Quantcast
Channel: David Raymond Amos Round 3
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 3475

SPYING ON CITIZENS

$
0
0

 

 

 

 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcnfozXBxCI

 


SPYING ON CITIZENS: Trudeau & U.S. Navy pay defence contractors to spy on Rebel News

30,826 views
Premiered 18 hours ago

http://www.StopSpyingOnUs.comThe U.S. Navy teamed up with defence contractors at the University of Arkansas and the Canadian Special Operations Forces Command under Prime Minister Trudeau's defence minister Harjit Sajjan, commissioning a report to spy on Rebel News. Ezra Levant explains their operation.
 

1,408 Comments

 

Rebel News
Go to http://www.StopSpyingUs.com and check out the spy reports we were able to find. And if you want to help us out, please make a donation on that page too, unlike the defence department, we don't take any money from the government, we rely on the generosity of our audience to help keep us going!
 
 
 
 
David Amos
Methinks Ezzy Baby and the Feds on both sides of the 49th should start checking my work ASAP N'esy Pas? 
 
David Amos
GO FIGURE What is within my emails and blogs or who and what I talk about on the phoneThis Public InfomationStanding Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics42nd PARLIAMENT EVIDENCETuesday, October 30, 2018Mr. Michael Fenrick (Constitutional and Legal Adviser, National Board of Directors, Liberal Party of Canada): "For our part, many of the same things that Mr. Bailey has spoken to apply equally with respect to the Liberal Party and its treatment of personal information. From the perspective of somebody outside the system gaining access, we regularly run training. We've developed a cybersecurity policy, and we regularly run training at all levels of the organization, in terms of trying to ensure that people are educated about how to avoid things like phishing scams, spoof email addresses and matters along those lines. In addition to that, the Liberal Party's national director and the team at the head office here in Ottawa have met with the CSE in order to discuss best practices on how to secure Canadians' information. That includes using cloud-based email servers, which is what is recommended by the CSE. That has been implemented."
 
 
613-992-2919
705-268-6464  No answer so I left a message for Dale

613-992-4766
613-998-1860  Sneay ady answered put me o old for 1o minutes then played dumb

613-995-8913
519-741-2001  No answer left a voicemail

613-992-2639
418-836-0970  Nic lady answered who remembered me

613-992-0253 I talked to Mikey and he remembered me well
905-886-9911  

613-947-4524 No answer left a voicemail
250-787-1192I taled to his assistant first thing Friday morning and she played dumb but was quick to point out I said Zimmer's name wrong

Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics


NUMBER 123 
l
1st SESSION 
l
42nd PARLIAMENT 

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, October 30, 2018

Mr. Michael Fenrick (Constitutional and Legal Adviser, National Board of Directors, Liberal Party of Canada):  

"For our part, many of the same things that Mr. Bailey has spoken to apply equally with respect to the Liberal Party and its treatment of personal information. From the perspective of somebody outside the system gaining access, we regularly run training. We've developed a cybersecurity policy, and we regularly run training at all levels of the organization, in terms of trying to ensure that people are educated about how to avoid things like phishing scams, spoof email addresses and matters along those lines.
    In addition to that, the Liberal Party's national director and the team at the head office here in Ottawa have met with the CSE in order to discuss best practices on how to secure Canadians' information. That includes using cloud-based email servers, which is what is recommended by the CSE. That has been implemented."

 

---------- Original message ----------
From: Premier of Ontario | Première ministre de l’Ontario <Premier@ontario.ca>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 13:21:16 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: The LIEbranos latest Constitutional and
Legal Adviser Michael Fenrick denied receiving this email but several
computers did not
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

Thank you for your email. Your thoughts, comments and input are greatly valued.

You can be assured that all emails and letters are carefully read,
reviewed and taken into consideration.

There may be occasions when, given the issues you have raised and the
need to address them effectively, we will forward a copy of your
correspondence to the appropriate government official. Accordingly, a
response may take several business days.

Thanks again for your email.
______­­

Merci pour votre courriel. Nous vous sommes très reconnaissants de
nous avoir fait part de vos idées, commentaires et observations.

Nous tenons à vous assurer que nous lisons attentivement et prenons en
considération tous les courriels et lettres que nous recevons.

Dans certains cas, nous transmettrons votre message au ministère
responsable afin que les questions soulevées puissent être traitées de
la manière la plus efficace possible. En conséquence, plusieurs jours
ouvrables pourraient s’écouler avant que nous puissions vous répondre.

Merci encore pour votre courriel.


---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 09:21:12 -0400
Subject: Fwd: The LIEbranos latest Constitutional and Legal Adviser
Michael Fenrick denied receiving this email but several computers did not
To: jagmeet.singh@ndp.ca, sfeinman <sfeinman@fahrllc.com>, premier
<premier@ontario.ca>, PREMIER <PREMIER@gov.ns.ca>, premier
<premier@gov.ab.ca>, premier <premier@gov.pe.ca>, premier
<premier@gov.sk.ca>, premier <premier@gov.yk.ca>, premier
<premier@gov.nt.ca>, premier <premier@gov.bc.ca>, "premier.ministre"
<premier.ministre@cex.gouv.qc.ca>, premier <premier@gov.nl.ca>
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, doug

<doug@fordnation.ca>, "francis.scarpaleggia"
<francis.scarpaleggia@parl.gc.ca>


---------- Original message ----------
From: "Gallant, Premier Brian (PO/CPM)"<Brian.Gallant@gnb.ca>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 12:51:40 +0000
Subject: RE: The LIEbranos latest Constitutional and Legal Adviser
Michael Fenrick denied receiving this email but several computers did
not
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

Thank you for writing to the Premier of New Brunswick.  Please be
assured  that your email will be reviewed.

If this is a media request, please forward your email to
media-medias@gnb.camedia-medias@gnb.ca>.  Thank you!

*************************************

Nous vous remercions d’avoir communiqué avec le premier ministre du
Nouveau-Brunswick.  Soyez assuré(e) que votre  courriel sera examiné.

Si ceci est une demande médiatique, prière de la transmettre à
media-medias@gnb.camedia-medias@gnb.ca>.  Merci!

 

---------- Original message ----------
From: justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 11:28:56 +0000
Subject: Réponse automatique : Re Federal Court File No: T-1557-15 Did
you order Harper and the NDP to ignore me as well???
To: david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com

Veuillez noter que j'ai changé de courriel. Vous pouvez me rejoindre à
lalanthier@hotmail.com

Pour rejoindre le bureau de M. Trudeau veuillez envoyer un courriel à
tommy.desfosses@parl.gc.ca

Please note that I changed email address, you can reach me at
lalanthier@hotmail.com

To reach the office of Mr. Trudeau please send an email to
tommy.desfosses@parl.gc.ca

Thank you,

Merci ,



---------- Original message ----------
From: "MinFinance / FinanceMin (FIN)"<fin.minfinance-financemin.fin@canada.ca>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 11:28:12 +0000
Subject: RE: Re Federal Court File No: T-1557-15 Did you order Harper
and the NDP to ignore me as well???
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>

The Department of Finance acknowledges receipt of your electronic
correspondence. Please be assured that we appreciate receiving your
comments.

Le ministère des Finances accuse réception de votre correspondance
électronique. Soyez assuré(e) que nous apprécions recevoir vos
commentaires.



---------- Original message ----------
From: Mario.Beaulieu@parl.gc.ca
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 11:28:58 +0000
Subject: Réponse automatique : Re Federal Court File No: T-1557-15 Did
you order Harper and the NDP to ignore me as well???
To: david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com

Madame, monsieur,

Le bureau du député accuse réception de votre courriel. Soyez assuré-e
que nous vous répondrons dans les plus brefs délais possibles. Nous
vous remercions de votre intérêt.

Cordialement,

Olivier Lacelle
Attaché politique de Mario Beaulieu, député de La Pointe-de-L'Île
12 500, Boulevard Industriel
Pointe-aux-Trembles, Québec
H1B 5M7
Téléphone : 514-645-0101
Fax : 514-645-0032




---------- Original message ----------
From: Elizabeth.May@parl.gc.ca
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 11:28:56 +0000
Subject: Thank you for contacting the Office of Elizabeth May, O.C., M.P
To: david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com

Thank you for contacting me. This response is to assure you that your
message has been received. I welcome and appreciate receiving comments
and questions from constituents.

I receive a much larger volume of correspondence (postal and email)
than the average MP. All emails are reviewed on a regular basis,
however due to the high volume of emails my office receives, I may not
be able to respond personally to each one.


---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 07:28:02 -0400
Subject: Fwd: Re Federal Court File No: T-1557-15 Did you order Harper
and the NDP to ignore me as well???
To: nbd_cna@liberal.ca, michael.fenrick@paliareroland.com,
pm@pm.gc.ca, justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca, mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>,
"Bill.Morneau"<Bill.Morneau@canada.ca>, "bill.pentney"
< bill.pentney@justice.gc.ca>, "jan.jensen"<jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca>,
info@ndp.ca, "philip.bryden"<philip.bryden@gov.ab.ca>, "Paul.Lynch"
< Paul.Lynch@edmontonpolice.ca>, "Jacques.Poitras"

< Jacques.Poitras@cbc.ca>, "David.Akin"<David.Akin@globalnews.ca>,
"steve.murphy"<steve.murphy@ctv.ca>, michaelharris@ipolitics.ca,
"Gerald.Butts"<Gerald.Butts@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>, markbonokoski@gmail.com,
Mario.Beaulieu@parl.gc.ca, votezrichardmartel@gmail.com,
eric.dubois@npd.ca, MulcaT <MulcaT@parl.gc.ca>, "francis.scarpaleggia"
< francis.scarpaleggia@parl.gc.ca>, "andrew.scheer"
< andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca>, "maxime.bernier"
< maxime.bernier@parl.gc.ca>, "elizabeth.may"
< elizabeth.may@parl.gc.ca>
Cc: "David.Raymond.Amos"<David.Raymond.Amos@gmail.com>, motomaniac333
< motomaniac333@gmail.com>

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/nobody-safe-from-edmonton-blogger-charged-with-hate-crime-1.4161015

'Nobody was safe from it': Edmonton blogger charged with rare hate
crime targeted individuals across Canada
Police say Barry Winters, 62, made derogatory remarks about race,
gender, politics
Roberta Bell · CBC News · Posted: Jun 14, 2017 5:38 PM MT

https://www.liberal.ca/national-board-of-directors/


Who are we?

We are volunteers from across the country who care passionately about
Canada's future and promoting Liberal values. We are community
leaders, parents, and professionals who volunteer our time in this
role. The board works together to provide oversight and guidance to
the Party in matters both fiduciary, and strategic. We meet regularly
in person and by phone with the objective of ensuring the Party is
prepared for the next federal election. It is an honour to work with
such a distinct and talented group of individuals. Please don't
hesitate to reach out to us at nbd_cna@liberal.ca.

Suzanne Cowan

President, Liberal Party of Canada
Leader  Justin Trudeau
President       Suzanne Cowan
National Director       Azam Ishmael
National Vice-President (English)       Mira Ahmad
National Vice-President (French)        Elise Bartlett
Policy Secretary        Omar Raza
Party Secretary         Sam Bhalesar-Saran
Past President  Anna Gainey
Director, Liberal Party of Canada (Newfoundland & Labrador)     Jim Burton
Director, Liberal Party of Canada (Prince Edward Island)        Scott Barry
Director, Liberal Party of Canada (Nova Scotia)         John Gillis
Director, Liberal Party of Canada (New Brunswick)       Joel Reed
Director, Liberal Party of Canada (Québec)      Pierre Choquette
Director, Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario)     Tyler Banham
Director, Liberal Party of Canada (Manitoba)    Wendy Martin White
Director, Liberal Party of Canada (Saskatchewan)        Meghan McEachern
Director, Liberal Party of Canada (Alberta)     Robbie Schuett
Director, Liberal Party of Canada (British Columbia)    Manjot Hallen
Director, Liberal Party of Canada (Yukon)       Jeane Lassen
Director, Liberal Party of Canada (Northwest Territories)       Charles Blyth
Director, Liberal Party of Canada (Nunavut)
Caucus Representative   Francis Scarpaleggia
Co-Chair, Indigenous Peoples' Commission (Female)       Suzy Kies
Co-Chair, Indigenous Peoples' Commission (Male)         Conrad Desjarlais
President, National Women’s Liberal Commission  Amy Robichaud
President, Young Liberals of Canada     David Hickey
Co-Chair, Senior Liberals’ Commission (French)  Roger Légaré
Co-Chair, Senior Liberals’ Commission (English)         Doug Brydges
Leader’s Representative
Treasurer       John Herhalt
Revenue Chair   Stephen Bronfman
CEO, Federal Liberal Agency of Canada   Sachit Mehra
Campaign Co-Chair       Chris MacInnes
Constitutional and Legal Adviser (English)      Michael Fenrick
Constitutional and Legal Adviser (French)       Prachi Shah

Michael Fenrick B.A., M.A., LL.B.
Partner
155 WELLINGTON ST WEST,
35th FLOOR
TORONTO ON M5V 3H1
p: 416.646.7481
e: michael.fenrick@paliareroland.com

https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-fenrick-420b6261/

Liberal Party of Canada • Parti Libéral du Canada
Constitutional and Legal Advisor (English)
Company Name Liberal Party of Canada • Parti Libéral du Canada
Dates Employed Apr 2018 – Present Employment Duration 3 mos
Location Toronto, Canada Area

Advising the National Board of the Liberal Party of Canada on
constitutional and legal matters.


Michael Fenrick has a broad civil litigation practice. He works with
clients to help them solve complex problems in areas as diverse as
constitutional law, corporate commercial litigation, class actions,
professional discipline, and labour and employment law. Michael has a
particular interest and  expertise in public law issues. He regularly
acts in matters before administrative tribunals and at all levels of
court in Ontario, as well as the Supreme Court of Canada.

In addition to his busy practice, Michael is very involved with the
Ontario Bar Association. He is an Executive Member of both the
constitutional and administrative law practice groups. Michael was
also recently appointed adjunct faculty by the University of Toronto,
Faculty of Law. He will be teaching constitutional law to graduate
students in the Global Professional LL.M. program.

Prior to joining the firm in 2009, Michael was Law Clerk to the
Honourable Justice Marshall Rothstein of the Supreme Court of Canada.
In this role, Michael assisted Justice Rothstein with a number of
leading cases in varied fields of law. While at Dalhousie Law School,
he received the University Medal in Law, in addition to numerous other
academic and advocacy prizes.
Education

    Dalhousie Law School, LL.B., 2008
    University of British Columbia, M.A., 2005
    University of King’s College, B.A., 2003

Bar Admissions

    Ontario, 2009


>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 18:22:05 -0400
>> Subject: Re Federal Court File No: T-1557-15 Did you order Harper and
>> the NDP to ignore me as well???
>> To: Liberal / Assistance <nbd_cna@liberal.ca>, cmunroe@glgmlaw.com, pm
>> < pm@pm.gc.ca>, "justin.trudeau.a1"<justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca>, mcu
>> < mcu@justice.gc.ca>
>> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
>>
>> How about Dizzy Lizzy May and the Bloc?
>>
>> On 1/6/16, Cmunroe (Liberal / Assistance) <nbd_cna@liberal.ca> wrote:
>>
>> ---------- Original message ----------
>> From: "Cmunroe (Liberal / Assistance)"<nbd_cna@liberal.ca>
>> Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 19:28:25 +0000
>> Subject: Re: Attn Dr. John Gillis Re Federal Court File No: T-1557-15
>> Trust that I called and tried to reason with a lot of Liberals begore
>> I am before the cour...
>> To: Motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>
>> RealChange.ca | DuVraiChangement.ca
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------
>>
>> Cmunroe, Jan 6, 14:28
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I would ask that you please do not respond to this e-mail (in the
>> event that you were inclined to do so.)
>>
>> Let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Craig Munroe
>> (Party Legal and Constitutional Advisor)
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David Amos [mailto:motomaniac333@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 11:09 AM
>> To: Craig Munroe <cmunroe@glgmlaw.com>; nbd_cna@liberal.ca; pm
>> < pm@pm.gc.ca>; ljulien@liberal.ca; pmilliken <pmilliken@cswan.com>;
>> bdysart <bdysart@smss.com>; bdysart <bdysart@stewartmckelvey.com>;
>> Braeden.Caley@vancouver.ca; robert.m.schuett@schuettlaw.com;
>> jda@nf.aibn.com; eclark@coxandpalmer.com; office@liberal.ns.ca;
>> president@lpco.ca; david@lpcm.ca; emerchant@merchantlaw.com
>> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>; assistance@liberal.ca;
>> Karine Fortin <info@ndp.ca>; stephen.harper
>> < stephen.harper.a1@parl.gc.ca>
>> Subject: Re: Attn Dr. John Gillis Re Federal Court File No: T-1557-15
>> Trust that I called and tried to reason with a lot of Liberals begore
>> I am before the court again on Monday Jan 11th
>>
>> On 1/6/16, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> BTW the nice guys who talked to me and didn't dismiss me I put in the
>>> BCC line
>>>
>>> Dr. John Gillis
>>> P.O. Box 723
>>> 5151 George Street, Suite 1400
>>> Halifax, Nova Scotia
>>> Canada B3J 2T3
>>> Tel: (902) 429-1993
>>> Email: office@liberal.ns.ca
>>>
>>> John Allan, President
>>> Liberal Party of Newfoundland & Labrador
>>> T: (709) 685-1230
>>> jda@nf.aibn.com
>>>
>>>
>>> Braeden Caley
>>> Office of the Mayor, City of Vancouver
>>>   604-809-9951
>>> Braeden.Caley@vancouver.ca,
>>>
>>>
>>> Britt Dysart QC
>>> Suite 600, Frederick Square
>>> 77 Westmorland Street
>>> P.O. Box 730
>>> Fredericton, NB, Canada
>>> E3B 5B4
>>>
>>> P 506.443.0153
>>> F 506.443.9948
>>>
>>>
>>> Evatt F. A. Merchant
>>> Merchant Law Group LLP
>>> First Nations Bank Bldg.
>>> 501-224 4th Ave. S.
>>> Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7K 5M5
>>> Phone: 306-653-7777
>>> Email: emerchant@merchantlaw.com
>>>
>>>
>>> Ewan W. Clark
>>> Montague
>>> Phone: (902) 838-5275
>>> Fax: (902) 838-3440
>>> eclark@coxandpalmer.com
>>>
>>> Robert M. Schuett
>>> #200, 602 11th Avenue SW
>>> Calgary Alberta T2R 1J8
>>> Phone: (403) 705-1261
>>> Fax: (403) 705-1265
>>> robert.m.schuett@schuettlaw.com
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.liberal.ca/national-board-of-directors/
>>>
>>> Who are we?
>>>
>>> We are volunteers from across the country who care passionately about
>>> Canada’s future and promoting Liberal values. We are community
>>> leaders, parents, and professionals who volunteer our time in this
>>> role. The board works together to provide oversight and guidance to
>>> the Party in matters both fiduciary, and strategic. We meet regularly
>>> in person and by phone with the objective of ensuring the Party is
>>> prepared for the next federal election. It is an honour to work with
>>> such a distinct and talented group of individuals. Please don’t
>>> hesitate to reach out to us at nbd_cna@liberal.ca.
>>> Anna Gainey
>>>
>>> President, Liberal Party of Canada
>>>
>>> T @annamgainey
>>> Leader        Justin Trudeau
>>> National President    Anna Gainey
>>> Acting National Director      Christina Topp
>>> National Vice-President (English)     Chris MacInnes
>>> National Vice-President (French)      Marie Tremblay
>>> National Policy Chair         Maryanne Kampouris
>>> National Membership Secretary         Leanne Bourassa
>>> Past National President       Mike Crawley
>>> President, Liberal Party of Newfoundland & Labrador   John Allan
>>> President, Liberal Party of Prince Edward Island      Ewan Clark
>>> President, Nova Scotia Liberal Party  John Gillis
>>> President, New Brunswick Liberal Association  Britt Dysart
>>> President, Liberal Party of Canada (Québec)   Linda Julien
>>> President, Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario)  Tyler Banham
>>> President, Liberal Party of Canada (Manitoba)         Sachit Mehra
>>> President, Liberal Party of Canada (Saskatchewan)     Evatt Merchant
>>> President, Liberal Party of Canada (Alberta)  Robbie Schuett
>>> President, Liberal Party of Canada (British Columbia)         Braeden
>>> Caley
>>> President, Federal Liberal Association of Yukon       Blake Rogers
>>> President, Liberal Party of Canada (Northwest Territories)    Rosanna
>>> Nicol
>>> President, Federal Liberal Association of Nunavut     Michel Potvin
>>> Caucus Representative         Francis Scarpaleggia
>>> Co-Chair, Aboriginal Peoples’ Commission (Female)     Caitlin Tolley
>>> Co-Chair, Aboriginal Peoples’ Commission (Male)       Kevin Seesequasis
>>> President, National Women’s Liberal Commission        Carlene Variyan
>>> President, Young Liberals of Canada   Justin Kaiser
>>> Co-Chair, Senior Liberals’ Commission (French)        Anne Adams
>>> Co-Chair, Senior Liberals’ Commission (English)       Kenneth D.
>>> Halliday
>>> Chair, Council of Presidents  Veena Bhullar
>>> Chief Financial Officer       Chuck Rifici
>>> Chief Revenue Officer         Stephen Bronfman
>>> CEO, Federal Liberal Agency of Canada         Mike Eizenga
>>> National Campaign Co-Chair    Katie Telford
>>> Constitutional and Legal Adviser (English)    Craig Munroe
>>> Constitutional and Legal Adviser (French)     Elise Bartlett
>>>
>>> Craig T. Munroe, Partner
>>> Email: cmunroe@glgmlaw.com
>>> Phone: (604) 891-1176
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>> Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 19:32:00 -0400
>>> Subject: Re Federal Court File No: T-1557-15 the CBC, the RCMP, their
>>> new boss Justin Trudeau and his Ministers of Justice and Defence etc
>>> cannot deny their knowledge of Paragraphs 81, 82, 83, 84, and 85 now
>>> CORRECT G$?
>>> To: Paul.Samyn@freepress.mb.ca, "carolyn.bennett"
>>> < carolyn.bennett@parl.gc.ca>, Doug@dougeyolfson.ca,
>>> doug.eyolfson@parl.gc.ca, fpcity@freepress.mb.ca,
>>> w.kinew@uwinnipeg.ca, "Paul.Lynch"<Paul.Lynch@edmontonpolice.ca>,
>>> "Marianne.Ryan"<Marianne.Ryan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, sunrayzulu
>>> < sunrayzulu@shaw.ca>, mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>, dnd_mdn@forces.gc.ca,
>>> "john.green"<john.green@gnb.ca>, chiefape <chiefape@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, gopublic
>>> < gopublic@cbc.ca>, oldmaison <oldmaison@yahoo.com>, radical
>>> < radical@radicalpress.com>, newsonline <newsonline@bbc.co.uk>,
>>> newsroom <newsroom@globeandmail.ca>, nmoore <nmoore@bellmedia.ca>,
>>> andre <andre@jafaust.com>
>>>
>>> http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2015/09/v-behaviorurldefaultvmlo.html
>>>
>>> David Raymond Amos Versus The Crown T-1557-15
>>>
>>> 81.  The Plaintiff states that matters of harassment that the police
>>> refuse to investigate would have entered the realm of ridiculous in
>>> 2012 if the reasons behind the suicides of teenagers did not become
>>> well known by the corporate media. In the summer of 2012 a new member
>>> of the FPS who as a former member of the EPS had inspired a lawsuit
>>> for beating a client in Edmonton called the Plaintiff and accused him
>>> of something he could not do even if he wanted to while he was arguing
>>> many lawyers byway of emails about a matter concerning cyber stalking
>>> that was before the SCC.  The member of the FPF accused the Plaintiff
>>> of calling the boss of Bullying Canada thirty times. At that time his
>>> MagicJack account had been hacked and although he could receive
>>> incoming calls, the Plaintiff could not call out to anyone. The
>>> Plaintiff freely sent the FPF his telephone logs sourced from
>>> MagicJack after his account restored without the Crown having to issue
>>> a warrant to see his telephone records. He asked the FPF and the RCMP
>>> where did the records of his phone calls to and from the FPF and the
>>> RCMP go if his account had not been hacked. The police never
>>> responded. Years later a Troll sent Dean Roger Ray a message through
>>> YouTube providing info about the Plaintiff’s MagicJack account with
>>> the correct password. Dean Roger Ray promptly posted two videos in
>>> YouTube clearly displaying the blatant violation of privacy likely to
>>> protect himself from the crime. The Plaintiff quickly pointed out the
>>> videos to the RCMP and they refused to investigate as usual. At about
>>> the same point in time the Plaintiff noticed that the CBC had
>>> published a record of a access to information requests. On the list of
>>> requests he saw his name along with several employees of CBC and the
>>> boss of Bullying Canada. The Plaintiff called the CBC to make
>>> inquiries about what he saw published on the Internet. CBC told him it
>>> was none of his business and advised him if he thought his rights had
>>> been offended to file a complaint. It appears the Plaintiff that
>>> employees of CBC like other questionable Crown Corporations such as
>>> the RCMP rely on their attorneys far too much to defend them from
>>> litigation they invite from citizens they purportedly serve. The
>>> employees of CBC named within the aforementioned and the CBC Legal
>>> Dept. are very familiar with the Plaintiff and of the Crown barring
>>> him from legislative properties while he running for public office.
>>>
>>> 82.  The Plaintiff states that any politician or police officer should
>>> have seen enough of Barry Winter’s WordPress blog by June 22, 2015
>>> particularly after the very unnecessary demise of two men in Alberta
>>> because of the incompetence of the EPS. Barry Winters was blogging
>>> about the EPS using battering ram in order to execute a warrant for a
>>> 250 dollar bylaw offence at the same time Professor Kris Wells
>>> revealed in a televised interview that the EPS member who was killed
>>> was the one investigating the cyber harassment of him. It was obvious
>>> why the police and politicians ignored all the death threats, sexual
>>> harassment, cyberbullying and hate speech of a proud Zionist who
>>> claimed to be a former CF officer who now working for the Department
>>> of National Defence (DND). It is well known that no politician in
>>> Canada is allowed to sit in Parliament as a member of the major
>>> parties unless they support Israel. Since 2002 the Plaintiff made it
>>> well known that he does not support Israeli actions and was against
>>> the American plan to make war on Iraq. On Aril 1, 2003 within two
>>> weeks of the beginning of the War on Iraq, the US Secret Service
>>> threatened to practice extraordinary rendition because false
>>> allegations of a Presidential threat were made against him by an
>>> American court. However, the Americans and the Crown cannot deny that
>>> what he said in two courts on April 1, 2003 because he published the
>>> recordings of what was truly said as soon as he got the court tapes.
>>> The RCMP knows those words can still be heard on the Internet today.
>>> In 2009, the Plaintiff began to complain of Barry Winters about
>>> something far more important to Canada as nation because of Winters’
>>> bragging of being one of 24 CF officers who assisted the Americans in
>>> the planning the War on Iraq in 2002. In the Plaintiff’s humble
>>> opinion the mandate of the DND is Defence not Attack. He is not so
>>> naive to think that such plans of war do not occur but if Barry
>>> Winters was in fact one of the CF officers who did so then he broke
>>> his oath to the Crown the instant he bragged of it in his blog. If
>>> Winters was never an officer in the CF then he broke the law by
>>> impersonating an officer. The Plaintiff downloaded the emails of the
>>> Privy Council about Wikileaks. The bragging of Barry Winters should
>>> have been investigated in 2009 before CBC reported that documents
>>> released by WikiLeaks supported his information about Canadian
>>> involvement in the War on Iraq.
>>>
>>> 83.  The Plaintiff states that now that Canada is involved in more war
>>> in Iraq again it did not serve Canadian interests and reputation to
>>> allow Barry Winters to publish the following words three times over
>>> five years after he began his bragging:
>>>
>>> January 13, 2015
>>> This Is Just AS Relevant Now As When I wrote It During The Debate
>>>
>>> December 8, 2014
>>> Why Canada Stood Tall!
>>>
>>> Friday, October 3, 2014
>>> Little David Amos’ “True History Of War” Canadian Airstrikes And
>>> Stupid Justin Trudeau
>>>
>>> Canada’s and Canadians free ride is over. Canada can no longer hide
>>> behind Amerka’s and NATO’s skirts.
>>>
>>> When I was still in Canadian Forces then Prime Minister Jean Chretien
>>> actually committed the Canadian Army to deploy in the second campaign
>>> in Iraq, the Coalition of the Willing. This was against or contrary to
>>> the wisdom or advice of those of us Canadian officers that were
>>> involved in the initial planning phases of that operation. There were
>>> significant concern in our planning cell, and NDHQ about of the dearth
>>> of concern for operational guidance, direction, and forces for
>>> operations after the initial occupation of Iraq. At the “last minute”
>>> Prime Minister Chretien and the Liberal government changed its mind.
>>> The Canadian government told our amerkan cousins that we would not
>>> deploy combat troops for the Iraq campaign, but would deploy a
>>> Canadian Battle Group to Afghanistan, enabling our amerkan cousins to
>>> redeploy troops from there to Iraq. The PMO’s thinking that it was
>>> less costly to deploy Canadian Forces to Afghanistan than Iraq. But
>>> alas no one seems to remind the Liberals of Prime Minister Chretien’s
>>> then grossly incorrect assumption. Notwithstanding Jean Chretien’s
>>> incompetence and stupidity, the Canadian Army was heroic,
>>> professional, punched well above it’s weight, and the PPCLI Battle
>>> Group, is credited with “saving Afghanistan” during the Panjway
>>> campaign of 2006.
>>>
>>> What Justin Trudeau and the Liberals don’t tell you now, is that then
>>> Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien committed, and deployed the
>>> Canadian army to Canada’s longest “war” without the advice, consent,
>>> support, or vote of the Canadian Parliament.
>>>
>>> What David Amos and the rest of the ignorant, uneducated, and babbling
>>> chattering classes are too addled to understand is the deployment of
>>> less than 75 special operations troops, and what is known by planners
>>> as a “six pac cell” of fighter aircraft is NOT the same as a
>>> deployment of a Battle Group, nor a “war” make.
>>>
>>> The Canadian Government or The Crown unlike our amerkan cousins have
>>> the “constitutional authority” to commit the Canadian nation to war.
>>> That has been recently clearly articulated to the Canadian public by
>>> constitutional scholar Phillippe Legasse. What Parliament can do is
>>> remove “confidence” in The Crown’s Government in a “vote of
>>> non-confidence.” That could not happen to the Chretien Government
>>> regarding deployment to Afghanistan, and it won’t happen in this
>>> instance with the conservative majority in The Commons regarding a
>>> limited Canadian deployment to the Middle East.
>>>
>>> President George Bush was quite correct after 911 and the terror
>>> attacks in New York; that the Taliban “occupied” and “failed state”
>>> Afghanistan was the source of logistical support, command and control,
>>> and training for the Al Quaeda war of terror against the world. The
>>> initial defeat, and removal from control of Afghanistan was vital and
>>> essential for the security and tranquility of the developed world. An
>>> ISIS “caliphate,” in the Middle East, no matter how small, is a clear
>>> and present danger to the entire world. This “occupied state,”
>>> or“failed state” will prosecute an unending Islamic inspired war of
>>> terror against not only the “western world,” but Arab states
>>> “moderate” or not, as well. The security, safety, and tranquility of
>>> Canada and Canadians are just at risk now with the emergence of an
>>> ISIS“caliphate” no matter how large or small, as it was with the
>>> Taliban and Al Quaeda “marriage” in Afghanistan.
>>>
>>> One of the everlasting “legacies” of the “Trudeau the Elder’s dynasty
>>> was Canada and successive Liberal governments cowering behind the
>>> amerkan’s nuclear and conventional military shield, at the same time
>>> denigrating, insulting them, opposing them, and at the same time
>>> self-aggrandizing ourselves as “peace keepers,” and progenitors of
>>> “world peace.” Canada failed. The United States of Amerka, NATO, the
>>> G7 and or G20 will no longer permit that sort of sanctimonious
>>> behavior from Canada or its government any longer. And Prime Minister
>>> Stephen Harper, Foreign Minister John Baird , and Cabinet are fully
>>> cognizant of that reality. Even if some editorial boards, and pundits
>>> are not.
>>>
>>> Justin, Trudeau “the younger” is reprising the time “honoured” liberal
>>> mantra, and tradition of expecting the amerkans or the rest of the
>>> world to do “the heavy lifting.” Justin Trudeau and his “butt buddy”
>>> David Amos are telling Canadians that we can guarantee our security
>>> and safety by expecting other nations to fight for us. That Canada can
>>> and should attempt to guarantee Canadians safety by providing
>>> “humanitarian aid” somewhere, and call a sitting US president a “war
>>> criminal.” This morning Australia announced they too, were sending
>>> tactical aircraft to eliminate the menace of an ISIS “caliphate.”
>>>
>>> In one sense Prime Minister Harper is every bit the scoundrel Trudeau
>>> “the elder” and Jean ‘the crook” Chretien was. Just As Trudeau, and
>>> successive Liberal governments delighted in diminishing,
>>> marginalizing, under funding Canadian Forces, and sending Canadian
>>> military men and women to die with inadequate kit and modern
>>> equipment; so too is Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Canada’s F-18s are
>>> antiquated, poorly equipped, and ought to have been replaced five
>>> years ago. But alas, there won’t be single RCAF fighter jock that
>>> won’t go, or won’t want to go, to make Canada safe or safer.
>>>
>>> My Grandfather served this country. My father served this country. My
>>> Uncle served this country. And I have served this country. Justin
>>> Trudeau has not served Canada in any way. Thomas Mulcair has not
>>> served this country in any way. Liberals and so called social
>>> democrats haven’t served this country in any way. David Amos, and
>>> other drooling fools have not served this great nation in any way. Yet
>>> these fools are more than prepared to ensure their, our safety to
>>> other nations, and then criticize them for doing so.
>>>
>>> Canada must again, now, “do our bit” to guarantee our own security,
>>> and tranquility, but also that of the world. Canada has never before
>>> shirked its responsibility to its citizens and that of the world.
>>>
>>> Prime Minister Harper will not permit this country to do so now
>>>
>>> From: dnd_mdn@forces.gc.ca
>>> Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 14:17:17 -0400
>>> Subject: RE: Re Greg Weston, The CBC , Wikileaks, USSOCOM, Canada and
>>> the War in Iraq (I just called SOCOM and let them know I was still
>>> alive
>>> To: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>>>
>>> This is to confirm that the Minister of National Defence has received
>>> your email and it will be reviewed in due course. Please do not reply
>>> to this message: it is an automatic acknowledgement.
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Original message ----------
>>> From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
>>> Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 13:55:30 -0300
>>> Subject: Re Greg Weston, The CBC , Wikileaks, USSOCOM, Canada and the
>>> War in Iraq (I just called SOCOM and let them know I was still alive
>>> To: DECPR@forces.gc.ca, Public.Affairs@socom.mil,
>>> Raymonde.Cleroux@mpcc-cppm.gc.ca, john.adams@cse-cst.gc.ca,
>>> william.elliott@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, stoffp1 <stoffp1@parl.gc.ca>,
>>> dnd_mdn@forces.gc.ca, media@drdc-rddc.gc.ca, information@forces.gc.ca,
>>> milner@unb.ca, charters@unb.ca, lwindsor@unb.ca,
>>> sarah.weir@mpcc-cppm.gc.ca, birgir <birgir@althingi.is>, smari
>>> < smari@immi.is>, greg.weston@cbc.ca, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>,
>>> susan@blueskystrategygroup.com, Don@blueskystrategygroup.com,
>>> eugene@blueskystrategygroup.com, americas@aljazeera.net
>>> Cc: "Edith. Cody-Rice"<Edith.Cody-Rice@cbc.ca>, "terry.seguin"
>>> < terry.seguin@cbc.ca>, acampbell <acampbell@ctv.ca>, whistleblower
>>> < whistleblower@ctv.ca>
>>>
>>> I talked to Don Newman earlier this week before the beancounters David
>>> Dodge and Don Drummond now of Queen's gave their spin about Canada's
>>> Health Care system yesterday and Sheila Fraser yapped on and on on
>>> CAPAC during her last days in office as if she were oh so ethical.. To
>>> be fair to him I just called Greg Weston (613-288-6938) I suggested
>>> that he should at least Google SOUCOM and David Amos It would be wise
>>> if he check ALL of CBC's sources before he publishes something else
>>> about the DND EH Don Newman? Lets just say that the fact  that  your
>>> old CBC buddy, Tony Burman is now in charge of Al Jazeera English
>>> never impressed me. The fact that he set up a Canadian office is
>>> interesting though
>>>
>>> http://www.blueskystrategygroup.com/index.php/team/don-newman/
>>>
>>> http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/media/story/2010/05/04/al-jazeera-english-
>>> launch.html
>>>
>>> Anyone can call me back and stress test my integrity after they read
>>> this simple pdf file. BTW what you Blue Sky dudes pubished about
>>> Potash Corp and BHP is truly funny. Perhaps Stevey Boy Harper or Brad
>>> Wall will fill ya in if you are to shy to call mean old me.
>>>
>>> http://www.scribd.com/doc/2718120/Integrity-Yea-Right
>>>
>>> The Governor General, the PMO and the PCO offices know that I am not a
>>> shy political animal
>>>
>>> Veritas Vincit
>>> David Raymond Amos
>>> 902 800 0369
>>>
>>> Enjoy Mr Weston
>>> http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/2011/05/15/weston-iraq-invasion-w
>>> ikileaks.html
>>>
>>> "But Lang, defence minister McCallum's chief of staff, says military
>>> brass were not entirely forthcoming on the issue. For instance, he
>>> says, even McCallum initially didn't know those soldiers were helping
>>> to plan the invasion of Iraq up to the highest levels of command,
>>> including a Canadian general.
>>>
>>> That general is Walt Natynczyk, now Canada's chief of defence staff,
>>> who eight months after the invasion became deputy commander of 35,000
>>> U.S. soldiers and other allied forces in Iraq. Lang says Natynczyk was
>>> also part of the team of mainly senior U.S. military brass that helped
>>> prepare for the invasion from a mobile command in Kuwait."
>>>
>>> http://baconfat53.blogspot.com/2010/06/canada-and-united-states.html
>>>
>>> "I remember years ago when the debate was on in Canada, about there
>>> being weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Our American 'friends"
>>> demanded that Canada join into "the Coalition of the Willing. American
>>> "veterans" and sportscasters loudly denounced Canada for NOT buying
>>> into the US policy.
>>>
>>> At the time I was serving as a planner at NDHQ and with 24 other of my
>>> colleagues we went to Tampa SOUCOM HQ to be involved in the planning
>>> in the planning stages of the op....and to report to NDHQ, that would
>>> report to the PMO upon the merits of the proposed operation. There was
>>> never at anytime an existing target list of verified sites where there
>>> were deployed WMD.
>>>
>>> Coalition assets were more than sufficient for the initial strike and
>>> invasion phase but even at that point in the planning, we were
>>> concerned about the number of "boots on the ground" for the occupation
>>> (and end game) stage of an operation in Iraq. We were also concerned
>>> about the American plans for occupation plans of Iraq because they at
>>> that stage included no contingency for a handing over of civil
>>> authority to a vetted Iraqi government and bureaucracy.
>>>
>>> There was no detailed plan for Iraq being "liberated" and returned to
>>> its people...nor a thought to an eventual exit plan. This was contrary
>>> to the lessons of Vietnam but also to current military thought, that
>>> folks like Colin Powell and "Stuffy" Leighton and others elucidated
>>> upon. "What's the mission" how long is the mission, what conditions
>>> are to met before US troop can redeploy?  Prime Minister Jean Chretien
>>> and the PMO were even at the very preliminary planning stages wary of
>>> Canadian involvement in an Iraq operation....History would prove them
>>> correct. The political pressure being applied on the PMO from the
>>> George W Bush administration was onerous
>>>
>>> American military assets were extremely overstretched, and Canadian
>>> military assets even more so It was proposed by the PMO that Canadian
>>> naval platforms would deploy to assist in naval quarantine operations
>>> in the Gulf and that Canadian army assets would deploy in Afghanistan
>>> thus permitting US army assets to redeploy for an Iraqi
>>> operation....The PMO thought that "compromise would save Canadian
>>> lives and liberal political capital.. and the priority of which
>>> ....not necessarily in that order. "
>>>
>>> You can bet that I called these sneaky Yankees again today EH John
>>> Adams? of the CSE within the DND?
>>>
>>> http://www.socom.mil/SOCOMHome/Pages/ContactUSSOCOM.aspx
>>>
>>>
>>> 84.  The Plaintiff states that the RCMP is well aware that he went to
>>> western Canada in 2104 at the invitation of a fellow Maritimer in
>>> order to assist in his attempt to investigate the murders of many
>>> people in Northern BC. The Plaintiff has good reasons to doubt his
>>> fellow Maritimer’s motives. The fact that he did not tell the
>>> Plaintiff until he had arrived in BC that he had invited a Neo Nazi he
>>> knew the Plaintiff strongly disliked to the same protest that he was
>>> staging in front of the court house in Prince George on August 21,
>>> 2014. The Plaintiff was looking forward to meeting Lonnie Landrud so
>>> he ignored the Neo Nazi. Several months after their one and only
>>> meeting, Lonnie Landrud contacted the Plaintiff and asked him to
>>> publish a statement of his on the Internet and to forward it to anyone
>>> he wished. The Plaintiff obliged Landrud and did an investigation of
>>> his own as well. He has informed the RCMP of his opinion of their
>>> actions and has done nothing further except monitor the criminal
>>> proceedings the Crown has placed against the Neo Nazi in BC and save
>>> his videos and webpages and that of his associates. The words the
>>> Plaintiff stated in public in Prince George BC on August 21, 2014 were
>>> recorded by the Neo Nazi and published on the Internet and the RCMP
>>> knows the Plaintiff stands by every word. For the public record the
>>> Plaintiff truly believes what Lonnie Landrud told him despite the fact
>>> that he does not trust his Neo Nazi associates. Therefore the
>>> Plaintiff had no ethical dilemma whatsoever in publishing the
>>> statement Lonnie Landrud mailed to him in a sincere effort to assist
>>> Lonnie Landrud’s pursuit of justice. The Crown is well aware that
>>> Plaintiff’s former lawyer, Barry Bachrach once had a leader of the
>>> American Indian Movement for a client and that is why he ran against
>>> the former Minister of Indian Affairs for his seat in the 39th
>>> Parliament.
>>>
>>> 85.  The Plaintiff states that while he was out west he visited
>>> Edmonton AB several times and met many people. He visited the home of
>>> Barry Winters and all his favourite haunts in the hope of meeting in
>>> person the evil person who had been sexually harassing and threatening
>>> to kill him and his children for many years. The Crown cannot deny
>>> that Winters invited him many times. On June 13, 2015 Barry Winters
>>> admitted the EPS warned him the Plaintiff was looking for him.
>>>
>>> On 12/21/15, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: "Rabson, Mia"<Mia.Rabson@freepress.mb.ca>
>>>> Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 20:45:36 +0000
>>>> Subject: Automatic reply: Attn Wab Kinew
>>>> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> I will be out of the office until Monday, January 4.
>>>> If you need immediate assistance please contact our city desk at 613
>>>> 697 7292 or fpcity@freepress.mb.ca.
>>>> Happy Holidays!
>>>>
>>>> Mia Rabson
>>>> Parliamentary Bureau Chief
>>>> Winnipeg Free Press
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: "Sarra R. Deane"<s.deane@uwinnipeg.ca>
>>>> Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 20:10:12 +0000
>>>> Subject: Automatic reply: Attn Wab Kinew
>>>> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> I will be out of the office until Thursday, Nov. 12th.  I will
>>>> respond to emails upon my return. Miigwech and all the best.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>>> Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 16:45:29 -0400
>>>> Subject: Fwd: Attn Wab Kinew
>>>> To: mia.rabson@freepress.mb.ca, Paul.Samyn@freepress.mb.ca,
>>>> "carolyn.bennett"<carolyn.bennett@parl.gc.ca>, Doug@dougeyolfson.ca,
>>>> doug.eyolfson@parl.gc.ca
>>>> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/peacemaker-363019331.html
>>>>
>>>> Peacemaker
>>>> Group pushes for Truth and Reconciliation chairman to get Nobel Prize
>>>>
>>>> By: Mia Rabson
>>>> Posted: 12/19/2015 3:00 AM   | Last Modified: 12/19/2015 6:12 AM
>>>>
>>>> " Murray Sinclair already has an impressive resumé.
>>>>
>>>> He's the first aboriginal judge appointed to the bench in Manitoba,
>>>> co-commissioner of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry and chairman of the
>>>> Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
>>>>
>>>> But if a group of Canadians has its way, he will get one of the
>>>> highest honours in the world to add to the list: Nobel Peace Prize
>>>> recipient.
>>>>
>>>> "He and Phil Fontaine should share a Nobel Peace Prize," said Wab
>>>> Kinew, associate vice-president for indigenous relations at the
>>>> University of Winnipeg.
>>>>
>>>> Kinew said a group of people in Winnipeg, Toronto and Ottawa are
>>>> collaborating to nominate the two men, who they believe are jointly
>>>> responsible for giving back hope to Canada's indigenous people that
>>>> hasn't existed in a long time.
>>>>
>>>> "They made it into something that is peace-building and
>>>> nation-building," Kinew said. "It has really transformed our country."
>>>>
>>>> Mia Rabson, Ottawa Bureau Chief
>>>> 613-369–4824
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>   Samyn, Editor
>>>> 204–697–7295
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>>> Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 16:05:01 -0400
>>>> Subject: Attn Wab Kinew
>>>> To: w.kinew@uwinnipeg.ca, "Paul.Lynch"
>>>> < Paul.Lynch@edmontonpolice.ca>, "Marianne.Ryan"
>>>> < Marianne.Ryan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
>>>> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> https://baconfatreport.wordpress.com/2015/12/21/why-do-canadians-need
>>>> -to-know-anything-about-injuns/
>>>>
>>>> http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/about/administration/avp-igca.htmlAssociate
>>>> Vice-President, Indigenous Affairs
>>>>
>>>> Wab Kinew
>>>> phone: 204.789.9931
>>>> email: w.kinew@uwinnipeg.ca
>>>> Biography/Publications
>>>>
>>>> Executive Assistant
>>>>
>>>> Sarra Deane
>>>> phone: 204.988.7121
>>>> email: s.deane@uwinnipeg.ca
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --- Confidentiality Warning: This message and any attachments are
>> confidential and subject to copyright. They are intended only for the
>> use of the intended recipient(s) and may be privileged. If you are not
>> the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review,
>> retransmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, circulation or other
>> use of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you
>> are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately
>> by return e-mail, and delete this message and any attachments from
>> your system.
>>
>> --- Avis de confidentialité : Ce message et toute pièce jointe sont
>> confidentiels et assujettis au droit d’auteur. Il est de l’usage
>> exclusif du ou des destinataire(s) visé(s) et peuvent être
>> confidentiels. Si vous n’êtes pas le(s) destinataire(s) visé(s), nous
>> attirons votre attention sur le fait qu’il est strictement interdit
>> d’utiliser cette information, de la transmettre, de l’imprimer sur
>> papier, de la copier, de la distribuer ou de la diffuser. Si vous
>> n’êtes pas le destinataire visé, veuillez en aviser immédiatement
>> l’expéditeur par courriel électronique et détruire ce message et toute
>> copie de celui-ci.
>>
>> --------------------------------
>> This email is a service from Liberal / Assistance.
>>
>>
>> [J6PE8E-0WQN]
>>
>
>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Justice Website <JUSTWEB@novascotia.ca>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:21:11 +0000
Subject: Emails to Department of Justice and Province of Nova Scotia
To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com"<motomaniac333@gmail.com>

Mr. Amos,
We acknowledge receipt of your recent emails to the Deputy Minister of
Justice and lawyers within the Legal Services Division of the
Department of Justice respecting a possible claim against the Province
of Nova Scotia.  Service of any documents respecting a legal claim
against the Province of Nova Scotia may be served on the Attorney
General at 1690 Hollis Street, Halifax, NS.  Please note that we will
not be responding to further emails on this matter.

Department of Justice

On 8/3/17, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote:

> Good Day Sir
>
> After I heard you speak on CBC I called your office again and managed
> to speak to one of your staff for the first time
>
> Please find attached the documents I promised to send to the lady who
> answered the phone this morning. Please notice that not after the Sgt
> at Arms took the documents destined to your office his pal Tanker
> Malley barred me in writing with an "English" only document.
>
> These are the hearings and the dockets in Federal Court that I
> suggested that you study closely.
>
> This is the docket in Federal Court
>
> http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-1557-15&select_court=T
>
> These are digital recordings of  the last three hearings
>
> Dec 14th https://archive.org/details/BahHumbug
>
> January 11th, 2016 https://archive.org/details/Jan11th2015
>
> April 3rd, 2017
>
> https://archive.org/details/April32017JusticeLeblancHearing
>
>
> This is the docket in the Federal Court of Appeal
>
> http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=A-48-16&select_court=All
>
>
> The only hearing thus far
>
> May 24th, 2017
>
> https://archive.org/details/May24thHoedown
>
>
> This Judge understnds the meaning of the word Integrity
>
> Date: 20151223
>
> Docket: T-1557-15
>
> Fredericton, New Brunswick, December 23, 2015
>
> PRESENT:        The Honourable Mr. Justice Bell
>
> BETWEEN:
>
> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
>
> Plaintiff
>
> and
>
> HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
>
> Defendant
>
> ORDER
>
> (Delivered orally from the Bench in Fredericton, New Brunswick, on
> December 14, 2015)
>
> The Plaintiff seeks an appeal de novo, by way of motion pursuant to
> the Federal Courts Rules (SOR/98-106), from an Order made on November
> 12, 2015, in which Prothonotary Morneau struck the Statement of Claim
> in its entirety.
>
> At the outset of the hearing, the Plaintiff brought to my attention a
> letter dated September 10, 2004, which he sent to me, in my then
> capacity as Past President of the New Brunswick Branch of the Canadian
> Bar Association, and the then President of the Branch, Kathleen Quigg,
> (now a Justice of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal).  In that letter
> he stated:
>
> As for your past President, Mr. Bell, may I suggest that you check the
> work of Frank McKenna before I sue your entire law firm including you.
> You are your brother’s keeper.
>
> Frank McKenna is the former Premier of New Brunswick and a former
> colleague of mine at the law firm of McInnes Cooper. In addition to
> expressing an intention to sue me, the Plaintiff refers to a number of
> people in his Motion Record who he appears to contend may be witnesses
> or potential parties to be added. Those individuals who are known to
> me personally, include, but are not limited to the former Prime
> Minister of Canada, The Right Honourable Stephen Harper; former
> Attorney General of Canada and now a Justice of the Manitoba Court of
> Queen’s Bench, Vic Toews; former member of Parliament Rob Moore;
> former Director of Policing Services, the late Grant Garneau; former
> Chief of the Fredericton Police Force, Barry McKnight; former Staff
> Sergeant Danny Copp; my former colleagues on the New Brunswick Court
> of Appeal, Justices Bradley V. Green and Kathleen Quigg, and, retired
> Assistant Commissioner Wayne Lang of the Royal Canadian Mounted
> Police.
>
> In the circumstances, given the threat in 2004 to sue me in my
> personal capacity and my past and present relationship with many
> potential witnesses and/or potential parties to the litigation, I am
> of the view there would be a reasonable apprehension of bias should I
> hear this motion. See Justice de Grandpré’s dissenting judgment in
> Committee for Justice and Liberty et al v National Energy Board et al,
> [1978] 1 SCR 369 at p 394 for the applicable test regarding
> allegations of bias. In the circumstances, although neither party has
> requested I recuse myself, I consider it appropriate that I do so.
>
>
> AS A RESULT OF MY RECUSAL, THIS COURT ORDERS that the Administrator of
> the Court schedule another date for the hearing of the motion.  There
> is no order as to costs.
>
> “B. Richard Bell”
> Judge
>
>
> Below after the CBC article about your concerns (I made one comment
> already) you will find the text of just two of many emails I had sent
> to your office over the years since I first visited it in 2006.
>
>  I noticed that on July 30, 2009, he was appointed to the  the Court
> Martial Appeal Court of Canada  Perhaps you should scroll to the
> bottom of this email ASAP and read the entire Paragraph 83  of my
> lawsuit now before the Federal Court of Canada?
>
> "FYI This is the text of the lawsuit that should interest Trudeau the most
>
> http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2015/09/v-behaviorurldefaultvmlo.html
>
> 83 The Plaintiff states that now that Canada is involved in more war
> in Iraq again it did not serve Canadian interests and reputation to
> allow Barry Winters to publish the following words three times over
> five years after he began his bragging:
>
> January 13, 2015
> This Is Just AS Relevant Now As When I wrote It During The Debate
>
> December 8, 2014
> Why Canada Stood Tall!
>
> Friday, October 3, 2014
> Little David Amos’ “True History Of War” Canadian Airstrikes And
> Stupid Justin Trudeau?
>
>
> Vertias Vincit
> David Raymond Amos
> 902 800 0369
>
> P.S. Whereas this CBC article is about your opinion of the actions of
> the latest Minister Of Health trust that Mr Boudreau and the CBC have
> had my files for many years and the last thing they are is ethical.
> Ask his friends Mr Murphy and the RCMP if you don't believe me.
>
> Subject:
> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:02:35 -0400
> From: "Murphy, Michael B. \(DH/MS\)"MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca
> To: motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com
>
> January 30, 2007
>
> WITHOUT PREJUDICE
>
> Mr. David Amos
>
> Dear Mr. Amos:
>
> This will acknowledge receipt of a copy of your e-mail of December 29,
> 2006 to Corporal Warren McBeath of the RCMP.
>
> Because of the nature of the allegations made in your message, I have
> taken the measure of forwarding a copy to Assistant Commissioner Steve
> Graham of the RCMP “J” Division in Fredericton.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Honourable Michael B. Murphy
> Minister of Health
>
> CM/cb
>
>
> Warren McBeath warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca wrote:
>
> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:34:53 -0500
> From: "Warren McBeath"warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
> To: kilgoursite@ca.inter.net, MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca,
> nada.sarkis@gnb.ca, wally.stiles@gnb.ca, dwatch@web.net,
> motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com
> CC: ottawa@chuckstrahl.com, riding@chuckstrahl.com,John.Foran@gnb.ca,
> Oda.B@parl.gc.ca,"Bev BUSSON"bev.busson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
> "Paul Dube"PAUL.DUBE@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
> Subject: Re: Remember me Kilgour? Landslide Annie McLellan has
> forgotten me but the crooks within the RCMP have not
>
> Dear Mr. Amos,
>
> Thank you for your follow up e-mail to me today. I was on days off
> over the holidays and returned to work this evening. Rest assured I
> was not ignoring or procrastinating to respond to your concerns.
>
> As your attachment sent today refers from Premier Graham, our position
> is clear on your dead calf issue: Our forensic labs do not process
> testing on animals in cases such as yours, they are referred to the
> Atlantic Veterinary College in Charlottetown who can provide these
> services. If you do not choose to utilize their expertise in this
> instance, then that is your decision and nothing more can be done.
>
> As for your other concerns regarding the US Government, false
> imprisonment and Federal Court Dates in the US, etc... it is clear
> that Federal authorities are aware of your concerns both in Canada
> the US. These issues do not fall into the purvue of Detachment
> and policing in Petitcodiac, NB.
>
> It was indeed an interesting and informative conversation we had on
> December 23rd, and I wish you well in all of your future endeavors.
>
>  Sincerely,
>
> Warren McBeath, Cpl.
> GRC Caledonia RCMP
> Traffic Services NCO
> Ph: (506) 387-2222
> Fax: (506) 387-4622
> E-mail warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>
>
> http://www.archive.org/details/PoliceSurveilanceWiretapTape139
>
> http://www.archive.org/details/FedsUsTreasuryDeptRcmpEtc
>
>
> FEDERAL EXPRES February 7, 2006
> Senator Arlen Specter
> United States Senate
> Committee on the Judiciary
> 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
> Washington, DC 20510
>
> Dear Mr. Specter:
>
> I have been asked to forward the enclosed tapes to you from a man
> named, David Amos, a Canadian citizen, in connection with the matters
> raised in the attached letter. Mr. Amos has represented to me that
> these are illegal FBI wire tap tapes. I believe Mr. Amos has been in
> contact
> with you about this previously.
>
> Very truly yours,
> Barry A. Bachrach
> Direct telephone: (508) 926-3403
> Direct facsimile: (508) 929-3003
> Email: bbachrach@bowditch.com
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/new-brunswick-integrity-commissioner-conflict-of-interest-boudreau-1.4154004
>
> Integrity commissioner calls for tougher conflict-of-interest law
> N.B. legislation should apply to apparent conflicts, not just actual
> ones, Alexandre Deschênes says
> By Jacques Poitras, CBC News Posted: Jun 12, 2017 6:30 AM AT
>
> Alexandre Deschênes's first act as commissioner was to deal with
> Victor Boudreau's 20 per cent investment in Shediac Campground Ltd., a
> proposed 700-site facility that has generated local opposition.
> (Jacques Poitras/CBC)
>
> New Brunswick's integrity commissioner says the conflict-of-interest
> law for politicians should be toughened to clarify cases such as
> cabinet minister Victor Boudreau's former investment in a proposed
> campground near Parlee Beach.
>
> Alexandre Deschênes said earlier this year that Boudreau's stake in
> the project did not put him in a conflict of interest but that the
> appearance of a conflict was "inevitable."
>
> Unlike other conflict-of-interest laws, "our act does not apply to an
> apparent conflict of interest," he said in an interview with CBC News.
> "It's not in there."
>
> Previous commissioners suggested law
>
> Boudreau recused himself from Parlee Beach issues anyway, even though
> he didn't technically have to. The law said ministers aren't in a
> conflict if decisions that affect their private interests also apply
> to the general public.
>
>     Boudreau recuses himself from Parlee Beach controversy
>     Victor Boudreau case shows 'huge loophole' in conflict law, ethics
> group says
>
> "Mr. Boudreau could have gone on and said, 'I'm the minister of health
> and I'm going to make decisions that apply to the general public and
> the act allows it,'" Deschênes said.
>
> "If you'd had the words 'apparent conflict of interest' [in the law]
> it would have been clear."
>
> Deschênes pointed out two of his predecessors as conflict-of-interest
> commissioner, Pat Ryan and Stuart Stratton, recommended expanding the
> act to include the appearance of conflicts.
>
> "It started out way back," he said. "We're looking at almost a decade
> here where the suggestion has been made that apparent conflict of
> interest ought to be included in the act. It's not been done.
>
> "But as a commissioner, I will be following what they've been doing
> and I will be recommending it when I file a report."
>
> Updated conflict act
>
> The Gallant Liberals passed amendments to update the Members Conflict
> of Interest Act during the spring session of the legislature, but they
> did not include a ban on perceived conflicts.
>
> Progressive Conservative MLA Brian MacDonald has also called for the
> Liberals to fix what he calls "a gap in the law."
>
>     'Gap in the law': PC critic suggests review of conflict law
>     Premier backs Victor Boudreau's involvement in Parlee Beach issue​
>
> Deschênes was appointed the province's integrity commissioner last
> year. The new role incorporates the role of conflict-of-interest
> watchdog and registrar of lobbyists, and in September it will also
> include the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
>
> Victor
>
> Cabinet minister Victor Boudreau recused himself from the Parlee Beach
> issues anyway, even though the law said ministers aren't in a conflict
> if decisions that affect their private interests also apply to the
> general public. (CBC)
>
> Deschênes's first act as commissioner was to deal with Boudreau's 20
> per cent investment in Shediac Campground Ltd., a proposed 700-site
> facility that has generated local opposition.
>
> As health minister, Boudreau oversees the public health offices, and
> his department was part of a working group looking at how to deal with
> fecal contamination at Parlee Beach. One option the group looked at
> was a moratorium on new development near the beach.
>
> That would have affected the proposed campground.
>
>     'I told him, and he made it public, that the appearance of
> conflict in this case was absolutely inevitable. He couldn't get
> around it. It was there.'
>
>     - Alexandre Deschênes
>
> The law bans ministers from making decisions that affect their
> "private interest," but it makes an exception if the decision applies
> to the broader public, even if the minister would still benefit.
>
> Deschênes said in his letter to Boudreau in March that "one could
> argue" a decision on a moratorium would affect the broader public.
>
> "Under the act, he might have been entitled to continue to have
> discussions that applied to the general population, even though he was
> part of [the project] at that point," Deschênes said in an interview
> last week.
>
> "I told him, and he made it public, that the appearance of conflict in
> this case was absolutely inevitable. He couldn't get around it. It was
> there."
> An MP's perceived conflict matters
>
> The federal conflict of interest code for MPs also includes an
> exception for decisions that affect the general public, but it
> includes an explicit reference to perceived conflicts.
>
> Boudreau put his investment in a blind trust in 2014, which meant he
> had no role in the running of the business. But the value of his stake
> would have been affected by a moratorium on future development.
>
> Parlee beach
>
> In May, Victor Boudreau announced he was giving up his investment in
> the campground on Parlee Beach altogether.
>
> He said in March he learned of the potential moratorium Feb. 28 and
> met with Deschênes March 2, the first date they could arrange it.
>
> "That perception is the issue," Boudreau said at the time. "And if the
> perception is the issue, and the perception is what's going to be
> prevent us from getting to the bottom of it, then I'm prepared to
> recuse myself from all activities relating to this committee."
>
> Last month he announced that he was giving up his investment in the
> campground altogether.
>
> Deschênes said he believes most ministers and MLAs would do the same
> thing if he told them there was an apparent, but not actual, conflict.
>
> "In most cases I think they will listen and they will do what has to
> be done to put an end to an apparent conflict of interest, although
> technically they could continue to do what they want to do."
>
>
>
> 6 Comments
>
> David Raymond Amos
>
> I sure hope the new integrity commissioner finally does his job and
> answers me in writing
>
>
>
> Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C.,
> Office of the Integrity Commissioner
> Edgecombe House, 736 King Street
> Fredericton, N.B. CANADA E3B 5H1
> tel.: 506-457-7890
> fax: 506-444-5224
> e-mail:coi@gnb.ca
>
> Hon. Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C.
> Integrity Commissioner
>
> Hon. Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C., who resides in Bathurst, N.B., is a
> native of Kedgwick, N.B., and is married to Huguette (Savoie)
> Deschênes. They have two sons.
>
> He studied at Saint-Joseph University (now Université de Moncton) from
> 1960 to 1962, University of Ottawa from 1962-1965 (B.A.), and
> University of New Brunswick (LL.B., 1968). He was admitted to the Law
> Society of New Brunswick in 1968. He was legal counsel to the
> Department of Justice in Fredericton from 1968 to 1971. He was in
> private practice from 1972 to 1982 and specialized in civil litigation
> as a partner in the law firm of Michaud, Leblanc, Robichaud, and
> Deschênes. While residing in Shediac, N.B., he served on town council
> and became the first president of the South East Economic Commission.
> He is a past president of the Richelieu Club in Shediac.
>
> In 1982, he was appointed a judge of the Court of Queen’s Bench of New
> Brunswick and of the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick in 2000.
>
> On July 30, 2009, he was appointed to the Court Martial Appeal Court of
> Canada.
>
> While on the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick, he was appointed
> President of the provincial Judicial Council and in 2012 Chairperson
> of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of New
> Brunswick for the 2015 federal election.
>
> He was appointed Conflict of Interest Commissioner in December 2016
> and became New Brunswick’s first Integrity Commissioner on December
> 16, 2016 with responsibilities for conflict of interest issues related
> to Members of the Legislative Assembly. As of April 1, 2017 he
> supervises lobbyists of public office holders under the Lobbyists’
> Registration Act.
>
> As of September 1, 2017, he will be assuming the functions presently
> held by the Access to Information and Privacy Commissioner.
>
>
>

 Suzanne Cowan
nbd_cna@liberal.ca.

President, Liberal Party of Canada

Liberal Party of Canada
350 Albert Street, Suite 920
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 6M8

Toll free: 1 888 LIBERAL (542-3725)

1-888-542-3725

assistance@liberal.ca

Mr. Jim Vincent J. Burton FRI - Residential Sales | Real Estate Institute ...
https://memberservices.membee.com/feeds/.../cid/.../Mr-Jim-Vincent-J-Burton-FRI
Jim Burton has been successfully selling Real Estate in St. John's for
30 Years. ... Hope Air", Chairperson of the "Liberal Party of Canada -
Newfoundland & Labrador" and ... Jim can be reached at (709) 682-8663
or vjamesburton@gmail.com

Scott Barry - Liberal Party of PEI
www.liberalpei.ca/staff/ewan-clark/
Scott Barry. Scott Barry. President. sbarry@stewartmckelvey.com· › /
Staff / Scott Barry ... Contact Liberal Party of PEI at 902-368-3449
or 1-877-740-3449


Director, Liberal Party of Canada (Nova Scotia)         John Gillis

P.O. Box 723
5151 George Street, Suite 1400
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Canada B3J 2T3

Tel: (902) 429-1993
Fax: (902) 423-1624

Email: office@liberal.ns.ca


Director, Liberal Party of Canada (New Brunswick)       Joel Reed

715 Brunswick Street
Fredericton NB E3B 1H8

506-453-3950  or  1-800-442-4902
Fax: 506-453-2476

Keiller Zed, Executive Director
Email: keiller.zed@nbliberal.ca


Director, Liberal Party of Canada (Québec)      Pierre Choquette

LPC(Q) Office in Montreal

35 rue De Port-Royal Est
Suite 300
Montréal, Québec
H3L 3T1

Telephone : (514) 381-8888 x302 or x314
Toll free : (800) 361-8839
Fax : (514) 381-1515
pchoquette@mondea.ca

quebec@liberal.ca

Montréal

Suite 501
4446 St-Laurent Blvd
Montréal, QC
Canada H2W 1Z5
Tel : 514-844-6665

 The McGill-HEC Montréal EMBA graduates succeed in a wide variety of
fields, including politics. Pierre Choquette is a great example.
Pierre, a 2013 McGill-HEC Montréal EMBA graduate, was recently elected
president of the Liberal Party of Canada, Quebec section*.

His main objective as president will be to work with his team to
prepare the party, its associations and its campaigners for the next
federal election, in 2019.  Among other things, they are targeting
improvement in recruitment, financing, communications and organization
of the associations and party in Quebec.

* The EMBA McGill-HEC Montreal takes no political position, but wishes
to highlight successes of its graduates.

Director, Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario)     Tyler Banham

Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario)
55 Eglinton Ave East, Suite 503
Toronto, ON
M4P 1G8

Phone : (416) 921-2844

Tyler Banham President president@lpco.ca

Director, Liberal Party of Canada (Manitoba)    Wendy Martin White

https://twitter.com/WMartinWhite/with_replies

wendy@wmwlaw.ca
 Wendy Martin White
@WMartinWhite

Criminal defence lawyer: It's easy to do justice...it's hard to do
right wendy@wmwlaw.ca 204.396.9877

Manitoba
Molgat Place
635 Broadway
Winnipeg, Manitoba
R3C 0X1
Phone: 1-888-LIBERAL
(1-888-542-3725)
Fax: (204) 284-1492

David Johnson
Executive Director
djohnson@liberal.ca

Director, Liberal Party of Canada (Saskatchewan)        Meghan McEachern


Liberal Party of Canada (Saskatchewan)
Telephone:
1-888-LIBERAL (542-3725)
Email: Saskatchewan@Liberal.ca

Director, Liberal Party of Canada (Alberta)     Robbie Schuett

Liberal Party of Canada in Alberta (LPCA)

308-10240 124th Street NW
Edmonton, Alberta T5N 3W6
Telephone:
(780) 328-3889
Fax: (613) 235-7208
Email: alberta@liberal.ca


robert.m.schuett@schuettlaw.com

Director, Liberal Party of Canada (British Columbia)   Manjot Hallen

Address
460 - 580 Hornby St.
Vancouver, BC V6C 3B6
General Inquiries
1-888-LIBERAL (542-3725)
BC Office
Phone (604) 664-3777
1-888-411-6511 (Toll free)
Fax 1-877-411-6511
Email: assistance@liberal.ca



mhallen@warnetthallen.com

With well over 1,000 cases to his credit, personal injury and car
accident lawyer Manjot Hallen brings a wealth of experience to every
client assignment. A business and community leader with a quick smile,
Manjot never met a party that he didn’t like and vice versa. A lawyer
since 2005, he is a member of the Canadian Bar Association, Trial
Lawyers Association of British Columbia and the South Asian Bar
Association (BC). Manjot has lectured on personal injury issues for
the Trial Lawyers Association of BC and the Continuing Legal Education
Society of BC. Prior to practicing law, Manjot worked in government
assisting several federal cabinet Ministers. He is currently the
President of the Liberal Party of Canada (BC). Manjot is also the
Vice-Chair for the BC Children’s Hospital A Night of Miracles Gala. In
his personal time, Manjot enjoys running, crossfit, hockey and
climbing the Grouse Grind. Ever the idealist, he looks forward to the
day when a person can be judged not by the colour of their skin or who
they love, but by the content of their character. Manjot is fluent in
Punjabi and understands Hindi.
604-737-3300 | mhallen@warnetthallen.com | LinkedIn

460 - 580 Hornby St.
Vancouver, BC V6C 3B6
General Inquiries
1-888-LIBERAL (542-3725)
BC Office
Phone (604) 664-3777
1-888-411-6511 (Toll free)
Fax 1-877-411-6511
Email: assistance@liberal.ca


Constitutional and Legal Adviser (English)      Michael Fenrick

 Michael Fenrick B.A., M.A., LL.B.
Partner

p: 416.646.7481
e: michael.fenrick@paliareroland.com
f: 416.646.4301
Download Contact Icon Printable Bio Icon

Constitutional and Legal Adviser (French)       Prachi Shah

    +1 514 764 3658
    E
    prachi.shah@clydeco.ca
Main office
    T
    +1 514 843 3777

 

 https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/ETHI/meeting-123/evidence


ETHI-123 (October 30, 2018)




House of Commons Emblem

Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics


NUMBER 123 
l
1st SESSION 
l
42nd PARLIAMENT 

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, October 30, 2018

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

  (1100)  

[English]

    This is the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, meeting 123. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h)(vii), this is the study of the breach of personal information involving Cambridge Analytica and Facebook.
    Today we have with us from the Conservative Party of Canada, Trevor Bailey, the privacy officer and director of membership; from the Liberal Party of Canada, Michael Fenrick, constitutional and legal adviser, national board of directors; and from the New Democratic Party, Jesse Calvert, director of operations.
    We'll start off with Mr. Bailey for 10 minutes.
    My name is Trevor Bailey. I'm the Conservative Party of Canada's privacy officer. I'd like to thank the committee for inviting me here today to discuss our privacy policy, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have surrounding that policy.
    I've been the privacy officer for the Conservative Party for approximately one year in addition to my role as director of membership for the party.
    The Conservative Party of Canada has had a formal privacy policy in place, including the role of privacy officer, for approximately six years. Though I am relatively new to this privacy role, I've held senior positions in the membership and fundraising departments for the past seven years. In those roles, I've had or shared the responsibility to oversee our data, access thereto and its authorized distribution.
    The privacy officer role is built around our party's commitment to protecting the privacy of Canadians. This commitment is important to the Conservative Party of Canada. That commitment includes taking great care to keep both confidential and secure all information in our possession that relates to the personal information Canadians willingly provide to us or is passed to us by Elections Canada as laid out in the Canada Elections Act. That information includes surname, given names, civic address and mailing address. Other information the party may ask for and receive from individuals, like an email address, phone number, gender and date of birth, is also information we include as covered by our privacy policy and is collected through our website or in response to a mail piece with that person's consent.
    As part of our privacy policy, any person may unsubscribe from our email, mail or phone lists at any time using links provided in each email message, clicking on our privacy policy at conservative.ca or contacting the party directly.
    As this committee would know, as a federal political party registered under the Canada Elections Act, the Conservative Party, including its electoral district associations, candidates, nomination contestants and leadership contestants, are subject to extensive regulation under that act, including in particular the public disclosure requirements for contributions over $200. As a result of these requirements, we collect personal information from donors and members when they contribute to our party or purchase a membership. You may also choose to provide us with personal information on a voluntary basis such as when registering for an event or signing a petition. We are required by law to keep records of donors for tax purposes.
    The information the Conservative Party gathers, either directly from Canadians or as a result of legislative requirements, is used for communication purposes. As a political party, we believe it is very important to communicate with Canadians on a regular basis. We are a national organization, but we have a riding-based membership system, so personal information may be disclosed to local riding associations, candidates, nomination contestants or leadership candidates for the purposes of communicating with those persons.
    There is some non-personal information that we track that is also included in our privacy policy for the additional information of Canadians. That non-personal information that may be collected through our website is collected through the use of web cookies with the purpose of informing the party about how people use our website in order to help us deliver better content for those users or to assist in general advertising efforts. We inform people in our policy about how to opt out of many of the advertising features used by sites like ours by adjusting their Google Ads settings or through free services like the Network Advertising Initiative's consumer opt-out page.
    To wrap up, the Conservative Party employs a variety of security systems to safeguard personal information from unauthorized access, disclosure or misuse, and from loss or unauthorized alteration. The Conservative Party does not and will not sell personal information.
    As I said in the opening, the commitment to protecting Canadians' privacy is important to us, and ensuring it's kept safe and secure is something we take great care in doing.
    If there are any questions on this policy, I'd be happy to take them.
    Thank you.

  (1105)  

    Thank you, Mr. Bailey.
    Next up is Mr. Fenrick for 10 minutes.
    Honourable members of the committee and Mr. Chair, it is a privilege to be able to speak with you today. I want to thank you for the opportunity for the Liberal Party of Canada to be heard on these important issues.
    My name is Michael Fenrick, and as I was introduced before, I serve as the legal and constitutional adviser to the national board of directors. That's a volunteer position. I'm also a riding chair for the riding in my home community of Parkdale—High Park, so I also have the experience of working for the party and volunteering for the party at a local level.
    Both from serving on our party's board and from working closely with grassroots volunteers, I know the party takes the protection of personal information extremely seriously. I also know how the responsible use of data can significantly increase participation and engagement in our political process.
    Today, I hope to speak to you about both of those priorities, and I look forward to answering your questions.
    First, I want to outline our most fundamental commitment on these matters. The Liberal Party of Canada works very hard both during and between elections to engage as many Canadians as possible in our democratic process. Protecting their personal information is a priority for the party in all of its interactions and operations.
    As part of that commitment, the Liberal Party of Canada has a clear and strict privacy policy in place, which is posted on all of the party's national websites, and it can always be publicly viewed at liberal.ca/privacy. The highest level of security is implemented for all data and records that are maintained by the party. The party does not sell any personal information. At all times the Liberal Party of Canada fully complies with all Elections Canada rules and regulations for political engagement and campaign activities as required by our campaign partners, who do the same.
    Why does all of this matter? Because secure and accurate data is very important to how modern political parties operate and engage with Canadians. Like all Canadian political parties, the Liberal Party uses data to engage with voters. Understanding the interests and the priorities of Canadians helps us to speak to the issues that matter most to them and in turn mobilizes democratic participation in our country.
    The importance of this objective truly can't be overstated. Political parties are not commercial businesses. We are not-for-profit voluntary associations defined in the Canada Elections Act as organizations whose fundamental purpose is to participate in public affairs by endorsing candidates for election. Our interests are very different from those of private sector entities to which federal privacy legislation applies. We promote candidates to Canadians. We're informed in part by information about eligible voters and in accordance with accepted privacy practices and safeguards, and we safeguard the information that Canadians entrust us with.

  (1110)  

    Using data to help engage voters isn't a bad thing; it's quite the opposite. It helps to ensure that political parties are in tune with what matters to the electorate and that more of us are involved in elections. For as long as there have been free and democratic elections, successful candidates have worked to build detailed lists of their supporters, to understand their priorities and return to them with an ask to help out at the polls.
    Knowing what interests have motivated voters and who supports our party helps us deliver relevant information and policy positions to Canadians. For example, we know that more and more people, and especially young people, are seeking out news and information online. For parties to be relevant, we need to have a strong online presence and interact with Canadians through the mediums and on the platforms they are using. That's why in recent years innovative engagement on social media, online advertising and email communications has become increasingly important to our operations.
    Where do we get the information we have about voters? Like the other registered political parties, we receive an electronic copy of the list of electors from Elections Canada each year. Under the Canada Elections Act, registered parties are authorized to use the lists to communicate with electors, including for the purposes of soliciting contributions and recruiting party members, in our case registered Liberals.
    For all parties, using personal information contained in the list of electors in an unauthorized manner is a criminal offence under the act. It is punishable by a fine and up to two years of imprisonment. We take our obligations in this regard very seriously.
    In addition, we work hard to identify, engage and mobilize potential supporters with phone calls, outreach events, door knocking, digital advertising, emails, petitions and more. Often we keep track of information about the issues that matter most to our supporters and to Canadians, and the information they express about whether they intend to vote for us. This information is recorded if it is volunteered by the individual voter and is used to inform the party's outreach efforts and political strategies at election time.
    On occasion, limited types of data are purchased by the party to help us reach out and connect with more supporters and Canadians. For example, in the past we have purchased widely available phone book-type information or Canada Post address validation lists.
    While we use social media to boost voter turnout, identify supporters through issues-based petitions and ask for fundraising support, the Liberal Party of Canada does not have access to specific Facebook accounts beyond those of our own social media channels.
    Our party's primary voter-contact database is a system called Liberalist. Certain individuals, including MPs, riding association executives, candidates and campaign managers may request access to Liberalist. They can view the voter information for electors in their ridings.
    Account holders are assigned certain levels of access based on our internal rules and policy, and must provide their name, email address, phone numbers, riding name and address. All account holders on Liberalist must agree to be bound by a Liberalist user agreement, which sets out the terms and conditions for using the system. A copy of that, I understand, is with the clerk.

  (1115)  

     Users must only use the data for the purpose of communication on behalf of the party with voters, donors and registered Liberals. They agree that they will not keep a copy of any of the data and will not share it with anyone else.
    Mr. Fenrick, you're about 15 seconds over. Are you just about at your conclusion?
     Yes.
    I will take one moment to wrap up.
    The Liberal Party of Canada also has a strict privacy policy in place. A copy has also been filed with the clerk of this committee. We think it is a best-in-class privacy policy for protecting the personal information of Canadians.
     We hope this committee will seriously entertain submissions of the Liberal Party of Canada about the importance of political engagement as a guiding factor when considering these important issues.
    Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Fenrick.
    Next up, from the New Democratic Party, we have Jesse Calvert.
    Go ahead, for 10 minutes.
     Hello and good morning, members of the committee. My name is Jesse Calvert and I'm the director of operations for Canada's New Democratic Party. I want to thank you for the invitation to appear before you to discuss our work with data and our privacy policies.
    The federal NDP and most of its provincial sections across the country all use software called Populus to interface with our respective databases of elector data, similar in principle to both the Conservative Party's constituent information management system and the Liberal Party's Liberalist. Of course, the NDP has a unique structure, wherein the federal party and the provincial sections share a formal affiliation with a common membership.
    While both the federal party and the provincial sections use Populus as a way to interface with their databases, the databases themselves are not shared. Information about electors is retained by the section collecting the data and each section uses the voters list from their respective elections agency, which is the permanent voters list produced by Elections Canada in our case, as the backbone of their own database.
    With regard to membership lists, this information is handled by a single point of contact at the federal party and counterparts in the provincial sections. Each instance of Populus is separate from each other.
    Populus is a web application developed by a third party contractor. This same company also developed foreAction, which is used by NDP caucus members and staff to track constituent case work. These programs are totally separate. They do not speak to each other and party staff, like myself, have no access to the case work database.
    In terms of the data that we collect, like other parties, we use the Elections Canada permanent voters list, our own membership and donation lists, contact information from petitions, public data, such as from the census, and data collected as a result of direct outreach operations. We only use this data in accordance with our needs as a registered political party, and we do not give it to third parties, as a matter of policy.
    We do not use any kind of psychographic modelling. Any modelling or analytics we do is based on publicly available statistical information and not personal private information. Nothing we use for these kinds of analytical purposes is more specific than, say, polling data or census information.
    We understand that privacy is a serious concern and we strive to abide by the principles of PIPEDA. We have a designated privacy officer at the federal NDP, and recently put into place an updated privacy policy, which can be viewed at NDP.ca/privacy.
    Here are some examples of how the party protects Canadians' privacy.
    Every user of Populus must agree to terms of use before they are able to access the NDP database. Internally, we have secure protocols that govern who can access our data, what they can access and when they can access it. We abide by a principle of minimal access and only give users access to data that is relevant to their needs. For example, organizers in a given riding only have access to data in that riding. We offer electors the option to unsubscribe in every communication we have with them and we have internal security protocols to ensure that, in the event of a data breach, subjects are notified promptly.
    We are in the process of moving our data into the cloud using the same provider that the Communications Security Establishment uses for unclassified data. One gap between our practice and PIPEDA that is currently in place is that we are unable to provide Canadians with their data upon request and give them the ability to correct it. This is mostly due to a lack of a security protocol to verify the identity of individuals requesting their data. We are giving this problem a lot of thought to determine how to address it properly.

  (1120)  

     In solving one problem, we do not wish to create another one. It's for that reason that we support a legislative change that would give Canadians the right to request their data and to extend the PIPEDA coverage to political parties, as is already the case in British Columbia through their legislation, PIPA. We need a consistent set of clear rules on privacy and personal data that all parties can abide by.
    Thank you again for the invitation. I look forward to your questions.
    Thank you, Mr. Calvert.
    We'll start off with Mr. Saini for seven minutes.
    Thank you very much to all three of you for being here this morning. I'm going to start off with a general question first.
    What protections are in place to keep the data you hold on Canadians safe? We can start with Mr. Bailey, and go that way.
    Certainly. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    There are really two elements to protecting the data. There is protecting against unauthorized access. We're talking about data breaches and attacks on our systems. That's obviously a continuing effort for us. We have a great team on that. That's not my expertise, but I do know that we have a very good data team in place. We test our systems constantly. We host in a very secure manner. We try to secure against any and all attacks. That's one side—the unauthorized access.
    The other side, of course, is authorized access but inappropriate use. That would be where someone who has access in a limited capacity to the database would access information and use it in a way they were not authorized to do. We have significant policies and processes in place to minimize the impact or the opportunity for someone to do such a thing.
    First and foremost is obviously limiting access to that data, so that, as my colleagues have mentioned, only people who have a need to access it have the opportunity to do so. Any of the information they do access is logged, and they are required to provide the reason for this access. If and when it's used in an inappropriate manner, we have methods, both internally and, if necessary, with the relevant authorities to.... We would co-operate fully with any investigation if there were any breach of our privacy policy or, of course, any loss.
    There are two elements to it. As far as protecting our data, we have a great IT team for that. Our data security is a continuing matter. I was just talking this morning about some of the firewall protections that we're updating. The other side, which is where people have the key but want to use it in an inappropriate manner, is primarily where our policies come into play. Certainly, the procedure is that we limit the breadth of access to data that any one user can have at one time.

  (1125)  

    For our part, many of the same things that Mr. Bailey has spoken to apply equally with respect to the Liberal Party and its treatment of personal information. From the perspective of somebody outside the system gaining access, we regularly run training. We've developed a cybersecurity policy, and we regularly run training at all levels of the organization, in terms of trying to ensure that people are educated about how to avoid things like phishing scams, spoof email addresses and matters along those lines.
    In addition to that, the Liberal Party's national director and the team at the head office here in Ottawa have met with the CSE in order to discuss best practices on how to secure Canadians' information. That includes using cloud-based email servers, which is what is recommended by the CSE. That has been implemented.
    On the access by users who have been granted access, who are volunteers, there are a number of ways in which we protect that information. Probably the most important, though, is that it's a segmented database. You're only given access to the information on Liberalist that you need. That can be as little as a single poll or, in the case of somebody who is running a canvass, in fact, it could just be the canvass information for a particular block or two of a neighbourhood. Riding association presidents may have access to the entire riding. Very few people within the Liberal Party have access to the entire list of electors. Our database is segmented in order to ensure that only the access that you've been granted and that you need is given to you.
     Unsurprisingly, much of what my colleagues have just said applies also to the New Democratic Party. We have a varying degrees of access protocol to ensure that folks who have access to the database only have access to the information that they require to do their tasks, and only a very small number of IT professionals have full access to the information.
    We also have a terms of use policy that all users are required to read and understand and consent to before they are given access to their particular segment of the database. Also, as I mentioned in my opening statement, we are in the process of moving our database and our systems into the cloud, which will increase our ability to secure the information that is contained within it.
    In terms of guarding against security breaches, we have a number of internal security protocols that are constantly under review and being developed and improved upon. We have ongoing threat monitoring to ensure that if a breach were to take place, we would be able to respond quickly, swiftly. We have protocols for notification, if such a situation were ever to arise to ensure that the folks whose information might have been compromised are informed of that situation.
    This is my last question. Obviously you can appreciate there is a difference between a political organization and a private sector organization, and the collection of data that each one uses for its own purpose. In one regard, you're talking about a political entity that is using the data in the pursuit of democracy, and in the other, in a private sector organization, you're using that in the pursuit of profit.
    Do you think the rules should remain the same or be subject to the same standards, or should there be a difference between political parties and private sector organizations?

  (1130)  

    I could start off on that one.
    You're absolutely right. They are separate. They are different. We currently operate under a different legislative situation, with PIPEDA coverage for private companies and not covering us as political parties.
    My role with the party is to enforce our privacy policy as written, and currently it does not come up to full PIPEDA compliance, which I believe might be the suggestion there. We certainly cover all our legal requirements and we follow everything as laid out in the privacy policy, but the decision as to whether or not we should implement or change the legislative background that covers us as political parties, I leave to Parliament and to you, as a committee. We're here to enforce the rules as written, and if there's a new rule basis that comes in and takes effect for how we need to operate, then we would certainly come into compliance.
    I don't have an opinion as to whether it would be required or not.
    Thank you, Mr. Bailey, and Mr. Saini.
    Next up, for seven minutes, we have Mr. Kent.
    Thank you very much, Chair. My apologies for my tardy arrival.
    Thanks to all of you for coming today. It is much appreciated, and there is a very important discussion that we can have here today.
    In June, after four months of study of what began as the Cambridge Analytica-Facebook-AggregateIQ scandal, the committee, among a number of recommendations to government in our interim report, recommended that political activities come under the authority of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. Mr. Calvert, you've already spoken to that.
    As Mr. Saini pointed out indirectly, an awful lot of the testimony that we heard with regard to the Brexit referendum and interference, or attempted interference in the American political elections at different levels had to do with third party intervention. I'm wondering if each of you could comment—and Mr. Calvert a little more explicitly—as to whether or not each of your parties believes that extending the authority of the Privacy Commissioner to protect Canadians' privacy in the political sphere, as they are protected in the commercial sphere, would raise any objections with your respective parties.
    We'll have Mr. Bailey first.
    Once again, as you mentioned, there was a lot of concern around third parties and their involvement. We certainly share that concern, and we want to make sure we have fair elections in this country, obviously. We play a large part in that, and we want to continue to be able to participate in the democratic process as fully as we possibly can.
    That being said, as for whether there should be oversight by the Privacy Commissioner or enforcement of PIPEDA across political parties, once again I would leave that to Parliament to make that decision. My role as director of membership and privacy officer is to protect our lists, to make sure we take good care of them and to make sure everyone is treated fairly and evenly.
    If anything above and beyond that came from Parliament, we would certainly come into compliance. As for whether we should, once again, I would leave that up to Parliament.
     From the Liberal Party of Canada's perspective, obviously it's a critical issue that we need to address in terms of third parties. I've already outlined some of the ways in which we are trying to both address those issues and constantly improve on them within the Liberal Party.
    On the issue, more broadly, of PIPEDA's application to political parties, I think we would hope that one of the serious considerations that this committee would take under advisement is the fundamental difference—I would say, founded in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms—between political participation or engagement and commercial activity. Our courts have recognized that in a number of places, including in protection of freedom of speech, etc.
    If we are going to develop rules, we need to develop rules that work for all people who participate in the political process in this country. I say that from the perspective of a party that had approximately 80,000 volunteers, I think, in the last election. We need rules that work for the volunteer who's an 18-year-old, just got interested in politics, belongs to a campus club and is signing up his friends, all the way to more sophisticated people who have worked on a variety of campaigns.
    From our perspective, whatever rules are developed need to recognize that fundamental reality, that political parties are voluntary associations of volunteers, fundamentally, and that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of volunteers to every paid staff member. It would be a real disincentive to participation in the political process if people could face the kinds of penalties that exist for corporations, for instance, for non-compliance under PIPEDA. It would actually have a chilling effect, I believe, on our political process to do so.

  (1135)  

    The New Democratic Party seriously believes that Canadians deserve to have trust in their democracy and to have trust in their political parties. We think that the only way to increase this trust and to increase transparency is to ensure that, first, all political parties are playing by the same rules, and second, there is the ability for oversight into the way the internal policies of the party are applied. It's for that reason that we have been calling, again and again, for the inclusion of political parties within the PIPEDA framework.
    I do agree that there are differences between the way political parties do their work and the way other types of organizations do their work, and certainly there should be thought and consultation when moving toward a framework, but we are very clear. We do think parties should be included in PIPEDA. We do hope the government moves toward that goal. We believe that will increase the trust Canadians can have in the security of their information and their trust in their democratic process.
    Thank you.
    Each of you has said that your party does not sell or distribute political data beyond the party. I ask each of you to simply acknowledge whether your party buys data from data brokers.
     I'll start off once again. Thank you.
    We have a very similar process to that laid out by my colleague Mr. Fenrick. We receive our data from four main sources. We're very up front about all of these.
    The primary one we don't purchase. It's provided to us as part of the electors list from Elections Canada. That is 90% of our data. It is the information about who is an eligible voter. That makes up the lion's share of what we have in our system.
    We do purchase data from two sources. One is InfoCanada. It's basically the white pages. We buy the phone book, so we get some phone numbers to match up with those constituents who we get from the list of electors. The second one we purchase from is Canada Post's change of address list, so that our lists are as up-to-date as possible, because that is issued more frequently than the list of electors. We try to reconcile those two. That is it. We don't purchase from any other source.
    The fourth source of data, I think we should make clear, is that which is provided voluntarily, primarily by our supporters, but sometimes by our non-supporters, when they make a contribution, show up at an event, purchase a membership, or if they were to contact us and indicate their support one way or another, or answer a phone call, survey or something of that nature. The only place we purchase data, to be very clear, is InfoCanada, which is the white pages, and—
    We're out of time, but Mr. Fenrick and Mr. Calvert, would you like to follow through with a quick answer?
     The Liberal Party of Canada is very consistent with what my friend from the Conservative Party just said. Mainly things like phone book information and Canada Post information are examples. Much of this, for instance, Canada Post information, is purchased in large part in order to validate donors and ensure that we are compliant with our obligations under the elections act when we're accepting donations. There are a lot of reasons that we buy. It's not just to communicate, but that is an important part of it, obviously.
    Mr. Calvert, quickly....
    I think generally the same would be said for the New Democratic Party. We also want to ensure that the data we have with respect to address and mailing information is as up-to-date as possible, and we purchase information from Canada Post to make sure that's the case.

  (1140)  

    Thank you.
    Next up, we have Mr. Angus for seven minutes.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you, gentlemen, for coming. On behalf of the New Democratic Party, with my colleagues here, I ask that you don't target us individually for dragging your parties' representatives into the light of day. We're just doing our job here.
     Mr. Fenrick, in 2012-13, leading up to the 2015 election, it was common wisdom, heard on the radio and media, that the Conservatives were really good at micro-targeting. New Democrats weren't so bad at it, but we were really trying to pick up our game. Liberals didn't really micro-target. They did one-inch wide advertising across the country. It was seen that this would be a problem for the Liberals in 2015. Then the election came, and you guys stomped us. Your micro-targeting was really good.
    How did that transformation happen? Who oversaw the creation of a very impressive Liberal data machine for 2015?
     That's not something I can speak to directly, but I would be happy to give whatever information I can to the committee at a—
    That's our leader calling. He didn't like that question.
    Voices: Oh, oh!
    Mr. Charlie Angus: He wants me to ask it again. Sorry.
     My answer, Mr. Angus, is simply that I don't have that information available to me right now, but I'd be happy to identify that information for you at a future point.
    Okay.
    For the next election, it appears that your party will be working with Tom Pitfield and Data Sciences. He did work on the 2015.... What will the relationship be between Data Sciences and the Liberal Party, in terms of a digital strategy?
     I can speak generally. In terms of our involvement with any third party provider, we ensure that those third party providers are bound by privacy obligations similar to the ones we impose upon ourselves. We include, in agreements with third party providers, that their use of the data is similarly restricted in order to protect the privacy interests of the data holder or the personal information of those individuals.
    Mr. Pitfield was pretty impressive in 2015. Is that why you're working with Data Sciences? Is it because of their expertise in doing this kind of electoral data running?
     I don't think I'm the appropriate person to answer that question.
    Okay.
    Mr. Bailey, one of the things we talked about this morning was protocols and limits to accessing databases. In 2011, when we had the Pierre Poutine scandal, apparently a young staffer was able to make calls based on the Conservative CIMS database.
    How was it possible that someone, a young volunteer, was able to have access to the databases if we have protocols in place to limit access so that abuse doesn't happen?
    In 2011, the situation as described was in one riding. It was in the riding of Guelph. The young individual you identified was a member of the campaign in Guelph. He was a member of that team and thus did have access to the database for the region for which he was responsible, which was Guelph. The use of that data, particularly drawing non-supporter information with the purpose of deceiving those voters, was certainly a breach of privacy policy both then and now, as well as of Elections Canada law and significant laws.
    We certainly were not pleased with that, and that is one of the reasons we now have a league-leading privacy policy. We have changed not only the policy. It's not just putting words to it. The ability to access data has changed significantly since that time, and I'm very confident in the processes we now have in place. The system at the time limited his access to only the region for which he had responsibility. That was one of the key limits at the time, but his access was approved by the campaign at that time, which was one of the checks against access.
    It was a breach of our policy and a breach of Elections Canada law. We have evolved as an organization because of it, not just with respect to our policies but certainly with our procedures and the ability to access data. It has changed since 2011.

  (1145)  

    Thank you.
    Mr. Calvert, part of the reason we have undertaken this study is the Cambridge Analytica scandal. It's not just a question of political parties having data, but to be able to micro-target the issue of manipulating voters online.
    The question that's come up time and time again involves data points that are collected by parties, the psychographic modelling. Does the New Democratic Party have an identified number of points of information it would like per potential voter to know whether they're in our universe? How do you target voters? Are you using psychographic modelling or statistical modelling to identify where potential voters or non-voters are?
    Like all parties, we're trying to talk to the people who are most likely to care about the issues we care about. We're trying to identify the groups of people who are most interested in the issues we stand up and fight for every day. We use publicly available data to do this, but the data and information we use is not personal information. It's not personally identifiable information. It's information that's publicly available and speaks to trends and groups of individuals.
    In the end, the goal of a political party is to engage Canadians in conversations, to learn more about them by asking good questions and to improve upon our policies by listening to those answers. That's what we try to do on a day-to-day basis, whether through our online outreach or through our door-to-door outreach. That's our mindset going into it.
    Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Angus.
    Next up, for seven minutes, is Mr. Baylis.
    Mr. Calvert, you said the NDP would be happy to be subject to PIPEDA laws.
    Mr. Bailey, would the Conservative Party be happy to be subject to PIPEDA laws?
    Once again, I'll leave it up to Parliament and your committee to make a recommendation on that. My role with the party is to protect our lists and to follow our policies. I think we have a very good, leading privacy policy, but as for whether it should be in place, I leave that—
    Mr. Fenrick, do you have a position on that?
    Certainly not as PIPEDA currently stands.... It just doesn't make sense in the particular context in which political activities are—
     You feel that the penalties are too heavy. Do they compare to B.C.? In B.C., there hasn't been a great drop off—at least, I'm not aware of it—of volunteers because they are subject to the B.C. privacy laws. However, you think that PIPEDA laws are more strict than the B.C. laws. Is that your concern?
     I don't know the B.C. law in any sort of detail, but I do believe that the way that the penalties operate will be a disincentive to people's participating if PIPEDA were to be applied.
    However, I think it's important to have the complete context before making that decision.
    Okay, but the penalties are what you're saying might worry volunteers. That is what is bothering you about PIPEDA.
    Absolutely, and it's also just not well-tailored to the political context where you're dealing with a mostly volunteer organization.
    Whether you're subject to PIPEDA or some other laws, let's say we're talking about the parameters of use. You have this database. For example, should you be able to commercialize a database? Do you have any thoughts on that?
    You've collected a ton of data. People are making money all over the place.
    I'll start with you, Mr. Calvert.
    I would say absolutely not.
    Absolutely not.
    I would say the same, yes. We have no—
    How about this? I have charities and charities often swap data. They say, “We have this pool of donors, and if you tell us your pool of donors, we'll tell you our pool of donors.” Now you're not making money from your database, but you have a very valuable database and someone else may have a valuable database, not your competitors but some other company. Should you be able to trade that data, giving them some of your data and getting some of their data so that, together, you've built a stronger database?
    I think that Canadians expect that the information that we receive from Elections Canada and gather through our outreach efforts will be protected and kept within our database, so I think that's probably not something that we would find effective, efficient or correct.

  (1150)  

    You should not be allowed to share it, not for commercial benefit and not even for sharing to gather other data, like swapping data.
    I think that raises some serious questions, and if put on the spot, I would say probably not.
    Mr. Fenrick.
    I'm not sure that I have an answer for you other than the more general answer, which is that we don't do it. We certainly don't share our information.
    You don't do it because you don't do it, but theoretically some fourth person from a fourth party could do it, and we're now trying to figure out the parameters of use.
    Do you think we should allow you to do it or not?
    I'm not sure that I have a position on that, but I'd be happy to get back to you.
    As covered by our privacy policy, we collect it for the purpose of electioneering, for running a campaign, for contacting them for the purposes of winning an election. What you're describing doesn't fit with our policy, so no.
    It doesn't fit with your policy in what way?
    In that it would be using our data that we have collected for a purpose other than getting us votes in the next election.
    Right now you're writing the rules for yourselves. I believe we should write the rules for you.
    I'm asking you the question in this light, and I'd like an answer now. Do you think we should allow you to do that, yes or no?
    As I said before, if that's your decision as a governing Parliament—
    But you're also saying that the Conservative Party doesn't do that—
    Correct.
    —and that you'd be comfortable with a law that doesn't allow you to share that data.
    That would be in line with our policy, so yes.
    Mr. Baylis, I'd just like to interject with one more point. Of course, the list of electors that we receive is subject to the Canada Elections Act, and that's the primary point, I think, for all three parties in terms of the information that we collect. There are penalties, quite steep and serious penalties, for using that information right now.
    That's the list of electors that you've collected. I understood that. However, then you've added stuff through your door knocking and through your phone calls—that this person likes pizza and that person likes hamburgers—that helps you to sell them your political views. That's the data that I'm talking about. You're saying that you'd be comfortable if we did not allow you to share the data that you're collecting.
    As I said, I think that's a good suggestion, and if it fits with our policy, yes.
    Mr. Fenrick, do you have thoughts on that?
    I don't actually have a position on that right now.
    Okay.
    I want to follow up on what Mr. Angus was asking about: micro-targeting. Right now we might collect people's religious leanings, people's ethnicities, what languages they speak and things of that nature. Do you see a limit to how far we should allow political parties to go?
    If we pick up, for example, that a person is part of a hate group or a person has some sorts of views that are not acceptable in general society, you might be able to use that view. We see this in politics, so it's not hypothetical. We see this and it's used to push them a certain way. That's part of what we found out in this study and in other places.
    How should we have parameters of what we should and should not allow you to do and collect? Is there anything that we should not allow you to collect?
     The information we collect about individuals is the information that they give us, and that seems like a good place to start....
    Okay, if someone says, “I hate this ethnic group”, are you going to collect that data?
    By hearing it, we would have it. That's certainly not information that's—
    The person who heard it heard it, but did you put it in your database as a data point?
    I don't think so. I don't think we would be interested in that.
    Then you didn't collect it. I'm asking you whether we should put parameters around what you can and cannot collect.
    I actually haven't thought too much about that question. I think it's a good question. We might be able to get back to you on more specifics about how—
    Does your code of conduct, code of ethics, have any limits on that?
    I'd have to look into it. I don't believe so.
    Thank you, Mr. Baylis.
    Next up for five minutes we have Monsieur Gourde.

[Translation]

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here this morning.
    I have no doubt as to the sincerity of your remarks today. From my 30 or so years in politics, I can tell you that, even though we are now living in the computer age, we've learned absolutely nothing. Forty years ago, I was working with people who were 50 and 60 years old at the time and who had been in the field for 40 years. When election time came around, there were lists of electors with people's phone numbers, and they were the right phone numbers. Back then, it was easy. Everyone had phone books and they were very thick. When we received the list of electors with people's names and addresses, we could look them up in the phone book. In many cases, a single household would have four, five or six voters, all with the same telephone number. That's no longer the case today.
    Unfortunately, the number of land lines has dropped significantly every single year since I entered federal politics, and this will be my fifth election. Today, only 30% to 40% of people have land lines. All the rest of voters have cell phones. We don't have access to cell phone numbers, making it increasingly difficult to reach all voters. One riding can have 90,000 voters. We can knock on 10,000 doors, but let's not kid ourselves, we also have to spend time reaching out to people by phone.
    Nowadays, we hear a lot about profiling. We assume people vote a certain way because they have certain views, but we can't just call them on the phone. We assume they think a certain way and we use social networks like Facebook to reach those people because we can't talk to them otherwise.
    Do you think we should be allowed access to the cell phone numbers of people on the list of electors? It's fairly easy to get the phone numbers of people with land lines, but we can't get cell phone numbers, and the issue is only going to get worse. Is that something we should ask for, as lawmakers?
    My question is for all three of you.

  (1155)  

[English]

    We'll start off with Mr. Calvert.
    I'm sorry, you're asking whether we think that political parties should be given cellphone numbers through, say, the permanent electors list that Elections Canada generates. Is that your question?

[Translation]

    Yes, that's what I was asking.
    We can get people's land line numbers from online directories—since actual phone books have all but disappeared—but cell phone numbers are considered confidential and we don't have access to them. Not being able to communicate with voters is problematic in many ways, and it's getting worse every year. As people die, the proportion of land lines drops between 1% and 5% a year. Young people own only cell phones. In 15 years, just 20% of the population will be accessible to us by phone.
    Should we raise the red flag to say that it's time to do something about this situation? It's a genuine problem, after all.

[English]

    Thank you for the clarification.
    I think that society continues to change and technology continues to change, and the way we do things has to also continue to change. The goal of a political party, or at least our political party, the New Democratic Party, is to engage Canadians in meaningful conversations. Anything that, say, Elections Canada was able to provide to us to allow us to do a better job at that, we would generally be supportive of.
     On behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada as well, part of the reason that we were excited to have this opportunity today was to discuss how it is not just that we're going to protect Canadians' privacy, which is obviously of critical importance, but also how we are going to meaningfully engage Canadians in the 21st century in order to have those discussions. I'm not sure of the logistics around the particular cellphone issue, but I am aware of the statistics that you have cited to the committee here today.
    I do think it's of concern that it is more difficult every year for political parties to actually have discussions, not just with their supporters but with all Canadians, in order to provide an opportunity to actually understand what the electorate is looking for, which is why I think all of the committee members are in this business.
    We're actually out of time so just a brief response, maybe 10 seconds or less, if you can.
    You described the situation very well.
    It's more access to data for us that can be provided to us legislatively by Elections Canada. We put a lot of effort into acquiring that information, so if it can be provided to us we would welcome it.

  (1200)  

    Thank you, Mr. Gourde.
    Next up for five minutes is Mr. Picard.
    First of all, the exercise you're doing will hopefully put trust back in our population, not just us. Our job is quite a victim of cynicism, but we need ways to make sure that people can trust our institution, if that's the exercise you're fulfilling.
    My concern is about working with third parties. Do you sell your data to third parties?
    Absolutely not.
    Absolutely not.
    Absolutely not.
    Okay.
    Do you rent your data to third parties?
    Absolutely not.
    Absolutely not.
    Absolutely not.
    Are you saying all the data we're working on in each of your respective organizations stays within the organization and any third parties that may want to access the data.... How do they proceed if they want to access your data? With research centres, academics and foundations that are supportive of your lines of policy, how do you manage dealing with third parties, then?
    We certainly are approached by third parties for that sort of thing from time to time. Our specific policy covers sharing, for our purposes, federally, as well as the local campaign level nominees. We recently had a leadership race and they were covered by that as well. Those are the only separate organizations—and of course they fall under the umbrella of the Conservative Party of Canada—that we share our information with.
    Other than sharing within the party itself with our provincial and territorial boards, not the provincial party, the Ontario Liberal Party, or what have you, but our provincial territorial boards, which are part of our national organization, and at the riding level, we don't share our information with anyone.
    The only exception to that would be in circumstances where we have engaged a third party supplier. In those circumstances we ensure that there are contractual provisions in place in order to protect the use of that data. It's not selling it. It's not renting it. It's using it in order to engage Canadians through a phone bank, or what have you, in order to communicate with them.
    We also do not sell, rent or share our data with third party organizations. From time to time we contract with third party providers to do the work of the registered political party. We ensure that the contracts that we have with them include strict contractual obligations to protect the confidentiality of the information that they might have access to and that they agree to fall under any of the privacy provisions that folks working within the party also have to fall under.
    But the possibility remains that when we work with third parties as soon as they have their hands on data for the purpose of the agreement they have with you, we tend to lose control over what they do with the data, or is that...?
    At least for us the protocols in place when that happens are very strict.
    If a third party contractor requires information of ours to do the job that we contracted them to do, they might have access on a read-only basis but they don't have the ability to, say, download the information, copy the information or take it off premises. Certainly, we think long and hard before we engage someone from the outside to help us with our work. Once we do make that decision, we ensure that strict policies are in place and that legal and contractual obligations are instituted before anything happens.
     By the way, in your presentation, you mentioned that you created your system or updated your system recently. What was the upgrade about? Was it about policies or data protection, and what triggered that?
    We are in the process of moving our IT systems to the cloud. We're moving away from the holding of information on the premises and moving it into the cloud. I'm not an IT professional, so I can't get into the specifics, but it's my understanding that, here in the 21st century, it is standard practice to increase security and increase a whole bunch of other operational abilities, one of them being the security of the data. That's the process that's ongoing right now.

  (1205)  

    I feel generous. I'll leave you my last five seconds.
    Thank you.
    You're next up for five minutes, Mr. Kent.
    Thank you, Chair.
    During the study of the Cambridge Analytica-Facebook-AggregateIQ scandal, we have heard repeated recommendations from academics, from IT experts and from social media security experts that, on the basis of what happened in the Brexit referendum, where confected third parties controlled and targeted advertising buys on social media—and the same thing in the United States—there was a common recommendation that a political registry of advertising buys be set up so that one could see transparently what ads were purchased by the political parties or by third parties and how they were targeted.
    I wonder if each of you could comment on what your party position might be towards that sort of registry, to show how your advertising buys in the writ period or perhaps even the pre-writ period of a campaign would be applied.
    We can start on that, if that's all right.
    Absolutely. We share the same concerns about third party involvement in the election—this past election and those upcoming. If there were to be some increased requirement for us to fully register all ad purchases across all channels so that they could be investigated on an individual level.... Of course, we are required to list all election expenses and we are currently complying with that requirement, but if what is required to clean up the election is to get to the individualized level, then I think that's something that we would be in favour of if it comes forward from Parliament.
    Mr. Fenrick.
    As well, obviously, Canadians have the right to expect an election that's not interfered with by third parties. If that is a measure that goes some way towards addressing those concerns, then it would be one that certainly should be considered.
    As I understand it—and I may be mistaken because I appreciate that all of you are much more expert in this issue than I am—if Bill C-76 is passed into law, it will contain some measures with respect to Facebook ads and other matters. Many of these issues may be addressed by that legislation, and we welcome that.
    I think that generally the New Democratic Party has and will continue to stand up for more open and more transparent elections. As I've said, we do think that a political party should be brought into the PIPEDA framework, and I think that any measure that increases transparency increases the confidence that Canadians have that political parties are all playing by the same rules.
    One of the loopholes that wasn't addressed or is not being addressed by Bill C-76 is the fact that charitable American dollars that might have a political objective in determining, supporting or affecting a Canadian election can be effectively converted into Canadian dollars by being transferred from that American charitable group to the Canadian charity, which can then distribute them to third parties to be used in election campaigns. The witness who most effectively made this point, Vivian Krause said that it's easy for any individual political party to say that they take the high road in a political campaign if a third party is throwing the mud and making the political accusations on the campaign trail.
    I wonder if any of your parties would encourage the government to more effectively enable the CRA to respond to Elections Canada's unknowns about how these foreign charitable dollars are getting into the Canadian election process.
    I'll get started on that one, if that's okay.
    There are a couple of things. Other than working with Elections Canada on Bill C-76 consultation and any ongoing consultation on this matter, that's a bit outside my purview as privacy officer and membership chair. I'm not sure I can speak for the party on that particular issue other than, obviously, we want to make sure we have fair elections going forward.

  (1210)  

     That's outside my purview as well. However, I can say quite strongly that obviously the Liberal Party is concerned about foreign money and its potential influence on our election.
    Other than that, I don't think I can comment on that specific legislative suggestion.
    New Democrats are certainly concerned about foreign influence, whether it be monetary or otherwise. As I've said again and again, transparency is good. We believe in transparency and we think it increases the confidence of all Canadians in the democratic process.
    Without knowing the details of that specific recommendation, in general, transparency when it comes to elections is a good thing.
    Thank you, Mr. Kent and everybody.
    Next up is Madame Fortier for five minutes.

[Translation]

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    This morning, I realized that I had been a party volunteer for 25 years. It's worth noting that 25 years ago, we weren't talking about these rules, policies or codes of conduct. We are talking about them today, though. Protecting Canadians' information and making sure protocols are in place is important. I'd like to ask a few questions about what's happening on the ground. I think political parties have put codes of conduct in place, but I'd like to know what's actually happening on the ground.
    How can parties make sure volunteers know about these policies, for instance, within the Federal Liberal Riding Association of Ottawa-Vanier? Can you tell us how you make sure that the people working on the ground understand the importance of protecting Canadians' personal information?
    Mr. Bailey, you can go first. Please keep your answer brief.

[English]

    Absolutely, that's a great question.
    We take it very seriously that we train our local volunteers. You're right; there are several levels of volunteers that exist, by their level of involvement. Mr. Fenrick mentioned earlier that it would be very difficult to impose stiff penalties upon someone at a lower level, so that works in a couple of different ways. One is that you need to provide them training and only provide them access to what they should have access to.
    Most of our volunteers don't have access to any data. They should know that we'd have privacy policies and that they are covered by them because they are an extension of us during that time, but we need to limit the access to only those who truly need it. That comes from training at the local level. It comes from training of campaign managers. It comes from properly vetting all access so that we can effectively start up a campaign quickly and be compliant with any and all regulations.

[Translation]

    Mr. Fenrick, would you like to answer the question?

[English]

     Training is huge and key at all levels of the volunteer chain, including at the very basic level where people are out canvassing and have information. Obviously, limiting access as well, so people only have access to the information they need is important, and in addition to that, where people do have access, ensuring that there are protections in place.
    We have our Liberalist user agreement, where anybody who has access to it is bound by it and has agreed to ensure to hold that information and to return it at the end of their use so that they actually don't maintain any of that information. They're reminded of those obligations from the very moment they begin to have any access to it.

[Translation]

    Mr. Calvert, would you like to answer as well?

[English]

    Training is top on the list, and continued reinforcement of the importance of not just reading but understanding the protocols that are in place when they're given access or given a piece of information. It's why, if you are granted access to a Populus instance, where you might have access to a segment of information, you actually have to log on and read through the terms of use and take an affirmative step by saying, yes, you agree to this, and clicking the button. We try to write those in the clearest possible terms. That's why we have a privacy officer, not just to hear complaints but also to be a point of contact for individuals throughout our organization to ask questions.
    You're absolutely right. Things have continued to change over the last 25 years. Certainly my generation, the younger generation, is very aware of the new world we're living in, so it's important for us to provide a point of contact for people throughout the organization to ask the questions they have.

  (1215)  

[Translation]

    I'm going to stay on the topic of privacy protection.
    We talked about third parties. Specifically, how do your parties protect against the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of data to third parties, as far as volunteers and staff members go? How do you monitor that? How do you evaluate that?

[English]

    Once again, I'll jump in first.
    Absolutely, sharing information with third parties is of significant concern. As I mentioned, the security of our data is split into the two methods: protecting the data, and protecting against unauthorized access. It is evolving, but we certainly have an organization and leading privacy policy, which I haven't mentioned explicitly, and they do sign those agreements.
    We start anywhere from, as the first step, simply cutting off access and then investigating it, to issuing cease and desists both to the individuals who have drawn the information and anyone who we believe has access to it. In terms of legal involvement, our legal team will get involved quickly if we feel that it has been used.
    It's requested, and in fact demanded, that they destroy any copies of data if it came from our source and was used inappropriately. Then, of course, with any type of authorities that we need to go to further, if there are other rules or laws that have been broken, particularly Elections Canada laws, which are pretty broad on this topic, we co-operate with any and all investigations. Our data is our most valuable asset.
    My time is up, but if ever you could share your information....
    Could we get brief answers from Mr. Calvert or Mr. Fenrick?
     Sorry, did I understand the question correctly? Is it about inadvertent disclosure? Is that the issue?
     The Liberal Party of Canada regularly does training with its staff in order to address issues along the lines of when you get spoof emails and phishing scams. We regularly get involved in those sorts of security processes to ensure that the information is not disclosed.
    The second piece just comes back to the segmented database we use, which is not simply to provide limited scopes of access to users. The database itself is segmented such that it is a more secure way of proceeding, such that information can only be accessed in tranches, rather than the complete information.
    Mr. Calvert, it has to be a much quicker answer than that, if you can.
    We protect it through limiting access, ongoing threat monitoring and extensive training.
    Well done.
    Mr. Cullen, you're last up. Welcome back. You have three minutes.
    Jesse, are you sure you're a New Democrat? That was awfully concise.
    Let's try for concision in this little speed round.
    Thank you for being here. It's fair to say that in order for your parties to be effective, you need to be able to communicate with voters, and in order to do that effectively, you need to understand voters at an individual level. Each party collects information on individual Canadians in terms of voting intention, where they live and voter ID. Is that correct?
     Correct.
    I was just establishing that.
    That has increased over time, in terms of the wealth, depth and breadth of the information that each of the parties holds about individual Canadians. Is that also true? Compared to 20 or 30 years ago, is it fair to say that what we know about individual voters has increased significantly?
    In terms of quicker and more response time, online contacts....
    In terms of online contacts and social media, is that fair to say?
    Okay.
    Last June, this committee passed a decision that the parties should fall under privacy laws, PIPEDA specifically. Do you support that recommendation?
    I'll start with our Conservative friend.
    As I mentioned a couple of times earlier in this room, I would leave that to Parliament. As the party, we would enforce whatever rules are placed upon us to make sure we're compliant.
    Would you be able to enforce such a rule?
    It would require significant consultation and development or redesign of our processes, but—
    You could do it.
    —if it was brought into law, we would certainly continue to exist as a party.
    Mr. Fenrick.
     We would not support the application of PIPEDA en masse and en bloc to political parties in the sense that, as it's currently drafted, it's intended to address commercial activity. It's not intended to address political activity.
    Right now, we have no laws governing privacy in political parties. As it was described by the Privacy Commissioner, it's the wild west.
    According to the Chief Electoral Officer, Bill C-76, which you referenced earlier, has nothing of substance in it when it comes to privacy. The status quo will continue, which is that none of you are under any legal obligations when it comes to privacy as pertains to the federal laws. Is that right?
     As it currently stands, there may be certain situations, but I don't think I can speak to that issue directly. What I can say is that PIPEDA, as it currently stands, is not an appropriate tool for managing political parties and political engagement in this country.

  (1220)  

     That's interesting because we even recommended one step down from PIPEDA, and your representatives from your party rejected that as well. The status quo is nothing. The Chief Electoral Officer and the Privacy Commissioner have all recommended that we have something. What's the New Democrats' position on this?
    As I've said a number of times in this proceeding, we have said as a party before, and will continue to say, that we thoroughly believe that all political parties should be playing by the same rules. There should be a clear set of rules. We believe that the way to do that is to bring political parties under the jurisdiction of PIPEDA.
    You're all keen observers of politics. You watched the recent U.S. presidential election, the Brexit referendum that happened in England, the implications of Cambridge Analytica—
    Three minutes go by very quickly, Mr. Cullen.
    Let me just end on this.
    Twenty-three years ago today we had a referendum in this country in Quebec. If a similar referendum were held in these contexts right now and the political parties were hacked because there wasn't proper privacy protections in law, imagine the result of that vote in Quebec, as it was with Brexit in England. There would be suspicion and the reality of foreign influence over a referendum question. A pivotal referendum question in Canada would be affected by outside sources.
    Would that real threat not present us with more urgency to actually do something about this in Canadian law, something that you, apparently, could abide by if we passed such legislation?
    That's a great question to leave hanging in the room as we close today.
    Thank you for coming today, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Fenrick and Mr. Calvert. We much appreciate your attendance at our committee as the officially recognized parties. Again, thank you for your appearance today.
    The meeting is adjourned.





Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 3475

Trending Articles