Canada election: Campaigns brace for Trump’s sweeping ’Liberation Day’ tariffs
The
leaders of the five main federal parties, from left to right: Mark
Carney (PLC), Pierre Poilievre (CPC), Jagmeet Singh (NDP), Yves-François
Blanchet (Bloc Québécois) and Jonathan Pedneault (Green Party). Photo: La Presse canadienneMark Carney poses a threat to national unity
Liberal Leader Mark Carney speaks at a Liberal Party election campaign rally in Winnipeg, on April 1.Shannon Vanraes/ReutersPreston Manning is the former leader of the Reform Party of Canada and a former leader of the Opposition.
Because of the vastness of Canada’s territory, the differing interests of its various regions, the abundance of competing economic and social interests, and the weakened state of democratic instruments for reconciling conflicting interests, national unity will be a perpetual challenge for whomever we choose to form our national government.
Recent polling by Pollara Strategic Insights shows a temporary decline in support for secession in Quebec but, paradoxically, support for the separatist Parti Québécois remains high. Were the PQ to win the next provincial election in Quebec as predicted, it has promised to hold another referendum on secession. And so the next federal government, no matter who forms it, will be faced yet again with a challenge to national unity on the Quebec front.
But whether politicians, the media, or voters in central Canada realize it or not, the greatest future threat to national unity is emerging not from Quebec, but on the Western front – again, revealed by the recent Pollara survey.
On account of the mismanagement of national affairs for the past decade by the Liberal government, and its consistent failure to address those issues of greatest concern to Western Canadians, large numbers of Westerners simply will not stand for another four years of Liberal government, no matter who leads it. The support for Western secession is therefore growing, unabated and even fuelled by Liberal promises to reverse many of their previous positions. Such promises of expediency simply don’t ring true in the West. Who, except the most politically naive, would believe Mark Carney’s promises to reverse the Liberal positions on everything from east-west pipelines to identity politics and climate change, when standing behind him is a cabinet of 23 MPs who, just a month ago, were advocating for the very opposite and have done so for years?
The bottom-up support for Western secession – another one of those populist movements that central Canada has never anticipated or understood – is currently centred on Alberta and Saskatchewan. But it has the potential to spread to most of B.C., Manitoba and the adjacent territories depending on how it is organized and led. And this time, unlike the late 1980s, there is no Reform Party to redirect that populist energy in a “West Wants In” direction.
So what can be done? Here are two suggested actions, the first by voters in central and Atlantic Canada, and the second by Western political leaders.
Voters, particularly in central and Atlantic Canada, need to recognize that a vote for the Carney Liberals is a vote for Western secession – a vote for the breakup of Canada as we know it. If you couldn’t care less about the concerns or actions of Western Canada, then ignore this unsolicited advice. But understand that separation of the resources-based economic engine of Western Canada from what’s left of the rest of Canada will have dire economic and social consequences for the latter.
Secondly, Western political leaders need to provide a mechanism for recognizing and addressing the growing support for Western secession in an orderly and democratic manner, so that its support and leadership are not surrendered to extremists or eccentrics for lack of thoughtful consideration of how best to proceed. Initially, this mechanism need not be a Western secession party after the Quebec model of the Parti or Bloc Québécois, but rather a democratic forum to first consider various alternative courses of action.
For example, consideration should be given to organizing a “Canada West Constitutional Conference” as soon as possible after the federal election, with a flexible agenda and the backing of at least one provincial government.
If there is a genuinely new federal government after April 28, then the agenda of that conference should be twofold: first, to constructively address ways and means of co-operating with that government to redress the damage done to Western Canada by a decade of Liberal neglect and misrule and, second, to consider how best to negotiate new and better Canada-U.S. trade relations.
But if the Liberals, employing the fear of U.S. President Donald Trump to secure the support of easily frightened voters, should be returned to office, then the agenda of the conference should be to consider ways and means of peacefully seceding.
The next prime minister of Canada, if it remains Mark Carney, would then be identified in the history books, tragically and needlessly, as the last prime minister of a united Canada.
Carney calls Preston Manning's Western independence comments 'dramatic'
Reform founder wrote Carney will be 'the last prime minister of a united Canada' if Liberals win
Liberal Leader Mark Carney says he governs for all of Canada and called prominent conservative Preston Manning's comments on Western independence "dramatic" during a campaign stop in Montreal on Friday.
In a recent op-ed for the Globe and Mail, the Reform Party founder pointed to the deep-rooted feelings of Western alienation among some voters and argued support for independence will boil over if the Liberals are re-elected April 28.
"Voters, particularly in central and Atlantic Canada, need to recognize that a vote for the Carney Liberals is a vote for Western secession — a vote for the breakup of Canada as we know it," Manning wrote.
"The next prime minister of Canada, if it remains Mark Carney, would then be identified in the history books, tragically and needlessly, as the last prime minister of a united Canada."
Carney calls Manning's comments about Western secession 'unhelpful'Manning said the push for secession is rooted in Alberta and Saskatchewan, provinces long angered by the Liberals' natural resource policies, but has the potential to spread to Manitoba, British Columbia and the territories.
"I think such dramatic comments are unhelpful at a time when Canadians are coming together," said Carney, noting he was born in the Northwest Territories and grew up in Edmonton.
"I am part of a government that governs for all of the country, and very much for the West."
Manning's comments land amid a renewed defence of Canadian sovereignty and pride as U.S President Donald Trump continues to wage a trade war.
"We are coming together as a country," said Carney. "I would note that the leader of the Opposition encouraged greater unity."
Former
Reform Party leader Preston Manning argued in an opinion piece
published this week in The Globe and Mail that a vote for Mark Carney’s
Liberals 'is a vote for Western secession.' (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)
On Thursday, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre distanced himself from his former boss's views.
Poilievre, who as a teenager worked under Manning in the Reform Party before the creation of the modern-day Conservative Party, gave a simple "no" when asked if he agreed with the opinion piece.
"We need to unite the country. We need to bring all Canadians together in a spirit of common ground," said Poilievre during a stop in Kingston, Ont.
Poilievre says ‘we need to bring all Canadians together’ in response to Preston Manning op-ed Carney said he will head to Western Canada next week as the 36-day election campaign enters its third week.
The Conservatives continue to maintain a strong lead in Alberta and across the Prairies, according to the CBC Poll Tracker, while the Liberals have pulled ahead in British Columbia.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Fissure among Conservatives undermining Poilievre's pitch he's a national unifier: experts
'There is a fairly profound divide within the Conservative movement': University of Calgary's Lisa Young
Long-simmering tensions within the Conservative movement are bursting out into the federal election, experts say — undercutting Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre's efforts to present himself as a unifier who can take on U.S. President Donald Trump.
Those tensions materialized again after ex-Reform Party leader Preston Manning and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, both Western-populist-styled Conservatives, made a series of controversial statements that raised the ire of former Stephen Harper cabinet ministers James Moore and Jason Kenney.
And the antagonism between the mainstream and populist factions of the party would have remained in the shadows, experts say, had Poilievre maintained his 25-point lead over the Liberals. But now, blood is in the water, and the sharks are circling.
Experts say the fissure among the Conservatives has long existed and — while paved over for a while during the Harper years — may be ready to crack wide open.
"This didn't just pop up this year in response to Trump and the tariffs," Lisa Young, a political science professor at the University of Calgary, told CBC News. "There is a fairly profound divide within the Conservative movement."
Smith stokes fire
The recent discord bubbled over after Smith met with Liberal Leader and Prime Minister Mark Carney on March 20. After their meeting, she issued a public list of demands that she said must be addressed within the first six months of the April 28 election result in order "to avoid an unprecedented national unity crisis."
One of those demands was to rule out the use of Alberta's oil exports to the U.S. as a bargaining chip in a trade war with Canada's southern neighbours.
Having raised the spectre of a national unity crisis, Smith stoked the fire the following day by writing a letter to Quebec Premier François Legault asking to meet and discuss asserting provincial sovereignty.
"I see an opportunity before us, as the democratically elected leaders of Alberta and Quebec, to chart a path toward a new era in Canadian federalism," Smith said in her March 21 letter to Legault.
When Trump exempted Canada from additional tariffs on April 2, Smith issued a public statement calling the U.S. president's move "an important win for Canada and Alberta," despite 10 per cent tariffs remaining on energy exports like Alberta oil.
'Not a good day for Canada,' Moore says
Smith's exuberance over the tariff announcement did not sit well with two members of former prime minister Harper's cabinet, who pointed out that Quebec and Ontario are still facing 25 per cent tariffs on steel and aluminum, and automotive exports to the U.S.
"With respect, Premier, this is not a good day for Canada or the world," James Moore said in a social media post. "When Alberta is economically attacked, it is bad for Canada.
"Thousands of Canadians in the auto, steel, aluminum and other industries may be losing their jobs. This is not a 'BIG WIN.' Canadians stand together."
Former
industry minister James Moore and defence minister Jason Kenney are
shown applauding Canadian astronauts Jeremy Hansen and David
Saint-Jacques in the House of Commons in June 2015. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)
Describing the tariffs on auto imports as a "devastating blow to hundreds of thousands of good, honest, hard-working Canadians," Jason Kenney, also a former Alberta premier, told Ontarians in a social media post that "the vast majority of Albertans stand proudly with you, and have your back."
Kenney even went on to challenge Smith's position on energy, saying that "everything should be on the table" response-wise in order to "defend all industries and jobs" from U.S. trade action.
Earlier this week, Preston Manning, formerly of the Reform Party, wrote a column in the Globe and Mail in which he said "large numbers of Westerners simply will not stand for another four years of Liberal government."
"Voters, particularly in central and Atlantic Canada, need to recognize that a vote for the Carney Liberals is a vote for Western secession — a vote for the breakup of Canada as we know it," he said.
On Thursday, Poilievre distanced himself from his former boss's views, giving a simple "no" when asked if he agreed with the opinion piece.
"We need to unite the country. We need to bring all Canadians together in a spirit of common ground," he said during a campaign stop in Kingston, Ont.
Cutting the legs out from under Poilievre
Christopher Cochrane, a political science associate professor at the University of Toronto, told CBC News that Poilievre has made efforts to present himself as someone who can defend Canada from the Trump administration. Yet, though the leader has disavowed Manning's comments, and pitched national unity projects like east-west trade routes, his fellow conservatives' statements are "cutting the legs out from under him."
"[Manning] has just exemplified what has been the real challenge for the Conservatives, which is: Canadians aren't really sure that there isn't a significant undercurrent within the Conservative Party that actually supports Canada becoming the 51st state," Cochrane said.
"I don't think that's a viable path forward within the Conservative Party, and they are going to have to figure out how they deal with it."
The Conservatives' path to electoral success is much harder than it is for the Liberals because their voter base is concentrated in Alberta and Saskatchewan, while the Liberals have a more evenly distributed level of support across the country.
Issues with a large tent
Experts say Smith's and Manning's recent public statements may be born out of a frustration with trying to pull a broad coalition of progressive and populist conservatives.
"Erecting a tent that's big enough to encompass centrist folks in the Toronto suburbs and people who would otherwise vote for the People's Party is actually an incredibly challenging task," Young said.
Melanee Thomas, a political science professor at the University of Calgary, says some Conservative politicians are just not sure how to maintain cohesion inside the base if they are not "keeping the 'Ottawa hates you' nerve raw."
"When things are going well, you don't have people like Kenney and Moore coming out," she said. "So if this is about the fracturing starting to come, I feel bad for Mr. Poilievre, I don't think there's a way to stop it."
Young says that no matter the cause of the fissure in the Conservative movement, it's making Poilievre's job much more difficult.
"The requirement for somebody who wants to become prime minister of Canada is that you can't tolerate provincial premiers threatening secession," she told CBC Radio's The House in an interview airing Saturday.
"There are inherent divisions within the Conservative movement around this, and the more that Danielle Smith makes Pierre Poilievre's life difficult politically, the deeper those divisions will become."
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Parties lost a swath of candidates last week. After Monday, it'll be too late to replace them
Between the Liberals and Conservatives, more than half a dozen candidates were kicked off their party tickets
Candidates were dropping almost as fast as the writs in the first two weeks of the campaign. But after Monday, political parties will have an additional problem if they decide to remove someone from their ticket — they won't be able to put forward a backup contender.
Between the Liberals and Conservatives, more than half a dozen candidates have stepped away or been kicked off their party tickets.
Michele Cadario, a former Liberal campaign director, said the snap election call could be the reason so many candidates have been booted this early. She suggested the parties are trying to vet candidates quickly.
"Time that might have otherwise been spent doing deeper dives into candidate recruitment and all of that — everything got fast-tracked," she said.
Dan Mader, who worked on the Conservatives' 2021 campaign, said most of the candidates let go last week were likely in ridings their respective parties don't expect to win. But that calculation will probably change soon, Mader said.
"If any party has something juicy on a candidate for another party that they want to drop next week, expect to see a bit more of an attempt by that candidate's party to hold on to them."
Parties can't swap candidates after Monday
Parties have until 2 p.m. ET on Monday to finalize their nominated candidates. They won't be able to replace any candidates who are dropped after that deadline.
Beyond vetting their own candidates, campaigns also do research on their opposition. From an outside perspective, it might make sense to hold onto any damning information until an opposing contender is locked in, but Cadario said that in some circumstances, it might make sense to get it out early.
Why have Liberals and Conservatives lost candidates 10 days into the campaign? | Power & Politics"You may want to disrupt the other party's momentum in the first few days of the campaign."
"So you might plan that to get some attention in an early week. In other cases, you might want to hold back, especially if it might be juicy."
Mader agreed that it depends on how the parties are strategizing, but that waiting until after Monday's deadline would make sense in a riding that is expected to be a tight race.
But in other cases, the party will push out opposition research on a candidate to get the opposing party's leader off their game, he said: "Maybe the party's got a big announcement. Maybe the party leader is having a really good day and you want to throw a banana peel in their path."
There may also be cases where a candidate will sink themselves, Cadario said, by saying something or acting in a way that's counter to the party's philosophy.
Cadario said there may also be circumstances where a candidate will sink themselves: "A candidate in the riding might go off and say something that is completely counter to what your party's philosophy is or perhaps it's unacceptable … or the behaviour is unacceptable," she said.
In
the 2021 election campaign, the Liberals dropped Kevin Vuong from their
party, but he still won the riding of Spadina-Fort York and sat as an
Independent MP. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)
Losing a candidate after the nomination deadline can have mixed results, as evidenced in 2021.
Raj Saini, the Liberal candidate for Ontario's Kitchener Centre, dropped out of the race during that campaign, giving room for Mike Morrice to take the seat for the Greens. On the flip side, Kevin Vuong still won Spadina-Fort York in Toronto even though the Liberals had removed him from the party. He would go on to sit as an Independent.
Removing a candidate after Monday can also complicate things for voters, especially if they cast their ballot early.
Elections Canada can't change the ballots once the candidate list has been finalized. If someone casts a ballot for a candidate who's later removed from the party or drops out entirely, those votes can't be changed.
Corrections
- A previous version of this story contained a subheading stating more than a dozen candidates were removed from the parties' tickets. In fact, it was more than half a dozen.Apr 06, 2025 9:59 AM ADT
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
From: Minister of Finance / Ministre des Finances <minister-ministre@fin.gc.ca>
Date: Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 10:04 PM
Subject: Automatic reply: Do the polls make sense? Nope but at least some computers act with integrity
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
From: OfficeofthePremier, Office PREM:EX <Premier@gov.bc.ca>
Date: Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 10:04 PM
Subject: Automatic reply: Do the polls make sense? Nope but at least some computers act with integrity
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Hello,
Thank you for taking the time to write. Due to the volume of incoming messages, this is an automated response to let you know that your email has been received and will be reviewed at the earliest opportunity.
If your inquiry can be more appropriately and fully responded to by a Ministry or other area of government, staff will refer your email for review and consideration.
If you are requesting a meeting with the Premier for a matter that falls under a specific Ministry’s mandate, staff may refer your request to that Ministry.
Sincerely,
Office of the Premier
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 10:04 PM
Subject: Do the polls make sense? Nope but at least some computers act with integrity
To: pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>, hon.melanie.joly <hon.melanie.joly@canada.ca>, <ps.ministerofpublicsafety-ministredelasecuritepublique.sp@ps-sp.gc.ca>, mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>, fin.minfinance-financemin.fin <fin.minfinance-financemin.fin@canada.ca>, dominic.leblanc <dominic.leblanc@parl.gc.ca>, Chrystia.Freeland <Chrystia.Freeland@parl.gc.ca>, <kory@rubiconstrategy.com>, djtjr <djtjr@trumporg.com>, Nathalie.G.Drouin <Nathalie.G.Drouin@pco-bcp.gc.ca>, <jasonlavigne@outlook.com>, jan.jensen <jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca>, Marco.Mendicino <Marco.Mendicino@parl.gc.ca>, Mark.Blakely <Mark.Blakely@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, Susan.Holt <susan.holt@gnb.ca>, robert.gauvin <robert.gauvin@gnb.ca>, David.Akin <david.akin@globalnews.ca>, David.Coon <david.coon@gnb.ca>, prontoman1 <prontoman1@protonmail.com>, premier <premier@gov.yk.ca>, premier <premier@gov.nl.ca>, premier <premier@gov.nt.ca>, premier <premier@leg.gov.mb.ca>, premier <premier@gov.bc.ca>, premier <premier@gov.ab.ca>, Office of the Premier <scott.moe@gov.sk.ca>, premier <premier@gov.pe.ca>, premier <premier@gnb.ca>, premier <premier@ontario.ca>, PREMIER <premier@gov.ns.ca>, <ezra@forcanada.ca>, Jacques.Poitras <Jacques.Poitras@cbc.ca>
Cc: <junonews+polls@substack.com>, <info@qc125.com>, <eric.grenier@thewrit.ca>, <danarnold@pollara.com>, <aenns@leger360.com>, <jvalcke@viewpoints.ca>, <info@onepersuasion.com>, <acoyne@globeandmail.com>, rfife <rfife@globeandmail.com>, melissa@votemelissa.ca <melissa@votemelissa.ca>, lisa@lisakeenan.ca <lisa@lisakeenan.ca>, lak@brentonkean.com <lak@brentonkean.com>, info@jamesrobertson.ca <info@jamesrobertson.ca>, ahuras@postmedia.com <ahuras@postmedia.com>, Robert. Jones <robert.jones@cbc.ca>, awaugh@postmedia.com <awaugh@postmedia.com>, mpmorin70@gmail.com <mpmorin70@gmail.com>, davidmylesforfredericton@gmail.com <davidmylesforfredericton@gmail.com>, jasonlavigne@outlook.com <jasonlavigne@outlook.com>, tyler.randall13003@gmail.com <tyler.randall13003@gmail.com>, avp.enrolment@stu.ca <avp.enrolment@stu.ca>, leader@ourcanadianfuture.com <leader@ourcanadianfuture.com>
152 Comments
Andrew Coyne on Poilievre vs. Carney, Trump, and the future of the conservative movement
The Hub Canada 
Smoke Mirrors and The Truth -- Both Main Parties Face Issues, Are They Serious?
The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge ForCanada is a registered third-party campaign group under Elections Canada, founded by Ezra Levant.
Third-party campaign groups can raise and spend up to $600,000 during this election campaign on hard-hitting, impactful messaging that challenges the status quo. That means everything from billboards and brochures to national TV ads exposing the real Mark Carney.
ForCanada operates independently of Ezra's other organization, Rebel News.
The Battle Ahead
Our mission is to take on Mark Carney and the establishment forces trying to reshape Canada in their globalist vision. We’re here to hold them accountable and give Canadians the full story — something the mainstream media won’t do.
Carney is being positioned as Canada’s next prime minister, but Canadians deserve to know who he really is. Carney is a former central banker with deep ties to globalist elites. He hasn’t lived in Canada for a decade, yet he’s being parachuted in as the Liberals' next big hope. He has appeared with convicted child sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell and has a history of insider business deals that raise serious questions about his priorities.
Even more concerning, he recently hired the co-founder of the Century Initiative — a radical group pushing to expand Canada’s population to 100 million by 2100, fundamentally transforming the nation as we know it.
How You Can Help
Unlike political parties, there is no cap on how much you can donate to ForCanada. However, donors must be Canadian citizens, Permanent Residents, or businesses and organizations that operate in Canada. Donations of $200 or more will be disclosed publicly by Elections Canada.
It’s important to note that donations to third-party campaign groups like ForCanada are not eligible for a political donation tax credit.
Join the Fight
We have just a few weeks to expose Mark Carney, to vet him properly, and to give Canadians the unfiltered truth. The establishment media won’t do it — but we will. Buckle up, because this election is about to get interesting.
Stand with us and fight ForCanada.
Contact Us
ATTN: ForCanada
Suite 1800-10220 103 Avenue NW
Edmonton, AB T5J 0K4
Phone: (289) 505-9011
Email: ezra@forcanada.ca
Chris Barber, Tamara Lich not guilty on most charges for roles in 2022 convoy protests
Pair faced a combined 13 charges at the Ottawa Courthouse
Chris Barber and Tamara Lich have been found not guilty of most charges against them for their roles in the 2022 truck convoy protest in Ottawa.
Barber and Lich each faced six charges including mischief, intimidation, obstructing police and counselling others to do the same.
On Thursday at the Ottawa Courthouse, Ontario Court Justice Heather Perkins-McVey found the pair not guilty of four charges apiece relating to intimidation and obstructing police.
They were both found guilty of counselling others to commit mischief. Perkins-McVey also found them both guilty of committing mischief themselves, but that finding was stayed at the request of Crown lawyers.
Barber alone was found guilty of counselling others to disobey a court order. Lich was not charged with this.
All told, Barber was found guilty of two charges, not guilty of four and had a seventh stayed. Lich was found guilty of one, not guilty of four and had a sixth stayed.
Trial spanned more than a year
In January and February 2022, Barber and Lich led thousands of people and brought trucks to Ottawa, protesting pandemic mandates and other federal Liberal government policies.
The protests, which organizers called the Freedom Convoy, led to significant disruptions, prompting the federal government to invoke the Emergencies Act for the first time in Canadian history. Whether invoking the act was legal is still being litigated.
Pat King and other prominent figures in the protests were found guilty on similar charges.
Both Barber and Lich had pleaded not guilty to all charges. The trial began in September 2023 and concluded this past September.
Lich told CBC News last year that she would appeal a guilty decision.
More to come.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
From: Ministerial Correspondence Unit - Justice Canada <mcu@justice.gc.ca>
Date: Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 5:24 PM
Subject: Automatic Reply
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Thank you for writing to the 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 au ministre de la Justice et procureur général du Canada.
En raison du volume de correspondance adressée au ministre, veuillez
prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de
votre courriel. Nous tenons à vous assurer que votre message sera lu
avec soin.
Nous ne répondons pas à la correspondance contenant un langage offensant.
From: OfficeofthePremier, Office PREM:EX <Premier@gov.bc.ca>
Date: Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 5:23 PM
Subject: Automatic reply:
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Hello,
Thank you for taking the time to write. Due to the volume of incoming messages, this is an automated response to let you know that your email has been received and will be reviewed at the earliest opportunity.
If your inquiry can be more appropriately and fully responded to by a Ministry or other area of government, staff will refer your email for review and consideration.
If you are requesting a meeting with the Premier for a matter that falls under a specific Ministry’s mandate, staff may refer your request to that Ministry.
Sincerely,
Office of the Premier
From: Premier <PREMIER@novascotia.ca>
Date: Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 5:23 PM
Subject: Thank you for your email
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Thank you for contacting the Office of the Premier. This is an automatic confirmation that your message has been received.
Please note that the Premier receives a tremendous volume of e-mails and letters every week. If your message requires an answer, we will get back to you as soon as possible.
To get you the best answer possible and ensure accurate information, your message may be shared with other Ministers or appropriate government officials to respond on the Premier’s behalf. We appreciate your patience and understanding.
Here are some helpful resources:
- For more information on Nova Scotia’s response to
U.S. economic tariffs and to share your questions and ideas, please visit https://novascotia.ca/
tariffs/ or call our toll-free tariff hotline at 1-800-670-4357. - To discover Nova Scotia Loyal and learn how to identify, buy, and support local Nova Scotian products, please visit: https://nsloyal.ca/
- To book health services, get secure access to your own health records, or find the right care option for you, please download the YourHealthNS app or visit: https://yourhealthns.ca/
- For more information about the new Nova Scotia School Lunch Program and to order an affordable, nutritious lunch for your public school student, please visit: https://nslunch.ca/
- To learn more and sign up for the Nova Scotia Guard to rise to the occasion in the wake of an emergency, please visit: https://nsguard.ca/
For the most up-to-date information from the Government of Nova Scotia, please visit: https://novascotia.ca/.
Thank you,
The Premier’s Correspondence Team
From: Office of the Premier <scott.moe@gov.sk.ca>
Date: Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 5:24 PM
Subject: Thank you for your email
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.
From: Premier of Manitoba <premier@manitoba.ca>
Date: Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 5:26 PM
Subject: Premier’s Automatic Acknowledgment
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
On behalf of The Honourable Wab Kinew, Premier of Manitoba, we would like to acknowledge the receipt of your email. Please note that this is an automated response to let you know that your email has been received.
Thank you for taking the time to write.
Premier’s Correspondence Team
******************************
Au nom de Wab Kinew, premier ministre du Manitoba, nous accusons réception de votre courriel. Veuillez noter qu’il s’agit d’un message automatique qui confirme que nous avons bien reçu votre message.
Nous vous remercions d’avoir pris le temps de nous écrire.
L’Équipe chargée de la correspondance du premier ministre
From: Minister of Finance / Ministre des Finances <minister-ministre@fin.gc.ca>
Date: Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 5:26 PM
Subject: Automatic reply:
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 5:23 PM David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> wrote:
Candidates matter and the unexpected can happen: lessons from 2017's elections
The past year of elections featured some narrow victories, surprising upsets and a few lessons to be learned
With upsets, underdogs, failures and successes, 2017 was an election year with a few surprises.
The B.C. Liberals narrowly won the most seats in the province's May vote, but its minority government was defeated by an alliance of New Democrats and Greens.
The federal Liberals wrestled two seats away from the Conservatives in fall byelections.
Jason Kenney pulled off the triple feat of taking over the Alberta Progressive Conservatives, merging them with the Wildrose party and then winning the leadership of the newly formed United Conservatives.
Naheed Nenshi secured re-election as the mayor of Calgary when one pollster said it couldn't happen.
Andrew Scheer trailed Maxime Bernier on 12 ballots before finally winning on the 13th to become the new leader of the Conservative Party while Jagmeet Singh needed only one ballot to become the leader of the NDP.
And in Alabama, a Democrat won a Senate seat.
The coming year could see a few elections with enormous implications. Long-running governments in Ontario and Quebec are on the ropes while U.S. President Donald Trump could see his party lose control of both houses of Congress.
But before that, let's cast back to the elections of 2017 and look at what lessons can be drawn from these votes.
Candidates matter
At the right moment, under the right circumstances and with the right candidate, almost any party can win anywhere.
The Liberals demonstrated this when they were able to win two seats away from the Conservatives in byelections held in the ridings of Lac-Saint-Jean, Que. and South Surrey–White Rock, B.C.
The Liberals took just 18 per cent of the vote in 2015 in Lac-Saint-Jean before winning it by a margin of nearly 14 points in October, taking a riding the Liberals haven't won since the 1980s. In South Surrey–White Rock, the Liberals won a riding that had been held by the Conservatives and their predecessors without interruption since the 1970s.
In both cases, the Liberals were able to win thanks to strong candidates. Richard Hébert was a local mayor in Lac-Saint-Jean while Gordie Hogg had been the B.C. Liberal MLA for Surrey–White Rock for 20 years.
In the Quebec provincial riding of Louis-Hébert, the Coalition Avenir Québec won the former Liberal stronghold by more than 32 points in October — in part due to the turmoil surrounding both parties' candidates. The Liberals and the CAQ had to replace both of their original candidates due to past cases of harassment.
The CAQ found a good replacement in Geneviève Guilbault. But the Liberals had to settle for their reported eighth choice, Ihssane El Ghernati. Voters were not much impressed, handing the Liberals their worst performance in Louis-Hébert in over 50 years.
And then there was the Republican's Senate candidate in Alabama, Roy Moore. With controversial statements about homosexuals and slavery, he was already a flawed candidate for the Republicans before allegations of sexual misconduct with underage girls emerged.
The result? A state that preferred Trump over Hillary Clinton by a margin of 28 points in 2016 handed Democratic candidate Doug Jones a victory in one of the reddest red states in the Union.
Small parties can defy first-past-the-post
While 2017 was the year that the Liberals backed away from their campaign promise to end Canada's first-past-the-post electoral system, it was also a year in which small parties showed they could still win in a system that has traditionally been stacked against them.
The Greens in B.C. secured three seats in the May provincial election, while in Prince Edward Island the party captured its second seat in a provincial byelection in November.
Québec Solidaire, a small left-wing sovereignist party, held on to one of its seats in a byelection that put co-spokesperson Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois in the National Assembly. The party currently holds three seats and polls suggest it could jump to five or more in next year's provincial vote.
The good, the bad and the ugly in polling
Polls had their usual string of close calls punctuated by one big miss.
The polls were close to the mark in the provincial elections in Nova Scotia and B.C. — the latter an act of redemption after the spectacular error pollsters made in B.C.'s 2013 election. They were also able to call the results closely in a few municipal votes, including in Montreal and Edmonton.
Mainstreet's polling in Calgary sparked a heated war of words between Quito Maggi, president of Mainstreet Research, and critical academics and politicos. In the end, Maggi apologized for his behaviour and his polling firm's performance — and has taken steps to improve both. The next year of elections might show whether those efforts will bear fruit.
Jason Kenney wins elections
It was a good year for Jason Kenney.
The former Conservative MP and cabinet minister secured his first victory of 2017 in March, taking 75 per cent of the vote to win the leadership of the Alberta Progressive Conservatives on a platform of merging it with Wildrose, then the province's official opposition.
And in December, Kenney won a seat in the Alberta legislature in the Calgary-Lougheed byelection in a landslide, taking 71.5 per cent of the vote.
Winning one electoral contest is hard enough. Winning four is something else entirely.
Expect the unexpected
The past year proved that some candidates and parties are able to follow the most unlikely paths to victory.
Scheer became leader of the Conservative Party on the 13th and final ballot, defeating Bernier by less than two percentage points. He trailed Bernier throughout but just eked out a victory thanks to a confluence of factors — Bernier's weak performance in Quebec and the strong showing for social conservative candidates Pierre Lemieux and Brad Trost.
With the Greens being a small third party, only a very limited number of scenarios could produce a minority legislature in B.C. But that is what happened with the B.C. Liberals falling one seat short of a majority government and the Greens winning just enough seats to hold the balance of power.
And in Alabama, Jones was able to defeat Moore thanks to a high turnout among African Americans and low turnout in counties that have traditionally voted Republican. Even with the allegations against Moore, a Jones victory required everything to go right for him on election night — and it did, giving him the win by just 1.5 points.
This doesn't mean that underdogs always win or that expectations are always wrong. But every now and then, the polls miss the mark, candidates pull off upsets and a series of events produce the least likely of outcomes. And it could happen again in 2018.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
@338Canada has blocked you
Val Stavinski
In other Real News: Unethical Justin still rules my beautiful Canada destroying it on a daily basis ...
@Val Stavinski Boring, boring, just boring??? I disagree I think its an interesting circus being orchestrated by CBC and their pollster.
For example
"This doesn't mean that underdogs always win or that expectations are always wrong. But every now and then, the polls miss the mark, candidates pull off upsets and a series of events produce the least likely of outcomes. And it could happen again in 2018."
YUP Methinks Grenier and CBC overlooked the biggest underdog of them all N'esy Pas? Need I say I'm back?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/fundy-royal-riding-profile-1.3274276
Fundy Royal Riding Election Debate
Friday, 2 April 2021
Russia warns NATO against deploying troops to Ukraine
https://twitter.com/DavidRaymondAm1/with_replies
Ukraine says Russia massing troops on border; U.S. warns Moscow
BREAKING NEWS: President Trump Unveils World-Shaking Reciprocal Tariffs At 'Liberation Day' Event
161 Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2Bxp6CvaAw
Investors flee U.S. stocks as markets react sharply to Trump's tariff plan
Global markets reacted sharply and swiftly after President Donald Trump revealed his much-anticipated tariff plans Wednesday, with investors fleeing U.S. stock indexes and companies that rely on global supply chains seeing their stocks plummet.
S&P 500 futures, which indicate where it will likely open on Thursday, plunged 3.5%. Nasdaq 100 futures sold off by more than 4.3%, and Dow futures slid about 1,000 points or 2.3%.
Those indices just endured their worst quarter in years in large part because of growing concern about the economic impacts of Trump's expected tariff plan.
But initial market indications early Wednesday evening were that many investors had expected Trump's tariffs to be far less expansive. In addition to a flat 10% tariff on all trading partners, Trump announced reciprocal tariffs that would tax many trading partners at levels in excess of 20%.
"President Trump just finished his tariff speech at the White House and we would characterize this slate of tariffs as 'worse than the worst case scenario' the Street was fearing," wrote Dan Ives, an analyst at the investment firm Wedbush Securities, in a note sent Wednesday.
That could make things very difficult for large U.S. companies that are deeply integrated into the global economy. Shares of Apple dropped nearly 7%, Amazon 6% and Walmart 5%.
Nike, which produced 50% of its footwear in Vietnam in 2024, plummeted 7% in after-hours trading.
Recommended
Shares of dollar store chains, which import many of their most popular goods also faced steep losses. Five Below plunged 13.5%, and Dollar Tree sold off more than 11%.
Asked if he was concerned by the market moves, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Bloomberg Television that he’s “learned not to look at what goes on during after-hours markets.”
Bessent added that the Nasdaq has a "'mag7' problem, not a MAGA problem," referring to seven large tech stocks often called the "magnificent 7."
General Motors and Ford dropped less than 1%, but Jeep owner Stellantis tumbled almost 2%. Stellantis has more manufacturing in Europe than the other U.S. automakers.
Goldman Sachs estimated that the price of a foreign-made car could soar by up to $15,000 under Trump's tariffs. Even a vehicle assembled in the U.S. could face a price hike of up to $8,000, according to the bank's analysts.
Republican senators face uncomfortable vote on Trump's Canadian tariffs
Several of those senators represent states that share a land or water border with Canada
Trump's tariffs based on 'fake Canadian emergency,' says U.S. Sen. Tim KaineSenate Democrats are putting Republican support for some of Donald Trump's tariff plans to the test by forcing a vote to nullify the emergency declaration that underpins the levies on Canada.
Republicans have watched with some unease as the president's attempts to remake global trade have sent the stock market downward, but they have so far stood by Trump's on-again-off-again threats to levy taxes on imported goods.
Even as the resolution from Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia offered them a potential off-ramp to the tariffs levied on Canadian imports, Republican leaders were trying to keep senators in line by focusing on fentanyl that comes into the U.S. over its northern border.
Kaine's resolution — expected to go to a vote as early as Tuesday — challenges Trump's use of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, also called IEEPA, to declare an emergency at the northern border in order to hit Canada with tariffs. The IEEPA includes a provision allowing any senator to force a vote to block emergency powers.
Tim Kaine wants to pressure Trump, Republicans to reconsider Canadian tariffsKaine told CBC News on Tuesday that in Trump's first term, lukewarm support from Congress on more than one occasion forced him to reconsider certain White House plans. Kaine said he hoped the tariffs vote "could have an effect on curbing the president's behaviour."
"If we get a good solid bipartisan vote in the Senate, that's going to be a powerful message to Donald Trump and his economic advisers that you are playing with fire — don't raise taxes on Americans on their groceries and building supplies at a time when the economy is softening," he said.
Kaine said he has heard from constituents who are "hopping mad" about the potential for tariffs, and that the measure is also intended to demonstrate that the U.S.-Canada relationship is highly valued.
To be successful in the Senate, Kaine's measure would need the support of all 46 of his Democratic colleagues in the chamber, as well as four Republicans.
Kentucky Republican Rand Paul is a co-sponsor of Kaine's measure.
"I live in a state where we have three of the big automobile manufacturers. They're all opposed to the tariffs, and I think that it would hurt them," Paul told a U.S. radio show on Sunday. "The bourbon industry in Kentucky, they don't like the tariffs."
According to Politico.com, Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson moved earlier this month to block the ability of tariff critics to force a floor vote in that chamber.
That means it is highly likely that Trump won't be prevented legislatively from pursuing his tariff agenda with Canada, but if Kaine's resolution succeeds, it would still be a symbolic rebuke to the president.
Several Republican senators represent states that share a land or water border with Canada, a list that includes Susan Collins of Maine, Pennsylvania's Dave McCormick, Steve Daines of Montana, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and both senators from Idaho and Ohio.
Trump, in a social media post on Tuesday, urged Republicans to hold the line and reject Kaine's measure, while engaging in a bout of name-calling for Kaine, who was Hillary Clinton's running mate when she lost the 2016 election to Trump.
Fentanyl a 'smoke screen,' Kaine says
Kaine, in an op-ed in the Washington Post late last week, accused Trump of "using [a] fake emergency as a smoke screen to collect tariff revenue," citing public polling that the measure is unpopular with Americans, as well as a Yale University study indicating they could cost the average American family up to $2,000 more each year.
A small fraction of the fentanyl that comes into the U.S. enters from Canada, and more drugs flow in the opposite direction. Customs and Border Protection seized 43 pounds of fentanyl at the northern border during the 2024 fiscal year, and since January, authorities have seized less than 1.5 pounds, according to federal data. Meanwhile, at the southern U.S.-Mexico border, authorities seized over 21,000 pounds last year.
Why some of Trump's tariff justifications don't stand upMost Republicans in the Senate have signalled they aren't exactly fans of tariffs, but argued that Trump is using them as a negotiating tool.
"I am supportive of using tariffs in a way to accomplish a specific objective, in this case ending drug traffic," Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota told reporters last month. He said this week that his "advice remains the same."
While Trump's close allies in the Senate were standing steadfastly by the idea of remaking the U.S. economy through tariffs, others have begun openly voicing their dissatisfaction with trade wars that could disrupt industries and raise prices on autos, groceries, housing and other goods.
"I'm keeping a close eye on all these tariffs because oftentimes the first folks that are hurt in a trade war are your farmers and ranchers," said Daines.
Trump tariffs: is this the perfect window to buy a home in Canada?Sen. John Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican, conceded that Trump's tariff threats had injected uncertainty into global markets.
"We're in uncharted waters," Kennedy told reporters. "Nobody knows what the impact of these tariffs is going to be."
Recession more likely: Goldman Sachs
Earlier this month, Trump hit Canada and Mexico with 25 per cent across-the-board duties, with a lower 10 per cent levy on Canadian energy — then partly paused the tariffs a few days later. Trump said at the time that the pause would last until April 2, which is Wednesday.
Trump has dubbed it "Liberation Day," and on Monday said the levies will bring "tremendous wealth" back to the U.S.
But economists at Goldman Sachs have raised their forecast for inflation and lowered it for U.S. economic growth for the end of the year.
They now see a 35 per cent chance of a U.S. recession in the next year, up from an earlier forecast of 20 per cent, "reflecting our lower growth forecast, falling confidence, and statements from White House officials indicating willingness to tolerate economic pain," according to Goldman Sachs economist David Mericle.
Reciprocal tariffs aren't the only ones set to launch this week. Trump's 25 per cent levies on automobiles are set to kick in on Thursday.
With files from CBC News and The Canadian Press
Date: Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 6:00 PM
Subject: Nathalie G. Drouin and CSIS know Rule 55 permits the Court to vary a rule or dispense with compliance with a rule
To: bruce.fitch <bruce.fitch@gnb.ca>, <erika.hachey@mosshacheylaw.
Cc: Jason Lavigne <jason@yellowhead.vote>, jagmeet.singh <jagmeet.singh@parl.gc.ca>, <DerekRants9595@gmail.com>, ragingdissident <ragingdissident@protonmail.
Thursday 31 October 2024
Nathalie G. Drouin and CSIS know Rule 55 permits the Court to vary a rule or dispense with compliance with a rule
Senior public servant Nathalie Drouin named national security adviser to PM
Drouin takes over as government considers reforms to CSIS's governing legislation
Nathalie
Drouin has been deputy clerk of the Privy Council since August 2021 and
will retain that title as she becomes the prime minister's new national
security adviser. (facebook.com/JusticeCanada)Veteran public servant Nathalie Drouin has been named national security and intelligence adviser to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
Drouin, deputy clerk of the Privy Council since August 2021, will retain that title when she takes up her new role on Jan. 27.
She becomes adviser as the Liberal government ponders significant reform of the legislation governing Canada's spy service to better address security threats.
Drouin was deputy minister of justice from 2017 to 2021.
As deputy Privy Council clerk, Drouin testified in November 2022 at the inquiry into the invocation of the Emergencies Act in response to protests that paralyzed downtown Ottawa and choked key border points.
Drouin replaces the retiring Jody Thomas, who became security adviser two years ago after serving as deputy minister of national defence.
FROM : WEBB J.A.
DATE : October 30, 2017
RE : DAVID RAYMOND AMOS v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Court File: A-48-16
______________________________
DIRECTION
The Registry is requested to advise the parties:
Upon notice that William F. Pentney, Q.C. is named as solicitor of record for the respondent;
“Wyman W. Webb”
J.A
From: Drouin, Nathalie G <Nathalie.G.Drouin@pco-bcp.gc.
Date: Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 3:49 PM
Subject: Automatic reply: Hey Bruce Fitch Perhaps you should talk to Barbara Whitenect I got a call from one of your minions within "Mental Heath" claiming the RCMP are calling me crazy again
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Good day,
Please note that I am currently away from the office until Friday, November 1, 2024, with limited access to my email.
For any assistance, please contact my office at (613) 957-5056.
Thank you
********************
Bonjour,
Veuillez noter que je suis présentement absente du bureau et ce jusqu'au vendredi 1er novembre 2024 avec un accès limité à mes courriels.
Pour toute assistance, veuillez communiquer avec mon bureau au (613) 957-5056.
Merci
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Jeremy MacKenzie - Government Surveillance & Public Accountability
https://www.youtube.com/
Peter R. Mac Isaac & Paul Westhaver - Accountability in Nova Scotia
Oct 30, 2024
In this episode, Peter R. Mac Isaac @PeterRMacIsaac and Paul Westhaver discuss Nova Scotia’s latest political shifts and government officials' growing demand for accountability. The conversation covers the recent snap election announcement, transparency issues, and the independent movement gaining traction throughout the province. Hosted by Corey Morgan, this discussion gives an in-depth look at how citizens can stand up to political gamesmanship.
Introduction by Cory Morgan Cory @CoryBMorgan discusses recent political developments, including Alberta’s leadership review and a surprise provincial election in Nova Scotia. He highlights the importance of citizen engagement and accountability in both provinces.
From: Premier <PREMIER@novascotia.ca>
Date: Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 3:51 PM
Subject: Thank you for your email
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Thank you for contacting the Office of the Premier.
We are currently in a provincial election period. During this time, responses to correspondence may be delayed. We appreciate your understanding and patience. If your matter is urgent, please contact the appropriate department directly. For general inquiries, we will respond as soon as possible after the election period.
Best regards,
The Premier’s Correspondence TeamDate: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 19:46:12 -0400
Subject: YO Mr Trudeau Need I say Bah Humbug again???
To: ragingdissident@protonmail.com
<motomaniac333@gmail.com>, blevy@postmedia.com, "rick@fodalaw.com, pm
<pm@pm.gc.ca>, mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>, \"Michael.Duheme"
<Michael.Duheme@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
Cc: dnd_mdn@forces.gc.ca, pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca, "blaine.higgs"
<blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>, premier <premier@ontario.ca>, premier
<premier@gov.ab.ca>, paulpalango <paulpalango@protonmail.com>, Office
of the Premier <scott.moe@gov.sk.ca>, premier <premier@leg.gov.mb.ca>,
premier <premier@gov.pe.ca>, premier <premier@gov.bc.ca>, premier
<premier@gov.nl.ca>
Dec 14th, 2015 https://archive.org/details/
>>>>> 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
>>>>> essential for the security and tranquility of the developed world. An
>>>>> ISIS “caliphate,” in the Middle East, no matter how small, is a clear
>>>>> and present danger to the entire world. This “occupied state,”
>>>>> or“failed state” will prosecute an unending Islamic inspired war of
>>>>> terror against not only the “western world,” but Arab states
>>>>> “moderate” or not, as well. The security, safety, and tranquility of
>>>>> Canada and Canadians are just at risk now with the emergence of an
>>>>> ISIS“caliphate” no matter how large or small, as it was with the
>>>>> Taliban and Al Quaeda “marriage” in Afghanistan.
>>>>>
>>>>> One of the everlasting “legacies” of the “Trudeau the Elder’s dynasty
>>>>> was Canada and successive Liberal governments cowering behind the
>>>>> amerkan’s nuclear and conventional military shield, at the same time
>>>>> denigrating, insulting them, opposing them, and at the same time
>>>>> self-aggrandizing ourselves as “peace keepers,” and progenitors of
>>>>> “world peace.” Canada failed. The United States of Amerka, NATO, the
>>>>> G7 and or G20 will no longer permit that sort of sanctimonious
>>>>> behavior from Canada or its government any longer. And Prime Minister
>>>>> Stephen Harper, Foreign Minister John Baird , and Cabinet are fully
>>>>> cognizant of that reality. Even if some editorial boards, and pundits
>>>>> are not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Justin, Trudeau “the younger” is reprising the time “honoured” liberal
>>>>> mantra, and tradition of expecting the amerkans or the rest of the
>>>>> world to do “the heavy lifting.” Justin Trudeau and his “butt buddy”
>>>>> David Amos are telling Canadians that we can guarantee our security
>>>>> and safety by expecting other nations to fight for us. That Canada can
>>>>> and should attempt to guarantee Canadians safety by providing
>>>>> “humanitarian aid” somewhere, and call a sitting US president a “war
>>>>> criminal.” This morning Australia announced they too, were sending
>>>>> tactical aircraft to eliminate the menace of an ISIS “caliphate.”
>>>>>
>>>>> In one sense Prime Minister Harper is every bit the scoundrel Trudeau
>>>>> “the elder” and Jean ‘the crook” Chretien was. Just As Trudeau, and
>>>>> successive Liberal governments delighted in diminishing,
>>>>> marginalizing, under funding Canadian Forces, and sending Canadian
>>>>> military men and women to die with inadequate kit and modern
>>>>> equipment; so too is Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Canada’s F-18s are
>>>>> antiquated, poorly equipped, and ought to have been replaced five
>>>>> years ago. But alas, there won’t be single RCAF fighter jock that
>>>>> won’t go, or won’t want to go, to make Canada safe or safer.
>>>>>
>>>>> My Grandfather served this country. My father served this country. My
>>>>> Uncle served this country. And I have served this country. Justin
>>>>> Trudeau has not served Canada in any way. Thomas Mulcair has not
>>>>> served this country in any way. Liberals and so called social
>>>>> democrats haven’t served this country in any way. David Amos, and
>>>>> other drooling fools have not served this great nation in any way. Yet
>>>>> these fools are more than prepared to ensure their, our safety to
>>>>> other nations, and then criticize them for doing so.
>>>>>
>>>>> Canada must again, now, “do our bit” to guarantee our own security,
>>>>> and tranquility, but also that of the world. Canada has never before
>>>>> shirked its responsibility to its citizens and that of the world.
>>>>>
>>>>> Prime Minister Harper will not permit this country to do so now
>>>>>
>>>>> From: dnd_mdn@forces.gc.ca
>>>>> Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 14:17:17 -0400
>>>>> Subject: RE: Re Greg Weston, The CBC , Wikileaks, USSOCOM, Canada and
>>>>> the War in Iraq (I just called SOCOM and let them know I was still
>>>>> alive
>>>>> To: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>>>>>
>>>>> This is to confirm that the Minister of National Defence has received
>>>>> your email and it will be reviewed in due course. Please do not reply
>>>>> to this message: it is an automatic acknowledgement.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Original message ----------
>>>>> From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
>>>>> Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 13:55:30 -0300
>>>>> Subject: Re Greg Weston, The CBC , Wikileaks, USSOCOM, Canada and the
>>>>> War in Iraq (I just called SOCOM and let them know I was still alive
>>>>> To: DECPR@forces.gc.ca, Public.Affairs@socom.mil,
>>>>> Raymonde.Cleroux@mpcc-cppm.gc.
>>>>> william.elliott@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>>>>> dnd_mdn@forces.gc.ca, media@drdc-rddc.gc.ca, information@forces.gc.ca,
>>>>> milner@unb.ca, charters@unb.ca, lwindsor@unb.ca,
>>>>> sarah.weir@mpcc-cppm.gc.ca, birgir <birgir@althingi.is>, smari
>>>>> <smari@immi.is>, greg.weston@cbc.ca, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>,
>>>>> susan@blueskystrategygroup.com
>>>>> eugene@blueskystrategygroup.
>>>>> Cc: "Edith. Cody-Rice" <Edith.Cody-Rice@cbc.ca>, "terry.seguin"
>>>>> <terry.seguin@cbc.ca>, acampbell <acampbell@ctv.ca>, whistleblower
>>>>> <whistleblower@ctv.ca>
>>>>>
>>>>> I talked to Don Newman earlier this week before the beancounters David
>>>>> Dodge and Don Drummond now of Queen's gave their spin about Canada's
>>>>> Health Care system yesterday and Sheila Fraser yapped on and on on
>>>>> CAPAC during her last days in office as if she were oh so ethical.. To
>>>>> be fair to him I just called Greg Weston (613-288-6938) I suggested
>>>>> that he should at least Google SOUCOM and David Amos It would be wise
>>>>> if he check ALL of CBC's sources before he publishes something else
>>>>> about the DND EH Don Newman? Lets just say that the fact that your
>>>>> old CBC buddy, Tony Burman is now in charge of Al Jazeera English
>>>>> never impressed me. The fact that he set up a Canadian office is
>>>>> interesting though
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone can call me back and stress test my integrity after they read
>>>>> this simple pdf file. BTW what you Blue Sky dudes pubished about
>>>>> Potash Corp and BHP is truly funny. Perhaps Stevey Boy Harper or Brad
>>>>> Wall will fill ya in if you are to shy to call mean old me.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.scribd.com/doc/
>>>>>
>>>>> The Governor General, the PMO and the PCO offices know that I am not a
>>>>> shy political animal
>>>>>
>>>>> Veritas Vincit
>>>>> David Raymond Amos
>>>>> 902 800 0369
>>>>>
>>>>> Enjoy Mr Weston
>>>>> http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/
>>>>>
>>>>> "But Lang, defence minister McCallum's chief of staff, says military
>>>>> brass were not entirely forthcoming on the issue. For instance, he
>>>>> says, even McCallum initially didn't know those soldiers were helping
>>>>> to plan the invasion of Iraq up to the highest levels of command,
>>>>> including a Canadian general.
>>>>>
>>>>> That general is Walt Natynczyk, now Canada's chief of defence staff,
>>>>> who eight months after the invasion became deputy commander of 35,000
>>>>> U.S. soldiers and other allied forces in Iraq. Lang says Natynczyk was
>>>>> also part of the team of mainly senior U.S. military brass that helped
>>>>> prepare for the invasion from a mobile command in Kuwait."
>>>>>
>>>>> http://baconfat53.blogspot.
>>>>>
>>>>> "I remember years ago when the debate was on in Canada, about there
>>>>> being weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Our American 'friends"
>>>>> demanded that Canada join into "the Coalition of the Willing. American
>>>>> "veterans" and sportscasters loudly denounced Canada for NOT buying
>>>>> into the US policy.
>>>>>
>>>>> At the time I was serving as a planner at NDHQ and with 24 other of my
>>>>> colleagues we went to Tampa SOUCOM HQ to be involved in the planning
>>>>> in the planning stages of the op....and to report to NDHQ, that would
>>>>> report to the PMO upon the merits of the proposed operation. There was
>>>>> never at anytime an existing target list of verified sites where there
>>>>> were deployed WMD.
>>>>>
>>>>> Coalition assets were more than sufficient for the initial strike and
>>>>> invasion phase but even at that point in the planning, we were
>>>>> concerned about the number of "boots on the ground" for the occupation
>>>>> (and end game) stage of an operation in Iraq. We were also concerned
>>>>> about the American plans for occupation plans of Iraq because they at
>>>>> that stage included no contingency for a handing over of civil
>>>>> authority to a vetted Iraqi government and bureaucracy.
>>>>>
>>>>> There was no detailed plan for Iraq being "liberated" and returned to
>>>>> its people...nor a thought to an eventual exit plan. This was contrary
>>>>> to the lessons of Vietnam but also to current military thought, that
>>>>> folks like Colin Powell and "Stuffy" Leighton and others elucidated
>>>>> upon. "What's the mission" how long is the mission, what conditions
>>>>> are to met before US troop can redeploy? Prime Minister Jean Chretien
>>>>> and the PMO were even at the very preliminary planning stages wary of
>>>>> Canadian involvement in an Iraq operation....History would prove them
>>>>> correct. The political pressure being applied on the PMO from the
>>>>> George W Bush administration was onerous
>>>>>
>>>>> American military assets were extremely overstretched, and Canadian
>>>>> military assets even more so It was proposed by the PMO that Canadian
>>>>> naval platforms would deploy to assist in naval quarantine operations
>>>>> in the Gulf and that Canadian army assets would deploy in Afghanistan
>>>>> thus permitting US army assets to redeploy for an Iraqi
>>>>> operation....The PMO thought that "compromise would save Canadian
>>>>> lives and liberal political capital.. and the priority of which
>>>>> ....not necessarily in that order. "
>>>>>
>>>>> You can bet that I called these sneaky Yankees again today EH John
>>>>> Adams? of the CSE within the DND?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.socom.mil/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>EdmontonFreedomCentral@shaw.
>> >>>>>>> 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