Roy/The Canadian Press)
>
> The first person the agency put forward was "unaware of any criminal
> investigation and had not informed himself" about any involvement of
> the CRA's criminal investigators in the case.
>
> The second nominee was a lead criminal investigator who "did not even
> inform himself ... whether any investigation was undertaken of any of
> these three appellants."
>
> At one point, Boyle called the investigator "thoroughly unprepared,
> unco-operative or untruthful."
>
> The judge said the CRA and its lawyers twisted the words of an order
> that boiled down to a demand for the agency to hand over any documents
> relating to any investigations that touched on the three appellants.
>
> "I variously described this as 'outrageously misleading and
> inappropriate,' 'this might be contemptuous,' ... 'deeply, deeply
> disturbed,' 'highly inappropriate' and 'I don't think you were
> reasonably mistaken,'" Boyle wrote.
>
> It is an ex-reference: B.C. judge removes 'dead parrot' joke from
> class-action ruling
>
> The judge also zeroed in on the CRA's failure to tell the defence that
> the second page of a three-page "Investigation Abort Report" against
> one of the plaintiffs had gone missing. The report was handed over in
> the middle of hundreds of documents. The missing page explained why a
> criminal investigation was dropped.
>
> The CRA claimed it had no "specific obligation" to point out missing
> pages — a position Boyle found "shocking."
>
> "Courts do not consider discovery to be a game, and it is particularly
> disappointing when the Crown is the offending party," the judge said.
>
> He said the omission gave credence to the idea the CRA "is hiding
> something from them, from the Court and from Canadians about how these
> investigations have been conducted.
> 'Stop, or I'll yell stop again!'
>
> The judge pointed out that the CRA is "represented by the Department
> of Justice which is essentially Canada's largest national law firm and
> employs a large number of tax litigation lawyers who are wholly
> familiar" with the court's rules.
>
> Boyle said making yet another order for compliance would be pointless.
> The judge compared his battle to get the CRA to comply with his orders
> to a skit by Monty Python, whose troupe members are seen here from
> left to right: John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Terry Jones, Graham
> Chapman, Michael Palin and Eric Idle. (PBS/Python (Monty) Pictures
> Ltd./The Associated Press)
>
> He was reminded of a skit by legendary English comedy troupe Monty Python.
>
> "To make such an order would conjure up memories of the Pythonesque
> skit of the British bobby of another era yelling at a scofflaw: 'Stop!
> Stop!—Stop, or I'll yell 'stop' again!'" the judge wrote.
>
> The three appeals were supposed to be the lead plaintiffs for a much
> larger group of appeals. The judge said those people will have to
> speak with their lawyers to determine how the ruling applies to them.
>
> Pniowsky says he believes the decision is the first of its kind
> against the CRA. He predicted fallout both in other DeMara and Fiscal
> Arbitrators cases and in the wider world of tax litigation.
>
> "Intoxicated with a sense of moral righteousness, the government
> apparently determined or acted like these Canadians were not worthy of
> basic procedural rights, thereby committing the same wrongs they
> accused the taxpayers of: gross neglect, wilful blindness and at times
> deceptive conduct," he said.
> ABOUT THE AUTHOR
> Jason Proctor
>
> @proctor_jason
>
> Jason Proctor is a reporter in British Columbia for CBC News and has
> covered the B.C. courts and the justice system extensively.
>
> CBC's Journalistic Standards and Practices
>
>
> https://www.tdslaw.com/
>
> Jeff Pniowsky
>
> Jeff focuses his practice in the areas of tax litigation and dispute
> resolution in the tax audit and appeals process, tax advisory
> services, and complex commercial litigation.
>
> (204) 934-2586
> jdp@tdslaw.com
>
> Winnipeg
> (204) 934-0586
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
> Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2021 23:52:35 -0400
> Subject: Diane.Lebouthillier and her old buddy John Ossowski should
> remember my email and a couple of their own documents EH Madame
> Desmond and Christian Lorenz ?
> To: "Diane.Lebouthillier" <Diane.Lebouthillier@cra-arc.
> John.Ossowski@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca, megan.maloney@crtc.gc.ca,
> bell.regulatory@bell.ca, martine.turcotte@bell.ca, Newsroom
> <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>, Nathalie Sturgeon
> <sturgeon.nathalie@
> <Nathalie.Drouin@justice.gc.ca
> <traversy.n@gmail.com>, jswaisland@landingslaw.com,
> Andrew.LeFrank@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca
> Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, "Ellen.Desmond"
> <Ellen.Desmond@crtc.gc.ca>, Christian.Lorenz@cbsa-asfc.gc.
> Allison.St-Jean@tc.gc.ca, media@tc.gc.ca, hc.media.sc@canada.ca,
> mary-liz.power@canada.ca, media@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca,
> Chris.Lorenz@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca, "christopher.rupar"
> <christopher.rupar@justice.gc.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: martine.turcotte@bell.ca
> To: motomaniac_02186@hotmail.com
> Cc: bcecomms@bce.ca ; W-Five@ctv.ca
> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 9:28 AM
> Subject: RE: I am curious
>
> Mr. Amos, I confirm that I have received your documentation. There is
> no need to send us a hard copy. As you have said yourself, the
> documentation is very voluminous and after 3 days, we are still in the
> process of printing it. I have asked one of my lawyers to review it
> in my absence and report back to me upon my return in the office. We
> will then provide you with a reply.
>
> Martine Turcotte
> Chief Legal Officer / Chef principal du service juridique
> BCE Inc. / Bell Canada
> 1000 de La Gauchetière ouest, bureau 3700
> Montréal (Qc) H3B 4Y7
>
> Tel: (514) 870-4637
> Fax: (514) 870-4877
> email: martine.turcotte@bell.ca
>
> Executive Assistant / Assistante à la haute direction: Diane Valade
> Tel: (514) 870-4638
> email: diane.valade@bell.ca
>
>
>
> A copy of this letter and all related correspondence will be added to
> the public record of the proceeding.
>
> If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me
> at (613) 697-4027 or megan.maloney@crtc.gc.ca.
>
> In the meantime, the Commission is currently continuing its review of
> this costs application.
>
> Yours Sincerely,
>
> originally signed by
>
> Megan Maloney
> Legal Counsel
>
> PIAC Welcomes New Board Members
>
> Adds Expertise in Telecommunications, Broadcasting and Class Actions
>
> OTTAWA – The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), today announced
> the recent election of four new directors to its Board, all experts in
> either telecommunications, broadcasting or class actions:
>
> Konrad von Finckenstein is a lawyer and consultant based in
> Ottawa. He was previously Chair of the Canadian Radio-television and
> Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), an Honourable Justice of the
> Federal Court of Canada and the Commissioner of Competition at the
> Competition Bureau of Canada. In addition, he has held senior posts in
> the Government of Canada in positions related to international trade,
> telecommunications, competition and electronic commerce. Mr. von
> Finckenstein has been elected as PIAC’s Chair of the Board.
> Suzanne Lamarre is a lawyer and engineer with the firm of
> Therrien, Couture and is a former Commissioner of the CRTC. Maitre
> Lamarre works in the areas of telecommunications, radiocommunications
> and broadcasting law as a strategic advisor on regulatory and
> governmental matters at both the national and international level.
> Monica Auer is a lawyer and the Executive Director of Canada’s
> Forum for Research & Policy in Communications (FRPC), a non-partisan
> organization focused on Canada’s communications system. She previously
> worked at the CRTC and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).
> Ms. Auer has been elected as PIAC’s Vice-Chair.
> Jonathan Schachter is a Toronto based lawyer with Sotos LLP, with
> his practice areas including class actions, consumer protection
> litigation, competition and price fixing, privacy litigation,
> professional liability litigation, and trademarks and intellectual
> property litigation and arbitration.
>
> “PIAC’s extensive work on behalf of consumers before the CRTC requires
> the utmost guidance and insight,” said John Lawford, Executive
> Director and General Counsel of PIAC. “We are therefore thrilled to
> add to our Board persons with unparalleled experience to guide our
> communications advocacy, as well as an expert in consumer class
> actions as this sector becomes more litigious,” he added.
>
> PIAC is a federally incorporated not-for-profit and registered charity
> that advocates for consumer interests, and in particular vulnerable
> consumer interests, in the provision of important public services.
> PIAC is known for its representation of consumer, low-income and
> seniors groups before the CRTC, arguing for better services, more
> choice and consumer protection for customers of Internet, wireless,
> telephone and broadcasting services.
>
> For more information, please contact:
>
> John Lawford
> Executive Director and General Counsel
> Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
> (613) 562-4002 ×25
>
>> http://davidraymondamos3.
>>
>> Tuesday, 14 February 2017
>>
>> RE FATCA, NAFTA & TPP etc ATTN President Donald J. Trump I just got
>> off the phone with your lawyer Mr Cohen (646-853-0114) Why does he lie
>> to me after all this time???
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Michael Cohen <mcohen@trumporg.com>
>> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:15:14 +0000
>> Subject: Automatic reply: RE FATCA ATTN Pierre-Luc.Dusseault I just
>> called and left a message for you
>> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>
>> Effective January 20, 2017, I have accepted the role as personal
>> counsel to President Donald J. Trump. All future emails should be
>> directed to mdcohen212@gmail.com and all future calls should be
>> directed to 646-853-0114.
>> ______________________________
>> This communication is from The Trump Organization or an affiliate
>> thereof and is not sent on behalf of any other individual or entity.
>> This email may contain information that is confidential and/or
>> proprietary. Such information may not be read, disclosed, used,
>> copied, distributed or disseminated except (1) for use by the intended
>> recipient or (2) as expressly authorized by the sender. If you have
>> received this communication in error, please immediately delete it and
>> promptly notify the sender. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed
>> to be received, secure or error-free as emails could be intercepted,
>> corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late, incomplete, contain viruses
>> or otherwise. The Trump Organization and its affiliates do not
>> guarantee that all emails will be read and do not accept liability for
>> any errors or omissions in emails. Any views or opinions presented in
>> any email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
>> represent those of The Trump Organization or any of its
>> affiliates.Nothing in this communication is intended to operate as an
>> electronic signature under applicable law.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: "Min.Mail / Courrier.Min (CRA/ARC)" <PABMINMAILG@cra-arc.gc.ca>
>> Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 13:10:52 +0000
>> Subject: Your various correspondence about abusive tax schemes -
>> 2017-02631
>> To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com" <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>
>> Mr. David Raymond Amos
>> motomaniac333@gmail.com
>>
>>
>> Dear Mr. Amos:
>>
>> Thank you for your various correspondence about abusive tax schemes,
>> and for your understanding regarding the delay of this response.
>>
>> This is an opportunity for me to address your concerns about the way
>> the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) deals with aggressive tax planning,
>> tax avoidance, and tax evasion by targeting individuals and groups
>> that promote schemes intended to avoid payment of tax. It is also an
>> opportunity for me to present the Government of Canada’s main
>> strategies for ensuring fairness for all taxpayers.
>>
>> The CRA’s mission is to preserve the integrity of Canada’s tax system,
>> and it is taking concrete and effective action to deal with abusive
>> tax schemes. Through federal budget funding in 2016 and 2017, the
>> government has committed close to $1 billion in cracking down on tax
>> evasion and combatting tax avoidance at home and through the use of
>> offshore transactions. This additional funding is expected to generate
>> federal revenues of $2.6 billion over five years for Budget 2016, and
>> $2.5 billion over five years for Budget 2017.
>>
>> More precisely, the CRA is cracking down on tax cheats by hiring more
>> auditors, maintaining its underground economy specialist teams,
>> increasing coverage of aggressive goods and service tax/harmonized
>> sales tax planning, increasing coverage of multinational corporations
>> and wealthy individuals, and taking targeted actions aimed at
>> promoters of abusive tax schemes.
>>
>> On the offshore front, the CRA continues to develop tools to improve
>> its focus on high‑risk taxpayers. It is also considering changes to
>> its Voluntary Disclosures Program following the first set of program
>> recommendations received from an independent Offshore Compliance
>> Advisory Committee. In addition, the CRA is leading international
>> projects to address the base erosion and profit shifting initiative of
>> the G20 and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
>> Development, and is collaborating with treaty partners to address the
>> Panama Papers leaks.
>>
>> These actions are evidence of the government’s commitment to
>> protecting tax fairness. The CRA has strengthened its intelligence and
>> technical capacities for the early detection of abusive tax
>> arrangements and deterrence of those who participate in them. To
>> ensure compliance, it has increased the number of actions aimed at
>> promoters who use illegal schemes. These measures include increased
>> audits of such promoters, improved information gathering, criminal
>> investigations where warranted, and better communication with
>> taxpayers.
>>
>> To deter potential taxpayer involvement in these schemes, the CRA is
>> increasing notifications and warnings through its communications
>> products. It also seeks partnerships with tax preparers, accountants,
>> and community groups so that they can become informed observers who
>> can educate their clients.
>>
>> The CRA will assess penalties against promoters and other
>> representatives who make false statements involving illegal tax
>> schemes. The promotion of tax schemes to defraud the government can
>> lead to criminal investigations, fingerprinting, criminal prosecution,
>> court fines, and jail time.
>>
>> Between April 1, 2011, and March 31, 2016, the CRA’s criminal
>> investigations resulted in the conviction of 42 Canadian taxpayers for
>> tax evasion with links to money and assets held offshore. In total,
>> the $34 million in evaded taxes resulted in court fines of $12 million
>> and 734 months of jail time.
>>
>> When deciding to pursue compliance actions through the courts, the CRA
>> consults the Department of Justice Canada to choose an appropriate
>> solution. Complex tax-related litigation is costly and time consuming,
>> and the outcome may be unsuccessful. All options to recover amounts
>> owed are considered.
>>
>> More specifically, in relation to the KPMG Isle of Man tax avoidance
>> scheme, publicly available court records show that it is through the
>> CRA’s efforts that the scheme was discovered. The CRA identified many
>> of the participants and continues to actively pursue the matter. The
>> CRA has also identified at least 10 additional tax structures on the
>> Isle of Man, and is auditing taxpayers in relation to these
>> structures.
>>
>> To ensure tax fairness, the CRA commissioned an independent review in
>> March 2016 to determine if it had acted appropriately concerning KPMG
>> and its clients. In her review, Ms. Kimberley Brooks, Associate
>> Professor and former Dean of the Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie
>> University, examined the CRA’s operational processes and decisions in
>> relation to the KPMG offshore tax structure and its efforts to obtain
>> the names of all taxpayers participating in the scheme. Following this
>> review, the report, released on May 5, 2016, concluded that the CRA
>> had acted appropriately in its management of the KPMG Isle of Man
>> file. The report found that the series of compliance measures the CRA
>> took were in accordance with its policies and procedures. It was
>> concluded that the procedural actions taken on the KPMG file were
>> appropriate given the facts of this particular case and were
>> consistent with the treatment of taxpayers in similar situations. The
>> report concluded that actions by CRA employees were in accordance with
>> the CRA’s Code of Integrity and Professional Conduct. There was no
>> evidence of inappropriate interaction between KPMG and the CRA
>> employees involved in the case.
>>
>> Under the CRA’s Code of Integrity and Professional Conduct, all CRA
>> employees are responsible for real, apparent, or potential conflicts
>> of interests between their current duties and any subsequent
>> employment outside of the CRA or the Public Service of Canada.
>> Consequences and corrective measures play an important role in
>> protecting the CRA’s integrity.
>>
>> The CRA takes misconduct very seriously. The consequences of
>> misconduct depend on the gravity of the incident and its repercussions
>> on trust both within and outside of the CRA. Misconduct can result in
>> disciplinary measures up to dismissal.
>>
>> All forms of tax evasion are illegal. The CRA manages the Informant
>> Leads Program, which handles leads received from the public regarding
>> cases of tax evasion across the country. This program, which
>> coordinates all the leads the CRA receives from informants, determines
>> whether there has been any non-compliance with tax law and ensures
>> that the information is examined and conveyed, if applicable, so that
>> compliance measures are taken. This program does not offer any reward
>> for tips received.
>>
>> The new Offshore Tax Informant Program (OTIP) has also been put in
>> place. The OTIP offers financial compensation to individuals who
>> provide information related to major cases of offshore tax evasion
>> that lead to the collection of tax owing. As of December 31, 2016, the
>> OTIP had received 963 calls and 407 written submissions from possible
>> informants. Over 218 taxpayers are currently under audit based on
>> information the CRA received through the OTIP.
>>
>> With a focus on the highest-risk sectors nationally and
>> internationally and an increased ability to gather information, the
>> CRA has the means to target taxpayers who try to hide their income.
>> For example, since January 2015, the CRA has been collecting
>> information on all international electronic funds transfers (EFTs) of
>> $10,000 or more ending or originating in Canada. It is also adopting a
>> proactive approach by focusing each year on four jurisdictions that
>> raise suspicion. For the Isle of Man, the CRA audited 3,000 EFTs
>> totalling $860 million over 12 months and involving approximately 800
>> taxpayers. Based on these audits, the CRA communicated with
>> approximately 350 individuals and 400 corporations and performed 60
>> audits.
>>
>> In January 2017, I reaffirmed Canada’s important role as a leader for
>> tax authorities around the world in detecting the structures used for
>> aggressive tax planning and tax evasion. This is why Canada works
>> daily with the Joint International Tax Shelter Information Centre
>> (JITSIC), a network of tax administrations in over 35 countries. The
>> CRA participates in two expert groups within the JITSIC and leads the
>> working group on intermediaries and proponents. This ongoing
>> collaboration is a key component of the CRA’s work to develop strong
>> relationships with the international community, which will help it
>> refine the world-class tax system that benefits all Canadians.
>>
>> The CRA is increasing its efforts and is seeing early signs of
>> success. Last year, the CRA recovered just under $13 billion as a
>> result of its audit activities on the domestic and offshore fronts.
>> Two-thirds of these recoveries are the result of its audit efforts
>> relating to large businesses and multinational companies.
>>
>> But there is still much to do, and additional improvements and
>> investments are underway.
>>
>> Tax cheats are having a harder and harder time hiding. Taxpayers who
>> choose to promote or participate in malicious and illegal tax
>> strategies must face the consequences of their actions. Canadians
>> expect nothing less. I invite you to read my most recent statement on
>> this matter at canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/
>> statement_from_
>>
>> Thank you for taking the time to write. I hope the information I have
>> provided is helpful.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>>
>> The Honourable Diane Lebouthillier
>> Minister of National Revenue
>>
>>
>
Click the following link to unsubscribe or subscribe to TDS e-communications:
Unsubscribe at https://tdslaw.us3.list-
Subscribe at https://www.tdslaw.com/
Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security
|
l |
|
|
l |
|
|
EVIDENCE
Monday, October 17, 2016
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
[English]
I'd like to call this meeting to order.
My
name is Rob Oliphant, member of Parliament for Don Valley West, and I
am the Chair of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National
Security.
Welcome to this public meeting of our committee.
This
is the travelling version of our 10-member committee. We have members
representing the Liberal Party of Canada, the New Democratic Party, as
well as the Conservative Party of Canada. We are travelling across the
country to hear people's thoughts and ideas about the national security
framework.
[Translation]
Both English and French will be used in this committee's meeting.
[English]
You can get headsets for interpretation because we will be respecting both languages.
This
afternoon, and each afternoon in the five cities that we've chosen, we
have been listening to experts who have worked in this area of national
security. They've been advising our committee with their thoughts and
ideas, and we had a chance to question them this afternoon.
Tomorrow, we'll be in Calgary, on Wednesday in Toronto, on Thursday in Montreal, and then Friday, we'll be in Halifax.
We
began our committee hearings in Ottawa two weeks ago. This is the
on-the-road version, and we will continue studying the topic when we get
back to Ottawa, listening to more experts and receiving briefs and
written submissions that Canadians want to give us.
The
government itself is also undertaking consultations regarding national
security. This is separate from that. This is a parliamentary committee,
and people often confuse Parliament and government as though we're one
and the same. We are not. This parliamentary committee is independent of
government, and will advise government through Parliament on measures
we think are important to Canadians that should be taken into account by
the executive branch of the government.
The government is undertaking a similar consultation and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
issued a green paper, as well as a backgrounder on national security.
That forms part of our consultation, but it isn't our full consultation.
Our consultation can be as wide as we want to make it, and it can take
therefore as long as.... We're not exactly sure how long it's going to
take right now.
The
minister has asked us to provide some advice to him through Parliament
before the year's end, which we will attempt to do; however, our work
will continue, I am sure, for quite a while in the area of national
security as we attempt to find a way to ensure that Canadians are kept
safe, and our rights and freedoms are safeguarded. It is a balancing of
keeping Canadians safe through the best options and tools for our
national security agencies, but at the same time ensuring that we have
the rights of Canadians safeguarded.
Tonight,
we have two hours to meet as a committee with you, and we're going to
suggest that this is your meeting, not ours. We will be speaking only a
little. People will be invited to go to the microphone, and I'm going to
suggest about three minutes per person.
The
committee may or may not have questions of individual members. I will
be watching the committee members to see if any of them would like to
ask the questioner for elaboration, or perhaps some clarification of
what was said.
We
would ask that when you come to the mike, you identify yourself. If you
would like to also indicate any organization that you're part of, you
may do so, but you don't have to. That's a way for us to understand how
broadly and how deeply Canadians are concerned about these issues.
We
don't have any opening remarks from the committee other than to say
thank you for engaging in this conversation. It's important that
Parliament be an open body, and we're glad that you are here to share
your thoughts. I can guarantee you that your opinions will indeed shape
the report that the committee eventually makes to Parliament.
I'm going to introduce our committee before we begin. Actually, I'll have you introduce yourselves.
[Translation]
[English]
I'm assisted by the clerk, the analysts, and a number of other officials who help us do our committee work.
We're going to begin with John Allen West.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My
name name is John Allen West. I represent the rather obscure but
intelligent unit in Canada called the caretaker movement. The caretaker
movement was set up some years ago after I realized that appealing to
any branch of government on matters of intelligence was not going to
produce any results.
In
other words, I think we should all think carefully about what we mean
by intelligence, and, whether we are collecting it or not, how that
intelligence will be applied. I was under the impression when I came
here that in fact that you had some jurisdiction or structure to pass on
the information that we were giving you. It appears that you're just
another shill event—I regret to say that—of parties that are simply
playing adversarial games with one another and are not seriously looking
after the best interests of the Canadian people.
I'm
going to take you back briefly to 1972. In 1972, I was doing work for
the CBC, and in the course of my investigations for stories, I came
across the fact that Mr. Trudeau, the elder now passed, was engaging in
discussing behaviour that made him available to blackmail. As a result
of that blackmail, he gave away the Bank of Canada to international
banking corruptions—corporations, they call themselves.
This
piece of information I took to the then Governor General at that time,
Roland Michener, and to the deputy commissioner in charge of criminal
investigation, by the name of.... I'll give you his name in a moment.
Those two gentlemen sent the police around and asked what kind of a
crazy Englishman—because I was then and am now—was reporting on such
matters.
I was actually educated to such matters. I grew up in an intelligence
community in Great Britain. This is not a result of my paranoia. This is
a result of my experience. I left my country at 23 because I was
working then at the BBC as a systems analyst. It all sounds like
something out of a spy novel, but it's true. The information that I was
trying to get across then was, do not, Great Britain and the British
people, get into bed with the Americans, because that is going to bring
on neo-colonialism and misery in the world.
Now,
I'm old enough to have lived through the Second World War. I can tell
you front up, it's not a very pleasant experience for children. Canada,
when I came to this country, was a peacemaker. In the world, it was
known as a peacemaking country. It was not until later that I saw that
this was all part of a larger older scheme developed by Zionist
international bankers to bring about chaos in the Middle East.
That
is what happened. When I spoke up about that in the various areas of
the BBC, I was certainly shut down very quickly, as I'm about to be now.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. West.
Mr. John West: Thank you is the answer I always get.
I
only have one question. If you have shut off the mike, well fine. I
have it on my recorder. I hope this will go down in history. It's
clearly evident that you have no jurisdiction, no value, no purpose, and
you're just blindsiding the Canadian people for legitimate good
government.
I
ask you only one question at this point. Kindly, kindly describe for
yourself the status quo and see how much longer such a corrupted
government, such a corrupted industrial base, can go on, and this
country fall further behind into slavery.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. West.
Mr. John West:
Thank you for your time. I cannot thank you for your patience because
you have none. If intelligence does not involve patience, then you're
not an intelligent man.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
First,
I want to acknowledge where we're gathered. We're gathered on unceded
Coast Salish territory. It's very important to recognize where we are.
Anti-terrorism
cases invariably breach normative legal parameters. First of all, let
me just say that I'm a radio broadcaster and also a scholar of the
contemporary situation of Muslims being targeted in Canada. My Ph.D.
research was on the interpretation of responses to Islamophobia by these
targeted communities themselves in 2015. These anti-terrorism cases
invariably breach normative legal parameters. They venture into a state
where we really argue how it should be? We know that in Canada there are
cases of violence committed by domestic groups, such as neo-Nazis,
white supremacists, and others. What I really want to ask is why are
these not considered in public safety when we talk about national
security, for example? We know also that, statistically, cases that
involve this kind of terrorism in Europe, in the United States, and in
Canada do not have Muslims as the primary perpetrators of that violence.
I can follow up and give you all the pieces of this later because [Inaudible—Editor]
this information. Why the focus on Muslims? Why is it that we really
don't have substantive evidence that Muslims are perpetrating this
violence? Yes, the RCMP and CSIS in their internal records have
identified that threats to Canada are coming from groups such as the
neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Why that is not a public safety
concern is the question.
There is a long answer to it that you may or may not like, but it is because we still envision a [Inaudible—Editor]
state that we call Canada. This is why we have racial profiling. This
is why we have carding going on in places such as Toronto. This is why
Muslims are being targeted and why we're going to eventually strip all
Canadians of their civil liberties. This is why the BCCLA that was here
earlier, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Privacy
Commissioner, the past Prime Minister, etc., came out when the
Conservatives were pushing this bill to say that this is not good for
Canada. So the question becomes, again, why are you focusing on a small
minority of people who are perpetrating these acts and blowing it out of
proportion, when you have groups in Canada like the neo-Nazis and white
supremacists?
Michel
Juneau-Katsuya, a former CSIS investigator, noted that between 2001 and
2012 there were 30 bombings that happened in Canada. None of them were
perpetrated by Muslims. I don't hear Public Safety coming out and
talking about such a thing.
Mr.
Chair, I'm not going to speak on behalf of the committee, but I think
the committee will agree with me. I want it on record that while I'm not
part of the present government, I am a member of Parliament, and I will
defend the present government and the fact that they are not targeting
Muslims. None of us, I believe, around this table or in this room are
for that. We target anybody, any group, including the neo-Nazis, if they
perpetrate terrorism. That needs to be on the record.
All right, sir, you're on the record.
A
quick response to that is the previous government, when the Valentine's
Day massacre hoax happened in Halifax.... Do you remember that, sir?
Does anybody around the table remember that? Does anybody here remember
that? Okay, so at least one person reads the media.
MacKay said that there was a neo-Nazi group that was planning to shoot
up some mall down in Halifax just last year. MacKay was the minister of
whatever he was at the time, and he said that, oh, no, no, this is not
terrorism, this is just “murderous misfits”. [Inaudible—Editor]. So that's going on. When this is being excused, that's not fair, sir. So there is targeting.
Plus there's a lot of work in Canadian scholarship criminology that has
looked at racial profiling. I did a study myself in 2007 on racial
profiling here, and it clearly showed that Muslims are being targeted.
I'll send you that.
Thank you.
Just
to clarify what we're about today. We are not from the government. Some
of us are on the government side of the House, but we're not part of
the government. The government is composed of the cabinet and officials
who work with the government. We are here as Canadians to hear your
concerns.
First,
try to stick as closely as possible to the national security framework
issues. Second, we won't be able to defend, and we're not going to
defend, any actions by this government or previous governments. We're
here to listen to what your concerns and priorities are for the future.
That is within our mandate as parliamentarians.
We are, for better or worse, the House of Commons. That means we're the
commons, and you're part of that, so we're here to listen to you. We
won't defend any government actions. That's not our job.
Mr.
Miller was absolutely correct, though, in saying that in this
committee, we're attempting to advise the government on a national
security framework that doesn't look at a particular threat or a
particular right, but looks at all threats to public safety, and sees
how we safeguard all rights of every Canadian, not some Canadians. That
is our task.
Mr. Jamie May.
Thank you, Chairman.
I don't know what I'm going to speak to. I've got a couple of things here at the end.
The environment we find ourselves in these days is perhaps slightly overactive, which encourages a higher crime rate.
[Technical Difficulty—Editor]
We will move down the road. These algorithms, with which we'll be
working with potentially, artificial super-intelligence, maybe very far
down the line. This is a very careful thing that must be, as with any
bill, future-proof. We have to think about these things before you get
to them.
First
of all, I want to thank you for your very thoughtful remarks, and to
draw your attention to the CSIS Act, section 12.1, which addresses
threat reduction measures, and to further clarify that the threshold,
which you identified in your remarks, doesn't actually apply to threat
reduction measures.
What
the act says is that before the service takes any threat reduction
measures, there must be reasonable and probable grounds that a
particular activity constitutes a threat to national security. It's a
slightly higher threshold than the one that you were referring to for
the purposes of authorizing threat reduction measures. I just wanted to
point that out.
Otherwise, thank you for your remarks.
I still think that threshold isn't too low and I would think that
threshold has to be lowered. I think with our security services we
already have the tools to do this job. I don't think we need more of
these tools.
Thank you.
I would like to talk personally about why I feel less safe and less secure since Bill C-51
was passed. I can remember the 1970 War Measures Act in Montreal, and
Bill C-51 strikes me as being like the War Measures Act full-time
forever.
My
first reaction was to ask for a definition of terrorism. Harper seemed
to imply that it was anyone who disagreed with him. Reg Whitaker spoke
earlier today about criminalizing a certain range of opinion, so that's a
real concern.
Up
to a year ago, I might have felt hesitant to even come out to a public
consultation like this, but that's academic, because clearly there were
no public consultations before C-51 was passed.
I
wondered why new prisons were being constructed at a time when the
crime rate was going down. Who would be filling them? Would
environmentalists who opposed diluted bitumen pipelines be labelled
terrorists and arrested and incarcerated? Would it be peace activists
who did not welcome foreign misadventures or even the loss of the
long-gun registry be arrested, or even those committed to non-violence,
subject to infiltration by agents provocateursto justify arrest
and detention? I'm thinking in particular about the G8 summit in
Toronto. I heard some horror stories from those who were there. There
were audits of NGOs that read like a who's who of the organizations that
I support, the charities I support, including my own church.
I've been wondering just in the past week why the Trudeau government is
reluctant to give up the inheritances of the Harper government. I've
heard that, with regard to climate change, it has the same inadequate
goals. I heard on CBC radio today about the same low levels of health
care dollars going to the provinces. And now, why does it want to keep
what was given to it with Bill C-51?
I
have one last piece of personal disclosure, which is that I'm a Raging
Granny. If we had had more notice, I wouldn't be the only one here
today. We have a song that we were singing. I'll give you just two
lines. It goes, “Don't spy on me, RCMP. This isn't Argentina.”
I have another song that I will leave with you along with a cartoon from the Vancouver Sun from 1998, which will show you that this has been going on since before 9/11 and before Bill C-51.
When APEC was held here in Vancouver, the Raging Grannies were listed
as a low-level threat. Now at the time, our response to that was “what
do you mean 'low level'?” But since then, we're a little more nervous. I
am. I'll only speak for myself.
I want to leave you with a song and a cartoon and an accompanying article. To whom should I give them, please?
—and
I want to thank you for your passion and for your interest. if you have
ideas on how our national security framework could work better, please
submit them to our committee. We'd be very interested. I realize three
minutes isn't a very long time, but you heard us asking witnesses this
afternoon as well for further information, so please give us your ideas.
You obviously have some.
That
gives me the opportunity to remind you that anybody may submit a
written brief by going to the Parliament of Canada website and looking
for our public safety and national security committee and clicking on
the “submit” button and it will take you through the steps so you can
submit that.
I
don't know whether we can put in digital tapes of people singing or
not, but Ms. Taylor, you've raised the bar a bit now on future
submissions to our committee.
Thank you.
The next one is Jesse Schooff.
Hello,
my name is Jesse Schooff. I'm a blogger. I volunteer with OpenMedia and
I've also worked as the IT manager of a small company for the last
decade.
I'm here today because I'm troubled by many aspects of the anti-terrorism act of 2016, which we call Bill C-51.
But the main reason I'm here today to speak is because as an IT
professional I'm concerned, and in some ways terrified, by some of the
language in the online Canadian security consultations, which I know are
not directly related to this committee. But the question was: How can
law enforcement and national security agencies reduce the effectiveness
of encryption for individuals and organizations involved in crime or
threats to the security of Canada, yet not limit the beneficial uses of
encryption to those not involved in illegal activities?
The
short answer is you can't. The long answer would require more time than
would be polite for me to take today, but I can explain by way of
analogy. A few years ago the Transportation Security Administration in
the United Stated decided that they needed to be able to open
passengers' luggage at will without cutting off and thus destroying
their luggage locks. The TSA partnered with lock and luggage
manufacturers and worked with them to create a TSA master key that could
open any lock. It wasn't long before someone created a 3-D printable
model of the TSA master key that could be downloaded, distributed on the
Internet, and printed, allowing anyone, including criminals, to open
any TSA-approved lock.
When
we talk about weakening encryption or creating a back door that only
the good guys can access, what we're really talking about is
deliberately putting bugs into our software. Any IT security expert or
computer scientist will tell you that when there's a bug in software,
hackers work hard to find that bug and exploit it. Encryption is not
just a feature that makes it safe for us to use our credit card on eBay
or that keeps racy instant messages private, encryption keeps our data
infrastructure safe from hackers, criminals, and even terrorists.
Encryption is the brick and mortar that allows enterprise IT to exist.
If
government weakens or backdoors encryption, I can say without hyperbole
that we put the entirety of our technology infrastructure at serious
risk.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you very much for coming forward and certainly the whole encryption thing has come up here.
I also sit on the status of women committee and we're looking at cyber-violence.
If you put that hat on for a moment, and look at the question of
encryption in terms of tracking down people who are committing
cyber-violence against young women and girls, the police and victims
have told us that's one of the issues in why they haven't been able to
track down these people.
They
are criminals, regardless of whether they're committing terror or
whether they're committing cyber-violence. I'm wondering, how do you
balance that, and how do you deal with issues of encryption when you're
talking about people who are committing crime and not being able to
track them down?
Thank you. That's a very good question.
What
you're talking about concerns me too, immensely. I consider myself a
feminist. Cases like that of Amanda Todd for example—
Wanting
does not make it so. Encryption is computer science, it's mathematics,
and it is a thing that is either secure from end to end or it has
vulnerability built into it. We could mandate that our software has to
have back doors built into it, but once again, people will immediately
start looking for how they exploit the back door to steal credit card
information, to spy on people, to commit all sorts of cybercrime. Any
time there is a bug in software that allows people to do something
they're not allowed to do, it's immediately exploited.
I wish I had a better answer for you than that, but I don't.
Can
you make any suggestions in a digital world on ways to maintain the
privacy or integrity that you're talking about, but also to allow law
enforcement to be able to use tools to be able to track down criminals?
I'm a systems administrator. I'm not the greatest computer security expert that you could talk to on the matter.
Security
personnel and law enforcement will either have to rely on brute force
using their own hacking methodologies to try to intercept information
they're interested in or build in vulnerabilities by design.
I
have to admit I don't understand your chat about encryption at all. I'm
not an IT specialist. You said you weren't, but you obviously know a
lot more about it than I do. I think it would be helpful to continue
what Pam was on.
Any
information that you or experts in this that you know of could send to
the committee that we could read to help us better understand it would
be very helpful for me, Mr. Chair.
I
want to echo those comments. This will be a big thing. I'm not sure
we're going to get into it as much in this study. One of the things
we're doing on this tour is trying to look at the scope of everything we
need to do to see the modules of later studies we're going to do, the
whole concept of security in a digital world.
What
came to me as you were speaking was, we've tended to think of
encryption like cracking code in World War II. If you could crack the
code then you could figure out what the bad guys were doing. We're
framing it in terms of having a non-digital answer in a digital world,
and we have to have a whole new way of thinking about it. The way you've
framed it is very helpful for me. You have to build that bug into the
encryption, and if you build it in, you give the bad guys a way to get
in. I think that's very helpful for our committee to hear. We're not
going to give you a satisfying answer on that tonight, but rest assured,
that's the kind of thing our committee is listening to. We'll be back
to you.
Leave
it. OpenMedia has been in touch with our committee, so we'll be working
on this, I suspect, for the rest of our digital lives.
Laura Tribe is next.
Good evening.
My
name is Laura Tribe. I am the executive director of OpenMedia. As some
of you know—I've heard that some of you have already heard from us—we
are a digital rights organization that works to keep the Internet open,
affordable, and surveillance-free.
Since Bill C-51
was first announced, we've been campaigning alongside many other
groups, initially to stop Bill C-51, and now to get it fully repealed.
Over the past 20 months, we have seen over 300,000 Canadians speak up
against this reckless, dangerous, and ineffective legislation. OpenMedia
has set out our detailed concerns about Bill C-51 and many other
threats to Canada's digital privacy, including encryption—thank you,
Jesse—at saveoursecurity.ca. It's a tool that we've built to encourage
as many Canadians as possible to take part in the government's security
consultations and ensure that our charter rights are protected.
Our
calls for how the government must respect privacy and free expression
online are fully outlined in our platform, and we will submit them via
written comments to make sure that you get them in full detail, but we
do invite you and everyone here to visit saveoursecurity.ca to see our
written comments in full.
Tonight, we have three main asks for you, our elected representatives on the committee. The first is to make sure that Bill C-51
gets completely repealed—now. I cannot stress enough how urgent this
is. Every single day this legislation remains on the books, innocent
Canadians continue to be treated as criminals. Our privacy and security
are compromised, and our charter rights are violated. As one of our
community members told us recently, repeal it completely, and do it now.
If the Liberal government believes some sort of bill is needed, then
write a new bill from scratch only after a thorough consultation with
legal experts and citizens to ensure Canadian rights and freedoms are
preserved.
Second,
we ask you to implement strong privacy rules to keep us safe from
surveillance. I have here with me, and will leave with you, a copy of
“Canada's Privacy Plan”, a positive vision for privacy that we
crowdsourced with the help of over 125,000 Canadians. This plan calls
for an end to warrantless access to our personal information, a stop to
mass surveillance of innocent people—a practice that, just earlier
today, the U.K.'s top surveillance court ruled as a breach of our human
rights—and accountability, transparency, and oversight for security
agencies.
Third, we are asking for a commitment to a transparent process for
setting out the results of these consultations. You say you want the
public to engage in these consultations, but we are not sure how we are
being heard. To be frank, our community is very skeptical. This is
particularly critical, given the alarm expressed by experts, including
the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, about the skewed, one-sided way in
which the government—not the committee—has framed many of these national
security issues.
OpenMedia
is built on crowdsourcing the voices of our community to find the best
positive path forward. I believe in the power of community engagement,
but we need a commitment that our voices will not be ignored. What
assurances do we, the public, have that our voices are being heard and
that this is not an exercise in futility? We will not accept “Trust us”
as an answer. From Five Eyes information sharing to invasive StingRay
cellphone surveillance, accidental privacy breaches, and backdoor
encryption, we have consistently been shown that our digital information
is too vulnerable to be left to just trust. More important, we
shouldn't have to trust you. We should have laws to protect us and
safeguards to prevent abuse. We need real transparency, accountability,
and oversight.
On
behalf of the OpenMedia community, I challenge you to truly listen to
Canadians and save our security. Do not perpetuate a culture of fear.
Protect our charter rights and values, and reimagine a world where all
Canadians can use the Internet without fear of being watched.
As always, OpenMedia remains committed to delivering the voices of
Canadians to our decision-makers. We have done so here today, and we
look forward to discussing more with you in the future.
Thank you.
Thanks for your remarks.
While
I don't want to just resort to saying that the proof we are listening
is that we are here and I am taking copious notes, not just from what
you said but from everybody else who has been up at the mike, I do want
to address what I think is your second ask, namely oversight.
As somebody who appears to be studying the issue very closely, as a member of OpenMedia, you will have seen Bill C-22,
which would create, for the first time ever, a committee of
parliamentarians charged with oversight of the national security file.
Hopefully, that is demonstrative of some progress and advancement in at
least one of the areas you are concerned with.
Yes, oversight is a great first step and it's great to see that some
progress is being made on that, but the big concern we have is that Bill
C-51
introduced so many additional problems that all that oversight is
required. It's great to see that we're making progress, but all the
while, Bill C-51 is still on the books. That's really the number one
concern we're hearing from our community.
It's
almost a year to the date since election day. We were told changes
would happen. It's great to see that these consultations are taking
place, and we asked for them a year ago. We wanted these consultations
to happen. We want to be able to take the voices of the public and bring
them to the people who make the decisions.
At
the end of the day, we can say these things and that legislation is one
part and a tiny piece of the puzzle, but it's really hard for us to go
back to our community and assure them that it's still worth taking part
in these consultations.
They
are listening. What we're really looking for is a way to make sure that
people know that this isn't just going on the record, but that these
public proceedings will be disclosed to the public. How do they know
what you have heard? How do they know that the decisions you make
reflect the actual input you're getting from Canadians? A real concern
we're hearing from our community is that this is an exercise in
futility, and that it's already decided.
Chair,
with all due respect to my colleague, could we refrain from getting
into what borders on starting to justify things when we're talking about
legislation?
I could just say to everyone who says they want to repeal Bill C-51
that I agree with them. That's not helpful at all to the process, given
that we all represent different political points of view on this. It
will be my pleasure to do that every time, but I think we should avoid
that.
I
would advise all the committee that we're here more to listen. However,
you are asking us questions at times, so it is a little bit difficult. I
don't want to say, “Trust us”. We are listening. That's our job
tonight. When you do ask questions, we may come back to you with
questions, but it will be for clarification. I think that's a point well
taken.
Did you have a point or a question?
[Translation]
[English]
Thank
you. Anything you can do to ensure that all the consultations you have
with the public are transparent and put forward for open criticism would
be great.
Let
me just mention, too, that there is an online way of commenting on our
committee hearings for this particular study. We can also accept written
briefs. I believe my office has been in touch with someone. Is that
you?
Jake says I have another email from OpenMedia. We're happy to have
them. A formal brief coming into the committee will be considered as
well. It's very important for us to get them.
People tend to think that Parliament doesn't listen, but it's our bread and butter. That's what we're doing.
When
people submit those written submissions through your consultation
process, how can we the public see the other consultations that have
been submitted to know that we're not alone? I think that is the
question. How can I know that I'm not the one person who said this, and
that you won't come back and say that everyone else said something else?
How can we be guaranteed that we're able to interact with those
findings and consultations as well?
This
is a very personal one. I just did three town halls on electoral
reform, not this topic. The reason I do them sometimes is so that in a
meeting of 100 people we can hear that there are about 110 opinions. Our
job here is to make sure that we hear them all. You may not see
yourselves completely reflected back in our report, but believe me, you
will shape our report, as everybody will shape our report.
Ms. Damoff.
I
was just going to suggest that as this committee goes along you can
also follow the other testimony that we receive. It's all public. The
Hansard is printed.
As
we're looking at presenting a report, all of our meetings are open to
the public. You can follow them online. If you see us going in a certain
direction and you think we're missing something, by all means send in
further comment on it.
Everything that is said in this room is part of the transcript. It is
part of the Hansard, as we call it. It will be posted on our website, as
will all the written briefs, and everything else we get. It will all be
there.
Hi, I'm Maria, and I'm also here on behalf of OpenMedia. I manage
OpenMedia's social media accounts, and in that position I am exposed to a
lot of our community feedback and comments on a lot of our campaigning,
including Bill C-51.
In my role every day I hear Canadians ask me, “Why hasn't the government repealed Bill C-51 yet?” I have a simple question for you. Why hasn't the government done so already?
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
I
wasn't expecting to speak tonight. You'll notice that I did write my
submission on the back of an envelope, and I hope that won't be held
against the BC Civil Liberties Association because generally that's a
negative thing.
My
name is Josh Paterson, and I am a member of the public. I'm also, in my
day job, the executive director of the BC Civil Liberties Association.
I have a very few quick remarks that I want to add this evening.
First
of all, thank you so much for coming. As Ms. Tribe pointed out, we did
ask the Parliament to consult on this, and we're happy that Parliament
is consulting on this.
I
fear that you may see fewer people in the room than are concerned about
the issue. That could be a function of having only received notice the
Friday before Thanksgiving, and people really had only four working days
to even consider this. Groups like ours had four working days to try to
let people know what's happening, in addition to Parliament's efforts. I
don't make any comment on it other than to invite you to reflect that
there may not be as many people in the room or across the country as
have concerns about these issues.
The
other thing, too, is that these are very complex issues, whether it's
the government online consultation or this. When you say to a Canadian,
“What do you think about the national security framework?”, people have
feelings about it and people have concerns. It's quite a daunting thing
for a parent, or a retiree, or someone who is working, or someone who is
not working to put together a submission for a parliamentary committee.
I want to say quickly that our organization did call for the non-passsage of, and it now calls for the repeal of, Bill C-51.
I'm going to focus my remarks very quickly on one thing that isn't, by
the way, covered in the green paper—and I know that's not your
process—and it is the mass warrantless online surveillance by the
Communications Security Establishment.
Our
organization is the one that has brought the constitutional challenge
against the federal government for mass warrantless online surveillance.
While it was in the ministerial mandate letter to do something about
it, it's something we've heard very little about. The fact that it's not
covered at all in the green paper, and that there is no mention of
whether we should put warrants in place for mass online surveillance, is
of great concern to us.
Ministerial
authorizations right now, as many of you on the committee will know,
give the CSE the ability to intercept private communications without any
judicial oversight and without getting any authorization beyond the
elected politicians. It was confirmed this summer as part of the
evidence coming out in our case that, contrary to CSE's denials, or
saying that they weren't doing it, they were and have been collecting a
broad swath of information from Canadians on the Internet. They've been
sharing that with foreign agencies, and they have had screw-ups sharing
it with foreign agencies.
It's something that's of deep concern to us. We think it's really
important for this committee to be thoughtful about that and to look,
for example, to the example of the private member's bill from the last
Parliament as to the need for a warrant.
At
BCCLA, we don't say that there shouldn't be spying, and we don't say
that there shouldn't be national security agencies doing this kind of
work. What we're concerned about is how they do their work, and we're
concerned about the legal requirements around that. Here it is legal
requirement-free, and once the minister authorizes it, then it's a green
light, and they can carry on doing that in perpetuity or for quite a
long time.
Thank you for obliging me an extra 40 seconds. I appreciate that you've come, and I wish you luck in your deliberations.
We say that those are completely inadequate. That's the problem. In
fact, there have been ministerial authorizations for the collection of
data and metadata, and those are simply inadequate. That's one of the
nubs of our legal challenge—
Is
that because they aren't required to perform the same kind of balancing
exercise that a judicial officer would? Or is it for some other reason?
It's because, first of all, there's no transparency. It's because
there's no third independent party who is looking at a request from the
government to do something that actually violates the privacy rights of
Canadians in quite a major way. When the government or an agent of the
state asks for the ability to tap an individual's phone line or to go
into someone's sock drawer, they have to get a warrant and they need to
show reasonable and probable cause why they should get that.
That
requirement isn't made of governments at all when they say that they
don't want to tap just one person's communications, but that they want
to gather and share with foreign agencies everyone's communications. It
just doesn't make sense as a matter of principle. There's no evidence
that has been presented to us that it makes Canadians any safer that
ministers are able to do it without a judicial authorization, so we say
that it's inadequate.
Are there any other members who have a question before I ask one?
On
the concept of metadata, the gathering of large baskets of information
through that surveillance without warrants, the CSE is under the Minister of National Defence as opposed to the Minister of Public Safety.
The green paper has come from Public Safety. I'm not defending the
green paper—it's not my job—but what that does then tell me is that the
oversight of security needs to include not only the public safety
agencies, the CBSA, the RCMP, and CSIS, but also obviously the CSE, and
we may be moving into a different environment now.
Are
there any thoughts about that in terms of the oversight of these
agencies and the linkage—this would be a long conversation—of the
individual expert oversight of each of the bodies and then the
parliamentary oversight? Are there any thoughts on that new world that
we could be moving into?
We
have a range of thoughts on oversight issues that we share with some
other groups like Amnesty and the CCLA in Toronto, and we'd be happy to
provide that, but in a nutshell, we're very much concerned about that.
We're aware that the CSE is under a different ministry. Never mind that
the government has come forward and said “national security
consultations”, Canadians don't see which ministry is doing what, unless
the message is from Minister Goodale and not from Minister Sajjan. We see that as problematic.
In terms of the agencies themselves, it's been a long-standing concern
of ours that there are siloed oversight agencies for each. We've seen
instances where there is collaboration, and in fact, the movement is of
course towards collaboration. The agencies remain siloed.
We've said over and over, and many others have too, that there needs to
be a crossing over, and not just with a parliamentary committee that
will have the ability to look at all these agencies. There needs to be
what, in shorthand, people have been calling a “super-SIRC”, some staff
agency, an agency, not necessarily SIRC or the commissioner for CSE, but
an agency that will have the ability outside of the committee to have
oversight for integrated national security reasons where the RCMP, the
CBSA, CSIS, and everybody is participating. We say that there needs to
be a parliamentary committee. There needs to be a whole-of-government
national security apparatus oversight agency. Whether that's something
that sits on top of the existing ones or amalgamates them could be up
for discussion.
The
third thing that we say there needs to be in terms of oversight is very
much like what they have in the United Kingdom, which I know the chair
will be aware of, and probably some of the members will as well. That's
basically some sort of official who is independent from civil society
organizations and independent from government and who can make
recommendations as to how national security law ought to evolve.
We're always at a disadvantage. We don't know what's going on with
these secret agencies. Parliamentarians don't even know in a lot of
cases, and there may be very good reasons, for example, why the
government has chosen to do a certain thing, but from the outside we
don't know what those reasons are.
In
the United Kingdom they have an agent who I think is an officer of
Parliament. I'm not sure what the construction is, but I believe he's an
officer of Parliament, and his job is to be able to know all of those
things and to make thoughtful and constructive recommendations as to
legal changes needed where others wouldn't have the benefit of that
knowledge. We think that's an important feature as well—
Yes,
something like that. That's been suggested by many people and it's
agreed by professors Roach and Forcese and others. That's what we would
see.
Thank
you very much for allowing me to speak. My name is Judy Hanazawa, and
I'm the chair of the human rights committee of the Greater Vancouver
Japanese Canadian Citizens' Association. We're members of the National
Association of Japanese Canadians.
I'm going to read a little bit from the national association's press release regarding Bill C-51:
In 1942 the Canadian government used the War Measures Act to
forcibly displace 22,000 Canadians of Japanese ancestry to internment
and labour camps and deported over 4,000 to Japan after the War—many who
were born in Canada. Public safety and “perceived insurrection” were
the reasons given for this extraordinary violation of human rights and
citizenship at that time. Bill C-51 allows the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service to arrest those who “may” carry out an act of
terrorism. Currently law enforcement agencies can carry out an arrest if
they believe that an act of terrorism “will” be carried out. In
addition, those who are seen in the eyes of the Government as
threatening the “economic or financial stability of Canada”—such as
those who engage in non-violent, environmental civil disobedience—fall
under the proposed Anti-Terrorism Bill.
I know that it's become an act since this was written.
Further to this at the time of the redress for Japanese Canadians in
1988 the Prime Minister of the day said that no further violations of
this kind will be visited upon any other Canadian of any kind.
I'm speaking today after hearing the various concerns about Bill C-51 to focus mainly on the issue of race, and how the issue of racism does play into this.
As
an organization and as a community that has gone through internment
we've made a decision as a national community to reach out to other
communities that may be facing injustice, or displacement, or other
violations of human rights. We've reached out to welcome Canadians, and
we've certainly heard the day-to-day realities of the kinds of rights
infringements that happen to persons of Muslim ancestry and Muslim
beliefs. In the same way that race has affected our history it is very
much there, as has been said before. I'd like to point this out when
looking at the groundwork needed to address security issues in Canada.
We are looking at the radicalization of youth. There will not be any
kind of reaching in to look at the social issues that affect young
people today who may be of Muslim or Islamic-based background who may be
considered security risks.
In this environment, where Bill C-51
can pick up people and detain them without their right of defence, and
without the use of the regular law enforcement system, I believe that
rather than allowing for some way of healing terrorism it will drive it
underground. I think that—as with other youths of other communities of
colour, our first nations youth—the sense of alienation from Canada is
very much present among Muslim youth. That needs to be addressed not
because of radicalization, but because this is a matter of race as much
as anything else. I ask you to look at this matter as a very major
factor in why the bill was developed. As much as colour represents a
violation of general rights for Canadians it's very much a matter of
concern to us as a community that has gone through a violation. Can I
ask you to please consider that?
Thank you.
Hello.
My name is Joe Bowser. I'm speaking here today as a private citizen and
as someone who recently dealt with the full prior surveillance powers
of most of the agencies of Public Safety Canada, and probably the CSE as
well, although I'll never get confirmation of that.
First of all, I want to have it on record that I'm against the measures introduced in Bill C-51,
of course. I'm also against the new proposed measures mentioned in the
green paper. That would include compelling passwords at the border as
well as data retention as well as back doors to encryption.
I'm
actually here today to talk about accountability when our rights are
actually violated; how just random Canadians, anyone with a cellphone,
can actually have their rights violated; and about how law enforcement
deals with actual technology to keep up with the digital world.
One
recent thing that keeps popping up in the news, over and over again, is
the technology. This box is called the StingRay. In case you're not
aware, a StingRay is a device that law enforcement and intelligence
communities can use to actually get your IMSI number, which is unique to
your phone and your SIM card. It can identify you. Of course, once you
have the IMSI, then you can go the telephone provider and say, “I want
to know whose IMSI this is”. They can provide you all the basic metadata
information, as well as probably all their Internet data, and you can
actually pinpoint, using this device, when and where people are.
In
once instance, Corrections Canada had one on a prison. They cracked
down on illegal cellphones that had been smuggled in. They wanted to
make sure no one had cellphones. But a farmer next door also got caught
in it. The big problem with these cell towers is that they're fake. If
the farmer had to call 911, he'd be in big trouble. It wouldn't work.
The call wouldn't actually go through. It would probably reset, he'd
have to dial again, and then it would go through. That's two seconds
more that the person would have to deal with, where 911 doesn't work.
Think about that.
Now,
let's say you see something at the art gallery while you're in
Vancouver. You see one of the many protests here—like the one outside,
where you can hear them chant “Stop Bill C-51”—and
let's say you want to check it out. You have, of course, the RCMP with
their StingRay out trying to just collect data, to see who's there, as
well as to surveil the crowd. You know, they gather some data. They see
some people they're interested in. They know the people who are there,
so they grab all that IMSI data and then they try to weed out whose
IMSIs are what, based on their intelligence. Then they go and surveil
them, steal their trash, and do all the other regular normal stuff that
police do.
The
thing is that if you're under surveillance, even if you're not doing
anything illegal or wrong, and even if you don't get arrested, it still
affects your life. You're definitely way more paranoid than you were
before, especially since you don't have any recourse to know if you ever
were under surveillance. There's no way of finding out. There's also no
way for the public to actually talk about these technologies or confirm
that they were ever being used.
The
way the laws are written in Canada is that the onus, the power, is
entirely in law enforcement. Even though the criminals already know how
to get past the StingRay—it's old technology from 2008—the public
doesn't know. Criminals can just get another SIM card or whatever and
just bypass this technology. But the public, they don't know. They just
don't. They'll keep on getting picked up by the IMSI and they'll keep on
getting their data surveilled.
The
IMSI is unique to everybody's cellphone. If you have a cellphone, you
have an IMSI. It can be picked up by a device that's in the back of a
van with some antennas. This device isn't actually registered with
Industry Canada, so that's technically illegal as well, although I'm
sure there's a warrant to get around that.
We're at the end of the time.
Do committee members have any questions? No?
Thank you very much.
John Taylor.
I'd like to speak on a couple of issues that I feel strongly about.
John
Taylor is the fifth most common name in North America, and I can assure
you, some of them are on the no-fly list. Whenever I go to the airport,
it's hard to get through the guards. Now I've learned to overcome the
barriers by having, first, a frequent flyer plan so that they can go
back and check to see if I'm the right person. Secondly, I use my
father's first name as my middle name on the ticket, and it's very
unusual, so that I stand out and I don't look like all those other
people on the no-fly list.
I
often wonder, how do they make up that list? Everything I've read in
the papers on it has said, well, that's a big secret. “The U.S. doesn't
release that information, and we use their lists automatically because
so many of our flights go into the U.S.”
It
gets to be a real serious problem when you start thinking about who the
U.S. would put on there. First of all, I guess it's anyone who's
committed a felony, which would be half of the black males in the U.S.
Many of them get arrested because, in most of the southern states,
anyone with a felony record cannot vote. We're sort of perpetuating that
by honouring it. I think there's a moral issue involved in that.
I
often wonder about our own first nations people. Are they affected by
the no-fly list? Many of them, maybe in their youth, may have been
arrested or been charged. We've read reports that they outnumber just
about everyone else in our prison system.
I feel uncomfortable with a no-fly list. I wish there was some way that
it could be cleaned up, and that there would be an appeal. We could
hire a lawyer to go in there and find out just exactly why we're on it
and what the problem is, and that sort of thing. Apparently, nothing can
be done under the present system, both in the U.S. and in Canada.
The
second issue that I'm concerned about is the lack of accountability,
supervision, of these big spy agencies. We have the example of the FBI
in the U.S., which was under the control of J. Edgar Hoover for most of
his lifetime. His tactic to keep control was to spy on all elected
members of Congress, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and such,
so that he never had any problem getting his budget increased every
year. Anyone who came up with ideas of a reform was immediately shown
their file. He had complete details on the things that they didn't want
revealed about them, that they'd rather not let the public know.
It looks like we could run into that position, if the U.S. is any
indication that it can be done. I would say we have only a couple of
years to put those accountability issues into place to protect
Parliament and the population at large. Such a system can be very abused
when it's basically an alternative government. A very powerful
individual has the goods on everyone.
I think that's a major issue that we have to deal with, not because of
what everyone else has been talking about, the accountability, the
proper subpoenas, and things like that, but simply as a matter of
self-preservation for our country. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Taylor.
Regarding
the no-fly list, as a member of Parliament, I've had a number of people
come to me who have had problems like you've had. I know at least two
or three of them, who I talked to after the fact, and once we made the
proper authorities aware of it—and I don't know exactly what they
did—people didn't have any trouble travelling after that.
I would encourage you to talk to your member of Parliament, or anyone
else that you'd like, and I think there's a good chance that it may not
happen again. I couldn't imagine being on the list, but I know some of
the frustrations that some of my own constituents have told me about.
I certainly believe you, and I would encourage you to contact your member of Parliament. He or she may be able to help you.
I'm Maurice Mills. I'm the second vice-president of Unifor Local 114 of
New Westminister. I'm also the B.C. coordinator of the safe as our
cargo campaign. I represent workers in the armoured car industry. The
mandate of this committee is very broad and covers basically anything
that includes the lives and the security of the people of Canada. Public
safety, policing, and law enforcement come under the mandate of the
committee.
In
the armoured car industry, there is no national standard. Many of the
members of Parliament with whom I've spoken are surprised to hear that.
The armoured car people are the only Canadians without peace officer
status that carry firearms in public. There have been 15 publicly
reported armoured car robberies in Canada since 2012. There are others,
but we are only counting the ones here that are publicly reported. We
have a myriad of permits and security clearances. I am cleared by the
RCMP and by Transport Canada to go to the airport or the port. I have a
federal government clearance. I'm not sure if CSIS is involved in that
or not. I've been cleared by the FBI. I can go into the United States. I
have a transportation workers' identification credential to go to the
restricted area of any port in the United States. Oddly enough, if you
have a FAST pass or a NEXUS pass you've also been investigated by the
FBI, as well as the RCMP. I have to declare to customs as a transporter
when I transport across international boundaries an amount over $10,000.
Again,
my concern is, what is happening with all that information? Normal
everyday citizens with a FAST or a NEXUS pass are going to have almost
that same level of scrutiny. Where does that go? How long is it held?
Nobody seems to know. One of the things we'd like to see is this bill
repealed because the amount of information that is gathered from
ordinary Canadians far exceeds what I think would be the norm in almost
every situation.
I will conclude with one final plug. There is a bill before the house, Bill C-285,
the national standards for the armoured transport of currency and
valuables act, and I would ask you to give your support to the bill, as
an aside.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
For clarification, since I didn't quite get the answer, you were saying that there were how many robberies?
There
were 15 publicly reported robberies. I could probably send you a
document the union has prepared. It would be a reference to a news
article of each robbery by way of third party verification.
I
have a NEXUS card. You mentioned that the U.S. has investigated it. A
NEXUS card for anyone who doesn't know, is used when you go to the
airport. It has already put you through a high-security screening
process. My wife has one as well. Are you saying or implying that they
go through something over and above regular screening of me? I have
nothing to hide obviously or I wouldn't get a NEXUS card.
That
came about when I was talking to one of the agents in Blaine, when you
had to go down to Blaine to get your NEXUS card. I had already given my
fingerprints, and so on, in Canada and the representative in Blaine
said, “Now we're going to take your fingerprints and send them off to
the FBI.” I thought, "Oh great, another three months I have to wait
while I'm getting a clearance.” He put some grease on my fingers, put me
on the computer screen, and transmitted them. In about a minute he
said, “Yes, you're good”, and printed me off a pass. That was some years
ago. I've renewed it, I think, twice since then, but that's where that
comment came from. It was an agent in Blaine who told me that they
actually screened you through the FBI.
First of all, I'm proud to say I was one of those people picketing outside here against Bill C-51.
The working group to oppose Bill C-51 was established shortly after the
introduction of that bill into Parliament. At that time, we said to
“stop” Bill C-51; after its adoption, we changed it to “appeal” Bill
C-51.
It's
our view, and it always has been, that there is no place for this kind
of legislation in Canada. It is police state legislation. It has nothing
to do with security or opposing terrorism.
This
kind of legislation, which was introduced by the Conservatives and
supported by the Liberals, has also been brought in by various allies of
the United States in Europe and other parts of the world.
The
United States is the biggest source of terrorism internationally and
inside the United States. Right from the early days of the labour
movement in the United States, terrorist methods have been used to
suppress worker strikes, to kill, assassinate, or lay trumped-up charges
against union leaders. The black people of the United States have been
subject to lynchings, mass murder, and what we see today going on with
police murders with impunity.
This
is the kind of government, the United States...and then, of course,
internationally with the destabilization of various governments, and the
organization of coups throughout Latin America over the last several
dozen years. The United States is the only country that ever dropped
nuclear weapons in time of war, and so on. The false accusation of
weapons of mass destruction was used in Iraq to attempt to justify the
invasion there. The accusations against Gadhafi, and now Assad, and on
and on, all these are pretexts to launch invasions and to bring about
regime change.
If
we want to put an end to terrorism, Canada can make a contribution by
immediately withdrawing from NATO and breaking with the U.S. military
industrial complex.
Thank you.
Hello.
Thank you for holding this. I'm very confident you would see a lot more
people here if there was more advance notice. I'm really grateful to
everybody who did show up. I thank all of you. I only heard about this
today.
I think the whole premise of Bill C-51
is based on the idea that we're under threat of terrorism, which I
think is ludicrous on its face in the first place. I think the whole
thing is based on the fact that we went in on this aggressive military
act in the Middle East following the U.S., and it was a mistake, and as a
result we drew aggression towards us. The fact that we have this bill
now to try to combat something that we drew upon ourselves, and
overreaches what is necessary and what is sane, is ludicrous.
Whatever
kind of demographic you may ascribe to me personally in terms of age or
gender, I want you to understand that I'm representing everybody I
know, because there's not a single person who supports this. This bill
is poison. It's completely useless. It's far over the top. We're not
under threat of terrorism.
I
support a full repeal. I don't think you can pick and choose. I don't
think it's adequate. I don't think it accurately addresses the actual
concerns that we have going forward in the future. All the wonderful
points by the people brought out from OpenMedia are absolutely accurate.
You cannot guarantee the security of devices when you build in back
doors. You can't have laws in Canada where you can lock up people who do
peaceful environmental protests. You can't do that. We're not going to
support this, and we're going to continue fighting to have a full
repeal.
There's not one of us. Is there anybody here who is in support of Bill C-51?
What is the ratio of people you have met who support this versus those
who do not? I mean real people, not friends, not family, but
constituents. I've never met a single person in Canada or abroad who
supports Bill C-51.
That's it. Thank you.
I'm not very well prepared because I only found out about the hearings this morning and I've been working all day.
I
want to speak about the issue of accountability and the lack of expert
oversight...CSEC, CSIS, the RCMP, all of the agencies working together
as they would under Bill C-51, and as they have been.
I'm
fairly new to understanding the importance of intelligence in making a
country safe because, as many people of my background, politics has not
been in the forefront. Once I started learning about what was really
happening in Canada, I became very alarmed. What really opened up my
eyes was the layoff of Eva Plunkett. She was the inspector general of
CSIS, and Mr. Harper laid her off with no excuse, other than he wanted
to save a million dollars. He would save a million dollars by laying her
off. Well, officially she retired, but he closed the department. That
was expert oversight of CSIS.
All
that was left were Mickey Mouse SIRC committees with questionable
leaders, one who actually was working for an oil company, Chuck Strahl. I
have lost all trust that our spy agency CSIS is really working the way
it should.
One
of the reasons that Eva Plunkett was let go is because she was critical
of CSIS. She provided reports that raised questions that were not taken
very willingly by the government at the time.
We've had four years without expert oversight of our spy agency. We talk about Bill C-51
and all the problems there—and are there ever a lot of problems. Nobody
is even talking about the fact that nobody is really looking after
CSIS, and that's one major cog in this wheel.
I want to know if the Trudeau
government is going to reinstate the inspector general office; if they
are going to respectfully request the services of Eva Plunkett, who was
extremely knowledgeable about what was going on there; and if they can
be on top of looking at the problems in Bill C-51, of looking at what's really been going on over the past four years.
I'm
afraid we're not the people to ask that question to, but certainly the
whole issue of expert oversight is part of our mandate. The actual
person, or the office, or the way it's done may be somebody else's, but
we certainly take that as advice.
I'm scared. I think that Bill C-51
is dangerous. It's going to be used as an excuse to do things that
Canadians don't really want to see done in the name of protection, but
it's actually for a certain kind of misuse of power.
Thank you very much.
Hi. I appreciate your time and the chance to be here.
I'm
a private citizen. I'm now retired. I used to work for each of the
largest telephone companies in Canada. I had dealings with CSIS. They
always needed a warrant. Of course, I've been retired for a while.
I'd
ask the committee to remember why CSIS was created. CSIS was created
because it was seen that it was really dangerous to have a police agency
that had intelligence power. CSIS was created as a separate entity to
take that away from the RCMP. Bill C-51
gives police powers back to CSIS. If you don't see why that is
dangerous, then you really need to do some reading. You need to
understand what all the privacy commissioners in Canada have said and
why they oppose this bill.
Right
from the start they opposed this bill. A couple of hundred legal
academics opposed it. Almost every other former prime minister opposed
it. The only people that I could see who were for it were the spooks and
the people in the Harper government who saw a chance to take advantage
of a terrible incident and bring in these really draconian powers on the
part of CSIS.
I
have a couple of suggestions. One suggestion is that if you want more
information about the danger of trying to put back doors into
encryption, then take a look at the writings of Dr. Bruce Schneier. He
has a much-read blog. He's a very well-respected part of the information
security community. He's at Schneier.com. You'll get a lot of really
good information there about the dangers of trying to put back doors
into encryption and why it's a danger to our economy to do that. If you
removed encryption, then many businesses would fail.
Another
suggestion I have is about this idea of CSIS going before a judge to
get a warrant. Although it doesn't appear to be happening, that's very
troubling. When CSIS does go before a judge to get a warrant, there's
nobody representing the other side. CSIS on their own makes the decision
of whether they should go for a warrant. Then they're the only ones
presenting information to the judge. I think you need to involve the
privacy commissioners or somebody like that to provide a counterbalance
for what CSIS is requesting.
The
privacy commissioners are a resource in the country that I think you're
not utilizing. Your government is not utilizing that resource with
respect to CSIS.
I can go on for a long time, but I don't think we have much more time.
My name is Letchumanapihai Pathmayohan. Thanks for the opportunity to
come here to speak. I saw this today in the newspaper so I thought of
coming after I read about it.
As
for the reason I'm here, I have been here in Canada for more than a
quarter-century. I came from a war-torn country. I should say now that
there's genocide in that country against Tamil people. When Bill C-51
came to be implemented, before that, what was happening in our
community is that we were unable to bring our political matters,
political issues, to the mainstream media or to the Canadian
policy-makers, because we became like [Inaudible—Editor] We
didn't know how to express that to the Canadian government, the
policy-makers, the decision-makers, or the embassy, and we always were
seeing scary things and fear tactics. We couldn't speak and we couldn't
tell the truth.
When we came here, we thought that Canada had such freedom of speech
and freedom of assembly all over the country. I really appreciate the
Charter of Rights of Canada, which we don't have back home in my old
country. We don't have any human rights there, and there is no Amnesty
International. We came from that kind of country. We came here and our
sovereignty.... We are free to bring these matters to the politicians,
the decision-makers.
All of it it is under threat from all the terrorists, so we are going
to be afraid to come forward and speak out. The majority went into the
closet, even the educators and economic intelligentsia; they all went
quietly. Mostly, it's keep your mouth shut. They want to go to work and
they don't want to talk about these things. That disappears. The scary
part is to speak out. That's what I am here to tell the committee. We
had to work politically, in a political manner, and how did we want to
bring it if we had this kind of a fear thing? Also, it brings the
freedom fighters. The terrorists came, and they never consulted with the
community people or the members in a due process as to whether it was
the right thing they were doing or wrong. The people were defenceless,
because we came from a troubled country. That sense of [Inaudible—Editor] does not exist here, I believe.
In
Toronto, they have a lot of communities, quite a few. There is a large
number of Tamil communities, but in Vancouver, we are all scattered. We
are quite a few, I guess. That's what my sense of it is. Thanks for
giving me the opportunity to speak today.
Thank you.
I
only found out about this today, so I didn't have much time to
research. I quickly googled this before I got here to figure out as much
as I could and to be as informed as possible. I didn't come for the
meeting beforehand [Inaudible—Editor].
There were a few things that I thought were really weird about Bill C-51.
One was that the agency in charge of overviewing them and making sure
they do everything right, which I think was SIRC or something like
that—the Security Intelligence Review Committee, if I recall
correctly—said that before they even got policing powers, CSIS, they had
trouble overviewing them and making sure they were doing everything
right. There were some things going on that were kind of like, oh, you
shouldn't be doing that. Now that they have a lot of policing power
that's very vaguely defined so that they can do not everything they want
against terrorism, but almost anything, then there's not going to be a
lot of oversight in making sure they're doing things properly and not
overstepping their boundaries, which is bad.
The
second thing is about the no-fly list. I found out that to be put on
the no-fly list there's not really very much of a requirement, other
than I think “reasonable grounds to suspect” someone. To get off the
no-fly list involves going to court, but the court proceedings can be
held in secret, so the person who wants to get off the no-fly list, the
public, and that person's lawyer can't hear the evidence about why CSIS
says no, to keep them on the no-fly list. You could say “why am I on the
no-fly list?”, and you could say that you want to repeal that. You go
to court, court happens, and the judge says, “Okay, I've heard the
evidence and I've made my decision, and you just stay on the no-fly
list.” When you ask why, they say they can't tell you because that's
secret. That's kind of shady. That's really weird.
Those are my concerns. That's about all.
First of all, I am a guest in this land, and I am a non-citizen,
non-PR, who has been living here for a decade. I acknowledge that I am
in the first place excluded from the consideration and from the
conversation by being non-Canadian. At the same time, I'm deeply
concerned by this whole issue and I have been following it since I am
living here.
I'm
also an artist, and I have been prevented from gaining more legal or
political ground in this land by being an artist, because that isn't
really in line with the economic security that the nation is going for.
A
few years ago, I made a piece of artwork focusing on the lone wolf
terrorist and also the online predator issues, which I was dealing with
after some public shows. Then what happened is, unfortunately, I
experienced some incidents that were violating my privacy very
profoundly. Then I realized that the existence of this anti-terrorism
bill might account for this unexplained act of destruction.
I'm
here to talk about the goal of the imagination that is implicated in
this law. I have actually become very interested in this issue since
then. I saw a video of the Minister of Public Safety talking about the lone wolf terrorist issue, defending against the criticism of Bill C-51.
He said the copycat mentality is very dangerous and we have to go to
the roots of these people and disrupt them. I couldn't quite grasp what
that really meant and it gave me a deep chill actually.
I
couldn't stop thinking that it is the law that proves the state's
privilege to imagine and to impose the imagined narrative on people at
the risk of their actual safety and freedom of mobility and freedom of
expression. My biggest concern is that this logic is being normalized
and perpetrated while the group of people who are the most vulnerable
and unprotected and barred from their legal rights are being kept from
and excluded from the issues of the rights and their actual safety as
this issue of nationalism is being perpetrated in a binary way, of
Canadians and non-Canadians. I'm also speaking on behalf of all the
people who are racially discriminated against and who have to go through
that in their life. That was my argument.
Also,
I recently saw a diagram showing the threat level of terrorism. As many
who have spoken previously said, many people do not agree with this
law. This diagram was designed for people like me who don't really have
enough time to go through the long letters of the laws. It very simply
described medium and low and high levels of threats and showed that
Canada's threat level was medium. It's almost like this kitchen science
logic that is easy for people to understand and keeps trying to convince
people who don't really agree with it.
I'm
just questioning this normal imagination or convincing process of
creating those contents to convince people who are not really agreeing
with this law.
Thank you, and thank you for having my voice heard.
I'm Joseph Theriault. I'm a long-time political activist and a
candidate for the Marxist-Leninist Party in New Westminster—Burnaby in
the federal elections. I would like to bring up the issue that, as you
can hear, many people do not have faith in the process of consultations,
both on this issue and on many other issues that the Liberals are
using. If you recall the federal election, a major part of the election
was opposition to Bill C-51.
The Liberals during the election had promised that they would
immediately pass legislation to put into place oversight and
accountability on the bill, and as this is the first anniversary of
their coming to power, there's been no sign of that.
The
reference to oversight has disappeared, and they're now talking about
evaluations. The committee they're proposing to evaluate are going to be
sworn to secrecy, and they can't give any information on things they
know, so we have people who can only evaluate. If they evaluate and find
out anything, then they aren't able to share it with the Canadian
polity, which is, you could say, a part of a police state situation.
The
green paper they published doesn't talk about security and rights, but
it diverts the whole discussion to the question of combatting extremist
terrorism and using that to say they need to have exceptional measures
outside the rule of law to be able to make it safe. They want to enact
this impunity supposedly in the name of defending us, but when you come
down to it, what we will have left is a government.... They're trying to
say that after this legislation, we'll have a government of laws, but
we're left with unfettered police powers that remain for any of the
former public authorities. I'm very concerned.
This
process is eliminating the accountability of the government to the
Canadian public. We're asked to be able to trust these guys, but without
any information, and they are allowed to carry on.
I'm
70 years old, and I was active in the sixties and seventies when the
War Measures Act was brought in. As life unfolded, evidence came out
that you had agents operating within the FLQ, with people like Corporal
Samson, etc. You had the RCMP violating laws, burning bridges, burning
barns, and disrupting political movements. This was indeed the rationale
for the creation of CSIS, to separate those powers. That's all gone
aside, you have very small consultations, and supposedly these emails
and twitters are counted as feedback. Basically, it's a fraud. We need
to have the bill repealed, and we need to have the question of national
security dealt with by empowering the people to be able to make their
police force and the government accountable, which is the opposite of
what we have now.
Good evening.
I
didn't know about this until the last minute, and hence my comments may
be a bit scattered. Like many, many people have mentioned here, a lot
of people are strongly against Bill C-51, and yet very, very few...I don't know of anybody who knew about this. I just found out literally today.
There's
an elephant in the room, an elephant that almost never gets addressed.
It has to be addressed. May I ask, please, all of you here who I'm
addressing, how many of you know what a false flag operation is? Could I
ask that you raise your hand so I could know?
Okay,
well, you're about to learn, “it may... [be] difficult to fashion a
consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a
truly massive and widely perceived...external threat”. That was by
Zbigniew Brzezinski, a big player in politics.
“
Today Americans would be outraged if troops entered LA; tomorrow
they'll be grateful. This is especially true if they were told that
there was a threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated”—that's the
key word—“which threatened their very existence. It is then that people
will plead with their leaders to deliver them from this evil, and
individual rights will be willingly relinquished.” That's Henry
Kissinger, another big player in politics.
“The truth...is...the plans are there...in the name of stopping
terrorism...invoke the military and arrest Americans”—and presumably,
Canadians—“and hold them in detention camps.” Congressman Henry Gonzalez
said that in 1988.
The
elephant in the room that I'm speaking about is false flag operations. I
would suggest, please, if you don't know what it is, study it and study
it, and investigate it, because it is the oldest trick in the book. So
much of what we hear about the t-word.... It used to be the c-word,
communism, the big bogeyman, and now it's the t-word. Please, I ask you
to understand, terrorism is a growth industry. Who profits from the war
on terror? The banksters, the military industrial complex, the elites
who are running this world at the CFR.
Please open your eyes to what is really happening there. These are the
people who profit from phony terrorism. If you think everything that's
delivered to you on CBC, which is corporate controlled.... It's
completely controlled media now, everywhere, even the CIA. William Colby
said that anybody who has any influence in media is controlled. It's a
rigged game. If you think, when you watch television, that the latest
horrible event is true to form, please question and investigate that.
Investigate it like your life depends on it, your family's life depends
on it, and your country's future depends on it.
Nothing
kills democracy, freedom, and truth, and implements agendas, like false
flag operations. History is littered with them. Please, I beg you, if
you don't know them, then you better study them. They've been happening
throughout history, and they're happening up until today. That is the
guise under which Bill C-51,
and all other draconian measures leading to a Big Brother security
state, which is not security at all but a police state, can literally
decimate our country and our sovereignty. This is your duty. You must
know what this term is about. Any time you're told that such and such an
act has happened, you are obliged to investigate it and not just take
it at face value from what the propaganda says in the National Post and the CBC, and all the others.
Thank you.
Thank you. You didn't sound unprepared, just let me tell you that.
The last one we have now is Kathy Shimizu.
Hi, my name is Kathy Shimizu. I'm also not very.... I was very prepared, but I think now I'm not very prepared.
I
just wanted to speak because I'm also a member of the Greater Vancouver
Japanese Canadian Citizens’ Association human rights committee. I'm a
Sansei—I'm a third generation Japanese Canadian—and both my parents and
their families were interned during the Second World War. So I ask you
to repeal Bill C-51, which I guess is now a law, along with Bill C-24.
The
rights of Canadians have been violated in the past, and this law is the
same. It goes down that road, and it's dangerous to the rights of all
Canadians. Bill C-51
is not needed because the Criminal Code covers all of the illegal
activities that it purports to help us fight. If people are doing
illegal activities in Canada, the Criminal Code covers this. You don't
need this. As other people have said, this is draconian. It's about
racism, and it's about fearmongering, and I ask you to learn from
history. Don't make the mistakes of the past.
As
a Japanese Canadian I am proud of my heritage and the Government of
Canada has already acknowledged that it was a totally wrong act to
imprison its own citizens. This kind of bill leads to the same kinds of
things, and I ask you to stand on the right side freedom and the rights
of all Canadians.
Thank you.
First of all, thank you very much for sharing that with us.
I just wanted to let you know that with regard to Bill C-24,
the House of Commons did pass it on third reading, so it is in the
Senate right now being debated. That's just a matter of clarification
for you.
Before we close I do have a question for you gentlemen, especially to Mr. MP Liberal Prosecutor.
Why have you, as a prosecutor, as a Canadian, never followed up on your
sworn responsibility to ensure that the fraud perpetrated by the
Liberals more than 42 years ago, giving the Bank of Canada away, putting
Canadians into $1.3 billion in debt—
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. John West: I will have my final word, sir—
I
want to thank everybody for attending tonight, and want to thank you
for your really very civil and helpful comments, they are going to fuel
our work. This is early in the process, and the committee will be taking
its time. You have flagged issues for us, and that helps us set our
work agenda. This is not the end of the story, it's the beginning of the
story.
I
want to thank you for taking your time. I want to let you know as well
that there were protestors outside, I invited them in, I'm glad you were
here, I wish they had come in too because it's very important that we
keep doing this. So thank you for being here, and I wish you all the
very best.
A voice: They were here and made presentations.
The Chair: So someone did come in.
Mr. John West: You had the last word, you're a fraud, you're a sellout to this nation.
The Chair: This meeting is adjourned
No comments:
Post a Comment