Donald Bayne
- Phone: 613-236-0535
- Phone: 613-232-4304
- Fax: 613-236-6958
- Email: main@bsbcriminallaw.com
Don Bayne is a partner with Bayne Sellar Ertel Macrae. He received his LL.B. from Queen’s University, an L.L.M. from the London School of Economics and Political Science and an M.B.A. and an LL.D (Hon.) from Queen’s University.
Mr. Bayne has practiced criminal law exclusively for more than 50 years. He has been designated a specialist in criminal litigation by the Law Society and has conducted trial and appellate advocacy at all levels of courts in Canada and at public inquiries (Somalia, Arar, Iacobucci). He has defended all manner of criminal charges including murder, complicated conspiracies, war crimes cases (in Canada, the Soviet Union, Ukraine) and charges against corporations.
Mr. Bayne was the 2006 recipient of the G. Arthur Martin award for the 2011 Ottawa Advocate Honoree awarded by the Advocates Society of Ontario, the 2016 Catzman Award for Professionalism and Civility and the 2016 William Carroll Award for Case of the Year. “an individual in Canada who has made a significant contribution to criminal justice.”
---------- Original message ---------
From: Ministerial Correspondence Unit - Justice Canada <mcu@justice.gc.ca>
Date: Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 5:08 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: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: Methinks Minister David Lametti should explain Federal Court Rule 55 and the document hereto attached real slow to your former politcal boss Justin trudeau N'esy Pas Jane Philpott?
To: pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>, pierre.poilievre <pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca>, dominic.leblanc <dominic.leblanc@parl.gc.ca>, Sean.Fraser <Sean.Fraser@parl.gc.ca>, mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>, robert.mckee <robert.mckee@gnb.ca>, rob.moore <rob.moore@parl.gc.ca>, <ps.ministerofpublicsafety-ministredelasecuritepublique.sp@ps-sp.gc.ca>, don.davies <don.davies@parl.gc.ca>, <david.mcguinty@parl.gc.ca>, <garnett.genuis@parl.gc.ca>, <capitalclips@hotmail.com>, <john@arpacanada.ca>, Colin Postma <colin@arpacanada.ca>, <lperreaux@irpp.org>, <jditchburn@irpp.org>, <ahonickman@jhbarristers.com>, Nathalie.G.Drouin <Nathalie.G.Drouin@pco-bcp.gc.ca>, <John.Williamson@parl.gc.ca>, <cityadmin@fredericton.ca>, <police@fredericton.ca>, <ruby@rubyshiller.com>, <Stephane.vaillancourt@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, <justmin@gov.ns.ca>, <brazep@sen.parl.gc.ca>, <pmccann@mccannandlyttle.com>, <pmantas@fasken.com>, <Davidc.Coon@gmail.com>, <premier@gnb.ca>, <PREMIER@gov.ns.ca>, <merv@northwebpress.com>, <newsroom@terracestandard.com>, <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>
Cc: <media@macdonaldlaurier.ca>, <lineeditor@protonmail.com>, <gjkenned@ualberta.ca>, <cameronj@ualberta.ca>, <deanoflaw@ualberta.ca>, <kmcallister@jhbarristers.com>, <press@cruz.senate.gov>, <main@bsbcriminallaw.com>
Anyone can down load these documents
http://www.scribd.com/doc/
Trust that I have LOTS more.
1 Comment
Perhaps Cpl Horton and Duffy should remind Mr Bayne how many emails I sent them AND HARPER and many others as well EH?
What you see below was just the latest to Duffy. As you well I published it EH Pam?
http://thedavidamosrant.
http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/
http://www.bsbcriminallaw.com/
—– Original Message —–
From: “David Amos” <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
To: <ahamilton@casselsbrock.com>; <mikeduffy@sen.parl.gc.ca>;
<main@bsbcriminallaw.com>; <Mackap@parl.gc.ca>; <pm@pm.gc.ca>;
<info@pco-bcp.gc.ca>; <wallinp@sen.parl.gc.ca>;
<tosullivan@counsel-toronto.
<greg.horton@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>; <MulcaT@parl.gc.ca>; <leader@greenparty.ca>;
<justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca>
<Costa.Dimopoulos@rcmp-grc.gc.
<pmantas@fasken.com>; <stephen.toope@ubc.ca>; <perrin@law.ubc.ca>;
<kevin.violot@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>; <janice.murray@parl.gc.ca>;
<greg.weston@cbc.ca>; <acampbell@ctv.ca>; <steve.murphy@ctv.ca>;
<Biage.Carrese@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
Cc: <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 7:05 PM
Subject: Harper claimed in Question Period today that Nigel Wright is the
only person responsible??? Well ALL the unethical politicians and the RCMP
must recall that Michel Bastarache is the former LIBERAL Senator Harb’s
lawyer and he knows it all Correct Alward?
http://thedavidamosrant.
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 19:22:27 -0300
Subject: Harper claimed in Question Period today that Nigel Wright is
the only person responsible??? Well ALL the unethical politicians and
the RCMP must recall that Michel Bastarache is the former LIBERAL
Senator Harb’s lawyer and he knows it all Correct Alward?
To: premier <premier@gnb.ca>, “david.alward” <david.alward@gnb.ca>,
Hoka Hey Mr Alward
After question period was over to day I heard the Speaker say the
local Minister of Indian Affairs (for one more year) was in the
gallery watchiing the circus.
Anyway do you or the RCMP or the lawyer Mulcair or Trudeau the Younger or
Sun TV or or your blogging butt buddy Chucky Leblanc or anyone else remember
my email to Duffy, Harper and their cohorts last night? I posted it
in a blog as soon as I sent it Correct? If so what was with all the
dumb questions to Harper today?
At least the evil old French lawyer’s computer was honest N’esy Pas Mr
Alward?
http://thedavidamosrant.
After that check this out.
—– Original Message —–
From: “David Amos” <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
To: <mbastarache@heenan.ca>; <Harper.S@parl.gc.ca>
Cc: “Duceppe. G” <Duceppe.G@parl.gc.ca>; “layton. j” <Layton.J@parl.gc.ca>;
“MichaelB. Murphy” <MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca>; <moore.r@parl.gc.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 1:00 PM
Subject: It was a pleasure talking to you Mr Bastarache see you all in court.
I wonder if Harper amd Mac Harb’s lawyer Bastarache remember that
wicked email from early 2009 and recall the sound files that were
attached to it.
Trust that Duffy got them too a long time ago just like Layton,
Murphy, Ducceppe and YOU did EH Rob Moore?.
(Trust that I will be forwarding this email to many others in a heartbeat)
FYI below is the last email I ever sent Mac Harb and Harper before
Harb supposedly paid what he owed and snuck out the back door of
parliament to collect a big pension just like the very crooked liberal
lawyer Davey Dingwall did (Did ya see the sneaky bastard talking to
the equally sneaky David Akin on Sun TV on election night in Nova
Scotia?) Does anyone rember when and why I pounced on his lawyer Ivan
Whitehall when he was a partner at Heenan Blaikie in 2005? (Heres you
clue check the Gomery Inquiry) Liberals love being entitled to their
entitlements and they make sure they get them when they hire the well
connected lawyers hanging their hats at your law firm EH Mr Chretien?
On Jun 12, 2013 CBC posted the following words.
“Harb resigned from the Liberal caucus in the wake of the May 13 Senate
report, saying he would fight the findings in court. He is now sitting as an
Independent and has retained Michel Bastarache, a retired Supreme
Court justice, as his lawyer.”
I have no doubt whatsoever that Harb quit bullshitting about his
willingness to litigate and quit while he was ahead on the advice of the
evil bastard Bastarache because I have been keeping Bastarche and
his partners in Heenan Blaikie constantly updated as to what I was up to
since early 2004. Furthermore not long after I sent the email below I
called Harb’s office again and asked to speak to him personally. The lady
who answered his phone said he was not there as usual. So I asked her
if she was the one receiving my emails. She said yes. I asked her if Harb
and his lawyer were aware of them. She said she printed every one of
them and put the Hard Copy on Harb’s desk to review. She had no idea
if Bastarche knew anything. I thanked her for her honesty and told her to
tell Harb to call me before I talked to his lawyer again. I did not bother
calling Bastarche once I heard Harb quit. However clearly I keep the
evil old bastard informed particularly when I am talking about him.
I suspect that the crook Harb wanted the taxpayer dimes to pay for
Hard Copy of all my emails and whatever else he wished to take with
him when he left his office on the hill in far away Upper Canada.
I bet mean Mikey Duffy has done the same thing N’esy Pas?
.
Veritas Vincit
David Raymond Amos
902 800 0369
P.S After Question period was over I heard Ted Hsu yap as the 68th speaker
and the next to the last to comment before a vote on Harper’s latest omnibus
budget bill. This was all said to a deaf ear to a sneaky NDP deputy speaker.
When the Green Meany Dizzy Lizzy May chimed in with her two bits about the
worried crooked bureaucrats within the NRC. I shook my head and
laughed at the true nonsense of it all. Well they can all cry me a
river. I know for a fact that the May and Hsu do not mean a single
word they say. Furthermore the bloggers and Internet research dudes
within the NRC based on the UNB campus Fat Fred City should be laid
off and the office shut down in its entirety ASAP. They are all just
over paid bureaucratic spin doctors for Harper or whomever wins the
next federal mandate.
ENJOY YOUR REVIEW OF SOME OF MY EMAILS
—– Original Message —–
From: “David Amos” <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
To: “mikeduffy” <mikeduffy@sen.parl.gc.ca>; “greg.horton”
<greg.horton@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>; “Biage.Carrese”
<Biage.Carrese@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
<harbm@sen.parl.gc.ca>; “pm” <pm@pm.gc.ca>; “justin.trudeau.a1”
<justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca>
<leader@greenparty.ca>; “MulcaT” <MulcaT@parl.gc.ca>; <boston@ic.fbi.gov>;
<washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>; “bob.paulson” <bob.paulson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>;
“Kevin.leahy” <Kevin.leahy@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>; <Brian.Kelly@usdoj.gov>;
<us.marshals@usdoj.gov>; <Fred.Wyshak@usdoj.gov>; “jcarney”
<jcarney@carneybassil.com>; <bbachrach@bachrachlaw.net>
Cc: “David Amos” <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
<Dale.McGowan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>; “bernadine.chapman”
<bernadine.chapman@rcmp-grc.
<Leanne.Fitch@fredericton.ca>
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 7:21 PM
Subject: While your mindless boss Biage Carrese is away perhaps YOU should
finally respond to me EH Cpl Greg Horton?
http://thedavidamosrant.
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/
—– Original Message —–
From: Biage Carrese <Biage.Carrese@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 18:00:31 -0400
Subject: Re: What a joke the mindless lawyer Mulcair is EH Mikey Duffy
and Cpl Greg Horton? (OUT OF OFFICE/ABSENT )
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
I will be away from the office August 8th to and including August
23rd. Plse contact Insp. Costa Dimopoulos if you require assistance
(613-993-6912).
Je serai absent et à l’extérieur du pays du 8 au 23 aout. Si vous
avez besoin d’assistance, SVP communiquez avec l’insp. Costa
Dimopoulos. (613-993-6912).
http://thedavidamosrant.
From: “Bastarache, Michel (Heenan Blaikie)” <MBastarache@heenan.ca>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 23:21:32 +0000
Subject: Réponse automatique : Mikey Duffy and the lawyers Petey
MacKay and Arty Hamilton should remember the file called “Upper
Canadians” quite well EH Mr Harper
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Je serai absent jusqu`au 1er novembre 2013. Vous pouvez communiquez
avec mon adjointe Louise Belleau au 613-236-1668.
I will be away from the office until November 1st, 2013. If you
require assistance, please contact my assistant Louise Belleau at
613-236-1668
Merci / Thank you
M Bastarache
[cid:image2e6d67.JPG@bdab12e8.
Michel Bastarache
Avocat-Conseil / Counsel
Litige
HEENAN BLAIKIE SRL / LLP
T 613 236.3488
F 866 441.2699 mbastarache@heenan.ca
55, rue Metcalfe, bureau 300, Ottawa (Ontario) Canada K1P 6L5
55 Metcalfe Street, Suite 300, Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1P 6L5
Ce courriel pourrait contenir des renseignements confidentiels ou
privilégiés. Si vous n’êtes pas le véritable destinataire, veuillez
nous en aviser immédiatement. Merci.
This e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information. If you
are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately. Thank
you.
———- Original message ———-
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 20:21:11 -0300
Subject: Mikey Duffy and the lawyers Petey MacKay and Arty Hamilton
should remember the file called “Upper Canadians” quite well EH Mr Harper
To: MulcaT <MulcaT@parl.gc.ca>, bryn.weese@sunmedia.ca,
“justin.trudeau.a1” <justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca>
<Kory.Teneycke@sunmedia.ca>, byline <byline@sunmedia.ca>, ahamilton
<ahamilton@casselsbrock.com>, mikeduffy <mikeduffy@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
Mackap <Mackap@parl.gc.ca>, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>, info@pco-bcp.gc.ca,
info@gg.ca
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
<acampbell@ctv.ca>, “steve.murphy” <steve.murphy@ctv.ca>, wallinp
<wallinp@sen.parl.gc.ca>, mbastarache <mbastarache@heenan.ca>,
“steve.graham” <steve.graham@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, “greg.horton”
<greg.horton@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 23:28:28 -0300
Subject: Yo Ellen Qualls clearly your boss Terry McAuliffe forgot who
I was and his foes to the right Ken Cuccinelli and Robert Sarvis
didn’t give a damn EH?
To: jvlab@robertsarvis.com, info@robertsarvis.com,
info@terrymcauliffe.com, Lauren@cuccinelli.com, “greg.weston”
<greg.weston@cbc.ca>, “Davidc.Coon” <Davidc.Coon@gmail.com>, leader
<leader@greenparty.ca>, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>, MulcaT <MulcaT@parl.gc.ca>,
“justin.trudeau.a1” <justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca>
<acampbell@ctv.ca>
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
<joshua.skurnik@sunmedia.ca>, “ezra.levant@sunmedia.ca”
<ezra.levant@sunmedia.ca>
Wright’s $90K offer to Mike Duffy had conditions, RCMP say
Duffy told not to talk to media in exchange for money
By Meagan Fitzpatrick, CBC News
Posted: Jul 5, 2013 12:21 PM ET
Related Stories
Who’s who in the Senate expense controversy
Duffy expense saga still riles CBCNews.ca readers
Senator Mac Harb repays $51K in expenses
Brazeau’s Senate salary to be docked 20% to repay expenses
Senator Brazeau unlikely to repay expenses by deadline
Nigel Wright’s $90,000 payment to cover Senator Mike Duffy’s expenses was
offered only with certain conditions, according to court documents that also
show several people in the Prime Minister’s Office knew about the offer.
New details about the payment and the circumstances around it are contained
in an application to the court by the RCMP seeking documents from the Senate
and other material for its investigation of Duffy’s expense claims.
RCMP investigator Cpl. Greg Horton wrote he has reasonable grounds to
believe Duffy committed breach of trust and fraud on the government because
of inappropriate expense claims and because he accepted the money from
Wright.
a.. Who’s who in the Senate expense controversy
Wright was Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s chief of staff who resigned over
the matter once it was reported in the media in May.
The RCMP met with Wright’s two lawyers on June 19, and they revealed that
while there was no written contract between Wright and Duffy, Wright asked
for two conditions to be met in return for the $90,000: that Duffy stop
talking to the media and that he reimburse the government immediately with
the money.
The lawyers, Patrick McCann and Peter Mantas, said Wright was not directed
by anyone to make the offer, that he believed it was the ethical thing to do
so that taxpayers weren’t on the hook, and that he and Duffy were not
friends.
But the decision came only after the Conservative Party of Canada considered
paying the bill for Duffy’s inappropriately claimed expenses when it was
thought he owed $32,000. The party has a fund controlled by Duffy’s
colleague in the upper chamber, Senator Irving Gerstein.
When the amount owed jumped to $90,000, the party decided it was too much to
cover. Duffy was concerned he didn’t have the money to cover the
reimbursement, the lawyers told the RCMP, and he was also worried that if he
didn’t claim a primary residence in Prince Edward Island, his eligibility
for a Senate seat would be at risk.
Some PMO staff knew
Senators Patrick Brazeau and Mac Harb have been asked to pay taxpayers back
for housing and travel allowance claims. Harb paid $51,000 back on Friday.
a.. Read about Harb’s repayment
Wright didn’t offer to cover their expenses, the lawyers said. He got a bank
draft from CIBC on March 25 that went to Duffy’s lawyer, then Duffy wrote a
personal cheque to pay the government.
Harper says he didn’t know about Wright giving the money to Duffy until it
was revealed in the media and in question period on May 28. The prime
minister said Wright made the decision on his own and kept the matter to
himself until May 15.
But the court documents say Wright let the RCMP know on June 21 that he told
Gerstein and three people in Harper’s office that he was going to write
Duffy a cheque: David van Hemmen, Chris Woodcock, and Benjamin Perrin.
Perrin worked in the Prime Minister’s Office as Harper’s legal adviser and
some media reports have said he was involved in arranging the Duffy deal, a
claim he denies. Perrin issued a statement on May 21 saying he “was not
consulted on, and did not participate in” Wright’s decision and that he
never talked to Harper about the matter. He recently left his job in the PMO
and is employed by the University of British Columbia.
Conditions attached
Van Hemmen worked as Wright’s assistant and Woodcock is director of issues
management in the PMO.
The RCMP investigator says in the court document that he believes the
conditions attached to the payment offer back up the idea that there was an
agreement between Wright and Duffy involving the $90,000 and the Senate
report that ended up not being critical of the Prince Edward Island senator.
It has been reported in the media that Duffy agreed to say publicly he made
a mistake and was paying the money back in exchange for Wright actually
paying the money and a Senate report that would go easy on him.
This would amount to fraud on Duffy’s part, according to the RCMP, and his
per diems and his housing allowance that he should not have claimed would be
breach of trust.
The documents lay out details of how the Senate report on Duffy’s expenses
was amended by Conservative senators David Tkachuk and Carolyn
Stewart-Olsen. Stewart-Olsen was interviewed by the RCMP and said the report
removed the critical portions about Duffy because he had paid the money
back, she didn’t know Wright actually paid the money, and that no one told
her and Tkachuk to change the report from its draft versions.
Duffy was reached by CBC News on Friday and said he had no comment. Wright’s
lawyer said he is co-operating with the RCMP and has no further comment.
Harper’s spokesman, Andrew MacDougall, was asked by CBC News to respond to a
long list of questions Friday including what role, if any, van Hemmen,
Woodcock, Perrin played and whether Harper knew his party was willing to pay
for Duffy.
“This file was handled by Nigel Wright and he has taken sole responsibility
for his decision to provide his personal funds to Duffy,” MacDougall
responded, adding that the court document states Harper was not aware of the
offer and found out about it on May 15.
CBC News also asked Conservative party president John Walsh a series of
questions. Party spokesman Fred DeLorey responded instead by saying only
that the Conservative Fund did not pay for Duffy’s expenses.
NDP MP Alexandre Boulerice said the details revealed by the court document
are “troubling.” He said in an interview that Harper’s version of events “is
just not true.”
“It’s not a personal issue between Mr. Wright and Mr. Duffy because there
was a first attempt to cover up this scandal by the Conservative Party,” he
said.
Boulerice said he wants to know if Harper knew the party was going to pay
for Duffy and whether he asked his staff who was involved once the news
about Wright’s payment broke.
“There’s a lot of questions to answer now and Mr. Harper should do the right
thing and tell the truth,” he said.
Heritage Minister James Moore said Friday that anyone who abuses the system
should be held accountable and should “leave public office with their head
hung in shame.”
“I think when you see people like Senator Duffy or others taking taxpayers’
money, using it in an arrogant, irresponsible and perhaps illegal way, I
think taxpayers are rightfully upset, rightfully mad and they should be,” he
told reporters at an event.
Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau said it’s curious that the Conservative party
would be willing to pay for Duffy to “make his problems go away” and that
Harper has not been transparent with Canadians.
“It’s been a real disappointment and it’s frustrating, quite frankly, to
have to be learning about what happened in the Prime Minister’s Office
through a very serious police investigation, and this Prime Minister has
completely lost any credibility with the Canadian people because of his
mishandling of this scandal,” Trudeau told reporters.
—– Original Message —–
From: “David Amos” <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
To: <stephen.toope@ubc.ca>; <perrin@law.ubc.ca>; “kevin.violot”
<kevin.violot@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>; “janice.murray” <janice.murray@parl.gc.ca>
Cc: “David Amos” <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 4:27 PM
Subject: Fwd: While your mindless boss Biage Carrese is away perhaps YOU
should finally respond to me EH Cpl Greg Horton?
http://www.law.ubc.ca/faculty/
http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.
http://www.planning.ubc.ca/
Benjamin Perrin
Associate Professor
Tel: 604.822.1208
Fax: 604.822.8108
E-mail: perrin@law.ubc.ca
Office Location: Allard Hall, 363
Benjamin Perrin is an Associate Professor at the University of British
Columbia, Faculty of Law and a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier
Institute for Public Policy. He recently returned from a leave of
absence in Ottawa where he served as special advisor and legal counsel
to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and was lead policy advisor on all
matters related to the Department of Justice, Public Safety Canada
(including the RCMP, Canada Border Services Agency, Canadian Security
Intelligence Service, Correctional Service of Canada, and Parole Board
of Canada), and Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 16:08:35 -0300
Subject: Fwd: While your mindless boss Biage Carrese is away perhaps
YOU should finally respond to me EH Cpl Greg Horton?
To: Costa.Dimopoulos@rcmp-grc.gc.
<rod.knecht@edmontonpolice.ca>
pmantas@fasken.com, “marc.garneau.a1” <marc.garneau.a1@parl.gc.ca>,
“greg.horton” <greg.horton@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, Jessica Hume
<jessica.hume@sunmedia.ca>
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
<steven.blaney@parl.gc.ca>
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/
http://mccannandlyttle.com/
Patrick F.D. McCann
phone: 613.236.1410
pmccann@mccannandlyttle.com
http://www.fasken.com/peter-
Peter N. Mantas
+1 613 696 6886
+1 613 230 6423 (fax)
pmantas@fasken.com
http://www.
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 19:21:11 -0300
Subject: While your mindless boss Biage Carrese is away perhaps YOU
should finally respond to me EH Cpl Greg Horton?
To: mikeduffy <mikeduffy@sen.parl.gc.ca>, “greg.horton”
<greg.horton@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, “Biage.Carrese”
<Biage.Carrese@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
<harbm@sen.parl.gc.ca>, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>, “justin.trudeau.a1”
<justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca>
<leader@greenparty.ca>, MulcaT <MulcaT@parl.gc.ca>, boston@ic.fbi.gov,
washington.field@ic.fbi.gov, “bob.paulson”
<bob.paulson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, “Kevin.leahy”
<Kevin.leahy@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, Brian.Kelly@usdoj.gov,
us.marshals@usdoj.gov, Fred.Wyshak@usdoj.gov, jcarney
<jcarney@carneybassil.com>, bbachrach@bachrachlaw.net
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
<Dale.McGowan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, “bernadine.chapman”
<bernadine.chapman@rcmp-grc.
<Leanne.Fitch@fredericton.ca>
http://thedavidamosrant.
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Biage Carrese <Biage.Carrese@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 18:00:31 -0400
Subject: Re: What a joke the mindless lawyer Mulcair is EH Mikey Duffy
and Cpl Greg Horton? (OUT OF OFFICE/ABSENT )
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
I will be away from the office August 8th to and including August
23rd. Plse contact Insp. Costa Dimopoulos if you require assistance
(613-993-6912).
Je serai absent et à l’extérieur du pays du 8 au 23 aout. Si vous
avez besoin d’assistance, SVP communiquez avec l’insp. Costa
Dimopoulos. (613-993-6912).
On 8/8/13, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote:
FYI The letter to Petey MacKay and his party’s lawyer Arty Hamilton and
others was posted here a long long time ago.
http://davidamos.blogspot.com/
I also reminded Duffy Harper, Mulcair, Trudeau, May, the RCMP, Indians, Ezzy
Levant and many other people of it and prodived the text of it once again on
July 15th of this year Correct John Wiliamson?
http://thedavidamosrant.
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 07:44:23 -0300
Subject: Too Too Funny on Sun Media I saw Petey Rosenthal David
Orchard’s & Shawn Brant’s former lawyer talk of Oaths to the Queen
after reruns of the lawyer Ezzy Baby Levant and associates yapping
about liberals, Clayton Ruby, Shawn Brant and Eco Terrorists
To: pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>, “jason.kenney.c1” <jason.kenney.c1@parl.gc.ca>,
ruby <ruby@rubyshiller.com>, rosent@math.toronto.edu,
“ezra.levant@sunmedia.ca” <ezra.levant@sunmedia.ca>, MulcaT
<MulcaT@parl.gc.ca>, “justin.trudeau.a1”
<justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca>
“Stephane.vaillancourt” <Stephane.vaillancourt@rcmp-
mikeduffy <mikeduffy@sen.parl.gc.ca>, dions1 <dions1@parl.gc.ca>
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
<creeclayton77@gmail.com>, ppalmater <ppalmater@politics.ryerson.ca
jrebick <jrebick@politics.ryerson.ca>, oldmaison
<oldmaison@yahoo.com>, andre <andre@jafaust.com>, “bob.paulson”
<bob.paulson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, “john.warr” <john.warr@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>,
“John.Williamson” <John.Williamson@parl.gc.ca>, wendallnicholas
<wendallnicholas@gmail.com>, xchief <xchief@bell.blackberry.net>
—– Original Message —–
From: David Amos
To: orakwa ; Danny.Copp@fredericton.ca ; lou.lafleur@fredericton.ca ;
Kathy.Alchorn@fredericton.ca ; Kim.Quartermain@fredericton.ca ;
Barry.MacKnight@fredericton.ca ; police@fredericton.ca ;
carl.urquhart@gnb.ca ; cityadmin@fredericton.ca ;
samperrier@hotmail.com ; lorraineroche@gov.nl.ca ;
forest@conservationcouncil.ca ; oldmaison@yahoo.com ;
dan.bussieres@gnb.ca ; premier@gnb.ca ; abel.leblanc@gnb.ca ;
t.j.burke@gnb.ca ; jacques_poitras@cbc.ca ; jonesr@cbc.ca ;
whistleblower@ctv.ca ; tomp.young@atlanticradio.
John.Ferguson@saintjohn.ca ; wrscott@nbpower.com ; dhay@nbpower.com ;
arsenault_chris@hotmail.com ; bill.corby@gnb.ca ;
Sandra.Conlin@rcmp-grc.gc.ca ; complaints@cpc-cpp.gc.ca ;
Easter.W@parl.gc.ca ; andrew.holland@nb.aibn.com ; debra@greenparty.ca
; bruns@unb.ca ; cbcnb@cbc.ca
Cc: scotta@parl.gc.ca ; caseyb@parl.gc.ca ; warren.tolman@hklaw.com ;
howiecarr@wrko.com ; barnicle@969fmtalk.com ;
cynthia.merlini@dfait-maeci.
Robert.Creedon@state.ma.us ; Brian.A.Joyce@state.ma.us ;
wickedwanda3@adelphia.net ; fbinhct@leo.gov ; Harper.S@parl.gc.ca ;
bmulroney@ogilvyrenault.com ; days1@parl.gc.ca ; day.s@parl.gc.ca ;
jonesr@cbc.ca ; Dion.S@parl.gc.ca ; Dryden.K@parl.gc.ca ;
moorew@sen.parl.gc.ca ; Layton.J@parl.gc.ca ; Duceppe.G@parl.gc.ca ;
Casey.B@parl.gc.ca ; Comuzzi.J@parl.gc.ca ; Thibault.L@parl.gc.ca ;
Arthur.A@parl.gc.ca ; Sandra.Conlin@rcmp-grc.gc.ca ;
complaints@cpc-cpp.gc.ca ; Linda.Dorcenaforry@state.ma.us ;
wgilmour@pdclawyers.ca ; mail@ronpaul2008.com ; info@kucinich.us ;
John.Conyers@mail.house.gov
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [IPSM] TIME: Shawn Brant’s Bail Review say Hoka hey
to Peter Rosenthal for me will ya?
http://www.scribd.com/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/
Just so ya know Rosenthal was too chicken to answer this letter and
the related material that was sent along with it but the long
Jean-Pierre Kingsley’s lawyers certainly did. Press print on the tiff
file that I sent you people long ago that was entitled “Upper
Canadians” and you will have hard copy of the proof of what I say is
true.
On a more comical note, what do ya think the lawyer Dizzzie
Lizzie May will do with her newfound knowledge of Petey Bay MacKay’s
malice towards me? Nothing? Methinks it is so. She has claimed on the
boob tube and elsewhere that she is sick of all the lies about this
and that. In my humble opinion she has made herself ill from her own
bullshit.
Ask your old Minister of Indian Affairs about why I ran against
him in the next election or better yet ask me sometime if ya dare how
easily I can prove that the Election of the 39th Parliament was not
legal. I Double Dog Dare You To.
Veritas Vincit
David Raymond Amos
902 800 0369
FYI this letter was posted here a long long time ago.
It is as follows
September 10th 2004
Paul J.J. Cavalluzzo
C/o Veena Verma
Cavalluzzo, Hayes, Shilton, McIntyre & Cornish
PO Box 507, Station B
Ottawa, ON K1P 5P6
David Orchard
C/o Peter Rosenthal
Roach, Schwartz and Associates
688 St. Clair Avenue West
Toronto, ON M6C 1B1
Jean-Pierre Kingsley
C/o Diane R. Davidson
Elections Canada
257 Slater Street
Ottawa, ON K1P 5G4
Peter MacKay
C/o Arthur Hamilton
Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP
2100 Scotia Plaza, 40 King St. W.
Toronto, ON M5H 3C2
Hey,
It has been over three months since I returned to Canada and contacted
you all. Now that I have returned to the USA I will wait only three
more weeks for you to act ethically and uphold the Public Trust. CTV
or whatever said Fundy was a riding to watch but nobody mentioned me.
I answered openly and honestly to every question put to me in every
debate that I was allowed to attend. I had lots to say and now my work
speaks for itself as I fall silent. Now I have a few questions. I
would appreciate honest answers.
Pursuant to my many contacts and various conversations to you folks or
those of your offices, please find enclosed an exact copy of all
material sent to Jean Chretien and Brian Mulroney. The copy of wiretap
tape numbered 139 is served upon Diane R. Davidson, Veena Verma, Peter
Rosenthal, Arthur Hamilton and Peter MacKay in confidence as officers
of the court in order that it may be properly investigated by the Arar
Commission. May I suggest that Veena Verma solicit the Arar Commisson
to demand CSIS to provide them with the six original tapes given to
the priest, Bill Elliot and the Sussex Detachment of the RCMP in order
that they may be investigated as well.
By the time you read this letter and study the contents hopefully I
will have returned to the USA and stood in court once more in order to
defend my Clan’s rights and interests. I will be inserting this letter
to you folks in the Public Record of many courts in the USA. If you
act ethically and quickly I will see no reason to sue you. However I
will be calling you all to testify to what you know to be true. Shame
on all of you for allowing my country to throw me back into the
clutches of Attorney General Ashcroft without any regard for my
safety. If I die my blood will be on your hands.
Too many mobsters and crooked FEDS want these god-damned tapes for me
to think otherwise. As you can see I have signed statements from both
a US Attorney and a District Attorney claiming for over one year now
that these tapes are part of our Probate Actions. I will prove that
they are not two more times before I complain of every lawyer and law
enforcement authority that I have contacted in two countries.
Oct 3rd, 2004, I will count you all amongst the conspirators against
me if I do not receive an answer from you that I agree with by that
date. Now you know I ain’t joking.
Mr. Rosenthal, I have no doubt that you are a clever fellow. Teaching
Math is clean work. I admire that you only choose to practice law when
you consider a matter to be of great social importance. After my
speaking with David Orchard and studying his actions since that time.
I believe David Orchard is all about David Orchard and the Public
Trust only interests him when it affects his interests. The minor spit
and chew about the demise of his former party is somewhat petty
considering the far more important issues that are afoot these days.
Would not your services be better placed in assisting me in compelling
the governments to uphold the law and the Public Trust? I ask that you
study the material I have provided closely and then think about your
own words and that of your friends. They are hereto attached for your
review. My question is don’t you think it would benefit all Canadians
if I complained of Anne McLellan and Wayne Easter in order to make
them accountable for their lack of diligence in protecting my dumb
ass? Just because I am a pigheaded Canadian layman, it does not follow
that Anne or Wayne should allow Ashcroft and his cohorts to try to
send me to Cuba without counsel. Many lawyers wish for me to simply
disappear or quit so that they could continue to practice law for
lucre or malice. I have no doubt many lawyers like Alan Dershowitz and
even his adversary Bob Barr would like to see me tortured or beat to
death by like H. Pail Rico was. Do you see how easily I predicted his
demise. That was a nobrainer. What say you? Do you wish to assist me
or not? If not give my friend, Byron Prior a call. Now there is man in
great need of a good lawyer with a sense of social conscience and a
bit of integrity to boot. Every Canadian should feel offended by T
Alex Hickman.
Mr. MacKay thanks for proving to the world what a lawyer’s word is
worth even when he signs his hand to it. Your little back stabbing
trick with David Orchard proved my point in spades. I really don’t
know what Orchard is whining about. Hasn’t he heard a few lawyer jokes
in his time on the planet? Much truth is told in jest. Check my work
before you call me a liar. From one Maritmer to another if you asked
me to step outside I would smile and quit talking and start swinging
immediately. I am a much better man than that fat bastard that went to
Harvard and you can tell him I said so. My question to you sir, is do
you wish to call me a liar and then step outside to settle it or argue
me in Court? Better yet, do you and the fat bastard wish to tag team
against me or go at me one on one in court or out of it? All that I
have said is true. I read where the fat bastard lost a hundred pounds
in order to help get reelected. If I did that I would be half the man
I am now but I would still have enough sand left to take you both on.
The MacKay Clan should be ashamed of you. How is that for picking a
fight? EH?
Ms. Davidson, please find enclosed the documents proving I did what
was required of me on July 6th in order to get my deposit back. When
may I expect the money? Why would your help call me about this stuff
without checking with Ms. Chappell first? You always referred me to
her. It is not my fault if you lose the records. Right?
Ms. Davidson, I have another couple of very important questions as
well. When I appeared at the local Canada Elections Office with my
secretary and a witness as required, Ms Chappell would not allow me to
begin the process of registering as a Canidate until she received a
call from some unnamed lawyer from Ottawa. I know that person must
have been you or someone who spoke for you.
Ms. Chappell was waiting for you, Ms. Davidson to decide as to whether
or not I could run for Parliament. I can easily prove byway of phone
records and emails that I had resolved these issues months ago with
the top dogs in your office long before an election was ever called. I
then did it once again after the election was called and then again
with Ms. Chappell before I returned to Canada and then the day before
coming to her office. The deliberate delay was obvious to all and very
offensive. What would have Rob Moore or John Herron’s friend David
Lutz have done if you had tried such a trick with them, Sue you? Why
should I be any different? I do have the same Rights. If you don’t
think I would be just as diligent as any lawyer when protecting my
rights, you have seriously underestimated me. Call my bluff. I dare
ya.
Ms Davidson, you are not a judge nor are you a Member of Parliament.
You have no right to make a law or decide on it. If there was some
sort of legal question why did you not address it months ago with me?
It was my opinion that you were simply delaying me until the clock
tolled two o’clock and then I would not be allowed to have my name on
the ballot. I truly believe you were acting in the best interest of
other lawyers rather that upholding the Public Trust placed in you.
When I kept demanding to just know your name or to talk to you, I was
denied that right. However I did manage to become a candidate by
exactly two o’clock because you knew as sure as I am typing this that
I would have complained of you in a heartbeat after two o’clock. What
say you Ms. Davidson? Do you disagree with my opinion of what happened
on June 7th? If you were not the lawyer attempting to illegally delay
me then that person was acting under your authority. Correct? You are
the Deputy Chief Electoral Officer and Chief Legal Counsel. I am just
the self appointed Chief of my little Clan but as you can see I have
no fear of arguing with fancy upper Canadian lawyers. Do you wish to
explain or should I summons you to court to get an answer? Again I ask
when do I get my money back? My accountant has filed his work quite a
while ago as well. What is the reason for the delay now? Ain’t it
kinda funny how the Queen would not take my check but I must accept
hers?
Ms. Verma, I recall our conversation vividly and can easily prove my
following contacts with you. I already know the answer but my only
question to you is WHY?
As I continue my legal battles in the USA, I want you all to know that
win or lose I was trying to protect your rights too against the
bastards that created the DHS etc.
Cya’ll in Court:)
More laws won’t mean less terror
Experts warn of ‘giving the devil the benefit of the law’
Law Times By David Gambrill
Expanding the power of criminal law will not stop terrorism, say legal
academics, and may instead lead to the permanent imposition of
extraordinary emergency measures and concentrated state power.
Quoting a character in the Robert Bolt play, A Man for All Seasons,
Oren Gross, a Benjamin Cardoso School of Law professor, issued a
general warning against “giving the devil the benefit of the law” in
order to make the public feel more secure.
“Extravagent terrorist attacks such as those on Sept. 11 tend to bring
about a rush to legislate,” Gross told a legal scholars’ conference
convened to discuss the federal government’s new antiterrorism
legislation, bill C-36. “The preventative relief [is thought to] be,
‘If only we add new powers to police, if only we add to the Criminal
Code, if only we revamp and reinvigorate existing offences, then our
nation is going to be secure.'”
But such logic tends to lead to a concentration of power at the level
of government, he says. Citizens may relinquish their civil liberties
out of fear, encouraging the state “do whatever it takes” to make
terrorism stop, he says.
“Governments tend to overreact,” says Gross. “Terrorism from below
may, to some extent, be replaced with terrorism from above.” Legal
scholars who spoke at the conference echoed Gross’ caution. Some
worried that Canada is permanently entrenching the temporary emergency
powers found in the 1988 Emergencies Act.
“My answer to the question, ‘Can emergency powers be normalized?’ is
yes, they can be,” says U of T law professor David Dyzenhais, a South
African studying the emergency powers employed by the South African
government under apartheid. “But when they are normalized, what we
have is a violation of the spirit of the rule of law.”
U of T math professor Peter Rosenthal, a lawyer at Roach Schwartz and
Associates in Toronto, suggested the federal government should have
used its powers under the 1988 Emergencies Act instead of drafting new
anti-terrorist legislation.
Enacted by the Mulroney government, the Emergencies Act gives the
federal government limited exceptional powers to deal with four types
of emergencies: threats to public welfare, threats to public order,
international emergencies, and war.
International emergencies, says the act, arise “from acts of
intimidation or coercion, or the real or imminent threat of serious
force or violence.”
For an international emergency, the act can be put into affect for 60
days and must be reviewed by Parliament before the deadline can be
extended. It includes powers to limit or restrict travel, ban public
assemblies, remove non-citizens from the country, and enter and search
premises without a warrant. The powers in the act are explicitly
subject to the Charter.
The Emergencies Act replaced the War Measures Act, which the Trudeau
government used to arrest and detain 465 Quebeckers in 1970. The
federal government invoked the War Measures Act after the FLQ
kidnapped Quebec provincial cabinet minister Pierre Laporte, who was
found assassinated one day after the act was declared.
The so-called “October Crisis,” when the War Measures Act was
implemented, started a debate in Canada about when it is appropriate
to suspend civil liberties. The Trudeau government came under heavy
criticism for employing the act.
U of T constitutional law professor Lorraine Weinrib noted the federal
government has studiously avoided using the language of “emergency
measures,” even though it has incorporated such emergency powers into
its anti-terrorist legislation. The same emergency powers are
available under the Emergencies Act, she says, albeit for limited
periods of time and under strict supervision of Parliament.
“I would say the government did not use the Emergencies Act here in
response to the problem of terrorism because it did not want to engage
in this type of review process,” says Weinrib. “It preferred to
continue what has been highly discredited under the War Measures Act
experience – namely, the concentration of power in the executive.”
For this reason, many scholars at the conference encouraged the courts
to review the legislation carefully. Federal government lawyers have
called the proposed anti-terrorist legislation”Charter-proof.” But
that doesn’t mean the anti-terrorism legislation should be enacted,
says U of T law professor Kent Roach.
“We may too quick to accept . . . what the government’s lawyers — or
indeed any lawyers — conclude it is permissible to do,” he says.
Roach listed several extraordinary police powers found in bill C-36.
Most notably, the bill allows police to arrest and detain a person
without a warrant, on suspicion the suspect may be carrying out a
terrorist activity. It also creates “investigative hearings,” in which
suspects are compelled to give testimony that might incriminate them.
Roach was particularly critical of the hearing process, the powers of
which, he insisted, haven’t been around since the English ‘Star
Chamber’ in 1641.
“Compelling a person to talk to the police in an investigation in
which he or she may well be implicated offends our traditions of
respect for the right of silence during police investigations,” he
says. “These traditions date back to the abolition of the Star Chamber
in 1641.”
The Star Chamber, associated with the English Courts, was reviled for
its use of torture. As late as 1614, a Somerset clergyman, Edmond
Peacham, was interrogated on the rack before the Star Chamber in the
presence of the attorney general at the time, Sir Edward Coke.
Roach acknowledged the bill gives detained individuals the right to
counsel at such hearings, but such representation provides cold
comfort. “It gives people subject to investigative hearing the right
to counsel — even though, in many cases, the lawyer will simply have
to inform the target that he or she must talk or else face prosecution
or continued detention,” he says. One danger in forcing people to talk
is that they might lie, says Roach. A combination of perjury and
prosecutorial zeal could may lead to the kind of wrongful convictions
associated with the “Birmingham Six” and “Guilford Four” in England,
he says.
In the early 1970s, the IRA bombed pubs in Birmingham and Guilford,
England, killing more than 21 people. Under pressure to convict the
terrorists, police arrested 10 people in connection with the attacks.
In 1989 and 1991, respectively, a British court of appeal released the
Guilford Four and Birmingham Six after finding they had been wrongly
convicted.
This article does not constitute legal or other professional advice
and no responsibility for any loss occasioned to any person acting or
refraining from action in reliance upon material contained in this
article is accepted by the author or Canada Law Book Inc.
(c)Law Times Inc. 2004. All rights reserved.
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Sarvis CampaignTeam <info@robertsarvis.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 17:36:32 -0700
Subject: Thank you for your message! Re: Fwd: Attn U.S. Senator Ted
Cruz (R-TX) Re Obama and the Boyz I just called (202 228-7561) and
left a message about this email
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
Thanks so much for your interest in Sarvis for Governor 2013. We’re
happy to report that we’ve had a flood of requests from supporters and
voters across the commonwealth! So, thanks for bearing with us!
If you are looking to volunteer for the campaign, obtain Sarvis for
Governor stuff or invite Robert Sarvis to an event in your area,
please email chris.taylor@robertsarvis.com.
For media requests, please email jvlab@robertsarvis.com.
If you are looking to find out more about Sarvis’ stand on the issues,
please visit the issues page on our website:
http://www.robertsarvis.com/
For any other inquires, email chris.taylor@robertsarvis.com.
We sincerely appreciate your support and look forward to earning your
vote this November!
—
www.robertsarvis.com
Authorized by Sarvis for Governor 2013
—– Original Message —–
From: Ellen Qualls
To: David Amos
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 9:49 PM
Subject: I had to write my first email after tonight
David, I really hoped Ken Cuccinelli would relax and be himself tonight.
I hoped he’d stand on the debate stage, look straight into the
television cameras, and repeat all the anti-gay, anti-women’s health,
anti-science things he’s said over the years — straight to Virginia
voters.
Instead, he mostly stuck to talking points about jobs and the economy,
as if saying them now means he has entirely new priorities after a
decade-long obsession with imposing his personal ideology on
Virginians.
If we let him get away with that — if we let voters believe they met
the real Ken Cuccinelli tonight — we could lose this election.
Donate $5 right now to make sure Terry hits his Get Out The Vote Fund
goal — and to make sure our team can deliver the truth about Ken
Cuccinelli to voters.
I’ve worked in Virginia politics for a long time. I’ve lived in the
Commonwealth for even longer, and I know Terry McAuliffe is going to
be a great governor. But part of why I signed on to help Terry’s
campaign this year was that Ken Cuccinelli’s closed-minded social
agenda feels really out of step with my home of almost 40 years.
Since he wasn’t willing to be up front about that agenda and his
record tonight, I’d like to remind you of a few things he’s said about
us:
Ken Cuccinelli has said being gay leads to “self-destruction.” And so
he’s opposed policies that would protect gay Virginians from
discrimination.
Ken Cuccinelli has said “God does judge nations” for safe and legal
abortion and that his “ultimate goal” is to make it illegal. And so
he’s pushed policies that could close women’s health clinics and ban
the birth control pill.
Ken Cuccinelli has said that the social safety net was created by “bad
politicians” trying to make people “dependent on government.” And now
he opposes providing health care to hundreds of thousands of
Virginians by expanding Medicaid.
Cuccinelli’s agenda is extreme and his record is clear. But voters who
just tuned in to the debate tonight to make their decision wouldn’t
know any of this.
We’re spending every minute of the next 11 days making sure they know
the truth. Chip in $5 right now to help Terry hit his GOTV fundraising
goal.
Thanks for fighting back. I know you won’t let voters forget what Ken
Cuccinelli has said about us — and what that would mean for Virginia’s
future if he’s elected.
– Ellen
Ellen Qualls
Senior Advisor
Paid for by Terry McAuliffe for GovernorYou’re receiving this because
you signed up for emails from Terry McAuliffe for Governor.
Unsubscribe PO Box 13881
Arlington, VA 22219
(703) 822-7604
> http://terrymcauliffe.com/
>
> http://www.cuccinelli.com/
>
> http://www.robertsarvis.com/
>
> John LaBeaume at jvlab@robertsarvis.com or (202) 352-8335.
>
> ———- Forwarded message ———-
> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 15:11:08 -0300
> Subject: Attn U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) Re Obama and the Boyz I
> just called (202 228-7561) and left a message about this email
> To: press@cruz.senate.gov, info@chrystiafreeland.ca, rheard
> <rheard@rogers.com>, “michael.coren” <michael.coren@sunmedia.ca>,
> info@lindamcquaig.ca, pandrews <pandrews@guelphmercury.com>,
> newsonline <newsonline@bbc.co.uk>
> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
>
> FYI this email has been posted on the Internet for awhile
>
> http://thedavidamosrant.
>
> Chrystia Freeland Campaign Office
> 81 King Street East (King & Church)
> Toronto, Ontario M5C 1G3
> phone: 647-725-2071
> email: info@chrystiafreeland.ca
> Facebook: FreelandChrystia
> Twitter: @cafreeland
>
> For media inquiries please contact Rebecca MacKenzie at 416-992-9580
>
> Linda’s Campaign Office
>
> Come visit us at:
> 878 Yonge Street
> Toronto, ON, M4W 2J1
>
> Phone: 416-900-7493
>
>
> Contact: press@cruz.senate.gov / (202) 228-7561. Monday, September 30,
> 2013. WASHINGTON, DC — U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) released the
> following
>
From: Ministerial Correspondence Unit - Justice Canada <mcu@justice.gc.ca>
Date: Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 12:10 PM
Subject: Automatic Reply
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
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: Les Perreaux <lperreaux@irpp.org>
Date: Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 12:10 PM
Subject: Thank you for your message. Merci pour votre courriel
To: david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Hello —
If you are submitting a pitch or commentary for consideration, please review our guidelines: Article submission guidelines.
If we decide to accept your article for editing and publication, we will be in touch within three business days. Because of the number of submissions we receive, we can no longer reply to every one — but we do read and consider them all.
Thank you for your understanding.
Bonjour —
Si vous soumettez un article pour évaluation, veuillez consulter nos directives : Directives de soumission.
Si nous retenons votre proposition pour publication, nous vous contacterons dans un délai de trois jours ouvrables. En raison du volume, nous ne pouvons plus répondre individuellement à chaque soumission, mais toutes sont lues et prises en compte.
Merci de votre compréhension.
Les Perreaux
Rédacteur en chef, Options politiques
Editor in chief, Policy Options
lperreaux@irpp.org
Get The Functionary for a breakdown of the latest developments in the federal public service.
Subscribe here
From: Davies, Don - M.P. <don.davies@parl.gc.ca>
Date: Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 12:10 PM
Subject: Automatic reply: Methinks Minister David Lametti should explain Federal Court Rule 55 and the document hereto attached real slow to your former politcal boss Justin trudeau N'esy Pas Jane Philpott?
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
*Please do not reply to this email*
Greetings!
I acknowledge receipt of your email. Thank you for taking the time to contact me and express your views.
Our office is open Mondays, Tuesday, Thursdays, and Fridays from 10am-4pm. We are closed Wednesdays for case processing.
While I read all correspondence, the volume of email we receive means that I am not able to respond immediately to every message. Every effort will be made to reply to you as soon as possible. Please note that in most cases, anonymous, cc’d or forwarded items will be read but will not receive a response.
If the information you have sent is about a concern that you have as a constituent, please make sure that you have given your full name, address and telephone number so my office is able to assist you efficiently. If you live outside Vancouver Kingsway please contact your own Member of Parliament for assistance.
You can ensure you are contacting the correct MP by entering your postal code at this website: https://www.ourcommons.ca/
Please be assured that all email sent to this office is treated as confidential.
Should you need further assistance, please contact my office at 604-775-6263.
Sincerely,
Don Davies, MP
Vancouver Kingsway
From: Asher Honickman <ahonickman@jhbarristers.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 12:10 PM
Subject: Automatic reply: Methinks Minister David Lametti should explain Federal Court Rule 55 and the document hereto attached real slow to your former politcal boss Justin trudeau N'esy Pas Jane Philpott?
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
I am away on vacation with limited access to email and voicemail. If your matter is urgent, please contact my clerk, Kayla McAllister, at kmcallister@jhbarristers.com.
From: Moore, Rob - M.P. <Rob.Moore@parl.gc.ca>
Date: Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 12:10 PM
Subject: Automatic reply: Methinks Minister David Lametti should explain Federal Court Rule 55 and the document hereto attached real slow to your former politcal boss Justin trudeau N'esy Pas Jane Philpott?
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Thank you for contacting the Honourable Rob Moore, P.C., M.P. office. We appreciate the time you took to get in touch with our office.
If you did not already, please ensure to include your full contact details on your email and the appropriate staff will be able to action your request. We strive to ensure all constituent correspondence is responded to in a timely manner.
If your question or concern is time sensitive, please call our office: 506-832-4200.
Again, we thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Office of the Honourable Rob Moore, P.C., M.P.
Member of Parliament for Fundy Royal
From: Poilievre, Pierre - M.P. <pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca>
Date: Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 12:11 PM
Subject: Acknowledgement – Email Received / Accusé de réception – Courriel reçu
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
On behalf of the Hon. Pierre Poilievre, we would like to thank you for contacting the Office of the Leader of the Official Opposition.
Mr. Poilievre greatly values feedback and input from Canadians. We wish
to inform you that the Office of the Leader of the Official Opposition
reads and reviews every e-mail we receive. Please note that this
account receives a high volume of e-mails, and
we endeavour to reply as quickly as possible.
If you are a constituent of Mr. Poilievre in the riding of Battle River - Crowfoot and you have an urgent matter to discuss, please contact his constituency office at:
Phone: 1-780-608-4600
Fax: 1-780-608-4603
Hon. Pierre Poilievre, M.P.
Battle River – Crowfoot
4945 50 Street
Camrose, Alberta T4V 1P9
Once again, thank you for writing.
Sincerely,
Office of the Leader of the Official Opposition
______________________________
Au nom de l’honorable Pierre Poilievre, nous tenons à vous remercier d’avoir communiqué avec le Bureau du chef de l’Opposition officielle.
M. Poilievre accorde une grande importance aux commentaires et aux
suggestions des Canadiens. Nous tenons à vous informer que le Bureau du
chef de l’Opposition officielle lit et examine tous les courriels qu’il
reçoit. Veuillez noter que ce compte reçoit un
volume important de courriels et que nous nous efforçons d’y répondre
le plus rapidement possible.
Si vous êtes un électeur de M. Poilievre dans la circonscription de Battle River - Crowfoot et que vous avez une question urgente à discuter, veuillez contacter son bureau de circonscription :
Téléphone :
Télécopieur :
L’honorable Pierre Poilievre, député
Battle River – Crowfoot
4945, 50 Street
Camrose (Alberta) T4V 1P9
Encore une fois, merci de votre message.
Veuillez agréer nos salutations distinguées,
Bureau du chef de l’Opposition officielle
Gerard Kennedy: Sean Fraser is pushing Canada toward U.S.-style judicial power
If the A-G's view prevails, it will be the judiciary, and the not the legislature, that has the final word in rights interpretation.
Oct 15, 2025By: Gerard Kennedy
Recent weeks have seen myriad commentators wonder if Canada’s elbows are “down” with respect to U.S. President Donald Trump’s provocations. Significant sympathy must be given to Prime Minister Mark Carney here in dealing with an unpredictable narcissist. Figuring out the best strategy is a mug’s game. But no one should doubt that the PM does not want Canada to become America.
Recent weeks have also seen immense scrutiny of Attorney General Sean Fraser’s written argument against the notwithstanding clause in the case English Montreal School Board v Attorney General of Quebec. This is continuing to prompt outrage from provincial political leaders and constitutional law scholars (particularly those in Quebec and western Canada), who assert that the argument advanced by Fraser risks destroying a constitutional settlement and provoking a national unity crisis. This in turn has led to commentary (notably from Andrew Coyne), countering these commentators.
What perhaps is under-appreciated in all of this, however, is the extent to which Fraser is arguing for an incredibly American conception of judicial power.
To remind everyone: this case is a challenge to a Quebec law that prohibits many civil servants from wearing “ostentatious” religious symbols at work. Though seeming commonsensical to many in France, this law is profoundly illiberal and anathema to Anglo-American conceptions of freedom of religion.
But within “Anglo-American” common law legal traditions, there is still significant variation in terms of the role of the courts compared to the legislatures in being the final adjudicators of rights. In the United Kingdom, for example, courts cannot invalidate legislation for violating rights. At most, they attempt to reconcile a statutory bill of rights with legislation. If they cannot do so, they can only issue a declaration that the legislation is incompatible with the bill of rights — though the legislation stands. The same is true in New Zealand. In Australia, there is not even a statutory bill of rights.
These are highly functioning liberal democracies with incredibly respected judiciaries. They are hardly rights-abusing dystopias.
In the United States, on the other hand, the judiciary’s conception of rights is final. Once the judiciary has invalidated legislation, the only way to restore the legislation is to convince the judiciary to change its mind.
Canada, after the entrenchment of the Charter in 1982, moved from a conception of rights protection akin to the United Kingdom to one much closer to the American model. However, s 33 of the Charter — the “notwithstanding clause” — permits legislatures to temporarily override judicial interpretations of rights. These rights are framed in the Charter at a high level of generality such that their interpretation is subject to reasonable disagreement. Accordingly, s 33 was an essential part of the bargain that gave Canada the Charter.
Back to Fraser’s argument: parts of it are, to be sure, not implausible. Notably, he argues that courts have the power to issue declarations that Charter rights have been unreasonably limited, even though section 33 ensures that the law can continue to operate. In other words, the Court would essentially issue an advisory opinion as to what it would decide had s 33 not been used. Voters and politicians can take that advice as they will, but there would be no immediate effects of such a declaratory judgment. There are very good arguments against this position, but I’ll leave them for another day. Suffice it to say that many constitutional law scholars have been advocating for this position for years, and it needs to be taken seriously.
But much more dramatically, and contrary to decades of scholarship and case law, Fraser argues that s 33 cannot protect legislation if it would cause “irreparable” damage to a Charter right, and that “repeated” invocations of s 33 may amount to a constitutional amendment such that the judiciary can invalidate the law.
If accepted, this would move us to an unambiguously American model of rights conception. Qualifiers (“irreparable”, “repeated”) don’t suffice, as even those qualifiers need to be interpreted by the judiciary, as does the right itself. In other words, if Fraser’s view prevails, it will be the judiciary, and the not the legislature, that has the final word in rights interpretation. This would clearly amount to the constitutional amendment that Fraser purports to be worried about.
In public commentary since, Fraser euphemistically suggests that this is necessary to protect rights. This is very much building on the American experience of the Warren and early Burger courts, from the mid-1950 to mid-1970s, where progressive policy battles were won in the Supreme Court. This excited Canadian law professors like Pierre Elliott Trudeau and young Canadian law students like future Supreme Court Justice Rosalie Abella, who lamented Canadian constitutional law’s boringness.
Flash forward 40 years: the rest of the Anglosphere has adopted almost all of the policy preferences of the Warren and early Burger courts, but with limits and qualifications. This required engaging in the messy trade-offs of legislating and balancing conflicting goods.
Do people really think the United States better protects individual rights today? To ask the question is to answer it. The conservative establishment there caught on to the fact that the only way to achieve certain policy outcomes was to stack the courts. (At least, the only legal way — American history also has examples of politicians intimidating the judiciary or ignoring judicial orders, but those are even more antithetical to the rule of law.) The appointments process in the United States has become partisan theatre and respect for the judiciary as an institution has tanked.
Having a notwithstanding clause prevents the need for this. It allows politicians to express disagreement with judicial rulings and take the political heat for doing so. At times, that political heat isn’t enough for those who view it as almost incomprehensible that the elected representatives of the people — rather than specialized judges — have the final word in conceptualizing rights.
In this vein, the straw-man argument that Fraser has put forward in his factum — that surely the notwithstanding clause cannot protect laws reinstituting slavery or authorizing arbitrary executions — exists in a world where judicial rulings are self-enforcing rather than requiring buy-in by the populace. (Query whether a society that wants to reinstitute slavery would listen to a court telling it otherwise.) Even taking these hypotheticals at face value, however, they fail to consider that Canadian courts would be in the same position as British, Australian, or New Zealand courts in such a situation. Like our Commonwealth cousins, Canadian courts would be unable to invalidate the legislation for offending a bill of rights.
Judicial review to ensure that legislatures and especially executive actors act within the ambit of their authority is a sign of a healthy democracy that values the rule of law. In order to preserve courts for when we need them, however, judges need to be seen as upholding the text and purpose of the constitution as it is rather than what some may normatively want. Judicial review on contested matters of rights conceptualization is not an intrinsic element of that, as the Australian experience demonstrates. Rendering laws inoperative for offending bills of rights is certainly not an essential element of the rule of law — on the contrary, it is a particularly American conception of rights, and one that has served the United States questionably.
Canada may have hit the constitutional Goldilocks zone by having relatively strong judicial power and a respected judicial system with a respected non-partisan appointment process. (Though there is some evidence of this diminishing.) The price of this may be the notwithstanding clause. If that price is not paid, do not expect everything else to remain equal.
Gerard Kennedy is associate professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of Alberta, where he teaches and researches procedural law and public law. He is executive director of Advocates for the Rule of Law.
The Line is entirely reader and advertiser funded — no federal subsidy for us! If you value our work, have already subscribed, and still worry about what will happen when the conventional media finishes collapsing, please make a donation today. Please note: a donation is not a subscription, and will not grant access to paywalled content. It’s just a way of thanking us for what we do. If you’re looking to subscribe and get full access, it’s that other blue button!
Dean's Office
Our administration consists of Dean Fiona Kelly, Vice-Dean Joanna Harrington, an Associate Dean of Education, an Associate Dean of Graduate Studies, an Associate Dean of Research and a Faculty General Manager.
Vice-Dean
Joanna Harrington, BA, JD, PhD
joanna.harrington@ualberta.ca
780-492-2286
Associate Dean, EducationCameron Jefferies, BSc, LLB, LLM, SJD
cameronj@ualberta.ca
(780) 492-9059
Associate Dean, Graduate StudiesGerard Kennedy joined UofA Law in July 2023, having previously been a faculty member at the University of Manitoba's Faculty of Law for over three years. He researches the role of courts in society, specifically how different actors and institutions within or adjacent to the legal profession uphold the rule of law and facilitate access to justice. He principally does this through analyzing civil justice and procedure and administrative law and procedure, frequently with a comparative lens. He has authored or co-authored over thirty journal articles on these topics, and six books, including The Charter of Rights in Litigation: Direction from the Supreme Court of Canada; The Civil Litigation Process, 9th edition; Public Law, 5th edition; Civil Litigation, 2nd edition; and Boundaries of Judicial Review: The Law of Justiciability in Canada, 3rd edition. His work has been cited by the Supreme Court of Canada, Federal Court of Appeal, Federal Court, Court of Appeal for British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario, Alberta Court of King's Bench, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, and Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island.
Professor Kennedy received his Juris Doctor at Queen’s University, where he was the sole recipient of the Dean’s Key in his graduating class. He then clerked at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice before earning a Masters of Law at Harvard Law School as a Frank Knox Memorial Fellow. His doctoral studies at Osgoode Hall Law School were supported by a Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation Scholarship and a SSHRC Joseph-Armand Bombardier CGS Doctoral Scholarship. As a doctoral student, he held scholarship-supported visiting positions at NYU School of Law and the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law.
Professor Kennedy’s interests in the role of courts in society, and specifically civil and administrative justice, were largely inspired by his four years as a litigator at Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP. He has given numerous continuing professional development presentations for organizations as diverse as given numerous continuing professional development presentations for organizations as diverse as the National Judicial Institute, The Advocates' Society, American College of Trial Lawyers (Manitoba chapter), the Runnymede Society, the Canadian Bar Association, and many more.
He has remained an active member of the legal profession, as a member of the bars of Ontario, Manitoba, and Alberta. He serves on the Alberta Judicial Council, the Federal Courts Rules Committee, and the (advisory) boards of Advocates for the Rule of Law, the Centre for Constitutional Studies, and the Edmonton Bar Association. Believing it is a role of the academy to communicate with the public, Professor Kennedy is a frequent media contributor
Courses
LAW 456 - Professionalism and Ethics
An examination of the organization of the legal profession in Canada and the professional conduct of lawyers as determined by law, ethical codes of conduct and service to the public interest. The course will address civility in communication and conduct, common ethical issues in practice, the fiduciary nature of the lawyer's work, conflicts of interest, confidentiality, lawyer professionalism, and the lawyer's role in the administration of justice including access to the legal system. This will include learning about forms of discrimination and bias recognized in Canadian human rights legislation as they are manifest racism, sexism and bias in the Canadian justice system and the legal profession with attention to racism and sexism.
Gerard Kennedy, BA (Hons), JD, LLM, PhD
gjkenned@ualberta.ca
Faculty General Manager
Julie McClelland, MPA
Room 483 Law Centre
law.administration@ualberta.ca
780-492-3151---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer-daemon@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, Dec 19, 2025 at 11:22 AM
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Delay)
To: <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
![Error Icon]()
Delivery incomplete
There was a temporary problem delivering your message to asher.honickman@ruleoflaw.ca. Gmail will retry for 46 more hours. You'll be notified if the delivery fails permanently. LEARN MORE The response was:
The recipient server did not accept our requests to connect. For more information, go to https://support.google.com/
mail/answer/7720 [ruleoflaw.ca 147.182.146.132: timed out] ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Fwd: Methinks Minister David Lametti should explain Federal Court Rule 55 and the document hereto attached real slow to your former politcal boss Justin trudeau N'esy Pas Jane Philpott?
To: <ahonickman@jhbarristers.com>, Nathalie.G.Drouin <Nathalie.G.Drouin@pco-bcp.gc.ca> How we are Funded
The Institute for Research on Public Policy was incorporated in 1972 as an independent organization, following a recommendation from a federally commissioned report. Half of the Institute’s start-up funding ($10 million) was provided by the federal government, and the other half was raised through a combination of contributions from nine provinces, and a range of private sector and foundation partners. The funds were used to create an endowment, which endures today and provides the core of the Institute’s operational budget. The endowment gives the Institute the flexibility to pursue independent research and activities of its own choosing.
In 2018, the federal government provided an additional $10 million in funding to the Institute to create the Centre of Excellence on the Canadian Federation. These funds are administered through a separate endowment. The investment committee of the IRPP’s Board of Directors manages both endowments. No government body is involved in the administration of our funds or our operations.
Withdrawals from the endowments do not cover all the Institute’s annual operational budget. We also receive funding for our activities from charitable foundations, private sector partners, government departments, other non-profits and from individual donors who wish to support independent public policy research. Policy Options, the IRPP’s digital magazine, also receives revenue from advertising. We do not accept funds from political parties.
Our research is rigorously independent, and we always retain control over the scope, methodology, conclusions and recommendations of our work. We also clearly and publicly disclose who our supporters are. We inform our partners of these policies in writing.
For more detailed information, please consult our annual reports.
https://policyoptions.irpp.org/2025/12/canada-russia- relations/ How Canada can navigate its Russia dilemma in a multipolar era
Ottawa’s historic strengths as a mediator offer a path to balancing solidarity with Ukraine and pragmatic coexistence with a still-influential Russia.
- December 4, 2025
Russia's President Vladimir Putin and Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau attend the Paris Peace Forum at La Grande Halle de La Villette. It was the last meeting between a Canadian prime minister and the Russian president. Mikhail Metzel/TASSIcon-bluesky-icon Envelope Print X-twitterShare(Version française disponible ici.)
Since Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Ottawa has aligned itself with Washington: sanctions, military aid to Kyiv, reinforced deployments in Eastern Europe, suspended diplomatic channels. But in a multipolar world, can Canada maintain this course? Supporting Ukraine remains essential, but Canada must also protect its interests and play its historic role as mediator.
When Pierre Elliott Trudeau went to Moscow in 1971, Canada was in the thick of the Cold War. The Soviet Union was the West’s adversary, yet Ottawa chose dialogue, balancing deterrence and diplomacy. Half a century later, in a new era of great-power rivalry, that lesson bears repeating.
Today, the international system is no longer unipolar. The post-1991 era of uncontested U.S. dominance has given way to a more fragmented world. Emerging powers such as China, India, Turkey, and Brazil are reshaping the global order. As for Russia, despite sanctions and the costs of the war, it remains a central player: a nuclear power, an Arctic neighbour and, a state embedded in energy markets, diplomacy and security networks.
A long history of shifts
Russia’s place in the world has never been fixed. Since Peter the Great’s reforms in the early eighteenth century, the country has alternated between European integration and inward-looking autocracy. The late nineteenth century brought industrialisation and a measure of liberalisation, quickly followed by revolution and the rigid centralisation of Soviet power.
The Soviet Union projected power worldwide but collapsed under the weight of its contradictions in 1991. In the late Soviet period, Mikhail Gorbachev began limited political liberalisation (glasnost, perestroika, competitive elections). After 1991, that liberalisation continued briefly. In 1993, under President Boris Yeltsin, the constitutional crisis and the new constitution entrenched a strong presidential system; from then on the authoritarian turn gathered pace.
Canada had to adapt to these shifts in Russia’s orientation. During the Cold War, Ottawa condemned Soviet repression while maintaining exchanges and pursuing détente. From the 1950s onward, Canadian peacekeepers were deployed to conflicts shaped by East–West rivalry. Canada supported NATO and NORAD but also sustained cultural and scientific exchanges, convinced that isolation alone was untenable.
What is at stake for Canada today
Russia and Canada share an Arctic geography that is more than symbolic. During the Cold War, radar stations on the Distant Early Warning (DEW) Line in the Arctic reminded Canadians daily that Soviet bombers could reach North America within hours. Today, climate change is opening new Arctic sea routes. If Canada wants to assert its sovereignty in the North, it cannot ignore Russia as a key actor.
The Ukrainian diaspora is another dimension. Canada hosts one of the world’s largest Ukrainian communities, which has naturally shaped Ottawa’s pro-Kyiv policy since 2014. Yet Canada’s own history also reminds us of the need to balance solidarity with dialogue. Even at the height of the Cold War, Ottawa kept communication channels with Moscow open, recognizing that engagement and deterrence can coexist.
Canada’s commitments to its alliances are real. NATO, NORAD and the G7 remain the pillars of its security. But the country has always aspired to be more than a loyal ally: a mediator, a bridge-builder, a moderate voice. In a multipolar world, aligning exclusively with Washington risks narrowing Ottawa’s strategic room for manoeuvre.
This approach must also take into account Canada’s domestic constraints: the importance of the Ukrainian diaspora, its commitment to NATO and the G7, and public opinion. The policy focus should therefore focus on risk management and crisis-prevention mechanisms where Canadian interests are direct and measurable.
Multipolarity and realism
Recognizing multipolarity does not mean condoning Russia’s aggression in Ukraine or abandoning a rules-based international order. It means acknowledging that the global system is no longer organised around a single pole of power. Russia has tightened ties with China, expanded its presence in the Middle East and sought greater influence in Africa.
For Canada, the task is to defend its national interests while accepting the realities of a multipolar system. That means preparing for long-term coexistence with Russia. At times this coexistence will be conflictual, at times cooperative.
We should distinguish two tracks. First, the need to keep communication channels open to manage crises, avoid miscalculation, and state Canada’s positions directly. Second, the idea of deep security or environmental partnerships, which is not realistic so long as Moscow continues to violate international law and wages a war of aggression. This article addresses the first track.
A forward-looking Canadian policy
A pragmatic approach should start with limited, verifiable measures in the Arctic: search and rescue; air and maritime deconfliction; spill prevention; and tightly scoped scientific exchanges on permafrost and climate risks. Gradually revitalising the Arctic Council would focus on risk management that directly affects northern communities.
Since 2014, and even more since 2022, Russia has acted reactively (at times over-reactively) and in defiance of several treaties and international frameworks. That does not make it unpredictable. Its priorities and red lines have been relatively consistent. Since 2014, Moscow has repeated them: NATO enlargement, Crimea, Western deployments, and Belarus’s security. What is often read as unpredictability largely reflects weakened Western analytical capacity and channels of understanding. Hence the case for crisis hotlines and renewed expertise to reduce misperception.
Diplomatic channels must also remain open. Canada kept talking to the Soviet Union at the height of Cold War hostilities; the same logic holds today. It ensures that crises can be managed and that Canadian positions are not filtered only through allies. In practice, that means maintaining crisis channels, military points of contact to prevent incidents and very targeted technical exchanges when Canadian interests require them.
Lean into our middle-power identity
Energy and resource security is another area where Canada makes a distinct contribution. As a reliable supplier to partners seeking to reduce dependence on Russian hydrocarbons, Canada can strengthen its position as a credible alternative. At the same time, it should not shy away from including Russia in global discussions on energy and climate, because those debates lose relevance if major powers are excluded.
Diaspora communities matter as well. Canada’s large Ukrainian community has shaped Ottawa’s policy, but Russian-speaking Canadians should also be part of the conversation. Encouraging dialogue among communities helps ensure Canadian policy reflects a plurality of perspectives.
Finally, Canada should lean into its middle-power identity. Its credibility has always rested more on constructive mediation than on military might. It should champion global governance frameworks that do not close the door to Russia when concrete interests converge, when compliance with rules can be verified, and when safeguards are in place.
Drawing on Canada’s past
Canada’s Cold War experience shows that principled pragmatism is not weakness but strategy. Ottawa condemned the 1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia while pursuing arms-control talks. Canadian universities welcomed Soviet students. Cultural exchanges continued. Canadian officials pressed for human rights within the Helsinki framework.
From 1945, Canada emerged from the Second World War as a founding member of the United Nations precisely because it understood that adversaries had to be included. Excluding the Soviet Union from the post-war architecture was never an option. The same logic applied during the 1956 Suez Crisis, when Lester B. Pearson proposed the first UN peacekeeping force, a solution that won the support of the United States and the Soviet bloc and hastened British and French withdrawals. Canadian influence did not come from military force but from creativity and credibility as an honest broker.
Canada was also at the forefront of disarmament and arms-control initiatives. In the 1980s, as Cold War tensions intensified, its diplomats pushed for a ban on chemical weapons and for nuclear non-proliferation frameworks.
These precedents show that Canada has long understood a basic truth: global governance cannot function if adversaries are absent from the table. In today’s multipolar era, trying to exclude Russia risks weakening the very institutions Canada has championed for decades.
Diplomatic imagination
As Russia redefines its place in a multipolar world, Canada must also reposition itself. The choice is not between naive engagement and total isolation; it is between a reactive role that trails great-power rivalries and a proactive middle-power role that helps shape the terms of coexistence.
Trudeau’s 1971 trip to Moscow was controversial, but it reflected Canada’s confidence in its ability to play its own game on the world stage. Pearson’s initiative during the Suez Crisis reflected the same intuition: Canadian influence has come less from military strength than from diplomatic imagination. Half a century later, that confidence – together with vision and initiative – is needed again.
If Canada defines its Russia policy solely by Washington’s preferences, it risks shrinking its own role in a multipolar world. If instead it draws on its history of engagement, combining firmness with dialogue, loyalty to allies with independent judgment, it can speak with a voice that matters. Canada does not choose the Russia it has; it chooses the policy it pursues.
A strategy of selective engagement, backed by deterrence, law and verifiable safeguards, reduces the risk of miscalculation and creates space for action when interests align. Over time, it can also rebuild a minimum of trust and stabilise the relationship, while steering away from a dangerous collision course, including the risk of nuclear escalation.
Do you have something to say about the article you just read? Be part of the Policy Options discussion, and send in your own submission. Here is a link on how to do it.
More Like This:
Categories:
You are welcome to republish this Policy Options article online or in print periodicals, under a Creative Commons/No Derivatives licence.
Zach Battat
Zach Battat is a historian in Montreal with a PhD in Middle Eastern studies. His research focuses on politics and international conflicts, especially in Lebanon and the region. Follow his work on LinkedIn
Welcome to the Macdonald-Laurier Institute (MLI), Canada’s only truly national public policy think tank based in Ottawa.
MLI is rigorously independent and non-partisan, as symbolized by its name. Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier were two outstanding and long-serving prime ministers who represent the best of Canada’s distinguished political tradition. A Tory and a Grit, an English-speaker and a French-speaker, each of them championed the values that led to the creation of Canada and its emergence as one of the world’s leading democracies and a place where people may live in peace and freedom under the rule of law.
Our ideas drive the national conversation:
- MLI is the most cited think-tank in Canada’s parliament and our experts are routinely called upon to testify at parliamentary committee.
- Our columns and op-eds appear in the national and international media on average once a day.
Canada’s adversaries fear the MLI spotlight which is why we have been blacklisted by both the Kremlin and Beijing.
Our goal is to be an indispensable source of reasoned and timely thought leadership for policymakers, opinion leaders, and Canadians at-large. We want to help make Canada the best governed country in the world.
General Inquiries:(202) 996-8460Media:
Brian Lee Crowley
Managing Director
Brian Lee Crowley, founder of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute (MLI) in 2010, has established it as the premier Canadian public policy think tank, addressing a wide array of national issues including, most recently, China’s hostile intentions toward Canada (the Dragon at the Door project), the rise of gender ideology and, through the Promised Land project, the related issues of Middle East conflict, anti-Semitism and the dangers of radical Islam. MLI is also the only Canadian think tank with an office in Washington, the Center for North American Prosperity and Security (CNAPS).
Under Crowley’s leadership, MLI has garnered international recognition, ranking among the top new think tanks globally, being blacklisted by both the Kremlin and Beijing and consistently leading in Ottawa. Crowley’s prolific authorship includes six books, notably Gardeners vs Designers and Fearful Symmetry, both best sellers in Canada, alongside numerous op-eds and research papers.
Previously, Crowley held influential roles, such as Clifford Clark Visiting Economist with the Canadian Department of Finance, where he redesigned key policy processes. He founded the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies (AIMS), shaping it into Canada’s foremost regional think tank, and served on The Globe and Mail’s Editorial Board. With a diverse background spanning academia, diplomatic service, and advisory roles, Crowley brings a wealth of expertise to his commentary on political and economic matters. Holding degrees from McGill and the London School of Economics, including a doctorate in political economy, his contributions to public discourse are widely cited.
MLI mourns the passing of director Nigel Wright
https://nationalpost.com/news/(September 30, 2025)
Nigel Wright, former chief of staff to Prime Minister Harper and director at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute (MLI), has passed away at 62.
Wright was Harper’s chief of staff from 2010 to 2013. Those who worked closely with him in those days knew him to be extremely hardworking and extremely kind, a consummate professional and gentlemen. Wright was a brilliant businessman and a dedicated public servant who devoted himself to the common good.
“Nigel Wright was not only a director at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, he was a stalwart supporter, an earlier adopter of our work, and a great friend to the Institute and to me personally over many years,” said MLI founder and managing director Brian Lee Crowley, “Of no one could it more truly be said that he will be deeply missed.”
Jamie Tronnes, executive director at the Center for North American Prosperity and Security (CNAPS), has worked with Wright in various roles throughout her career. She notes:
“Nigel was one of the most supportive people I’ve encountered in my career and he was the first person that I emailed when I made the decision to join the MLI team. His time as a board member at MLI consistently demonstrated the high regard he had for beneficial policy and his commitment to better lives for Canadians. He cared deeply about his country and its governance. He was a mentor to many professionals in the public service and policy sector. He will be greatly missed.”
canada/former-harper-chief-of- staff-nigel-wright-dies Former Harper chief of staff Nigel Wright dies at 62
Wright personally re-paid $90,000 in expense claims to Mike Duffy, a Conservative senator at the time
83 CommentsNigel Wright, former chief of staff for former prime minster Stephen Harper on Jan 4, 2011. Photo by Andre Forget /QMI
OTTAWA — Nigel Wright, who served as chief of staff to former prime minister Stephen Harper, has died at 62, according to Onex Corporation, where he worked for most of his adult life.
Wright worked for Harper from 2010 to 2013 and found himself ensnared in a Senate expense scandal when it was revealed that he had personally given $90,000 to Mike Duffy, a Conservative senator at the time, to reimburse the treasury for money he had claimed in housing expenses that were under scrutiny.
Harper said that he and wife Laureen were “shocked and heartbroken” to learn of Wright’s “sudden passing” in a social media post.
“A unique and deeply accomplished person, Nigel combined intellectual acumen with incredible capacity for work,” wrote Harper.
Harper said that Wright was “truly a special person whom we have lost far too soon.”
Prime Minister Mark Carney added his own tribute on Tuesday evening, calling Wright a “widely respected business leader and builder with a lifelong commitment to public service and community leadership.”
The news of Wright’s passing was first made public in a Tuesday news release from Onex.
“Our hearts are heavy as we mourn the loss of our cherished colleague and friend, Nigel. He was the consummate gentleman who set the standard for professionalism,” wrote Onex President and CEO Bobby Le Blanc in the statement.
The company did not specify a cause of death, and multiple calls to Onex’s media relations team went unanswered.
Tributes to Wright were quick to pour in on social media.
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre called Wright a “principled and honourable man who was dedicated to Canada and to public service, and who made a lasting contribution to our country.”
Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand said that Wright made a positive and lasting impression on her early on in her career.
“I first knew Nigel when we were young lawyers. He was intelligent, kind and a consummate professional. I have nothing but the highest respect for him and am saddened to hear that he is no longer with us,” wrote Anand.
Several of those to leave tributes were fellow Harper government alumni.
Ian Brodie, also an ex-Harper chief of staff, said he was “very saddened” by Wright’s passing.
“In addition to his business and investment acumen, Nigel had a long life of public service and I remember all my times working with him with great fondness,” reflected Brodie.
Harper-era policy advisor Ken Boessenkool called Wright’s passing “a stunning and massive loss.”
“Nigel Wright was one of Canada’s most selfless individuals. He contributed mightily to Candian conservatism, mostly quietly, always modestly,” wrote Boessenkool
Former Harper spokesman Dimitri Soudas said that Wright was the “hardest-working person” he’d ever known.
“(F)irst one in, last one out … His sharp mind and unwavering dedication left a mark on all of us who had the privilege to work alongside him,” wrote Soudas.
Former Liberal MP Omar Alghabra called Wright’s passing “really sad” and offered condolences to his family.
Brian Dijkema, head of public policy think tank Cardus, said that Wright was “self-giving to a fault” and lauded him for “using his time for the common good.”
National Post
Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.
PEI demands federal investigation into allegations of foreign interference and money laundering following MLI press conference and event
PEI Premier Rob Lantz heard our concerns.
On October 8, the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, in partnership with Optimum Publishing, hosted a press conference at the National Press Gallery, followed by a panel event to expose and discuss solutions to Chinese interference, money laundering, and elite capture on Prince Edward Island.
The event featured the Hon. Wayne Easter, former solicitor general of Canada and PEI native, former MP and MLI Senior Fellow Kevin Vuong, former RCMP officer Garry Clement, Dean Baxendale, president of Optimum Publishing International, and Christopher Coates, MLI’s director of Foreign Policy, National Security, and National Defence.
PEI Premier Rob Lantz heard our concerns.On Facebook, Premier Lantz wrote, “In recent days, I have heard from many of you – in conversations, messages, and community gatherings – about the growing unease surrounding allegations of foreign interference, money laundering, and land ownership in our province. I want you to know: I hear you. I share your concerns. And I believe you deserve answers.”
Lantz then formally urged both RCMP Commissioner Michael Duheme and FINTRAC CEO Sarah Paquet to launch an investigation.
MLI’s Kevin Vuong and Christopher Coates are available for comment.
Media are encouraged to contact: daniel.dorman@macdonaldlaurier.ca
The Macdonald-Laurier Institute depends upon the generosity of our readers and viewers to host important events like this one.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 9:22 AM
Subject: Fwd: Methinks Minister David Lametti should explain Federal Court Rule 55 and the document hereto attached real slow to your former politcal boss Justin trudeau N'esy Pas Jane Philpott?
To: pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>, pierre.poilievre <pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca>, dominic.leblanc <dominic.leblanc@parl.gc.ca>, Sean.Fraser <Sean.Fraser@parl.gc.ca>, mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>, robert.mckee <robert.mckee@gnb.ca>, rob.moore <rob.moore@parl.gc.ca>, <ps.ministerofpublicsafety-ministredelasecuritepublique. sp@ps-sp.gc.ca>, don.davies <don.davies@parl.gc.ca>, <david.mcguinty@parl.gc.ca>, <garnett.genuis@parl.gc.ca>, <capitalclips@hotmail.com>
Cc: <john@arpacanada.ca>, Colin Postma <colin@arpacanada.ca>, <lperreaux@irpp.org>, <jditchburn@irpp.org>, <asher.honickman@ruleoflaw.ca>---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Drouin, Nathalie (BRQ)" <Nathalie.Drouin@justice.gc.ca>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 22:41:54 +0000
Subject: Réponse automatique : Methinks Minister David Lametti should
explain Federal Court Rule 55 and the document hereto attached real
slow to your former politcal boss Justin trudeau N'esy Pas Jane
Philpott?
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Veuillez noter que je suis absente le 16 août 2019, sans accès à mes
courriels. Pour toute question qui ne peut attendre mon retour, je
vous invite à communiquer avec mon adjointe Irène Ghobril au
514-283-5687. Merci.
Please note that I am away on August 16, 2019, with no access to my
e-mails. For assistance, please contact Irène Ghobril at 514-283-5687.
Thank you.
NOTIFICATION ÉLECTRONIQUE: NotificationPGC-AGC.Civil@justice.gc.ca
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Newsroom <newsroom@globeandmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 22:41:56 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Methinks Minister David Lametti should
explain Federal Court Rule 55 and the document hereto attached real
slow to your former politcal boss Justin trudeau N'esy Pas Jane
Philpott?
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Thank you for contacting The Globe and Mail.
If your matter pertains to newspaper delivery or you require technical
support, please contact our Customer Service department at
1-800-387-5400 or send an email to customerservice@globeandmail.com
If you are reporting a factual error please forward your email to
publiceditor@globeandmail.com<mailto:publiceditor@ globeandmail.com>
Letters to the Editor can be sent to letters@globeandmail.com
This is the correct email address for requests for news coverage and
press releases.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 7:41 PM
Subject: Methinks Minister David Lametti should explain Federal Court Rule 55 and the document hereto attached real slow to your former politcal boss Justin trudeau N'esy Pas Jane Philpott?
To: David.Lametti <David.Lametti@parl.gc.ca>, mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>, <Renee.Theriault@scc.csc.ca>, <Norman.Sabourin@cjc-ccm.gc.ca>, <marc.giroux@fja-cmf.gc.ca>, <Rachel.rappaport@justice.gc. ca>, Brenda.Lucki <Brenda.Lucki@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, Newsroom <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>, Kathleen.Harris <Kathleen.Harris@cbc.ca>, <media@justice.gc.ca>, <media@scc.csc.ca>, Jody.Wilson-Raybould <Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc. ca>, Nathalie.Drouin <Nathalie.Drouin@justice.gc.ca >, jan.jensen <jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca>, Jane.Philpott <Jane.Philpott@parl.gc.ca>
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-98-106/ fulltext.html
55 In special circumstances, in a proceeding, the Court may vary a
rule or dispense with compliance with a rule.
SOR/2004-283, s. 11.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jane.Philpott@parl.gc.ca
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 22:14:22 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Attn Minister David Lametti and Renée
Thériault, executive legal officer for the Supreme Court of Canada
Remember Me?
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
Hello,
Thank you for your email to the Honourable Jane Philpott, Member of
Parliament for Markham-Stouffville.
This automated message is to acknowledge that we are in receipt of
your email. Due to the high volume of correspondence, there may be a
delay in processing your email. Rest assured it will be given every
consideration.
If you have not already done so, please send us your full name,
address and postal code which will enable us to assist you more
quickly.
Thank you,
Office of the Hon. Jane Philpott
Member of Parliament, Markham-Stouffville
No comments:
Post a Comment