In all thy kids command: Canada's political families
While they’re not as famous (nor successful) as in the U.S., there is no shortage of political families in Canada
Pierre Trudeau is saluted by RCMP Officer as he carries son Justin to Rideau Hall in 1973 to attend an outdoor reception for visiting heads of the Commonwealth countries in Ottawa.(Peter Bregg/CP)
Geoff Regan’s last name might have given him a boost when he won his first election in 1993. Regan is the MP for Halifax West, a former federal fisheries minister who hopes to win an eighth term in office later this year as part of Justin Trudeau’s Liberals. Geoff is also the son of former Nova Scotia premier Gerald, himself a cabinet minister when another Trudeau was prime minister. Dad’s advice meant Geoff “picked up a few pointers over the years around the dinner table,” and that last name offered the younger Regan a dose of recognition when he sought his party’s nomination. “Liberals believed it would help at the ballot box, which I think it did,” he says. Still, Regan took nothing for granted. “It was also important that I demonstrated to other party volunteers, over the 18 or 19 years prior to ’93, that I was a hard worker and happy to wash car windshields, put up posters, stack chairs, build signs, or do whatever else I was asked to do.”
Related: Beyond Bush and Clinton, America’s politics have become a family affair
Regan
is one of myriad sons and daughters of Canadian political families—kids
who learn the ropes by watching their parents and who aspire to similar
success. While not as well known as America’s dominant political
dynasties, examples can be found in most council chambers and
legislative assemblies across the land. Just look at a list of former
premiers: W.A.C. Bennett, British Columbia’s longtime Social Credit
premier, gave way to his son, Bill. Hugh Flemming followed his dad,
James, in New Brunswick. In Prince Edward Island, Robert Ghiz came after
Joe. Both Pierre-Marc Johnson and his brother, Daniel, served stints as
Quebec premier, an office held by their father, Daniel, Sr. None
represented the same political party. Rachel Notley,
Alberta’s brand-new premier, is the daughter of Grant, a leader of the
provincial New Democrats—never premier, but very popular—until his death
in 1984.
Regan’s colleagues in the House of Commons include Dominic LeBlanc, the son of the late governor general Roméo LeBlanc, and Peter MacKay, the Nova Scotian conservative whose father, Elmer, faithfully served in Brian Mulroney’s cabinet. The elder MacKay’s Tory colleague, Robert Layton, was the father of former NDP leader Jack. Jack’s son, Mike, is a Toronto city councillor. And there’s another Mike with an infamous last name making his mark on Toronto’s municipal scene: the school trustee whose surname is Ford.
These
sons and daughters span the political spectrum. Much divides them, but
the most ambitious have shared mostly the same fate: failing in their
bids to become prime minister. Preston Manning, the father of the Reform
movement and son of generational Alberta premier Ernest, couldn’t
topple Jean Chrétien’s Liberals in two tries. Jack Layton’s four
elections as leader came closer each time, but still fell short. The
lone exception is former prime minister Paul Martin, whose father lost
three campaigns for the Liberal leadership and who served as a cabinet
minister for parts of three decades.
Canadian political families may be unique in this leadership drought. Former U.S. presidents John Adams and George Bush both paved the way for their nearly identically named sons. The Nehru-Gandhi family is legendary in India. In Japan, where prominent families dominate the upper echelons of politics, prime ministers seem predestined based on their bloodlines. Yukio Hatoyama, the country’s prime minister in 2009-10, followed grandfather Ichiro, who’d served the same role from 1954 to 1956. Nobusuke Kishi, Ichiro’s successor, is the grandfather of current Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. And Abe’s predecessor, Junichiro Koizumi, was grandson of Koizumi Matajiro, a prominent Japanese politician until shortly after the end of the Second World War.
Political
scientists have a hard time explaining why no prime ministerial
offspring has risen to the ultimate job. The University of British
Columbia’s Fred Cutler, a specialist in political behaviour, cheekily
suggests that no one has ever surveyed voters about the likelihood that
they’ll vote for candidates based on the records of their powerful
parents. Stewart Hyson, a University of New Brunswick professor based in
the same province as the powerful Irving family, says the business
world lends itself to family dynasties more easily than politics does.
“It is relatively easy for an entrepreneur to pass on some financial
responsibilities to family members and to nurture them,” he says. “In
politics, although being part of a political family can be a benefit, it
is ultimately necessary to carve one’s own base of popular support.”
It’s now up to the younger Trudeau, the beneficiary of what’s indisputably a household name, and the latest in a long line of political kids who’ve grown up hungry for power, to prove that a famous parent isn’t the kiss of death for a wannabe prime minister.
Auto: RE Ottawa residents on both sides of the truck convoy protests tell us what's changed 1 year later Deja Vu Anyone???
keepcanada<keepcanada@protonmail.com> | Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 10:49 AM |
| To: david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com | |
Your
amazing Canada, thank you so much. We have added this link to organize
helpers! If you are wanting to help please fill out a form so we can
delegate loglogistic and location!! Freedom together ! Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. | |
Ministerial Correspondence Unit - Justice Canada<mcu@justice.gc.ca> | Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 10:51 AM |
| To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> | |
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.
Nous ne répondons pas à la correspondance contenant un langage offensant. | |
Premier of Ontario | Premier ministre de l’Ontario<Premier@ontario.ca> | Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 10:53 AM |
| To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> | |
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. | |
Premier<PREMIER@novascotia.ca> | Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 10:51 AM |
| To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> | |
Thank you for your email to Premier Houston. This is an automatic confirmation your message has been received. | |
Office of the Premier<scott.moe@gov.sk.ca> | Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 10:49 AM |
| To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> | |
This is to acknowledge that your email has been received by the Office of the Premier. We appreciate the time you have taken to write. NOTICE: This e-mail was intended for a specific person. If it has reached you by mistake, please delete it and advise me by return e-mail. Any privilege associated with this information is not waived. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance.
Avis: Ce message est confidentiel, peut être protégé par le secret professionnel et est à l'usage exclusif de son destinataire. Il est strictement interdit à toute autre personne de le diffuser, le distribuer ou le reproduire. Si le destinataire ne peut être joint ou vous est inconnu, veuillez informer l'expéditeur par courrier électronique immédiatement et effacer ce message et en détruire toute copie. Merci de votre cooperation. | |
Premier<PREMIER@leg.gov.mb.ca> | Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 10:49 AM |
| To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> | |
On behalf of The Honourable Heather Stefanson, Premier of Manitoba, we would like to acknowledge receipt of your email. Please note that this is an automated response to let you know that your email has been received and that it will be reviewed at the earliest opportunity. Thank you for taking the time to write. Premier’s Correspondence Team Executive Council Government of Manitoba ****************************** Au nom du premier ministre du Manitoba, Heather Stefanson, nous accusons réception de votre courriel. Veuillez noter qu’il s’agit d’une réponse automatisée pour vous informer que votre courriel a été reçu et qu’il sera examiné dans les meilleurs délais. Nous vous remercions d’avoir pris le temps de nous écrire. Équipe chargée de la correspondance du premier ministre Conseil exécutif Gouvernement du Manitoba | |
RE Ottawa residents on both sides of the truck convoy protests tell us what's changed 1 year later Deja Vu Anyone???
David Amos<david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> | Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 10:49 AM |
| To: footabove@gmail.com, sean.burges@carleton.ca, traversy.n@gmail.com, rokaku8@gmail.com, Mark.Sutcliffe@ottawa.ca, premier@ontario.ca, "pierre.poilievre" <pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca>, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>, "Katie.Telford" <Katie.Telford@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>, "Bill.Blair" <Bill.Blair@parl.gc.ca>, "Brenda.Lucki" <Brenda.Lucki@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>, "Marco.Mendicino" <Marco.Mendicino@parl.gc.ca>, Nathalie.g.Drouin@pco-bcp.gc.ca, bmiller@fosterllp.ca, bsvandenberg@fosterllp.ca, Eva@chipiuk-law.ca, keith@wilsonlawoffices.ca, Anthony.Rota@parl.gc.ca, "heather.bradley" <heather.bradley@parl.gc.ca>, Peggy.Regimbal@bellmedia.ca, patrickking@canada-unity.com, james@canada-unity.com, novaxpass@outlook.com, martin@canada-unity.com, tdundas10@gmail.com, jlaface@gmail.com, davesteenburg269@gmail.com, brown_tm3@yahoo.ca, leannemb <leannemb@protonmail.com>, harold@jonkertrucking.com, keepcanada@protonmail.com, andyjohanna01@hotmail.com, janiebpelchat@icloud.com, janetseto@protonmail.com, johndoppenberg@icloud.com, stiessen1979@gmail.com, 77cordoba@outlook.com, pierrette.ringuette@sen.parl.gc.ca, Patrick.Brazeau@sen.parl.gc.ca, george.furey@sen.parl.gc.ca, larry.campbell@sen.parl.gc.ca, Bev.Busson@sen.parl.gc.ca, info@lionelmedia.com, liveneedtoknow@gmail.com, cynthiachung@substack.com, "fin.minfinance-financemin.fin" <fin.minfinance-financemin.fin@canada.ca>, Office of the Premier <scott.moe@gov.sk.ca>, "blaine.higgs" <blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>, "Melanie.Joly" <Melanie.Joly@parl.gc.ca>, wayne.eyre@forces.gc.ca, premier <premier@gov.bc.ca>, premier <premier@gov.ab.ca>, premier <premier@gov.pe.ca>, premier <premier@gov.nl.ca>, premier <premier@gov.nt.ca>, premier <premier@gov.yk.ca>, premier <premier@leg.gov.mb.ca>, PREMIER <PREMIER@gov.ns.ca>, "Mark.Blakely" <Mark.Blakely@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "martin.gaudet" <martin.gaudet@fredericton.ca>, "rob.moore" <rob.moore@parl.gc.ca>, "Ross.Wetmore" <Ross.Wetmore@gnb.ca>, erin.otoole@parl.gc.ca, "Robert. Jones" <Robert.Jones@cbc.ca>, "John.Williamson" <John.Williamson@parl.gc.ca>, "jagmeet.singh" <jagmeet.singh@parl.gc.ca> | |
| Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, "Catherine.Tait" <Catherine.Tait@cbc.ca>, "sylvie.gadoury" <sylvie.gadoury@radio-canada.ca>, "Sophia.Harris" <Sophia.Harris@cbc.ca> | |
Trust that I just called Zach again https://davidraymondamos3. Friday, 27 January 2023 Trudreau The Younger Can Yap All He Wishes He Knows The Fat Lady Ain't Sung Yet ---------- Original message ---------- From: Premier of Ontario | Premier ministre de l’Ontario <Premier@ontario.ca> Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2021 02:24:59 +0000 Subject: Automatic reply: Hey Zach I just called here is a link to the file I mentioned in my voicemail 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. ---------- Original message ---------- From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail. Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2021 23:24:55 -0300 Subject: Hey Zach I just called here is a link to the file I mentioned in my voicemail To: footabove@gmail.com, Jim.Watson@ottawa.ca, premier <premier@ontario.ca>, "pierre.poilievre" <pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca>, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>, "Katie.Telford" <Katie.Telford@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>, "Ian.Shugart" <Ian.Shugart@pco-bcp.gc.ca>, "Bill.Blair" <Bill.Blair@parl.gc.ca>, "Brenda.Lucki" <Brenda.Lucki@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "barbara.massey" <barbara.massey@rcmp-grc.gc.ca Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, Norman Traversy <traversy.n@gmail.com> https://www.scribd.com/doc/ https://www.bitchute.com/ Owner of Foot Above Fitness Tells Bylaw Officer Your Job is to Uphold the Canadian Charter of Rights First published at 21:05 UTC on January 24th, 2021. Amina M 134 subscribers Meet Zachary, owner of Foot Above Fitness. Zachary has chosen to keep his Fitness Gym Open during the covid-19 lockdown in Ottawa Ontario. Website http://afootabovefitness.com/ For business owners who require assistance and support to keep your business open during covid-19 pandemic go to... www.IWILLOpen.com To help my channel grow and show support you can donate at the following PAYPAL LINK - https://paypal.me/AMotala Thank you To download the petition and support go to JusticeforCanada.ca To donate https://paypal.me/pools/c/ #JFCJFA Find me on Twitter - @AminaMotala_ aminamotala_ Amina Motala Bitcoin - 1KKaZAiYjDK25GuoLe6fcSyd97oEke LESS Category News & Politics Sensitivity Normal - Content that is suitable for ages 16 and over https://www.vice.com/en/ https://justiceforcanada.ca/ Meet Our Team We’ve been working very hard to get Justice For Canada. We thank you for all your support, fundraising, sharing our page on social media and helping us get the word out. Justin Trudeau is aware of our cause! Norman Traversy One Man Crusade Norman Traversy is a Canadian, ex-firefighter who swore the firefighter’s oath to aid his fellow man in time of need. After a career in the fire service, Norman has dedicated his life to fighting the rampant corruption within Canadian society with the innovative use of previously ignored laws and methods. Amina Motala Entrepreneur I’ve started learning about Blockchain and Cryptocurrencies I decided to join a meetup. It was hard to find back then so I have been organizing one ever since. This journey has changed my life & makes me want to keep going never looking back. Let’s see the world a better place and the world unite, together we are stronger. Currently I am traveling as a digital nomad allowing me to discover many places & stories along my way. A Foot Above Fitness, 1290 Trim Rd, Orléans, ON K4A 3P7 (613) 864-2782 footabove@gmail.com Jim Watson - Mayor Jim Watson Contact information 110 Laurier Avenue West Ottawa, ON K1P 1J1 Tel.:613-580-2496 Fax.:613-580-2509 Jim.Watson@ottawa.ca ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail. Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2022 10:52:35 -0300 Subject: RE Honour, Accountability, Integrity, Loyalty To: rokaku8@gmail.com Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com> Well done Sir https://www.youtube.com/watch? https://twitter.com/ https://warcampaign.beehiiv. https://www.youtube.com/watch? Fundy Royal, New Brunswick Debate – Federal Elections 2015 - The Local Campaign, Rogers TV 9,580 views Oct 2, 2015 Rogers tv 130K subscribers Federal debate in Fundy Royal, New Brunswick riding featuring candidates Rob Moore, Stephanie Coburn, Alaina Lockhart, Jennifer McKenzie and David Amos. Rob Moore - Conservative Stephanie Coburn - Green Party Alaina Lockhart - Liberal Jennifer McKenzie - New Democratic Party David Amos - Independent Like this program? Be the first to see it on Rogers Cable. Subscribe to Rogers by visiting www.Rogers.com. For more information, visit www.RogersTV.com | |
Ottawa residents on both sides of the truck convoy protests tell us what's changed 1 year later
For some Ottawans, those few weeks were a profound experience
It's been a year since trucks began rolling into the nation's capital, blocking streets, spewing exhaust fumes and blaring horns. They would stay — along with thousands of protesters from across Canada – for over three weeks before being forced out by a major police action.
It was a tumultuous episode in Ottawa's history and when the last truck was finally towed away, it left behind a changed city.
The clearest physical manifestations of that change are the chunky cement barricades that remain on Wellington Street, blocking traffic to one of this country's most iconic thoroughfares. It's the street where Canada's Parliament sits, where tourists are drawn and Canada Day revelers congregate.
The barriers on Wellington Street are a tangible change to the city, but there are other less visible changes, too. The convoy also altered the social, political and even psychological landscapes of the city.
The self-described "Freedom Convoy'' arrived in the capital the last weekend of January 2022, calling for an end to all vaccine mandates and COVID-19 restrictions. It was sparked by a new rule requiring truckers crossing the Canada-U.S. border to show proof of vaccination, but drew people with a range of complaints about the way politicians handled the pandemic.
Thousands joined the protest that clogged numerous downtown streets for over three weeks before the federal government invoked the Emergencies Act for the first time in Canada's history.
Although out-of-towners got a lot of attention, Ottawans were also caught up in the convoy. During the frigid weeks of protest, many emerged from pandemic isolation and found solidarity on the streets of their city — both convoy supporters and opponents.
Of course the convoy had the greatest impact on downtown residents of the so-called "red zone," some of whom reported being scared to leave their homes and unable to work or sleep due to the incessant noise. Many say they're still dealing with the trauma.
It was a profound experience for Ottawans, and some citizens say they're still processing it.
Helluva Story heard from four Ottawa residents who were caught up on different sides of the convoy protests to find out how the experience and its aftermath influenced their view of the city — and maybe even themselves.
Zachary Boissinot: 'How could I not go?'
Gym owner Zachary Boissinot joined thousands of protesters around Parliament Hill during last year's convoy demonstrations. (Kristin Nelson/CBC)
Back in 2020, long before vaccines were widely available, Ottawa gym owner Zachary Boissinot reopened and started training clients in defiance of provincial and municipal rules. Two years later, he is still facing legal problems associated with the fines he racked up.
"There was a point where I was being very much threatened with jail time if I kept my business open as if I was … some common criminal," said Boissinot. "If something's not right, then I think it is your duty as a citizen to stand up against that."
During the first weekend of the convoy demonstration, he joined several thousand protesters around Parliament Hill. "It was an easy drive," he said. "How could I not go?"
But a year later, he's lost some hope and feels differently about his city. He saw the convoy protests as an opportunity to have a "conversation" about public health rules and believes that didn't happen.
Debbie Owusu-Akyeeah: 'I feel so much more connected'
Debbie Owusu-Akyeeah has been been working with the Ottawa People’s Commission in the wake of the convoy occupation. (Kristin Nelson/CBC)"We never want to go through this ever again," said Debbie Owusu-Akyeeah. She avoided downtown during last year's protests, but the convoy's staging ground took over a parking lot in her part of the city.
Owusu-Akyeeah is executive director of The Canadian Centre for Gender & Sexual Diversity, a non-profit. In recent months, she's been working with the Ottawa People's Commission, which was created by downtown residents looking for what they call "healing and justice" in the wake of the convoy occupation. The commission heard from dozens of residents during a series of public hearings last year – people who say they were upset and traumatized by the experience.
"It's made me more attached to it because I feel so much more connected," she said. "[The] community responded in ways I've never seen in my entire 12 years in the city."
Christen Bennett: 'It was hope in a dark time'
Christen
Bennett says she connected with like-minded people during the convoy
protests and has since been more involved in politics. (Kristin Nelson/CBC)Christen Bennett is a mother of two who also feels more connected to her city a year after the convoy protests.
As someone who did not receive a COVID-19 vaccine, Bennett was excited and hopeful when she heard about the convoy coming to Ottawa. "It was hope in a dark time," she said, as vaccine mandates blocked her and her family members from travel, bars, movies and restaurants. "Not that we're big on those things anyways, but just to know that you can't do them was a bit oppressive."
Last November, she even joined a protest at a school board meeting where a motion to reinstate mask mandates was being debated. A vote on the motion had to be postponed after security removed some people for disruptive behaviour.
Sean Burges: 'I've lost trust in the system'
Sean Burges helped lead a counter-protest against the convoy demonstrations. (Kristin Nelson/CBC)Sean Burges is a Carleton professor who helped spark a counter-protest against the convoy demonstrations.
It took place on the third weekend of the convoy's presence in Ottawa and tapped into the frustrations many residents were feeling about the lack of police action and the failure of multiple levels of government to curb the convoy's impacts on the city.
"It was the people in the neighbourhood saying enough is enough — we're going to have to do this ourselves," said Burges. "The police had no moral authority anymore; bylaw had no moral authority."
Burges said he feels different now, a year after the convoy protests caused so much disruption. "At a visceral level I think I've lost trust in the system," he said. And yet, he's encouraged to see his neighbours and fellow Ottawans getting more involved in their communities and more politically engaged.
"We need to get back to a sense of community and I think that's kind of what we've lost… that active sense of Canadian-ness."
Poilievre says 'everything seems broken,' Trudeau hits back
PM calls Poilievre an 'irresponsible' leader bent on exploiting anger for political gain
"What's happening in our country? Seriously. Look around you," Poilievre said in a Friday speech to the Conservative caucus. "You told us better is always possible and yet everything is worse and you blame everyone else."
A Poilievre government, the Conservative leader said, would restore order and bring the economy back from the brink.
Trudeau, meanwhile, delivered a pointed speech of his own Friday. The PM argued that by courting radical elements, peddling misinformation, ignoring science and pitching questionable investments like cryptocurrency, Poilievre has placed himself outside the political mainstream.
"Mr. Poilievre has no real solutions. He's just trying to exploit people's anger and concerns," Trudeau said. "When you twist the facts or make things up for political gain, that's not responsible leadership."
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau speaks to caucus on Parliament Hill, Friday, January 27, 2023 in Ottawa. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)
Poilievre's speech to Tory MPs and senators and Trudeau's response Friday reveal how the two leaders plan to approach the next sitting of Parliament, which resumes next week after the holiday break.
Poilievre is intent on blaming the Liberals for the country's hardships while painting a bleak picture of the future under a Trudeau-led government.
Trudeau is promising what he calls a "positive vision" for the country while also blasting his opponent as a far-right leader who won't adequately address the big challenges of our time: fighting climate change, building a more inclusive economy, fixing a health-care system on the ropes and pursuing Indigenous reconciliation.
Poilievre, Trudeau argued, doesn't offer any "constructive or positive solutions," while Liberals will "meet the moment."
WATCH | Poilievre says 'everything is worse' under Trudeau:
Poilievre accused Trudeau of ducking his responsibilities as prime minister. He linked a rise in violent crimes and drug overdoses to Liberal changes to the federal Criminal Code and a more permissive approach to drug enforcement.
Citing a spate of violent attacks on Toronto's transit system, Poilievre said people are scared to ride the subway because they might get stabbed.
Between January 2016 and December 2021, nearly 30,000 Canadians died of opioid overdoses, according to federal data. There are crime-ridden homeless encampments in Canada's big cities, Poilievre said, because of Liberal policies.
"Justin tied the hands of our police and failed to hold the scumbag corporations who brought these drugs to our streets accountable," the Conservative leader said.
'Get out of the way'
Poilievre said big spending during the pandemic has pushed the national debt over the $1 trillion mark, fuelling inflation. The federal price on carbon emissions, Poilievre claimed, has left seniors in the cold.
"If you're not responsible for these things and you can't do anything about it, why don't you get out of the way and let somebody who can," Poilievre said.
"Everything seems to be broken," he added in French.
Trudeau has pushed back against Poilievre's claim that the country is in disarray.
In a speech at the Liberal Christmas party last month, Trudeau said that when Poilievre says Canada is broken, "that's where we draw the line."
"Let me be very clear for the record: Canada is not broken," he said in the Dec. 14 speech, citing post-Fiona hurricane relief and a new national child care program as examples of recent progress on his watch.
At the Liberal cabinet retreat in Hamilton this week, ministers also touted a return to normal at Canada's passport offices, a promise to fix to the air passenger bill of rights and meaningful progress on an increase to health-care funding as proof that the country is headed in the right direction.
Poilievre dismissed Trudeau's defence Friday.
"Justin says I should never mention these problems because Canadians have never had life so good," he said.
For some people, Poilievre said, the prime minister is right — the people at the Liberal Christmas party are doing just fine. "Lobbyists and Liberal political assistants here in Ottawa, they've never had it so good," Poilievre said.
The government's use of outside advisers has made people at consulting firms like McKinsey rich, Poilievre said, while working-class people skip meals to save money.
Trudeau said his government is laser-focused on rebuilding Canada's middle class.
He pointed to new investments in the automotive sector, clean technology, mining, rare earth metals and manufacturing as signs that Ottawa's industrial policy is paying off with high-paying jobs in industries of the future.
The prime minister said Poilievre can't be trusted to lead a major economy like Canada's when he was pushing bitcoin — an investment that has tanked in recent months, wiping out tens of billions of dollars in value.
"Mr. Poilievre was out talking about how we should all invest in bitcoin to opt out of inflation after he watched YouTube videos about it," Trudeau said. "Now, we all like YouTube, but it matters what content you watch and what you choose to amplify."
He also condemned Poilievre for recently speaking to the Frontier Centre for Public Policy — a group that has said it's a "myth" that the residential school system robbed Indigenous children of their childhood.
"It's just plain wrong," Trudeau said.
NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said Canadians don't have to choose between the red and the blue team.
He said New Democrats are best placed to save a faltering health-care system and criticizing some provincial plans to send more surgeries to private clinics to help clear mounting hospital backlogs.
"That's the wrong way to do it because it will only make things worse and cannibalize workers from our existing system," he said. "We'll defend public health care."
Singh also criticized Trudeau's performance on the housing file, saying too many Canadians can't afford their rent.
"He has to invest massively to build more housing and ensure major corporations are not making huge profits because that hurts families," he said. "So far, Justin Trudeau hasn't taken this seriously."
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Trudeau government dropped the ball on fighting abuse in sport, former minister says
Kirsty Duncan says the government failed to follow through on her work after she left the post
A Liberal MP and former sport minister is again calling for a public inquiry into abuse in sport — and is accusing her own government of not doing enough to tackle the problem.
Kirsty Duncan said the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau failed to build momentum behind her efforts to prevent harassment, abuse and discrimination in sport in the years after she left cabinet — despite knowing a lot about the problem well before Hockey Canada's handling of sexual assault allegations exploded in the news last year.
Duncan said she even faced "pushback" from people within her own government when she made tackling abuse a top priority of her time as sport minister.
Duncan said she would not identify the individuals who resisted her efforts, or state whether they were in her own office or other government departments.
"It should not be a fight. I'm asking for the protection of athletes and children. There should never have been pushback," Duncan told CBC News in an exclusive interview.
"I will not stand idly by while there are athletes, children and young people hurting in this country. And I do not accept the status quo. And if I do not push for an inquiry, it means accepting the status quo. And I will not be complicit."
On Thursday, Duncan announced she's taking medical leave effective immediately on the advice of doctors to deal with a physical health challenge.
Duncan was not re-appointed to cabinet by Trudeau after the 2019 election. She was instead appointed deputy House leader for the government.
Trudeau dropped the position of sport minister from cabinet at the time and folded Duncan's responsibilities into the portfolio of the heritage minister, Steven Guilbeault.
Guilbeault's ministerial mandate letter — which outlined his key policy objectives — charged him with fostering a culture of safe sport.
'Other priorities'
In response to questions from CBC about the progress Guilbeault made on that mandate, his office pointed to a Sport Canada timeline of safe sport initiatives in the country.
The department launched a call for proposals to implement a new independent safe sport mechanism in 2020. In July 2021, Guilbeault announced that the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC) would receive up to $2.1 million to set up a new mechanism to oversee implementation of a new universal code of conduct in sport.
Then-minister of Canadian Heritage Steven Guilbeault responds to a question in the House of Commons on Nov. 3, 2020. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)
A senior government source with knowledge of Guilbeault's portfolio concedes "other priorities required more attention" when he was heritage minister. Guilbeault's legislative priorities at the time including confronting online abuse, digital streaming regulation and copyright reform.
The source, who spoke to CBC News on the condition of confidentiality, said the department's priorities shifted when the pandemic hit in March 2020, just four months after Guilbeault was appointed minister. The source said they "totally understand" Duncan's claim that more could have been done on safe sport.
"Since 2016, our government has worked with the sport community to advance a respectful sport culture and respond to calls for action," Guilbeault's office wrote in an email to CBC News.
WATCH | Duncan says sports leaders 'want to do better' on protecting athletes:
Duncan said she felt her safe sport initiatives were not given the attention they deserved after she left the office.
"There was nothing in place. There was literally nothing. There didn't even seem to be policies. Some had policies, some didn't," she said. "Where was the oversight? Where was the accountability?
"I think what we've seen over the last four years, and we've certainly seen this summer, is that there remains a hugely disappointing resistance to change."
Current Sport Minister Pascale St-Onge was asked about Duncan's claim that the government isn't doing enough to protect athletes in the country.
"I can tell you that we're taking it extremely seriously," she told CBC News.
"That's why we've invested $16 million in the last budget just to create the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner, because we felt it was so important to have that independent mechanism. I'm also making it mandatory for all nationally funded organizations to sign up with those before the next funding cycle.
"So any organization that hasn't protected their athletes by signing up with OSIC will no longer receive the whole funding. That's the strongest tool that I have. So yes, we are taking this extremely, extremely seriously."
WATCH | Pascal St-Onge says the government takes safety in sport 'seriously':
Just weeks after Duncan was named sport minister in January 2018, an investigation by CBC News revealed that at least 222 coaches involved in amateur sports over 20 years had been convicted of sex offences involving over 600 victims under age 18.
Duncan — a former gymnast who said she experienced emotional and psychological abuse herself as an athlete — said she was shaken by that report.
She introduced a number of measures — "broad strokes," she calls them now — such as a third-party investigation unit and a national toll-free confidential helpline for victims and witnesses of abuse in sport. She also brought territorial and provincial sport ministers together in February 2019 to sign a declaration aimed at tackling and preventing harassment, abuse and discrimination in sport.
"I knew I had to address the grassroots. That's where most athletes will spend their life," Duncan said.
"Safe sport needs to be on every federal, provincial, territorial meeting year after year after year, with real goals and deliverables. I talked a lot about numbers. How can we address a problem if we don't know what that problem looks like?"
Reluctance in government
In the 2019 federal budget, the government committed $30 million over five years "to enable Canadian sports organizations to promote accessible, ethical, equitable and safe sports."
But Duncan says there was a climate of resistance to policies she was introducing, both within and outside the government.
"I don't think people understood the problem. There wasn't a lot of interest in Parliament. I asked what we were doing and I was told that we had to stop this safe sport stuff and get back to what sport was really about," she said, referring to celebrating sporting achievements.
"My answer was, 'So not protecting children?'"
CBC News reached out to the Prime Minister's Office but they declined to comment.
WATCH | Kirsty Duncan describes 'pushback' by Hockey Canada:
Duncan said a three-page letter sent by Hockey Canada to one of her senior policy advisers reflects the tone of the opposition she faced.
The letter, first reported by the Canadian Press, was written by Glen McCurdie, then Hockey Canada's vice-president of insurance and risk management. In it, McCurdie expressed concern about some of the policies Duncan was pursuing, including the third-party investigation unit.
Glen
McCurdie, Hockey Canada's former vice-president of insurance and risk
management, appears as a witness at the standing committee on Canadian
Heritage in Ottawa on July 27, 2022. The committee was looking into how
Hockey Canada handled allegations of sexual assault and a subsequent
lawsuit. (The Canadian Press)
Duncan said she never saw the letter four years ago and only read it for the first time this past summer, when the Hockey Canada controversy was playing out.
"Hockey Canada does not wish to be encumbered by a system or process that ties our hands and does not allow us to manage a situation as we deem necessary. We are simply asking that you keep this in mind as you continue to lead us in a collective Safe Sport strategy," McCurdie wrote in the letter, which was also obtained by CBC News.
Duncan said she was frustrated in 2019 by Hockey Canada's reluctance and remains just as frustrated today.
"Hockey Canada pushed back against a third party investigator and a safe sport helpline. Who would do that?" she said. "Who wouldn't want a child to be able to pick up a phone and say, 'I've had a problem'?
"I think people want to sweep this under the rug. I think people want to move on. And we can't."
In an email to CBC, Hockey Canada said the 2019 letter does not reflect the organization's current thinking or direction.
"Hockey Canada recognizes that we need to do more to foster a safe and positive environment for all participants on and off the ice," the organization wrote.
Hockey Canada said the organization participated in the government's safe sport helpline and hired third-party investigators to look into the claims it received. Hockey Canada became a full signatory in October 2022 to the Office of the Sport Integrity Commission, which is now responsible for overseeing and investigating allegations of abuse in sport.
Corrections
- This piece originally stated that the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada was established in 2021. It was launched in 2004.Jan 27, 2023 2:56 PM ET
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-caucus-retreat-1.6716591
Canada's health-care system under threat from both Liberals and Conservatives: Singh
Federal NDP meets for 3-day caucus retreat in Ottawa
Addressing a room filled with MPs, political staffers and party members, Singh accused Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of winking at efforts by conservative premiers to radically change their health-care systems.
"While (Ontario Premier) Doug Ford, (Alberta Premier) Danielle Smith and (Manitoba Premier) Heather Stefanson launch a mission to privatize public, universal Canadian health care, Justin Trudeau does nothing and (Conservative Leader) Pierre Poilievre cheers them on," Singh said on Parliament Hill.
Ontario's Progressive Conservative government on Monday announced its plan to expand the number and range of surgeries offered at for-profit clinics in the province. Both the Alberta and Manitoba governments have mused recently about boosting private sector involvement in health care.
WATCH: NDP threatens to kill deal with Liberals over health-care crisis
After Ontario's announcement, Prime Minister Trudeau said he was open to ideas to "deliver better services to Canadians in health care."
The Ontario and federal New Democrats are leaving no room for doubt about where they stand on public dollars going to the private system. They've argued expanding the private option would only intensify competition with the public sector for scarce human resources.
Singh called on the federal government to use the levers it has at its disposal to push back against provincial governments looking to private health-care institutions for solutions.
"In fact, the prime minister has the opportunity right now to protect medicare. While negotiating funding with the provinces, we all agree there should be strings attached," Singh said.
"I think one of those conditions has to be no privatization. No for-profit corporations taking over health care. No billing patients for anything. No cannibalizing hospitals, sending their nurses and doctors to for-profit clinics."
Staffing strategy needed, says labour group
What Canada needs is a national strategy for staffing the health-care system, says the country's largest labour organization, which has close ties to the NDP.
Bea Bruske, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, said such a strategy would help governments across Canada recruit, train and retain health-care workers.
"Our public system is in dire straits, and we're calling on all levels of government to work together to make sure Canadians right across this country can rely on strong public health care," Bruske told CBC before her address to the NDP caucus on Wednesday.
Singh did not mention the need for a strategy but he echoed Bruske's focus on staffing "solutions."
"Solutions like training more nurses and doctors," the NDP leader said in his Wednesday morning keynote address. "Getting licences for health-care workers from other countries who are already here and ready to work in our hospitals."
Speaking to reporters at an EV charger manufacturing plant in Shawinigan, Que., Trudeau said Wednesday there is "some very positive momentum happening" in the ongoing federal-provincial talks over the future of the Canada Health Transfer (CHT).
Prime
Minister Justin Trudeau speaks to the media after a visit to FLO, a
maker of electric car chargers, in Shawinigan, Que. on Wednesday,
January 18, 2023. (Ryan Remiorz/The Canadian Press)
Ottawa has demanded the provinces earmark any new federal money for five key priority areas — primary care, long-term care, mental health, virtual care and surgery backlogs.Trudeau said the two sides are "more and more in line" on the issues.
Trudeau said Ottawa's planned investments are not designed for short-term fixes to a system that has struggled in the wake of COVID-19.
The expected multi-billion cash injection should be used to spur "more innovation in the system to make sure we have the best health-care system in the world," he said.
"There's a distinction between short-term investments, the ones we need now to resolve immediate problems and what the federal government will continue to do in the coming years to build the future of the system," he said, adding that the provinces and territories already have sufficient fiscal capacity to address acute issues like labour shortages and capacity issues.
Budget will decide fate of NDP-Liberal deal, critic says
Before Singh delivered his keynote, several New Democrat MPs spoke about the state of the deal between the Liberals and the New Democrats to prop up Trudeau's minority government. All the MPs expressed optimism about where things stand, including NDP finance critic Daniel Blaikie.
In March 2022, the New Democrats signed a confidence-and-supply agreement with the governing Liberals to provide them with the votes needed to pass key legislation in exchange for the Liberals agreeing to advance a number of NDP priorities.
The upcoming 2023 federal budget will be a key factor in determining whether the NDP's agreement with the Liberals has been a success or a failure, he said.
"I think the budget is going to tell the tale about whether we're making that progress at a good rate," Blaikie told CBC News. "It's going to be a very interesting few months on the Hill here … when the budget is presented."
Blaikie was expected to brief his caucus colleagues Wednesday on negotiations he's been having with the federal government as a member of a bipartisan group formed to discuss progress on key commitments and priorities.
Pharmacare, dental plan expansion on NDP radar
While many of those priorities don't have stated timelines, some do.
For instance, the Liberal-NDP pact committed Trudeau's government to passing a Canada Pharmacare Act in 2023, and to introducing a bulk drug purchasing plan and a national formulary by the end of the agreement.
In 2022, federal dental care coverage was expanded to cover children under 12 years old in households earning less than $90,000. An expansion to that dental coverage to cover 18-year-olds, seniors and people living with disabilities in middle-income households was also supposed to happen this year under the Liberal-NDP agreement.
"We're expecting to see that at the beginning of 2024," Blaikie said.
NDP
finance critic Daniel Blaikie is a member of a group that discusses
progress on key commitments and priorities in the supply-and-confidence
agreement between the Liberals and the NDP. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)
Blaikie noted that because much of the work to prepare budgets happens months in advance, the 2022 budget was mostly assembled before the Liberal-NDP confidence and supply agreement was signed. So the upcoming budget should "tell a lot of the story" of how the NDP-Liberal agreement is holding up, he said.
"It's going to be an important moment of reflection for our caucus as we think about the next year ahead and whether the government is doing a good enough job," he said.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
---------- Original message ----------
From: Zach Boissinot <footabove@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2021 18:24:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Hey Zach I just called here is a link to the file I
mentioned in my voicemail
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Hi David,
Got a chance to read over everything you sent me. I can't quite wrap my
head around why that information package will keep police and bylaws off my
back though. Could you explain further? I can call you again Thursday
evening too if that's easier for you. All those documents talk about some
package of information you sent it. Is that something I can find on
checktheevidence.com?
You still have my curiosity peaked, that's for sure.
Also, I'm not sure if you prefer but I also have a protonmail account ;)
Zach
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 10:24 PM David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
wrote:
> https://www.scribd.com/doc/
>
> https://www.bitchute.com/
>
> Owner of Foot Above Fitness Tells Bylaw Officer Your Job is to Uphold
> the Canadian Charter of Rights
>
> First published at 21:05 UTC on January 24th, 2021.
>
> Amina M
> 134 subscribers
>
> Meet Zachary, owner of Foot Above Fitness. Zachary has chosen to keep
> his Fitness Gym Open during the covid-19 lockdown in Ottawa Ontario.
>
> Website
> http://afootabovefitness.com/
>
> For business owners who require assistance and support to keep your
> business open during covid-19 pandemic go to...
> www.IWILLOpen.com
>
> To help my channel grow and show support you can donate at the
> following PAYPAL LINK - https://paypal.me/AMotala
> Thank you
>
> To download the petition and support go to
> JusticeforCanada.ca
> To donate
> https://paypal.me/pools/c/
> #JFCJFA
>
> Find me on Twitter -
> @AminaMotala_
> Instagram
> aminamotala_
> Linkedin
> Amina Motala
>
> Bitcoin - 1KKaZAiYjDK25GuoLe6fcSyd97oEke
> LESS
> Category News & Politics
> Sensitivity Normal - Content that is suitable for ages 16 and over
>
>
> https://www.vice.com/en/
>
> https://justiceforcanada.ca/
>
> Meet Our Team
>
> We’ve been working very hard to get Justice For Canada.
> We thank you for all your support, fundraising, sharing our page on
> social media and helping us get the word out. Justin Trudeau is aware
> of our cause!
> Norman Traversy
>
> One Man Crusade
>
> Norman Traversy is a Canadian, ex-firefighter who swore the
> firefighter’s oath to aid his fellow man in time of need.
>
> After a career in the fire service, Norman has dedicated his life to
> fighting the rampant corruption within Canadian society with the
> innovative use of previously ignored laws and methods.
>
> Amina Motala
>
> Entrepreneur
>
> I’ve started learning about Blockchain and Cryptocurrencies I decided
> to join a meetup. It was hard to find back then so I have been
> organizing one ever since.
>
> This journey has changed my life & makes me want to keep going never
> looking back. Let’s see the world a better place and the world unite,
> together we are stronger. Currently I am traveling as a digital nomad
> allowing me to discover many places & stories along my way.
>
>
>
>
> A Foot Above Fitness,
> 1290 Trim Rd,
> Orléans, ON K4A 3P7
>
> (613) 864-2782
> footabove@gmail.com
>
>
> Jim Watson - Mayor
> Jim Watson
> Contact information
> 110 Laurier Avenue West
> Ottawa, ON K1P 1J1
> Tel.:613-580-2496
> Fax.:613-580-2509
> Jim.Watson@ottawa.ca
>
--
Zachary Boissinot
Owner | *A Foot Above Fitness*
*1290 Tri**m Road, Orleans, Ontario, Canada*
*Www.AFootAboveFitness.com <http://Www.AFootAboveFitness.
613-864-2782
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2021 19:45:21 -0300
Subject: Hey Zach I just called Here is more info
To: Zach Boissinot <footabove@gmail.com>, Norman Traversy <traversy.n@gmail.com>
Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
This hearing alone is a Hollywood movie
https://archive.org/details/
Say Hey to Norman for me he won't answer his new number 343 553 1400
after calling me first
>>>
>>> ---------- Original message ----------
>>> From: Premier of Ontario | Premier ministre de l’Ontario
>>> <Premier@ontario.ca>
>>> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 16:38:41 +0000
>>> Subject: Automatic reply: RE The call from the Boston cop Robert Ridge
>>> (857 259 9083) on behalf of the VERY corrupt Yankee DA Rachael Rollins
>>> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Original message ----------
>>> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>> Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 11:55:57 -0400
>>> Subject: Re the CBA, the RCMP, Federal Court File # T-1557-15 and the
>>> Hearing before the Federal Court of Appeal on May 24th 2017
>>> To: ray.adlington@mcinnescooper.
>>> "bob.paulson" <bob.paulson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "hon.ralph.goodale"
>>> <hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca>, "Jody.Wilson-Raybould"
>>> <Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.
>>> <bill.pentney@justice.gc.ca>, "jan.jensen" <jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca>
>>> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
>>> <Mordaith@gmail.com>, "leanne.murray"
>>> <leanne.murray@mcinnescooper.
>>> "Jacques.Poitras" <Jacques.Poitras@cbc.ca>, "nick.moore"
>>> <nick.moore@bellmedia.ca>, "jeremy.keefe"
>>> <jeremy.keefe@globalnews.ca>, "steve.murphy" <steve.murphy@ctv.ca>,
>>> "Gilles.Blinn" <Gilles.Blinn@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "Gilles.Moreau"
>>> <Gilles.Moreau@forces.gc.ca>, sallybrooks25 <sallybrooks25@yahoo.ca>,
>>> oldmaison <oldmaison@yahoo.com>, andre <andre@jafaust.com>, jbosnitch
>>> <jbosnitch@gmail.com>, "serge.rousselle" <serge.rousselle@gnb.ca>,
>>> premier <premier@gnb.ca>, "brian.gallant" <brian.gallant@gnb.ca>,
>>> "Larry.Tremblay" <Larry.Tremblay@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>>> <luc.labonte@gnb.ca>
>>>
>>> As I told the RCMP who called me last month the proper time and place
>>> to discuss the CBA and your former partner Judge Richard Bell is the
>>> Federal Court of Canada
>>>
>>> Raymond G. Adlington Partner
>>> McInnes Cooper
>>> 1300-1969 Upper Water St., Purdy's Wharf Tower II PO Box 730, Stn.
>>> Central
>>> Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 2V1
>>> Phone: (902) 444-8470
>>> Fax: (902) 425-6350
>>> E: ray.adlington@mcinnescooper.
>>>
>>> http://www.mcinnescooper.com/
>>>
>>> Ray Adlington named to CBA Board of Directors
>>>
>>> May 2, 2017
>>>
>>> Halifax partner Ray Adlington was recently named to the CBA Board of
>>> Directors.
>>>
>>> In their announcement yesterday the CBA advised that the board would
>>> come into effect September 1st, 2017.
>>>
>>> After collecting extensive input over the past two years, we know
>>> that CBA members believe it’s important for the organization to have a
>>> Board of Directors that reflects the diversity of the legal
>>> profession, including a mix of practice types, experience, skills,
>>> geography and more.
>>> Our new Board of Directors exemplifies this principle.
>>>
>>> The board is composed from one member from each province as well as
>>> the CBA President.
>>>
>>> Congratulations Ray on this well deserved appointment.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> ---------- Original message ----------
>>>> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>>> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 16:15:59 -0400
>>>> Subject: Hey Ralph Goodale perhaps you and the RCMP should call the
>>>> Yankees Governor Charlie Baker, his lawyer Bob Ross, Rachael Rollins
>>>> and this cop Robert Ridge (857 259 9083) ASAP EH Mr Primme Minister
>>>> Trudeau the Younger and Donald Trump Jr?
>>>> To: pm@pm.gc.ca, Katie.Telford@pmo-cpm.gc.ca,
>>>> Ian.Shugart@pco-bcp.gc.ca, djtjr@trumporg.com,
>>>> Donald.J.Trump@donaldtrump.com
>>>> Frank.McKenna@td.com, barbara.massey@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
>>>> Douglas.Johnson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>>>> washington.field@ic.fbi.gov, Brenda.Lucki@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
>>>> gov.press@state.ma.us, bob.ross@state.ma.us, jfurey@nbpower.com,
>>>> jfetzer@d.umn.edu, Newsroom@globeandmail.com, sfine@globeandmail.com,
>>>> .Poitras@cbc.ca, steve.murphy@ctv.ca, David.Akin@globalnews.ca,
>>>> Dale.Morgan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, news@kingscorecord.com,
>>>> news@dailygleaner.com, oldmaison@yahoo.com, jbosnitch@gmail.com,
>>>> andre@jafaust.com>
>>>> Cc: david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
>>>> wharrison@nbpower.com, David.Lametti@parl.gc.ca, mcu@justice.gc.ca,
>>>> Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> From: "Murray, Charles (Ombud)" <Charles.Murray@gnb.ca>
>>>>> Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:16:15 +0000
>>>>> Subject: You wished to speak with me
>>>>> To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com" <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have the advantage, sir, of having read many of your emails over the
>>>>> years.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As such, I do not think a phone conversation between us, and
>>>>> specifically one which you might mistakenly assume was in response to
>>>>> your threat of legal action against me, is likely to prove a
>>>>> productive use of either of our time.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If there is some specific matter about which you wish to communicate
>>>>> with me, feel free to email me with the full details and it will be
>>>>> given due consideration.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Charles Murray
>>>>>
>>>>> Ombud NB
>>>>>
>>>>> Acting Integrity Commissioner
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Justice Website <JUSTWEB@novascotia.ca>
>>>>>> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:21:11 +0000
>>>>>> Subject: Emails to Department of Justice and Province of Nova Scotia
>>>>>> To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com" <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. Amos,
>>>>>> We acknowledge receipt of your recent emails to the Deputy Minister
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> Justice and lawyers within the Legal Services Division of the
>>>>>> Department of Justice respecting a possible claim against the
>>>>>> Province
>>>>>> of Nova Scotia. Service of any documents respecting a legal claim
>>>>>> against the Province of Nova Scotia may be served on the Attorney
>>>>>> General at 1690 Hollis Street, Halifax, NS. Please note that we will
>>>>>> not be responding to further emails on this matter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Department of Justice
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/3/17, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If want something very serious to download and laugh at as well
>>>>>>> Please
>>>>>>> Enjoy and share real wiretap tapes of the mob
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://thedavidamosrant.
>>>>>>> ilian.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As the CBC etc yap about Yankee wiretaps and whistleblowers I must
>>>>>>>> ask them the obvious question AIN'T THEY FORGETTING SOMETHING????
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What the hell does the media think my Yankee lawyer served upon the
>>>>>>>> USDOJ right after I ran for and seat in the 39th Parliament
>>>>>>>> baseball
>>>>>>>> cards?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://archive.org/details/
>>>>>>>> 6
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://davidamos.blogspot.ca/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.archive.org/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://archive.org/details/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FEDERAL EXPRES February 7, 2006
>>>>>>>> Senator Arlen Specter
>>>>>>>> United States Senate
>>>>>>>> Committee on the Judiciary
>>>>>>>> 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
>>>>>>>> Washington, DC 20510
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear Mr. Specter:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have been asked to forward the enclosed tapes to you from a man
>>>>>>>> named, David Amos, a Canadian citizen, in connection with the
>>>>>>>> matters
>>>>>>>> raised in the attached letter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mr. Amos has represented to me that these are illegal FBI wire tap
>>>>>>>> tapes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I believe Mr. Amos has been in contact with you about this
>>>>>>>> previously.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Very truly yours,
>>>>>>>> Barry A. Bachrach
>>>>>>>> Direct telephone: (508) 926-3403
>>>>>>>> Direct facsimile: (508) 929-3003
>>>>>>>> Email: bbachrach@bowditch.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>>>>>>> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 09:32:09 -0400
>>>>>>> Subject: Attn Integrity Commissioner Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C.,
>>>>>>> To: coi@gnb.ca
>>>>>>> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good Day Sir
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After I heard you speak on CBC I called your office again and
>>>>>>> managed
>>>>>>> to speak to one of your staff for the first time
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please find attached the documents I promised to send to the lady
>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>> answered the phone this morning. Please notice that not after the
>>>>>>> Sgt
>>>>>>> at Arms took the documents destined to your office his pal Tanker
>>>>>>> Malley barred me in writing with an "English" only document.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These are the hearings and the dockets in Federal Court that I
>>>>>>> suggested that you study closely.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is the docket in Federal Court
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These are digital recordings of the last three hearings
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dec 14th https://archive.org/details/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> January 11th, 2016 https://archive.org/details/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> April 3rd, 2017
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://archive.org/details/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is the docket in the Federal Court of Appeal
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only hearing thus far
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> May 24th, 2017
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://archive.org/details/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This Judge understnds the meaning of the word Integrity
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Date: 20151223
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Docket: T-1557-15
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fredericton, New Brunswick, December 23, 2015
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Bell
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BETWEEN:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Plaintiff
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Defendant
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ORDER
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (Delivered orally from the Bench in Fredericton, New Brunswick, on
>>>>>>> December 14, 2015)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Plaintiff seeks an appeal de novo, by way of motion pursuant to
>>>>>>> the Federal Courts Rules (SOR/98-106), from an Order made on
>>>>>>> November
>>>>>>> 12, 2015, in which Prothonotary Morneau struck the Statement of
>>>>>>> Claim
>>>>>>> in its entirety.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At the outset of the hearing, the Plaintiff brought to my attention
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> letter dated September 10, 2004, which he sent to me, in my then
>>>>>>> capacity as Past President of the New Brunswick Branch of the
>>>>>>> Canadian
>>>>>>> Bar Association, and the then President of the Branch, Kathleen
>>>>>>> Quigg,
>>>>>>> (now a Justice of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal). In that
>>>>>>> letter
>>>>>>> he stated:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for your past President, Mr. Bell, may I suggest that you check
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> work of Frank McKenna before I sue your entire law firm including
>>>>>>> you.
>>>>>>> You are your brother’s keeper.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Frank McKenna is the former Premier of New Brunswick and a former
>>>>>>> colleague of mine at the law firm of McInnes Cooper. In addition to
>>>>>>> expressing an intention to sue me, the Plaintiff refers to a number
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> people in his Motion Record who he appears to contend may be
>>>>>>> witnesses
>>>>>>> or potential parties to be added. Those individuals who are known to
>>>>>>> me personally, include, but are not limited to the former Prime
>>>>>>> Minister of Canada, The Right Honourable Stephen Harper; former
>>>>>>> Attorney General of Canada and now a Justice of the Manitoba Court
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> Queen’s Bench, Vic Toews; former member of Parliament Rob Moore;
>>>>>>> former Director of Policing Services, the late Grant Garneau; former
>>>>>>> Chief of the Fredericton Police Force, Barry McKnight; former Staff
>>>>>>> Sergeant Danny Copp; my former colleagues on the New Brunswick Court
>>>>>>> of Appeal, Justices Bradley V. Green and Kathleen Quigg, and,
>>>>>>> retired
>>>>>>> Assistant Commissioner Wayne Lang of the Royal Canadian Mounted
>>>>>>> Police.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the circumstances, given the threat in 2004 to sue me in my
>>>>>>> personal capacity and my past and present relationship with many
>>>>>>> potential witnesses and/or potential parties to the litigation, I am
>>>>>>> of the view there would be a reasonable apprehension of bias should
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> hear this motion. See Justice de Grandpré’s dissenting judgment in
>>>>>>> Committee for Justice and Liberty et al v National Energy Board et
>>>>>>> al,
>>>>>>> [1978] 1 SCR 369 at p 394 for the applicable test regarding
>>>>>>> allegations of bias. In the circumstances, although neither party
>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>> requested I recuse myself, I consider it appropriate that I do so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> AS A RESULT OF MY RECUSAL, THIS COURT ORDERS that the Administrator
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the Court schedule another date for the hearing of the motion.
>>>>>>> There
>>>>>>> is no order as to costs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> “B. Richard Bell”
>>>>>>> Judge
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Below after the CBC article about your concerns (I made one comment
>>>>>>> already) you will find the text of just two of many emails I had
>>>>>>> sent
>>>>>>> to your office over the years since I first visited it in 2006.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I noticed that on July 30, 2009, he was appointed to the the Court
>>>>>>> Martial Appeal Court of Canada Perhaps you should scroll to the
>>>>>>> bottom of this email ASAP and read the entire Paragraph 83 of my
>>>>>>> lawsuit now before the Federal Court of Canada?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "FYI This is the text of the lawsuit that should interest Trudeau
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------- Original message ----------
>>>>>>> From: justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca
>>>>>>> Date: Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:18 PM
>>>>>>> Subject: Réponse automatique : RE My complaint against the CROWN in
>>>>>>> Federal Court Attn David Hansen and Peter MacKay If you planning to
>>>>>>> submit a motion for a publication ban on my complaint trust that you
>>>>>>> dudes are way past too late
>>>>>>> To: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Veuillez noter que j'ai changé de courriel. Vous pouvez me rejoindre
>>>>>>> à
>>>>>>> lalanthier@hotmail.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pour rejoindre le bureau de M. Trudeau veuillez envoyer un courriel
>>>>>>> à
>>>>>>> tommy.desfosses@parl.gc.ca
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please note that I changed email address, you can reach me at
>>>>>>> lalanthier@hotmail.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To reach the office of Mr. Trudeau please send an email to
>>>>>>> tommy.desfosses@parl.gc.ca
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Merci ,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://davidraymondamos3.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 83. The Plaintiff states that now that Canada is involved in more
>>>>>>> war
>>>>>>> in Iraq again it did not serve Canadian interests and reputation to
>>>>>>> allow Barry Winters to publish the following words three times over
>>>>>>> five years after he began his bragging:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> January 13, 2015
>>>>>>> This Is Just AS Relevant Now As When I wrote It During The Debate
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> December 8, 2014
>>>>>>> Why Canada Stood Tall!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Friday, October 3, 2014
>>>>>>> Little David Amos’ “True History Of War” Canadian Airstrikes And
>>>>>>> Stupid Justin Trudeau
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Canada’s and Canadians free ride is over. Canada can no longer hide
>>>>>>> behind Amerka’s and NATO’s skirts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When I was still in Canadian Forces then Prime Minister Jean
>>>>>>> Chretien
>>>>>>> actually committed the Canadian Army to deploy in the second
>>>>>>> campaign
>>>>>>> in Iraq, the Coalition of the Willing. This was against or contrary
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> the wisdom or advice of those of us Canadian officers that were
>>>>>>> involved in the initial planning phases of that operation. There
>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>> significant concern in our planning cell, and NDHQ about of the
>>>>>>> dearth
>>>>>>> of concern for operational guidance, direction, and forces for
>>>>>>> operations after the initial occupation of Iraq. At the “last
>>>>>>> minute”
>>>>>>> Prime Minister Chretien and the Liberal government changed its mind.
>>>>>>> The Canadian government told our amerkan cousins that we would not
>>>>>>> deploy combat troops for the Iraq campaign, but would deploy a
>>>>>>> Canadian Battle Group to Afghanistan, enabling our amerkan cousins
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> redeploy troops from there to Iraq. The PMO’s thinking that it was
>>>>>>> less costly to deploy Canadian Forces to Afghanistan than Iraq. But
>>>>>>> alas no one seems to remind the Liberals of Prime Minister
>>>>>>> Chretien’s
>>>>>>> then grossly incorrect assumption. Notwithstanding Jean Chretien’s
>>>>>>> incompetence and stupidity, the Canadian Army was heroic,
>>>>>>> professional, punched well above it’s weight, and the PPCLI Battle
>>>>>>> Group, is credited with “saving Afghanistan” during the Panjway
>>>>>>> campaign of 2006.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What Justin Trudeau and the Liberals don’t tell you now, is that
>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>> Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien committed, and deployed the
>>>>>>> Canadian army to Canada’s longest “war” without the advice, consent,
>>>>>>> support, or vote of the Canadian Parliament.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What David Amos and the rest of the ignorant, uneducated, and
>>>>>>> babbling
>>>>>>> chattering classes are too addled to understand is the deployment of
>>>>>>> less than 75 special operations troops, and what is known by
>>>>>>> planners
>>>>>>> as a “six pac cell” of fighter aircraft is NOT the same as a
>>>>>>> deployment of a Battle Group, nor a “war” make.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Canadian Government or The Crown unlike our amerkan cousins have
>>>>>>> the “constitutional authority” to commit the Canadian nation to war.
>>>>>>> That has been recently clearly articulated to the Canadian public by
>>>>>>> constitutional scholar Phillippe Legasse. What Parliament can do is
>>>>>>> remove “confidence” in The Crown’s Government in a “vote of
>>>>>>> non-confidence.” That could not happen to the Chretien Government
>>>>>>> regarding deployment to Afghanistan, and it won’t happen in this
>>>>>>> instance with the conservative majority in The Commons regarding a
>>>>>>> limited Canadian deployment to the Middle East.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> President George Bush was quite correct after 911 and the terror
>>>>>>> attacks in New York; that the Taliban “occupied” and “failed state”
>>>>>>> Afghanistan was the source of logistical support, command and
>>>>>>> control,
>>>>>>> and training for the Al Quaeda war of terror against the world. The
>>>>>>> initial defeat, and removal from control of Afghanistan was vital
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> P.S. Whereas this CBC article is about your opinion of the actions
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the latest Minister Of Health trust that Mr Boudreau and the CBC
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> had my files for many years and the last thing they are is ethical.
>>>>>>> Ask his friends Mr Murphy and the RCMP if you don't believe me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>> 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 not
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> the US. These issues do not fall into the purvue of Detachment
>>>>>>> and 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C.,
>>>>>>> Office of the Integrity Commissioner
>>>>>>> Edgecombe House, 736 King Street
>>>>>>> Fredericton, N.B. CANADA E3B 5H1
>>>>>>> tel.: 506-457-7890
>>>>>>> fax: 506-444-5224
>>>>>>> e-mail:coi@gnb.ca
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://davidraymondamos3.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sunday, 19 November 2017
>>>>>> Federal Court of Appeal Finally Makes The BIG Decision And Publishes
>>>>>> It Now The Crooks Cannot Take Back Ticket To Try Put My Matter Before
>>>>>> The Supreme Court
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Amos v. Canada
>>>>>> Court (s) Database
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
>>>>>> Date
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2017-10-30
>>>>>> Neutral citation
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2017 FCA 213
>>>>>> File numbers
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A-48-16
>>>>>> Date: 20171030
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Docket: A-48-16
>>>>>> Citation: 2017 FCA 213
>>>>>> CORAM:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WEBB J.A.
>>>>>> NEAR J.A.
>>>>>> GLEASON J.A.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BETWEEN:
>>>>>> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
>>>>>> Respondent on the cross-appeal
>>>>>> (and formally Appellant)
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
>>>>>> Appellant on the cross-appeal
>>>>>> (and formerly Respondent)
>>>>>> Heard at Fredericton, New Brunswick, on May 24, 2017.
>>>>>> Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 30, 2017.
>>>>>> REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> THE COURT
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Date: 20171030
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Docket: A-48-16
>>>>>> Citation: 2017 FCA 213
>>>>>> CORAM:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WEBB J.A.
>>>>>> NEAR J.A.
>>>>>> GLEASON J.A.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BETWEEN:
>>>>>> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
>>>>>> Respondent on the cross-appeal
>>>>>> (and formally Appellant)
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
>>>>>> Appellant on the cross-appeal
>>>>>> (and formerly Respondent)
>>>>>> REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY THE COURT
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I. Introduction
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] On September 16, 2015, David Raymond Amos (Mr.
>>>>>> Amos)
>>>>>> filed a 53-page Statement of Claim (the Claim) in Federal Court
>>>>>> against Her Majesty the Queen (the Crown). Mr. Amos claims $11
>>>>>> million
>>>>>> in damages and a public apology from the Prime Minister and
>>>>>> Provincial
>>>>>> Premiers for being illegally barred from accessing parliamentary
>>>>>> properties and seeks a declaration from the Minister of Public Safety
>>>>>> that the Canadian Government will no longer allow the Royal Canadian
>>>>>> Mounted Police (RCMP) and Canadian Forces to harass him and his clan
>>>>>> (Claim at para. 96).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [2] On November 12, 2015 (Docket T-1557-15), by way of
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> motion brought by the Crown, a prothonotary of the Federal Court (the
>>>>>> Prothonotary) struck the Claim in its entirety, without leave to
>>>>>> amend, on the basis that it was plain and obvious that the Claim
>>>>>> disclosed no reasonable claim, the Claim was fundamentally vexatious,
>>>>>> and the Claim could not be salvaged by way of further amendment (the
>>>>>> Prothontary’s Order).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [3] On January 25, 2016 (2016 FC 93), by way of Mr.
>>>>>> Amos’ appeal from the Prothonotary’s Order, a judge of the Federal
>>>>>> Court (the Judge), reviewing the matter de novo, struck all of Mr.
>>>>>> Amos’ claims for relief with the exception of the claim for damages
>>>>>> for being barred by the RCMP from the New Brunswick legislature in
>>>>>> 2004 (the Federal Court Judgment).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [4] Mr. Amos appealed and the Crown cross-appealed the
>>>>>> Federal Court Judgment. Further to the issuance of a Notice of Status
>>>>>> Review, Mr. Amos’ appeal was dismissed for delay on December 19,
>>>>>> 2016.
>>>>>> As such, the only matter before this Court is the Crown’s
>>>>>> cross-appeal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> II. Preliminary Matter
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [5] Mr. Amos, in his memorandum of fact and law in
>>>>>> relation to the cross-appeal that was filed with this Court on March
>>>>>> 6, 2017, indicated that several judges of this Court, including two
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the judges of this panel, had a conflict of interest in this appeal.
>>>>>> This was the first time that he identified the judges whom he
>>>>>> believed
>>>>>> had a conflict of interest in a document that was filed with this
>>>>>> Court. In his notice of appeal he had alluded to a conflict with
>>>>>> several judges but did not name those judges.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [6] Mr. Amos was of the view that he did not have to
>>>>>> identify the judges in any document filed with this Court because he
>>>>>> had identified the judges in various documents that had been filed
>>>>>> with the Federal Court. In his view the Federal Court and the Federal
>>>>>> Court of Appeal are the same court and therefore any document filed
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> the Federal Court would be filed in this Court. This view is based on
>>>>>> subsections 5(4) and 5.1(4) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985,
>>>>>> c. F-7:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 5(4) Every judge of the Federal Court is, by virtue of his or her
>>>>>> office, a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal and has all the
>>>>>> jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court of
>>>>>> Appeal.
>>>>>> […]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 5(4) Les juges de la Cour fédérale sont d’office juges de la Cour
>>>>>> d’appel fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que
>>>>>> les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale.
>>>>>> […]
>>>>>> 5.1(4) Every judge of the Federal Court of Appeal is, by virtue of
>>>>>> that office, a judge of the Federal Court and has all the
>>>>>> jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 5.1(4) Les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale sont d’office juges de
>>>>>> la
>>>>>> Cour fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que les
>>>>>> juges de la Cour fédérale.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [7] However, these subsections only provide that the
>>>>>> judges of the Federal Court are also judges of this Court (and vice
>>>>>> versa). It does not mean that there is only one court. If the Federal
>>>>>> Court and this Court were one Court, there would be no need for this
>>>>>> section.
>>>>>> [8] Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act provide
>>>>>> that:
>>>>>> 3 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal
>>>>>> Court
>>>>>> — Appeal Division is continued under the name “Federal Court of
>>>>>> Appeal” in English and “Cour d’appel fédérale” in French. It is
>>>>>> continued as an additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and
>>>>>> for Canada, for the better administration of the laws of Canada and
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> a superior court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3 La Section d’appel, aussi appelée la Cour d’appel ou la Cour
>>>>>> d’appel
>>>>>> fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée « Cour d’appel fédérale » en
>>>>>> français et « Federal Court of Appeal » en anglais. Elle est
>>>>>> maintenue
>>>>>> à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et d’amirauté du
>>>>>> Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit canadien, et
>>>>>> continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant compétence en
>>>>>> matière civile et pénale.
>>>>>> 4 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal
>>>>>> Court
>>>>>> — Trial Division is continued under the name “Federal Court” in
>>>>>> English and “Cour fédérale” in French. It is continued as an
>>>>>> additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and for Canada, for
>>>>>> the better administration of the laws of Canada and as a superior
>>>>>> court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4 La section de la Cour fédérale du Canada, appelée la Section de
>>>>>> première instance de la Cour fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée «
>>>>>> Cour fédérale » en français et « Federal Court » en anglais. Elle est
>>>>>> maintenue à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et
>>>>>> d’amirauté du Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit
>>>>>> canadien, et continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant
>>>>>> compétence en matière civile et pénale.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [9] Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act create
>>>>>> two separate courts – this Court (section 3) and the Federal Court
>>>>>> (section 4). If, as Mr. Amos suggests, documents filed in the Federal
>>>>>> Court were automatically also filed in this Court, then there would
>>>>>> no
>>>>>> need for the parties to prepare and file appeal books as required by
>>>>>> Rules 343 to 345 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 in relation
>>>>>> to any appeal from a decision of the Federal Court. The requirement
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> file an appeal book with this Court in relation to an appeal from a
>>>>>> decision of the Federal Court makes it clear that the only documents
>>>>>> that will be before this Court are the documents that are part of
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> appeal book.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [10] Therefore, the memorandum of fact and law filed on
>>>>>> March 6, 2017 is the first document, filed with this Court, in which
>>>>>> Mr. Amos identified the particular judges that he submits have a
>>>>>> conflict in any matter related to him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [11] On April 3, 2017, Mr. Amos attempted to bring a motion
>>>>>> before the Federal Court seeking an order “affirming or denying the
>>>>>> conflict of interest he has” with a number of judges of the Federal
>>>>>> Court. A judge of the Federal Court issued a direction noting that if
>>>>>> Mr. Amos was seeking this order in relation to judges of the Federal
>>>>>> Court of Appeal, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal Court.
>>>>>> Mr. Amos raised the Federal Court motion at the hearing of this
>>>>>> cross-appeal. The Federal Court motion is not a motion before this
>>>>>> Court and, as such, the submissions filed before the Federal Court
>>>>>> will not be entertained. As well, since this was a motion brought
>>>>>> before the Federal Court (and not this Court), any documents filed in
>>>>>> relation to that motion are not part of the record of this Court.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [12] During the hearing of the appeal Mr. Amos alleged that
>>>>>> the third member of this panel also had a conflict of interest and
>>>>>> submitted some documents that, in his view, supported his claim of a
>>>>>> conflict. Mr. Amos, following the hearing of his appeal, was also
>>>>>> afforded the opportunity to provide a brief summary of the conflict
>>>>>> that he was alleging and to file additional documents that, in his
>>>>>> view, supported his allegations. Mr. Amos submitted several pages of
>>>>>> documents in relation to the alleged conflicts. He organized the
>>>>>> documents by submitting a copy of the biography of the particular
>>>>>> judge and then, immediately following that biography, by including
>>>>>> copies of the documents that, in his view, supported his claim that
>>>>>> such judge had a conflict.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [13] The nature of the alleged conflict of Justice Webb is
>>>>>> that before he was appointed as a Judge of the Tax Court of Canada in
>>>>>> 2006, he was a partner with the law firm Patterson Law, and before
>>>>>> that with Patterson Palmer in Nova Scotia. Mr. Amos submitted that he
>>>>>> had a number of disputes with Patterson Palmer and Patterson Law and
>>>>>> therefore Justice Webb has a conflict simply because he was a partner
>>>>>> of these firms. Mr. Amos is not alleging that Justice Webb was
>>>>>> personally involved in or had any knowledge of any matter in which
>>>>>> Mr.
>>>>>> Amos was involved with Justice Webb’s former law firm – only that he
>>>>>> was a member of such firm.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [14] During his oral submissions at the hearing of his
>>>>>> appeal Mr. Amos, in relation to the alleged conflict for Justice
>>>>>> Webb,
>>>>>> focused on dealings between himself and a particular lawyer at
>>>>>> Patterson Law. However, none of the documents submitted by Mr. Amos
>>>>>> at
>>>>>> the hearing or subsequently related to any dealings with this
>>>>>> particular lawyer nor is it clear when Mr. Amos was dealing with this
>>>>>> lawyer. In particular, it is far from clear whether such dealings
>>>>>> were
>>>>>> after the time that Justice Webb was appointed as a Judge of the Tax
>>>>>> Court of Canada over 10 years ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [15] The documents that he submitted in relation to the
>>>>>> alleged conflict for Justice Webb largely relate to dealings between
>>>>>> Byron Prior and the St. John’s Newfoundland and Labrador office of
>>>>>> Patterson Palmer, which is not in the same province where Justice
>>>>>> Webb
>>>>>> practiced law. The only document that indicates any dealing between
>>>>>> Mr. Amos and Patterson Palmer is a copy of an affidavit of Stephen
>>>>>> May
>>>>>> who was a partner in the St. John’s NL office of Patterson Palmer.
>>>>>> The
>>>>>> affidavit is dated January 24, 2005 and refers to a number of e-mails
>>>>>> that were sent by Mr. Amos to Stephen May. Mr. Amos also included a
>>>>>> letter that is addressed to four individuals, one of whom is John
>>>>>> Crosbie who was counsel to the St. John’s NL office of Patterson
>>>>>> Palmer. The letter is dated September 2, 2004 and is addressed to
>>>>>> “John Crosbie, c/o Greg G. Byrne, Suite 502, 570 Queen Street,
>>>>>> Fredericton, NB E3B 5E3”. In this letter Mr. Amos alludes to a
>>>>>> possible lawsuit against Patterson Palmer.
>>>>>> [16] Mr. Amos’ position is that simply because Justice Webb
>>>>>> was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer, he now has a conflict. In
>>>>>> Wewaykum
>>>>>> Indian Band v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2003 SCC 45, [2003] 2 S.C.R.
>>>>>> 259, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that disqualification of a
>>>>>> judge is to be determined based on whether there is a reasonable
>>>>>> apprehension of bias:
>>>>>> 60 In Canadian law, one standard has now emerged as the
>>>>>> criterion for disqualification. The criterion, as expressed by de
>>>>>> Grandpré J. in Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy
>>>>>> Board, …[[1978] 1 S.C.R. 369, 68 D.L.R. (3d) 716], at p. 394, is the
>>>>>> reasonable apprehension of bias:
>>>>>> … the apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one, held by
>>>>>> reasonable and right minded persons, applying themselves to the
>>>>>> question and obtaining thereon the required information. In the words
>>>>>> of the Court of Appeal, that test is "what would an informed person,
>>>>>> viewing the matter realistically and practically -- and having
>>>>>> thought
>>>>>> the matter through -- conclude. Would he think that it is more likely
>>>>>> than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or
>>>>>> unconsciously, would not decide fairly."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [17] The issue to be determined is whether an informed
>>>>>> person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, and having
>>>>>> thought the matter through, would conclude that Mr. Amos’ allegations
>>>>>> give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. As this Court has
>>>>>> previously remarked, “there is a strong presumption that judges will
>>>>>> administer justice impartially” and this presumption will not be
>>>>>> rebutted in the absence of “convincing evidence” of bias (Collins v.
>>>>>> Canada, 2011 FCA 140 at para. 7, [2011] 4 C.T.C. 157 [Collins]. See
>>>>>> also R. v. S. (R.D.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484 at para. 32, 151 D.L.R.
>>>>>> (4th) 193).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [18] The Ontario Court of Appeal in Rando Drugs Ltd. v.
>>>>>> Scott, 2007 ONCA 553, 86 O.R. (3d) 653 (leave to appeal to the
>>>>>> Supreme
>>>>>> Court of Canada refused, 32285 (August 1, 2007)), addressed the
>>>>>> particular issue of whether a judge is disqualified from hearing a
>>>>>> case simply because he had been a member of a law firm that was
>>>>>> involved in the litigation that was now before that judge. The
>>>>>> Ontario
>>>>>> Court of Appeal determined that the judge was not disqualified if the
>>>>>> judge had no involvement with the person or the matter when he was a
>>>>>> lawyer. The Ontario Court of Appeal also explained that the rules for
>>>>>> determining whether a judge is disqualified are different from the
>>>>>> rules to determine whether a lawyer has a conflict:
>>>>>> 27 Thus, disqualification is not the natural corollary to a
>>>>>> finding that a trial judge has had some involvement in a case over
>>>>>> which he or she is now presiding. Where the judge had no involvement,
>>>>>> as here, it cannot be said that the judge is disqualified.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 28 The point can rightly be made that had Mr. Patterson been
>>>>>> asked to represent the appellant as counsel before his appointment to
>>>>>> the bench, the conflict rules would likely have prevented him from
>>>>>> taking the case because his firm had formerly represented one of the
>>>>>> defendants in the case. Thus, it is argued how is it that as a trial
>>>>>> judge Patterson J. can hear the case? This issue was considered by
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in Locabail (U.K.) Ltd. v. Bayfield
>>>>>> Properties Ltd., [2000] Q.B. 451. The court held, at para. 58, that
>>>>>> there is no inflexible rule governing the disqualification of a judge
>>>>>> and that, "[e]verything depends on the circumstances."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 29 It seems to me that what appears at first sight to be an
>>>>>> inconsistency in application of rules can be explained by the
>>>>>> different contexts and in particular, the strong presumption of
>>>>>> judicial impartiality that applies in the context of disqualification
>>>>>> of a judge. There is no such presumption in cases of allegations of
>>>>>> conflict of interest against a lawyer because of a firm's previous
>>>>>> involvement in the case. To the contrary, as explained by Sopinka J.
>>>>>> in MacDonald Estate v. Martin (1990), 77 D.L.R. (4th) 249 (S.C.C.),
>>>>>> for sound policy reasons there is a presumption of a disqualifying
>>>>>> interest that can rarely be overcome. In particular, a conclusory
>>>>>> statement from the lawyer that he or she had no confidential
>>>>>> information about the case will never be sufficient. The case is the
>>>>>> opposite where the allegation of bias is made against a trial judge.
>>>>>> His or her statement that he or she knew nothing about the case and
>>>>>> had no involvement in it will ordinarily be accepted at face value
>>>>>> unless there is good reason to doubt it: see Locabail, at para. 19.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 30 That brings me then to consider the particular
>>>>>> circumstances
>>>>>> of this case and whether there are serious grounds to find a
>>>>>> disqualifying conflict of interest in this case. In my view, there
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> two significant factors that justify the trial judge's decision not
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> recuse himself. The first is his statement, which all parties accept,
>>>>>> that he knew nothing of the case when it was in his former firm and
>>>>>> that he had nothing to do with it. The second is the long passage of
>>>>>> time. As was said in Wewaykum, at para. 85:
>>>>>> To us, one significant factor stands out, and must inform
>>>>>> the perspective of the reasonable person assessing the impact of this
>>>>>> involvement on Binnie J.'s impartiality in the appeals. That factor
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> the passage of time. Most arguments for disqualification rest on
>>>>>> circumstances that are either contemporaneous to the decision-making,
>>>>>> or that occurred within a short time prior to the decision-making.
>>>>>> 31 There are other factors that inform the issue. The Wilson
>>>>>> Walker firm no longer acted for any of the parties by the time of
>>>>>> trial. More importantly, at the time of the motion, Patterson J. had
>>>>>> been a judge for six years and thus had not had a relationship with
>>>>>> his former firm for a considerable period of time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 32 In my view, a reasonable person, viewing the matter
>>>>>> realistically would conclude that the trial judge could deal fairly
>>>>>> and impartially with this case. I take this view principally because
>>>>>> of the long passage of time and the trial judge's lack of involvement
>>>>>> in or knowledge of the case when the Wilson Walker firm had carriage.
>>>>>> In these circumstances it cannot be reasonably contended that the
>>>>>> trial judge could not remain impartial in the case. The mere fact
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> his name appears on the letterhead of some correspondence from over a
>>>>>> decade ago would not lead a reasonable person to believe that he
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> either consciously or unconsciously favour his former firm's former
>>>>>> client. It is simply not realistic to think that a judge would throw
>>>>>> off his mantle of impartiality, ignore his oath of office and favour
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> client - about whom he knew nothing - of a firm that he left six
>>>>>> years
>>>>>> earlier and that no longer acts for the client, in a case involving
>>>>>> events from over a decade ago.
>>>>>> (emphasis added)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [19] Justice Webb had no involvement with any matter
>>>>>> involving Mr. Amos while he was a member of Patterson Palmer or
>>>>>> Patterson Law, nor does Mr. Amos suggest that he did. Mr. Amos made
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> clear during the hearing of this matter that the only reason for the
>>>>>> alleged conflict for Justice Webb was that he was a member of
>>>>>> Patterson Law and Patterson Palmer. This is simply not enough for
>>>>>> Justice Webb to be disqualified. Any involvement of Mr. Amos with
>>>>>> Patterson Law while Justice Webb was a member of that firm would have
>>>>>> had to occur over 10 years ago and even longer for the time when he
>>>>>> was a member of Patterson Palmer. In addition to the lack of any
>>>>>> involvement on his part with any matter or dispute that Mr. Amos had
>>>>>> with Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer (which in and of itself is
>>>>>> sufficient to dispose of this matter), the length of time since
>>>>>> Justice Webb was a member of Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer would
>>>>>> also result in the same finding – that there is no conflict in
>>>>>> Justice
>>>>>> Webb hearing this appeal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [20] Similarly in R. v. Bagot, 2000 MBCA 30, 145 Man. R.
>>>>>> (2d) 260, the Manitoba Court of Appeal found that there was no
>>>>>> reasonable apprehension of bias when a judge, who had been a member
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the law firm that had been retained by the accused, had no
>>>>>> involvement
>>>>>> with the accused while he was a lawyer with that firm.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [21] In Del Zotto v. Minister of National Revenue, [2000] 4
>>>>>> F.C. 321, 257 N.R. 96, this court did find that there would be a
>>>>>> reasonable apprehension of bias where a judge, who while he was a
>>>>>> lawyer, had recorded time on a matter involving the same person who
>>>>>> was before that judge. However, this case can be distinguished as
>>>>>> Justice Webb did not have any time recorded on any files involving
>>>>>> Mr.
>>>>>> Amos while he was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer or Patterson Law.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [22] Mr. Amos also included with his submissions a CD. He
>>>>>> stated in his affidavit dated June 26, 2017 that there is a “true
>>>>>> copy
>>>>>> of an American police surveillance wiretap entitled 139” on this CD.
>>>>>> He has also indicated that he has “provided a true copy of the CD
>>>>>> entitled 139 to many American and Canadian law enforcement
>>>>>> authorities
>>>>>> and not one of the police forces or officers of the court are willing
>>>>>> to investigate it”. Since he has indicated that this is an “American
>>>>>> police surveillance wiretap”, this is a matter for the American law
>>>>>> enforcement authorities and cannot create, as Mr. Amos suggests, a
>>>>>> conflict of interest for any judge to whom he provides a copy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [23] As a result, there is no conflict or reasonable
>>>>>> apprehension of bias for Justice Webb and therefore, no reason for
>>>>>> him
>>>>>> to recuse himself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [24] Mr. Amos alleged that Justice Near’s past professional
>>>>>> experience with the government created a “quasi-conflict” in deciding
>>>>>> the cross-appeal. Mr. Amos provided no details and Justice Near
>>>>>> confirmed that he had no prior knowledge of the matters alleged in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> Claim. Justice Near sees no reason to recuse himself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [25] Insofar as it is possible to glean the basis for Mr.
>>>>>> Amos’ allegations against Justice Gleason, it appears that he alleges
>>>>>> that she is incapable of hearing this appeal because he says he wrote
>>>>>> a letter to Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien in 2004. At that time,
>>>>>> both Justice Gleason and Mr. Mulroney were partners in the law firm
>>>>>> Ogilvy Renault, LLP. The letter in question, which is rude and angry,
>>>>>> begins with “Hey you two Evil Old Smiling Bastards” and “Re: me suing
>>>>>> you and your little dogs too”. There is no indication that the letter
>>>>>> was ever responded to or that a law suit was ever commenced by Mr.
>>>>>> Amos against Mr. Mulroney. In the circumstances, there is no reason
>>>>>> for Justice Gleason to recuse herself as the letter in question does
>>>>>> not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> III. Issue
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [26] The issue on the cross-appeal is as follows: Did the
>>>>>> Judge err in setting aside the Prothonotary’s Order striking the
>>>>>> Claim
>>>>>> in its entirety without leave to amend and in determining that Mr.
>>>>>> Amos’ allegation that the RCMP barred him from the New Brunswick
>>>>>> legislature in 2004 was capable of supporting a cause of action?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IV. Analysis
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A. Standard of Review
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [27] Following the Judge’s decision to set aside the
>>>>>> Prothonotary’s Order, this Court revisited the standard of review to
>>>>>> be applied to discretionary decisions of prothonotaries and decisions
>>>>>> made by judges on appeals of prothonotaries’ decisions in Hospira
>>>>>> Healthcare Corp. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, 2016 FCA 215,
>>>>>> 402 D.L.R. (4th) 497 [Hospira]. In Hospira, a five-member panel of
>>>>>> this Court replaced the Aqua-Gem standard of review with that
>>>>>> articulated in Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235
>>>>>> [Housen]. As a result, it is no longer appropriate for the Federal
>>>>>> Court to conduct a de novo review of a discretionary order made by a
>>>>>> prothonotary in regard to questions vital to the final issue of the
>>>>>> case. Rather, a Federal Court judge can only intervene on appeal if
>>>>>> the prothonotary made an error of law or a palpable and overriding
>>>>>> error in determining a question of fact or question of mixed fact and
>>>>>> law (Hospira at para. 79). Further, this Court can only interfere
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> a Federal Court judge’s review of a prothonotary’s discretionary
>>>>>> order
>>>>>> if the judge made an error of law or palpable and overriding error in
>>>>>> determining a question of fact or question of mixed fact and law
>>>>>> (Hospira at paras. 82-83).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [28] In the case at bar, the Judge substituted his own
>>>>>> assessment of Mr. Amos’ Claim for that of the Prothonotary. This
>>>>>> Court
>>>>>> must look to the Prothonotary’s Order to determine whether the Judge
>>>>>> erred in law or made a palpable and overriding error in choosing to
>>>>>> interfere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> B. Did the Judge err in interfering with the
>>>>>> Prothonotary’s Order?
>>>>>> [29] The Prothontoary’s Order accepted the following
>>>>>> paragraphs from the Crown’s submissions as the basis for striking the
>>>>>> Claim in its entirety without leave to amend:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 17. Within the 96 paragraph Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff
>>>>>> addresses his complaint in paragraphs 14-24, inclusive. All but four
>>>>>> of those paragraphs are dedicated to an incident that occurred in
>>>>>> 2006
>>>>>> in and around the legislature in New Brunswick. The jurisdiction of
>>>>>> the Federal Court does not extend to Her Majesty the Queen in right
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the Provinces. In any event, the Plaintiff hasn’t named the Province
>>>>>> or provincial actors as parties to this action. The incident alleged
>>>>>> does not give rise to a justiciable cause of action in this Court.
>>>>>> (…)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 21. The few paragraphs that directly address the Defendant
>>>>>> provide no details as to the individuals involved or the location of
>>>>>> the alleged incidents or other details sufficient to allow the
>>>>>> Defendant to respond. As a result, it is difficult or impossible to
>>>>>> determine the causes of action the Plaintiff is attempting to
>>>>>> advance.
>>>>>> A generous reading of the Statement of Claim allows the Defendant to
>>>>>> only speculate as to the true and/or intended cause of action. At
>>>>>> best, the Plaintiff’s action may possibly be summarized as: he
>>>>>> suspects he is barred from the House of Commons.
>>>>>> [footnotes omitted].
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [30] The Judge determined that he could not strike the
>>>>>> Claim
>>>>>> on the same jurisdictional basis as the Prothonotary. The Judge noted
>>>>>> that the Federal Court has jurisdiction over claims based on the
>>>>>> liability of Federal Crown servants like the RCMP and that the actors
>>>>>> who barred Mr. Amos from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004
>>>>>> included the RCMP (Federal Court Judgment at para. 23). In
>>>>>> considering
>>>>>> the viability of these allegations de novo, the Judge identified
>>>>>> paragraph 14 of the Claim as containing “some precision” as it
>>>>>> identifies the date of the event and a RCMP officer acting as
>>>>>> Aide-de-Camp to the Lieutenant Governor (Federal Court Judgment at
>>>>>> para. 27).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [31] The Judge noted that the 2004 event could support a
>>>>>> cause of action in the tort of misfeasance in public office and
>>>>>> identified the elements of the tort as excerpted from Meigs v.
>>>>>> Canada,
>>>>>> 2013 FC 389, 431 F.T.R. 111:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [13] As in both the cases of Odhavji Estate v Woodhouse, 2003
>>>>>> SCC
>>>>>> 69 [Odhavji] and Lewis v Canada, 2012 FC 1514 [Lewis], I must
>>>>>> determine whether the plaintiffs’ statement of claim pleads each
>>>>>> element of the alleged tort of misfeasance in public office:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a) The public officer must have engaged in deliberate and unlawful
>>>>>> conduct in his or her capacity as public officer;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> b) The public officer must have been aware both that his or her
>>>>>> conduct was unlawful and that it was likely to harm the plaintiff;
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>> c) There must be an element of bad faith or dishonesty by the public
>>>>>> officer and knowledge of harm alone is insufficient to conclude that
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> public officer acted in bad faith or dishonestly.
>>>>>> Odhavji, above, at paras 23, 24 and 28
>>>>>> (Federal Court Judgment at para. 28).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [32] The Judge determined that Mr. Amos disclosed
>>>>>> sufficient
>>>>>> material facts to meet the elements of the tort of misfeasance in
>>>>>> public office because the actors, who barred him from the New
>>>>>> Brunswick legislature in 2004, including the RCMP, did so for
>>>>>> “political reasons” (Federal Court Judgment at para. 29).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [33] This Court’s discussion of the sufficiency of
>>>>>> pleadings
>>>>>> in Merchant Law Group v. Canada (Revenue Agency), 2010 FCA 184, 321
>>>>>> D.L.R (4th) 301 is particularly apt:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> …When pleading bad faith or abuse of power, it is not enough to
>>>>>> assert, baldly, conclusory phrases such as “deliberately or
>>>>>> negligently,” “callous disregard,” or “by fraud and theft did steal”.
>>>>>> “The bare assertion of a conclusion upon which the court is called
>>>>>> upon to pronounce is not an allegation of material fact”. Making
>>>>>> bald,
>>>>>> conclusory allegations without any evidentiary foundation is an abuse
>>>>>> of process…
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To this, I would add that the tort of misfeasance in public office
>>>>>> requires a particular state of mind of a public officer in carrying
>>>>>> out the impunged action, i.e., deliberate conduct which the public
>>>>>> officer knows to be inconsistent with the obligations of his or her
>>>>>> office. For this tort, particularization of the allegations is
>>>>>> mandatory. Rule 181 specifically requires particularization of
>>>>>> allegations of “breach of trust,” “wilful default,” “state of mind of
>>>>>> a person,” “malice” or “fraudulent intention.”
>>>>>> (at paras. 34-35, citations omitted).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [34] Applying the Housen standard of review to the
>>>>>> Prothonotary’s Order, we are of the view that the Judge interfered
>>>>>> absent a legal or palpable and overriding error.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [35] The Prothonotary determined that Mr. Amos’ Claim
>>>>>> disclosed no reasonable claim and was fundamentally vexatious on the
>>>>>> basis of jurisdictional concerns and the absence of material facts to
>>>>>> ground a cause of action. Paragraph 14 of the Claim, which addresses
>>>>>> the 2004 event, pleads no material facts as to how the RCMP officer
>>>>>> engaged in deliberate and unlawful conduct, knew that his or her
>>>>>> conduct was unlawful and likely to harm Mr. Amos, and acted in bad
>>>>>> faith. While the Claim alleges elsewhere that Mr. Amos was barred
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> the New Brunswick legislature for political and/or malicious reasons,
>>>>>> these allegations are not particularized and are directed against
>>>>>> non-federal actors, such as the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Legislative
>>>>>> Assembly of New Brunswick and the Fredericton Police Force. As such,
>>>>>> the Judge erred in determining that Mr. Amos’ allegation that the
>>>>>> RCMP
>>>>>> barred him from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004 was capable of
>>>>>> supporting a cause of action.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [36] In our view, the Claim is made up entirely of bare
>>>>>> allegations, devoid of any detail, such that it discloses no
>>>>>> reasonable cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Federal
>>>>>> Courts. Therefore, the Judge erred in interfering to set aside the
>>>>>> Prothonotary’s Order striking the claim in its entirety. Further, we
>>>>>> find that the Prothonotary made no error in denying leave to amend.
>>>>>> The deficiencies in Mr. Amos’ pleadings are so extensive such that
>>>>>> amendment could not cure them (see Collins at para. 26).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> V. Conclusion
>>>>>> [37] For the foregoing reasons, we would allow the Crown’s
>>>>>> cross-appeal, with costs, setting aside the Federal Court Judgment,
>>>>>> dated January 25, 2016 and restoring the Prothonotary’s Order, dated
>>>>>> November 12, 2015, which struck Mr. Amos’ Claim in its entirety
>>>>>> without leave to amend.
>>>>>> "Wyman W. Webb"
>>>>>> J.A.
>>>>>> "David G. Near"
>>>>>> J.A.
>>>>>> "Mary J.L. Gleason"
>>>>>> J.A.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
>>>>>> NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A CROSS-APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SOUTHCOTT
>>>>>> DATED
>>>>>> JANUARY 25, 2016; DOCKET NUMBER T-1557-15.
>>>>>> DOCKET:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A-48-16
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> STYLE OF CAUSE:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PLACE OF HEARING:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fredericton,
>>>>>> New Brunswick
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DATE OF HEARING:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> May 24, 2017
>>>>>>
>>>>>> REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WEBB J.A.
>>>>>> NEAR J.A.
>>>>>> GLEASON J.A.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DATED:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> October 30, 2017
>>>>>>
>>>>>> APPEARANCES:
>>>>>> David Raymond Amos
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For The Appellant / respondent on cross-appeal
>>>>>> (on his own behalf)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jan Jensen
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For The Respondent / appELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
>>>>>> Nathalie G. Drouin
>>>>>> Deputy Attorney General of Canada
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For The Respondent / APPELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Original message ----------
>>> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 19:01:11 -0700 (PDT)
>>> From: "David Amos" motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com
>>> Subject: Now everybody and his dog knows TJ Burke and his cop buddies
>>> allegations against me are false and you had the proof all along EH
>>> Chucky?
>>> To: oldmaison@yahoo.com, nbombud@gnb.ca, dan.bussieres@gnb.ca,
>>> jacques_poitras@cbc.ca, news@dailygleaner.com,
>>> kcarmichael@bloomberg.net, advocacycollective@yahoo.com,
>>> Easter.W@parl.gc.ca, Comartin.J@parl.gc.ca, cityadmin@fredericton.ca,
>>> info@gg.ca, bmosher@mosherchedore.ca, rchedore@mosherchedore.ca,
>>> police@fredericton.ca, chebert@thestar.ca, Stoffer.P@parl.gc.ca,
>>> Stronach.B@parl.gc.ca, Matthews.B@parl.gc.ca, alltrue@nl.rogers.com,
>>> Harper.S@parl.gc.ca, Layton.J@parl.gc.ca, Dryden.K@parl.gc.ca,
>>> Duceppe.G@parl.gc.ca
>>> CC: dgleg@nb.aibn.com, brad.woodside@fredericton.ca,
>>> whalen@fredericton.ca, david.kelly@fredericton.ca,
>>> cathy.maclaggan@fredericton.ca
>>> tom.jellinek@fredericton.ca, scott.mcconaghy@fredericton.ca
>>> marilyn.kerton@fredericton.ca, walter.brown@fredericton.ca,
>>> norah.davidson@fredericton.ca, mike.obrien@fredericton.ca,
>>> bruce.grandy@fredericton.ca, dan.keenan@fredericton.ca,
>>> jeff.mockler@gnb.ca, mrichard@lawsociety-barreau.
>>> cynthia.merlini@dfait-maeci.
>>> scotta@parl.gc.ca, michael.bray@gnb.ca, jack.e.mackay@gnb.ca
>>> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-
>>>
>>> http://www.canadaeast.com/ce2/
>>>
>>> http://oldmaison.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>> http://oldmaison.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>> http://oldmaison.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>> http://maritimes.indymedia.
>>>
>>> Methinks your liberal pals just made a major faux pas N'est Pas?
>>> Scroll down Frenchie and go down?.
>>>
>>>
>>> Threat against Burke taken seriously
>>>
>>> By STEPHEN LLEWELLYN
>>> dgleg@nb.aibn.com
>>> Published Thursday May 24th, 2007
>>> Appeared on page A1
>>> An RCMP security detail has been guarding Justice Minister and
>>> Attorney General T.J. Burke because of threats made against him
>>> recently.
>>>
>>> Burke, the Liberal MLA for Fredericton-Fort Nashwaaksis, wouldn't
>>> explain the nature of the threats.
>>>
>>> "I have had a particular individual or individuals who have made
>>> specific overtures about causing harm towards me," he told reporters
>>> Wednesday.
>>>
>>> "The RCMP has provided security to me recently by accompanying me to a
>>> couple of public functions where the individual is known to reside or
>>> have family members in the area," said Burke. "It is nice to have some
>>> added protection and that added comfort."
>>>
>>> The RCMP provides protection to the premier and MLAs with its VIP
>>> security
>>> unit.
>>>
>>> Burke didn't say when the threat was made but it's believed to have
>>> been in recent weeks.
>>>
>>> "When a threat is posed to you and it is a credible threat, you have
>>> to be cautious about where you go and who you are around," he said.
>>> "But again, I am more concerned about my family as opposed to my own
>>> personal safety."
>>>
>>> Burke said he doesn't feel any differently and he has not changed his
>>> pattern of activity.
>>>
>>> "It doesn't bother me one bit," he said. "It makes my wife feel awful
>>> nervous."
>>>
>>> Burke served in an elite American military unit before becoming a
>>> lawyer and going into politics in New Brunswick.
>>>
>>> "(I) have taken my own precautions and what I have to do to ensure my
>>> family's safety," he said. "I am a very cautious person in general due
>>> to my background and training.
>>>
>>> "I am comfortable with defending myself or my family if it ever had to
>>> happen."
>>>
>>> Burke said it is not uncommon for politicians to have security concerns.
>>>
>>> "We do live unfortunately in an age and in a society now where threats
>>> have to be taken pretty seriously," he said.
>>>
>>> Since the terrorism attacks in the United States on Sept. 11, 2001,
>>> security in New Brunswick has been
>>> beefed up.
>>>
>>> Metal detectors were recently installed in the legislature and all
>>> visitors are screened.
>>>
>>> The position of attorney general is often referred to as the
>>> province's "top cop."
>>>
>>> Burke said sometimes people do not differentiate between his role as
>>> the manager of the justice system and the individual who actually
>>> prosecutes them.
>>>
>>> "With the job sometimes comes threats," he said. "I have had numerous
>>> threats since Day 1 in office."
>>>
>>> Burke said he hopes his First Nations heritage has nothing to do with
>>> it.
>>>
>>> "I think it is more of an issue where people get fixated on a matter
>>> and they believe you are personally responsible for assigning them
>>> their punishment or their sanction," he said.
>>>
>>> Is the threat from someone who was recently incarcerated?
>>>
>>> "I probably shouldn't answer that," he replied.
>>>
>>> Reporters asked when the threat would be over.
>>>
>>> "I don't think a threat ever passes once it has been made," said
>>> Burke. "You have to consider the credibility of the source."
>>>
>>> Bruce Fitch, former justice minister in the Conservative government,
>>> said "every now and again there would be e-mails that were not
>>> complimentary."
>>>
>>> "I did have a meeting with the RCMP who are in charge of the security
>>> of the MLAs and ministers," said Fitch.
>>>
>>> "They look at each and every situation."
>>>
>>> Fitch said he never had bodyguards assigned to him although former
>>> premier Bernard Lord and former health minister Elvy Robichaud did
>>> have extra security staff assigned on occasion.
>>>
>>> He said if any MLA felt threatened, he or she would discuss it with the
>>> RCMP.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.archive.org/
>>>
>>> Small World EH Chucky Leblanc?
>>>
>>> "Lafleur, Lou" lou.lafleur@fredericton.ca wrote:
>>>
>>> From: "Lafleur, Lou" lou.lafleur@fredericton.ca
>>> To: "'motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com'" motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com,
>>> "Lafleur, Lou" lou.lafleur@fredericton.ca
>>> Subject: Fredericton Police Force
>>> Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:21:13 -0300
>>>
>>> Dear Mr. Amos
>>>
>>> My Name is Lou LaFleur and I am a Detective with the Fredericton
>>> Police Major Crime Unit. I would like to talk to you regarding files
>>> that I am investigating and that you are alleged to have involvement
>>> in.
>>>
>>> Please call me at your earliest convenience and leave a message and a
>>> phone number on my secure and confidential line if I am not in my
>>> office.
>>>
>>> yours truly,
>>> Cpl. Lou LaFleur
>>> Fredericton Police Force
>>> 311 Queen St.
>>> Fredericton, NB
>>> 506-460-2332
>>> ______________________________
>>> This electronic mail, including any attachments, is confidential and
>>> is for the sole use of the intended recipient and may be privileged.
>>> Any unauthorized distribution, copying, disclosure or review is
>>> prohibited. Neither communication over the Internet nor disclosure to
>>> anyone other than the intended recipient constitutes waiver of
>>> privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately
>>> notify the sender and then delete this communication and any
>>> attachments from your computer system and records without saving or
>>> forwarding it. Thank you.
>>>
>>
>
No comments:
Post a Comment