15) “CONSIDERATIONS” paid to ALL Parties to PROMOTE TPP, C-CIT & CETA “Arrangements” &/or to LIMIT “OPPOSITION” as per NAFTA, et (see; The WAD Accord)?

Mr. Paul Estrin, President & Ms. EMILY McMILLAN, Exec. Dir., Green Party of Canada;
https://www.facebook.com/paul.estrin.gpc
https://www.facebook.com/emily.e.mcmillan.5?fref=ts

As a better means of considering your solicitation for a donation to your Green Party, I just have a couple of simple & the most basic due diligence questions that will help to determine both; the nature and the amount that may be donated.

For instance, what are the “considerations” that the lobbyists’ clients are paying to you, as the President of the Green Party, in order to influence, &/or, limit the scope of your party’s “opposition”, and thereby, defining the basis of your constituents “beliefs” (as opposed to “understanding” judicial evidence & burdens of “proof”) regarding the available number of alternatives to particular issues that are presented by the governing party, et al?

And, are you receiving any considerations for not sharing with your constituents the information & the simple questions that are embodied in The W.A.D. Accord including the information about:
1) The WAD Accord’s “green”, clean & sustainable enterprises
and
2) The Compensation to the most vulnerable Native & non Native Canadians for their continuing deprivation of the simplest & most basic information?

Do the voters living in the constituencies that you are presently representing understand that they can use the aforementioned WAD Accord information in order to:
1) exculpate themselves from having to pay any of the aforementioned Compensation (similar to The Compensation to the victims of the Residential Schools, but, much larger),
2) receive punitive damages from those members of corporate Canada, corporate China (see; “C-CI Treaty; NOTIFICATION of Preexisting CHALLENGE…”*) and corporate European Union (see; CETA; NOTIFICATION of Preexisting CHALLENGE…”*), et al, as a consequence of; a) the risks associated with the development (& financing) of the natural resources that are continuing to be found in Canada
&
b) the costs of the penalties & alleged damages paid by the non shareholders of the enterprises generated by the C-CIT (Canada – China Investment Treaty) & the CETA (Canada – European Union Comprehensive Economic & Trade Agreement) in order to inflate the values of the C-CIT & the CETA shareholders’ shares & dividends
and
3) et al?

Has the governing party, et al, provided you with a copy of The W.A.D. Accord for your consideration, understanding & sharing with the potential Green Party voters?

Have you requested a copy of The WAD Accord from the federal government, et al?

Or, are you also deliberately depriving the constituents & all Canadians (ie. all potential members of the Green Party) of the information in:
1) The WAD Accord,
2) the aforementioned:
a) “NOTIFICATION of Preexisting CHALLENGE to the C-CI Treaty”
&
b) “NOTIFICATION of Preexisting CHALLENGE to the CET Agreement”
and
3) et al?

Is the reason for your depriving the potential Canadian Green Party members of the aforementioned information due to the considerations that you are receiving, &/or, will be receiving (ie. “future” considerations) from the relevant lobbyists’ clients who will be the direct (cash) dividend beneficiaries of the C-CI Treaty & the CET Agreement, etc.?

On the other hand, how much money, &/or, other considerations do you think is equitable to be paid to you, your party, your constituents and potential Green Party members in order that you & the Green Party go along with limiting the amount of the aforementioned information that is provided to constituents in other areas where the Green Party would like to have winning candidates that share the aforementioned information?

And, would you prefer that the aforementioned information be “renditioned” by the dissemination of another country’s intelligence service to the aforementioned most vulnerable Native & non Native Canadians, et al, for their humble consideration, etc. and thereby, provide you with your politically deniable?

Which countries’ intelligence service are knowledgeable about the aforementioned information? What are the various different ways that these countries can use & are using their knowledge of The WAD Accord, the “NOTIFICATIONS of Preexisting CHALLENGES…”,etc., in order to get more favorable terms & conditions in the Canada – China Investment Treaty, the Canada – European Union Comprehensive Economic & Trade Agreement, et al?

Do you now, as a consequence the aforementioned information, understand why Prime Minister Harper, on behalf of corporate Canada, & in particular its Alberta chapter, will continue to demand that the C-CIT & CETA trade resolution tribunals have to be held in secret, ie. to protect & enhance its continuing, lucrative arrangements between the lobbyists’ clients & the executives of the political parties that are operating in Canada?

Similarly, after you, Mr. Estrin, conduct your due diligence research of the aforementioned information (most of it can be found on line), you might be interested in knowing which Canadian senators are interested in using the information in order to, among other things, prevent the abolition of the Senate and un handcuff the Senators so they can start conducting their adversarial duties including their improvements & alternatives to the lower house’s legislation in the manner with which they were intended to be preformed.

By way of closing, please do not think that I am being rude when I say that I am not particularly interested in how you are going to form a government in “the not to distant future” without knowing anything about the aforementioned information. On the contrary, it is because I have read your material that it may be obvious that you do not have the aforementioned information and thus, have no idea how vulnerable that makes you, your party, your constituents, & thus, all Canadians. Similarly, without the more comprehensive information regarding the enclosed, you have very little idea how vulnerable the Conservatives, the other parties, corporate Canada, et al, are continuing to become as a consequence of the aforementioned information deprivation. I think that you may be beginning to understand, not only how you and your Green Party can use the aforementioned information to:
1) exculpate the potential voters of the Green Party from having to pay most, &/or, any of The Compensation that is in The WAD Accord
and
2) vastly improve, &/or, reject the aforementioned C-CI Treaty, CET Agreement, et al,
but,
do you understand that it is essential that you do use the aforementioned information in order to form the next government?

Therefore, once you have conducted your research, which should take a couple of days, I would be interested in reading about how you intend to use the information in order:
1) to dramatically increase your party’s revenues,
2) to dramatically increase the number of your party’s constituencies & members of parliament,
3) to share the information with the harmless, most vulnerable Canadian community members (ie. 95% – 99% of all Canadians) in order that they can make much more informed decisions & choices regarding the economic & political issues that will continue to increase the huge gap between:
a) the exclusive beneficiaries of the aforementioned arrangements (ie. corporate Canada & its shareholders)
and
b) the most vulnerable, information deprived Canadians (ie. the 95% – 99% of Native & non Native Canadians who will also be non shareholders in the enterprises that can be generated by the Treaty, the Agreement, et al)
&
4) et al.

Regardless, I look forward to your sharing with me your acknowledgement of your understanding of the aforementioned information in your answers to these simple & most basic questions that I have included in this letter & the enclosed.

Regrettably, in the meantime, Ms. Elizabeth May’s (leader of the Green Party) lack of information will continue to be a source of delightful embarrassment that the Conservatives, et al, will continue to enjoy as they & corporate Canada march on with their contribution to the global economic arrangements.

For an update on the recent information sharing with the European Union regarding the CETA, et al, see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com. for the letter entitled:

“HUMAN RIGHTS & FINANCIAL NEWS; DEHS
TARGETING 95% – 99% CANADIANS (the Most Vulnerable Native & non Native Canadians & citizens of the EU) by “Unethical & Inhumane” Arrangements between Canadian Lobbyists’ Clients/Parties’ Executives; EU may consider “Renditioning Info” in CETA CHALLENGE; CHINA Unprotected with C-CIT?”

Sincerely,

David E.H. Smith
– Researcher
– “Qui tam…”

PS – Who do you think is the “coveted” foreign investor who said:
“It’s not that we are racist when it comes to dealing with Canadians,
it’s just that we can’t stand the way that you suck up to us”?
Which Canadians do you think that the “coveted” investor was referring to?

*******                                                                                                                                                  Your DONATIONS for the ongoing research & the dissemination of the relevant information will be gratefully accepted & can be sent to;

David E.H. Smith
112-711 Johnson St., Victoria, BC  V8W 1M8

*******
To SHARE Information & Questions re; The Relationship between Human (Nature) Rights & Economics in 1) the C-CI Treaty, the CET Agreement, TPP, et al, and 2) Native Canadian Treaties via The WAD Accord
and the List of RECENT ARTICLES, LETTERS & NOTIFICATIONS by DEHS.
see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com
*******

Please consider sharing the enclosed information & questions with 10 members of your family, friends, associates in order that they can use the due diligence info to make more informed decision about their families’ financial planning, & then they can share it with 10 others…
******

Advertisements

14) The C-CI TREATY; CHINA’S KIND HELP, from its MINISTRY of STATE SECURITY (MSS) may be ACCEPTED by the CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE (CSIS) IF… …there is ADEQUATE PLAUSIBLE POLITICAL DENIABILITY.

Yes, the existing, unratified version of the C-CITreaty (China – Canada Investment Treaty; aka; FIPPA) does provide some “protection” to corporate China, its shareholders, et al, from having to pay a disproportionate amount of The Compensation that is embodied in The W.A.D. Accord (this attempted “protection” is likely considered by the “coveted” foreign investor, et al, to be yet another poorly camouflaged attempt by corporate Canada to minimize, &/or, eliminate it’s portion of its contribution to The Compensation by off loading it on to corporate China, its shareholders & its people for trying to develop the natural resources that are continuing to be found in Canada), but, when corporate Canada insists that these penalties & the punitive damages for the “controlled challenges” to the C-CI Treaty are also a “guaranteed” way of raising the value of their shares (paid by the “innocent” Canadian taxpayers) in these joint natural resource development & financing projects, & thus, legally, as opposed to “ethically & morally deprived”, reward the Canadian & Chinese C-CI Treaty shareholders by way of secret tribunals & arrangements, it’s clear that the representatives of corporate Canada, the executives of the political parties, are going to tell the Canadian taxpayers/voters (who have no choice but to pay for the aforementioned penalties & the punitive damages) to blame the Chinese for these prerequisite terms & conditions & claim (once again) that:

“We did the best that we could have under very onerous conditions; trying to ride the giant ‘dragon’s’ economy…”.

It may be regrettable that one of the C-CI Treaty problems that corporate Canada, et al, is down playing to corporate China, et al, is the problem of Canadian (both; Native & non Native Canadians) civil disobedience & demonstrations, such as, “Idle No More”, et al, if the C-CI Treaty is not improved in the relevant & simple manner. Otherwise, it is very likely that corporate Canada will try to drag (“beholden”) corporate China under Canada’s protective covers against accusations of Canada’s further human rights violations.

For those who may not be familiar with The WAD Accord, &/or, its recent developments, The Accord can be accessed on line by way of the submission entitled: “Towards a More Informed Opinion regarding the Environmental Impact & Context of the NGP (Pipeline), et al”, Researched & Submitted by D.E.H.S., July 24, 2012 to the Enbridge Co.’s NGP Joint Review Panel. Contact:

Ms. Colette Spagnuolo, GatewayProcessAdvisor@ceaa-acee.gc.ca

Process Advisor, Northern Gateway Project, (22nd Floor, 160 Elgin St. Ottawa ON K1A 0H3) regarding: http://gatewaypanel.review-examen.gc/cl … r-eng.html Public Registry; File #A43076 GatewayProcessAdvisor@ceaa-acee.gc.ca

By way of closing, if you have any difficulty accessing The WAD Accord, etc. that is embodied in the aforementioned submission, then let me know & I will see what I can do to provide it to you. I can be contacted by regular mail (preferably) at:

 

David E.H. Smith
112-711 Johnson St., Victoria, BC  V8W 1M8

                                                        or,                                                                                                                                              davidehsmith.wordpress.com

For more information about The Compensation, The W.A.D. Accord, etc.,

see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com

“NATIVE SUICIDES LINKED TO INFO. DEPRIVATION”

Sincerely,                                                                                                                                      David E.H. Smith                                                                                                                                    – Researcher                                                                                                                                       – “Qui tam…”

P.S. – Please be advised that the above, the referenced material, et al,are the BASIS for:

“NOTIFICATION of Preexisting CHALLENGE to the CANADA – CHINA INVESTMENT TREATY, #0000001

(to follow).

cc:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Leader, Conservative Party

& Mr. DAN HILTON, Executive Director CP,

Tom Mulcair, Leader, New Democratic Party

& Mr. NATHAN ROTMAN, National Director NDP,

Don Davies, MP (Critic for International Trade),

Justin Trudeau, Leader, Liberal Party

& Mr. IAN McKAY, National Director Liberal Party

Mr. Daniel Pailee, Parliamentary Leader

& Mr. DANIEL PAILLE, Presidnt Bloc Québécois

Elizabeth May, Leader, Green Party

& Ms. EMILY McMILLAN, Executive Director Green Party,

Senators,

the Relevant Lobbyists’ Clients; corporate Canada, et al,

the potential DIRECT (cash) beneficiaries of the C-CI Treaty,

the “guilty” penalty payers; the Canadian TAXPAYERS, (et al?),

China’s counter parts of the above,

et al.

*******

Your DONATIONS for the ongoing research & the dissemination of the relevant information will be gratefully accepted & can be sent to;

 David E.H. Smith

112-711 Johnson St., Victoria, BC  V8W 1M8

                                    *******

To SHARE Information & Questions re; The Relationship between Human (Nature) Rights & Economics in 1) the C-CI Treaty, the CET Agreement, TPP, et al, and 2) Native Canadian Treaties via The WAD Accord

and the List of RECENT ARTICLES, LETTERS & NOTIFICATIONS by DEHS.

see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com

*******

Please consider sharing the enclosed information & questions with 10 members of your family, friends, associates in order that they can use the due diligence info to make more informed decision about their families’ financial planning, & then they can share it with 10 others…
******

13) The THREAT ASSESSMENT; CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Service), et al, re; C-CITreaty, CETAgreement,TPPartnership, NAFTA, et al. Edited; Jly., 2017, included; Intro. & The 3rd Party Letter

 

***Editor’s Note, July 20, 2017; in ‘The THREAT ASSESSMENT; CSIS’, the following paragraphs have been changed

1) ‘However… 

interests from abroad.****’
and
2) ***”the diaspora”

Introduction (Jly. 19, 2017) to the letter below to the Director of CSIS, Richard Fadden.

This letter is a response to Fadden’s vague assertion that some foreigners are trying to influence B.C. MLAs. The inferences are; 1) the foreigners are from mainland China & 2) the Chinese influence is dangerous to the interests of Canadians & not based upon humanitarian concerns for Canadians. 

And, while lobbyists for financial gain are quietly encouraged to deal secretly with corporate Canada & the presidents of the political parties that are operating in Canada in order to advance the interest of the lobbyists’ clients which will also benefit a small number of Canadians, 

the advocates of humanitarian interests, such as the ‘rights’ versus ‘privileges’ that are outlined in The W.A.D. Accord are a major concern to all of the other ‘global’ corporations & their potential shareholders, including the ‘coveted’ Chinese investor, the most vulnerable Native Canadians and et al.

It is regrettable for the beneficiaries of the Canadian lobbying ‘system’ that the secret workings of the ‘system’ be further publicized as it  again threatens to bring to the voters’, et al, attention the explanation for P.M. Brian Mulroney’s alleged ‘bird-dogging’ via the German schmiergelder, Karlheinz Schreiber, in the Airbus scandal. The subsequent Prime Minister, J. Chretien was faced with the near impossible problem of how to prevent other Canadian politicians from vying for commissions while not drawing further attention to the inner workings of the Canadian lobbying ‘system’.

It may be fortunate that as a consequence of The W.A.D. (‘D’; Gilles Duceppe, former President & Minority Leader of the Bloc Quebecoise) Accord that it is unlikely that the political leader of a Canadian party will again also be able to hold the position of the president of the party at the same time.

What does Prime Minister Chretien’s settlement with former PM Brian Mulroney, who was suing the government of Canada for besmirching his character by way of the Airbus investigation, indicate about the relationship between the Canadian political parties when Chretien; a) wrapped up the investigation by claiming that he was sparing the Canadian voters from their exhaustion with the justice process

and                                                                                                                                                         b) awarded Mr. Mulroney $2 million though Mr. Mulroney may have demanded $1 million?

******
Mr. Richard Fadden,                                                                                                                     Canadian Security Intelligence Service  (CSIS); Director,                                                     P.O. Box 9732, Stn. T, Ottawa, Ontario. K1G 4G4
Re; “Threat” Assessment of Foreign “Influences” as a consequence of the “Compensation”, et al, that are embodied in “The Australian Question”* as it pertains to: 1) Canadian, et al, institutions, 2) the on-going relationship between the organizers of the political parties operating in Canada & the clients of Canadian lobbyists, 3) the media, 4) the “Sovereignties” and 5) et al.

Dear Mr. Fadden;

Further to my letter to you, I have received and read with some interest a letter from one of your staff members. It has raised again some of the questions which we have previously researched. After reading the CSIS letter to me, it once again underlines the significance of the political nature of your position. Having said that, I hope that your organization is coping better than other Canadian institutions as a consequence of information being withheld from you, your investigations being interrupted, interfered with, shelved, &/or, “commission-ized”**. How is the morale over your way these days? Perhaps, the following will make you feel “more satisfied”.

Also, in regard to the CSIS letter to me, I’m not sure if I would characterize Canada’s Aboriginal chiefs as “despots” (as some have recently implied that the government of China & other governments may be). To those who would make this characterization I would suggest that they consider the rhetorical question that some Aboriginal Canadians continue to ask; “But, guess who taught us?”
Similarly, I am not sure if I would characterize those Native Canadians who have been “encouraged”
to leave their First Nations as a consequence of the political recriminations for their believing in, &/or,

* “The Australian Question” as it pertains to: 1) Canadian, et al, institutions, a) businesses, financial, etc. & b) intelligence, investigative (criminal), judicial (vs. commissions), etc., 2) the on-going relationship between the organizers of the political parties operating in Canada & the clients of Canadian lobbyists, 3) the media (both; foreign & domestic), 4) the “Sovereignties”; a) Aboriginal (& self-governance), b) Quebec (& the provinces) & c) Canada and 5) et al. Also known as; “The Walsh Apps Duceppe Accord”, (“The W.A.D. Accord”) – John Walsh (President; Conservative Party), Alfred Apps (President; Liberal Party), Gilles Duceppe (President; le Bloc Quebecois Party)

**“commission-ized” – the process whereby investigations leading to criminal prosecutions are re-arranged into controlled public inquiries, or, commissions that protect persons, programs, arrangements, institutions, etc., based upon their “politically sensitive considerations” as opposed to protecting national security, &/or, the public’s beliefs in the “Canadian system”.

expressing their dissenting opinions (such as; their need for protected forums to discuss the simplest and most basic elements of “the” criteria for ascertaining the health and robustness of an Aboriginal community’s economy), etc., as “the diaspora”***. However, perhaps, after getting your organizations input regarding the enclosed and above questions, etc., we will be in a better position to evaluate the uses & abuses that form the basis of threat assessment and how these uses & abuses impact upon; a) the friendly and unfriendly foreign organizations &/or governments, “allies”, “enemies”,&/or, competitors of Canada, et al and b) the”good”, &/or, “non-good” corporate citizens of Canada, Schmiergelders/ees*, agents & peddlers of influence, et al, that are operating in Canada, or, impacting Canadian interests from abroad.****

***”the diaspora” ie, it is inferred that one of the traditional vulnerabilities of “the diaspora” is that of the “hostage/extortion” scenerio & it is applicable here. The continually growing vulnerability of the most vulnerable band members explains the immorally high rates of suicides, etc. that are found in many of the Native communities across Canada which are preventable as per The WAD Accord & its Compensation.
 
****Editor’s Note, July 20, 2017; the previous paragraph…
‘However…interests from abroad’.
…has been edited and now reads as above.
 

On the other hand, perhaps this letter and your answers to the questions in it will give us a better idea what your staff member meant when he wrote:

“The Director believes strongly that Canadians need to be well informed and engaged in matters of national security…”.

In regard to the “Threat Assessment”, the intent of this letter is to obtain from you your organization’s understanding of the various different ways that you think that the deprivation of the information and the questions, etc. in “The Australian Question” (aka; The W.A.D. Accord) are being, &/or, can be used and abused by the Canadian and the non-Canadian “information deprivers” to influence, &/or, “undermine” the national security interests in Canada. Giving us your understanding of the implications of “The Australian Question” will enable us to better understand the breadth of “threat assessment” to the aforementioned institutions, groups, governments, Canada’s “national security”/arrangements, et al.

More specifically, what we would like to ascertain is; what you know about:
1) “The Australian Question”, (see below; “The Australian Question”, aka; “The W.A.D. Accord”);
a) the basis of The Compensation in “The Australian Question”,
b) the parties that are continuing to prevent, &/or, to hinder the dissemination of the information in “The Australian Question”, et al,
c) the alternatives to paying the hefty compensation that is embodied in “The Australian Question”,
d) the various ways that the “coveted” foreign investors**, the most vulnerable Aboriginal community members, et al, are being harmed by the deprivation of the information ,
and
e) the various different ways that the “non-good” corporate citizens of Canada, “enemies”, agents &

*Schmiergelder, (German) – “a money-greaser…a person designated under a German tax law that permitted middlemen to deduct from their incomes bribes or any other payments to foreigners to secure the sale of German products.” (“D. the F.”, P.P.)
Hence, the term schmiergeldee; the term for the recipient of the aforementioned bribes, largesse, and/or, considerations (past, present and/or future considerations), etc. And, schmiergelding; the process of bribing non-German officials, et al, and by Germans, and/or non-Germans.

**the “coveted” foreign investor – why do you think that the “coveted” foreign investor wrote the following about some Canadians, &/or, was it just the Canadian information deprivers:

“It’s not that we are racist when it comes to our dealings with
Canadians, it’s just that we can’t stand the way that you suck-up to us”…?

peddlers of influence, et al, can use & abuse their knowledge about the deprivation against the various interests of “Canada”?
and
2) what you know about:
a) the various ways that the information deprivers are benefiting from the deprivation,
b) how much the foreign “influence” is presently costing the interests of Canada by way of suborning, extorting, &/or, etc., some of the more honorable investments, institutions, research, national security, etc., by the “non-good” corporate citizens, “enemies”, agents & peddlers of influence, et al,
c) how much does the deprivation cost the investors (both; foreign & domestic; but, particularly the “coveted” foreign investor) directly (eg. loss of dividend value & potential dividend value) and indirectly; i) via the decline in the investor confidence of the hundreds of millions of “small” investors world wide due to the “culpability by association” with the Canadian information deprivers and ii) the fear of being treated as poorly as the most vulnerable Aboriginal community members are presently being treated by the Canadian information deprivers based upon race,
and
d) etc.

Therefore, Mr. Fadden, as you may not be familiar some of the points in “The Australian Question” as it pertains to; a) Canadians, b) the security of the institutions operating in Canada c) the “coveted” foreign investor, d)Aboriginal Canadians, e) et al, “The Question” reads as follows;

“The Australian Question” (aka; The W.A.D. Accord; The Walsh Apps Duceppe Accord”) as it pertains to Aboriginal Canadians and the aforementioned other groups & states that most Canadians, et al, agree that it is a “right”, not a “privilege” for the most the most vulnerable Aboriginal community members, et al, to obtain from the government of Canada, et al, its (the government of Canada’s) criteria for ascertaining the health and robustness of their Native communities’ economies. That is to say; the criteria would probably include, among other things, a list of those businesses, industries, and/or, enterprises that can:
1) provide the most vulnerable with the direct, cash dividends that amount
to over two times (ie. factor of 2+) the amounts that the most vulnerable
can obtain from all the present sources of social assistance,
2) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
3) be expanded to provide over 100% employment of the most vulnerable
members of an Aboriginal community,
and
4) etc.

And, finally, “The Australian Question” states that because “some” of the most vulnerable Aboriginal community members are being deprived of the aforementioned benefits and the information regarding these benefits, the most vulnerable are entitled to be compensated for their deprivation (ie. their poverty, despair, disenchantment, suicides, fear and criminal “prosecutions”, etc.). “The Question” asks; is $47,400 ($87,000 Australian, circa 1984) per year a reasonable compensation for their deprivation?

It may be regrettable that the information about the deprivation of “The Australian Question” can be used and is continuing to being used and abused by the countries & businesses who are considered to be; a) “friends” &/or “good” corporate citizens of Canada, b) “enemies”, &/or, “non-good” corporate citizens of Canada, c) “allies”, d) “competitors”, and/or, e) others. Are you aware of some of ways that the above groups are inflicting, &/or, can inflict damage upon the Canadian economy by way of the aforementioned uses & abuses? Would you mind sharing this information with me, ie; what are the various different ways that you think the above groups are inflicting, &/or, can inflict damage upon the Canadian economy by way of the aforementioned uses & abuses of the information about “The Australian Question”?

Having said this I should also preface the intent of this letter by asking you; do you think that some of the Canadian information deprivers may use, &/or, have used the information in “The Australian Question”, &/or, the controversy surrounding the deprivation of “the information” as just good advertising, and/or, as a means of soliciting other governments, organizations, foreign investors, et al, to participate in the benefits the “economic development” system of arrangements that is operating in Canada & to demonstrate how it’s protected by Canadian institutions,organizations, etc.?

Regardless, Mr. Fadden, you may not be aware of it, but, there are several points about the arrangements between the lobbyist’s information depriving clients and the presidents of the political parties operating in Canada (who are depriving the most vulnerable about the information that is embodied in “The Australian Question” as it pertains to Canadians, et al) that the “coveted” foreign investors, et al, find to be repugnant and makes the “coveted” foreign investors vulnerable, by way of;
1) the guilt by association on humanitarian and moral grounds. That is to say that because the foreign investors are being associated with the information deprivers whose deprivation is, according to a psychologist with expertise in this area, the major contributor to the high rates of suicides, poverty, despair, disenchantment, etc., that are found in the aforementioned communities, the foreign investors appear to be racist by association and thus, are to be “condemned”, &/or, ostracized on humanitarian grounds,
2) the guilt by their complicit “involvement” in the use of large amounts of taxpayers dollars for the administrative costs of the unsolicited and unnecessary programs and policies that are labelled as “economic development” for the creation of financially insolvent/dependent companies* that are designed for “on-going” funding & continuous administrative charges by companies who are owned by the associates the Canadian information deprivers, et al. Some have dubbed the process; “the laundering of Canadian tax dollars”, whereby the Canadian taxpayers’ “contributions” fund the “economic development” and thereby, provides the opportunity for the information deprivers’ associates to “coerce” . Similarly, there is an attempt to imply that foreign investors are personally endorsing and indirectly benefiting from their involvement in these arrangements, &/or, the instigation/insistence of these arrangements
and
3) how the information about the aforementioned deprivation can be used by the governments, organizations, &/or, corporations that are less than friendly with the “interests” of Canada and those of the “coveted” foreign investor.

Therefore, I would like to make it clear that the intent of this letter is not to undermine the

* “economic developed” dependent companies – not to be confused with the companies that receive large injection of tax dollars with the intent of selling the companies to fellow the members, &/or, associates of the information deprivers at a fraction of the companies’ appraised value, &/or, for “future considerations”.

aforementioned system of arrangements*, but, by looking at the threats that the deprivation of the information causes, it enables us to ascertain the limits of the system of arrangements. Do you understand that by providing the criteria that is in “The Australian Question” to the most vulnerable in a politically deniable manner it can minimize, &/or, eliminate the aforementioned threats and enable the more honorable elements of the aforementioned arrangements to flourish?
And, by moderating, &/or, eliminating a “few” of the relevant information deprivers, &/or, “the no dissenters”, isn’t it similar to the conclusion to Canada’s (2005) “Food for Oil” scandal? That is to say; how many ways can you suggest that the providing of the information in “The Australian Question”/ “The WAD Accord” can be used to enable some of the participants in the scandal to “rehabilitate” their personal and financial reputations from the consequences of what some have described as “…an over-zealously manipulated media”?

In addition, it is not the intent of this letter to query, debate, &/or, to judge, at this time:
1) how the information deprivation continues to give Quebec’s sovereigntists more legitimate reasons that require sovereignists to disassociate itself with Canada’s information deprivers,
2) the amount that the “coveted” foreign investors and the other participants, who would like to continue, &/or, increase their dividends from their interests in Canada, will have to pay as their portion of the aforementioned compensation,
3) the amount of the “considerations” that the lobbyist’s clients are paying to the presidents of the political parties operating in Canada, et al, for the presidents’:
a) “non-dissenting support” for the present, non-criteria based programs, policies, etc. of the relevant lobbyist’s clients
and
b) the costs of depriving the most vulnerable of the information that is embodied in “The Australian Question”, et al,
4) the source and the route by which the money for the “considerations” take in order to fund the aforementioned non-criteria based programs, policies, etc.
5) the basis for legal challenges for the above programs, policies, etc. on the grounds of, among others; due diligence, depraved indifference, reckless endangerment, malicious intent (crimes against humanity), etc.
and
5) et al.

Hopefully, with your input, Mr. Fadden, we’ll be better able to assist the “coveted” foreign investors, the most vulnerable Aboriginal Canadians and the other groups that are continuing to be:
1) deprived of the aforementioned information
&
2) “guided” into programs, policies, arrangements, etc. that are part of the detrimental**”economic

* system of arrangements – for example; the arrangement whereby the lobbyist’s information depriving client disburses his “considerations” to the all of the presidents of all of the political parties operating in Canada in order to eliminate challenges, questions, “dissent”, et al, and thereby, it “guarantees” the approval for the funding of a program, a policy, et al, to all of the groups who have a stake, &/or, interest in the Canadian economy.

**detrimental – contribute to the high rates of suicides, et al, for some & the disrepute, derision & reduction in investor confidence, et al, for others.

development”/lobbying arrangement system. Furthermore, do you have an understanding of some of the various different ways that we can get the aforementioned information directly to the most vulnerable, et al, in a politically deniable manner*, that can; a) eliminate the necessity for the “coveted” foreign investors to continue remind the information deprivers, Canadian politicians, et al, of the costs of their deprivation and b) reduce their vulnerability to the abuse by the less than friendly groups involved in the global economy who are trying to legitimize their money and obscure its source by way of investing in Canada?

By way of closing, I would ask you, Mr. Fadden, what sort of help and what further information about “The Australian Question” (aka; “The Walsh Apps Duceppe Accord”), et al, do you think that the “coveted” foreign investors, &/or, some of the “friendly” intelligence services that they are comfortable working with, can provide in getting the aforementioned information directly to the most vulnerable Aboriginal community members, et al, in a politically deniable manner that can ensure that the more honorable aspects of the lobbyists’ system of arrangements that is operating in Canada remains relatively in tact, or, improved?

Do you understand the need for the aforementioned groups to keep reminding the Canadian information deprivers of the vulnerability that their information deprivation is continuing to cause and how the vulnerability can be greatly exacerbated in the hands of some of the aforementioned, less reputable organizations by way of their knowledge of the deprivation of the information in “The Australian Question”?

In addition, by utilizing our “friends”” assistance in the aforementioned deniability to help render the most vulnerable non-vulnerable, won’t it enable the re-allocation of some of the funds from the aforementioned “non-criteria” based businesses, industries, &/or, enterprises to the increase in the funding for the intelligence gathering and co-operation with other intelligence services regarding the “less than friendly” organizations, &/or, governments, before these “less than friendly” organizations have an opportunity to influence, suborn, etc. other areas of Canadian “interests”, as well?

How do you feel about working with, or, enabling (or, at least not interfering with) the foreign investors, and/or, some of the “friendly” intelligence services who can:
1) help contain the number of parties who are presently using, &/or, abusing the information to “influence”:
a) the make-up of some of the future treaties that Canada will make with other geo-political groups,
b) the institutions that conduct the “interests” of Canada
and
c) etc.,
2) continue to remind the Canadian information deprivers of the benefits and the security that can be derived from providing the most vulnerable Aboriginal community members, et al, with:
a) the information that is embodied in “The Australian Question”, (ie. by helping the most vulnerable Aboriginal community members to eliminate their vulnerability by ending their deprivation, doesn’t it make all of us less vulnerable?),
b) the forums to discuss, question, improve, & perhaps, then “dissent” upon, etc. the information, the questions, the benefits etc. in & about “The Australian Question” that are protected from the

*politically deniable manner – ie. using a third party who may not appear to be associated with the principals of the arrangements to disseminate the information directly to the end users in order to avoid the appearances of not living up to the spirit, &/or, intent of the arrangements.

recriminations of some of the other information deprivers,
c) etc.
and
3) start getting the information to the most vulnerable Aboriginal community members, et al, in a politically deniable manner?

Do you think that the other intelligence services are more capable of:
1) helping all of us to avoid our “non-allies”, et al, from further exacerbating the sovereignty developments of Canada’s First Nations, Quebec (and the other provinces)
and
2) helping the “good corporate citizens” who are presently established in Canada from having;
a) “their” trade interests influenced, &/or, conceded,
b) their “end-user certificates” abused, &/or, modified
and
c) etc.,
and thereby eliminate the need for us, &/or, the “good corp. citizens” to explain to some of our “friends” that some Canadian decisions are being made in the context of the aforementioned outside considerations? How difficult do you think it is to explain to our “friends”, et al, that Canada’s interests may be “under the influence” due the above?

Are their some intelligence services that you think are more highly suited to getting the aforementioned information, etc., directly to the most vulnerable? Similarly, are their some intelligence services that you feel more comfortable about recommending regarding the treatment of this threat? On the other hand, who do you think the “coveted” foreign investor would prefer to have to pay the hefty compensation that is embodied in “The Australian Question”? Would you, &/or, the Canadian information deprivers prefer that some the less than “friendly” governments help pay for it?

In conclusion, while it is likely that our “enemies” do not care at all about the well being of the most vulnerable Aboriginal community members (or, for that matter, the most vulnerable non-Native Canadians, as well)
and
how much the cost of the aforementioned arrangements are further increasing the vulnerability of all the information sharing Canadians (ie. non deprivers of information), do you think that it’s the “coveted” foreign investor, &/or, the foreign money lenders who our “enemies”, competitors, et al, would also like to influence, &/or, harm by using the aforementioned threat of their (the “coveted” foreign investor’s) culpability by association with the Canadian information deprivers? Are you aware of some of the arrangements that the Canadian information deprivers have made with the “enemies”, competitors, et al, of the “coveted” foreign investors in order to prevent some of our “friends”, allies, et al, from learning about Canada’s aforementioned vulnerabilities? And, what are the various different ways that you think that we, et al, can use the enclosed information, et al, to “protect” the Canadian information deprivers (& thus, perhaps, the foreign investors) from those who would use their knowledge about the deprivation in order to gain preferential treatment, &/or, to gain even greater access to the natural resources located in Canada, etc.? How much do you think the knowledge of the aforementioned deprivation by our trade partner has affected the recent “resolution” of trade dispute over soft wood lumber and how much will it continue to affect the resolution of (other)disputes, etc.?

How much did Canada’s trade partner’s knowledge of the aforementioned deprivation effect the percentage split of the escrow funds in the recently “resolved” trade dispute over soft wood lumber?
Do you anticipate that the aforementioned knowledge will continue to have an influence upon future trade issues and retro-active decisions, etc., that effect the “national security” of most of the aforementioned groups that are presently established in Canada? Do you think that the aforementioned disbursement question is more of a matter of Canada’s “national interest”, or, “national security”, or, both? Which “despotic” governments do you think might be drawn out and into the fold of the Canadian type of democracy and be convinced to modify their despotic policies by way of an increase in the volume of their trade with Canada? Which of these “despotic” governments do you think the First Nations of Canada would most benefit sharing/trading their, the First Nations’, manufactured products, natural resources, et al, with?

And, finally, I would ask you; do you think that when your aforementioned staff member wrote to me the following about you:

“The Director believes strongly that Canadians need to be well informed and engaged in matters of national security…”,

that he was suggesting that the information and the questions about “The Australian Question” provides a good diagnostic test of your organizations abilities, resolve, et al, to make our “friends”, “allies”, the potential “coveted” foreign investors, et al, “less vulnerable” in this matter and others?

Regardless, as you can see the deprivation of the aforementioned poses serious threats to the national security of Canada, et al, I look forward to reading your answers to the enclosed questions and your views, &/or, your alternative solutions to these related threats. Perhaps, then we can see if, among other things, we are starting to make Canadians “…well informed and engaged in matters of national security…”.

Sincerely,

David E.H. Smith

P.S. – Do you think that the international companies that have branch offices in Canada should be concerned with being labeled as “non-good” corporate citizens of Canada for not going along with the aforementioned information deprivation that is causing the aforementioned unconscionable high rates of suicides, etc., or, is it an “honor” to be member of this league of the “non-good” corporate citizens? How does your organization treat them any differently than those corporations that are benefiting from the deprivation? Should the “non-good” corporate citizens be threatened with having to pay a greater portion of the compensation(s) as a condition of their conducting business in Canada, &/or, their participation in the sharing of the natural resources, etc., that are located in Canada?

cc.
*****************
If you would like to share your improvements to; 1) “The Threat Assessment” & 2) your “democracy” in the context of the global economy’s disparity,
or,
for more Information & Questions re; The Relationship between Human (Nature) Rights & Economics in the C-CI Treaty, the CET Agreement, the Trans Pacific Partnership, et al, via The WAD Accord,
Contact at; davidehsmith.wordpress.com

Also see; 4) ‘Insider Trading’; Reason for Secrecy at  davidehsmith.wordpress.com

and
1) ‘Excerpts from The Submission to The Supreme Court of Canada’ at davidehsmith.wordpress.com
For the FULL Submission, see; The Supreme Court of Canada
*********

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

 
The Fadden Letter serves as a “Third Party Letter”
And, while the sharing & deprivation of information continues to be routinely abused by the politicians of the Canadian parliament (members of, both; the Senate & the House of Commons) via the dictum of ‘Ignoramus et Ignoramibus’ (‘I don’t know’; incompetence and ‘I will not know’; insincerity), there are ways to minimize, &/or, eliminate the ‘traditional’ abuse.
That is to say, while the information & questions included in ‘The Fadden Letter’ are addressed to the Director of CSIS, Richard Fadden, the intended recipients  (including individual cover letters), in order of importance & necessity, were:
1) the ‘coveted’ Chinese investor,
2) the Head of China’s Intelligence Services,
and
3) the justices of The Supreme Court of Canada, see; ‘The Submission to The Supreme Court of Canada:
The SHAREHOLDERS & Corporations of America, the Trans-Pacific nations, the EU, Canada, China, et al
v.
The “harmless” Canadian non-shareholders, et al, both; Native & non- Native’, et al.
The copies of ‘The Fadden Letter’ to the aforementioned individuals & groups included cover letters that raised questions that have a greater significance to each of the aforementioned than the other individuals & groups.
Another problem that is created by the new, superseding, secret global treaties/’arrangements’ is caused by the shifting of liabilities from relevant corporations & their shareholders to the ‘harmless’ voters/taxpayers. Prior to the global treaties, disputes were between foreign corporations & the corporations of a host country, whereby penalties & fines (liabilities) were determined by the host country’s open courts, &/or, open international courts. The treaties, however, provide ‘justice’ by way of secret tribunals, whereby liabilities are paid for off the top of the national budgets by the ‘harmless’ voters/taxpayers. 
 
And while it is alleged, these aforementioned tribunals are intended to circumvent the corruptible courts of the countries with emerging economies, but, presumably, not American, or, Canadian, et al, courts, it may be unfortunate that the groups, including Native Canadians, & individuals who rely on the voters’ tax dollars via federal funding are facing continually reduced financial support as more global treaties/’arrangements’ are ratified & become enforceable. The secret ‘arrangements’ & the secret ‘morphing’ of the treaties are not open to the scrutiny of the taxpaying voters, nor, can the tribunals decisions be appealed.
 
The above raises many fundamental & ethical questions, including, how long have national companies with international ambitions, et al, been successfully lobbying the presidents of the parties that are operating in Canada for laws, programs, etc. in anticipation of making windfall ‘profits’ by way of tribunal decisions against the voters/taxpayers instead of the lobbying companies once their treaties are in place?
 
And, as The Supreme Court of Canada has made several decisions in favor of the impoverished Native communities across Canada, the aforementioned letters  & ‘The Submission’ also raises the human rights question; do Native Canadians, et al, have the reasonable expectation that they will no longer be deprived of the aforementioned information & questions, due diligence processes, judicial review, etc., in order to conduct their individual, &/or, group decisions regarding their financial planning & economic development, et al, based upon the criteria based businesses, industries & enterprises that form the basis of The W.A.D. Accord & its Compensation? Can the Justices  reasonably conclude that by including The  WAD Accord in the treaties with Native Canadians that are presently being ‘negotiated’ & by re-opening the existing treaties with, both, Native Canadians and the existing & future treaties that Canada has made, & will make, with the global corporate associates (ie. China; C-CITreaty, European Union; CETA, the trans-Pacific nations; TPP, et al, will eliminate the fines, penalties & other liabilities that corporate Canada desires to shift from corporate Canada’s responsibility to the ‘harmless’ taxpaying voters.
 
The WAD Accord project also looks at the abuses of ‘beliefs’ vs. the need for ‘understanding’ the terms of what constitutes; a ‘good’ treaty, a ‘good’ corporate citizen & Canada’s ‘peace, order & “good” government’*. It also looks at the limitations  of the aforementioned and the need for open forums & processes to continually monitor & control the limitations of the treaties, et al.
*Section 91 of the British North American Act of 1867 (now the Constitution Act, 1867)
David E.H. Smith,
– Researcher
– ‘Qui tam…’
***********

To share your improvements to; 1) “The Threat Assessment” & 2) your “democracy” in the context of the global economy’s disparity, &/or,

To SHARE Information & Questions re; The Relationship between Human (Nature) Rights & Economics in 1) Native Canadian Treaties and 2) the C-CI Treaty, the CET Agreement, the TPPartnership, et al, via The WAD Accord

and

the List of RECENT ARTICLES, LETTERS & NOTIFICATIONS by DEHS.

see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com

*******                                                                                                                                                            Your DONATIONS for the ongoing research & the dissemination of the relevant information will be gratefully accepted & can be sent to;

David E.H. Smith
112-711 Johnson St., Victoria, BC  V8W 1M8

                       *******

12) Using The WAD Accord to Improve, &/or, Eliminate the C-CITreaty (FIPA) & your (GREEN Party) letter to me.

*August 31, 2012; Edited in letter below.

Re; Accessing Information; The W.A.D. Accord, Alleged Foreigner Influence (Re; C-CITreaty), Anti-NGP (Northern Gateway Pipeline) Foreigners, et al.

Ms. Elizabeth May (MP), Ms. EMILY McMILLAN, (Executive Director of the Green Party), et al;

Regarding your letter to me dated Nov. 2, 2012, might I humbly suggest that you just:
1) hire a consultant to keep you informed about the relationship between:
A) the China – Canada Investment Treaty(C -CIT, or, aka; Foreign Investment Promotion and
Protection Agreement (FIPA)
&
B) The W.A.D. Accord,
2) hire a campaign strategist that understands how to maximize the aforementioned relationship
between the C-CI Treaty & The Accord, as the political parties only have until Nov. 26, 2012 to
modify their positions, such as the one that you have suggested in your Nov. 2, 2012 letter
to me, in order to enamour the parties with the by election voters in Calgary, Durham &
Victoria, et al.

Also, regarding your aforementioned letter to me & given your inability, &/or, your lack of desire to answer, as opposed to “respond”, to my simplest & most basic questions that I have previously sent to you going back to the early part of this last summer, I’m not sure if your statement about Prime Minister Harper preferring
“…to keep Canadians in the dark…”
is more, or, less egregious than your continuing to keep Canadians in the dark regarding the questions that I have asked you & the executives of your party, et al.

Similarly, I am not at all sure that your “darkness”, ie. the aforementioned “your inability, &/or, your lack of desire”, has greater implications for:
1) our Canadian sovereignty, &/or, Quebec’s need to escape the Compensation (& now,
the Chinese) that is embodied in The W.A.D. Accord as a consequence of The
Accord’s inhumane deprivation of the more, &/or, the same simplest & most basic
information that I have humbly asked you about,
2) your version of a “democracy”; ie. while there are many versions of what constitutes
a democracy, they all seem to have some things in common. In the Canadian version
of democracy, many of the voters seem to forget that it’s the lobbyists’ clients that select
the candidates (& the executives) of all of the parties operating in Canada that will be offered
to the voters for the voters’ final selection/”choice”.

Regardless, Ms. May, are you suggesting that the executives of your party are not getting paid
the same, &/or, similar, considerations from the relevant lobbyists’ clients as the Conservatives’
executives regarding the Treaty, The WAD Accord, et al?

Do you disagree with the comment that the executives of all of the political parties that are operating in Canada are getting a “fair” amount of consideration from the relevant lobbyists clients regarding the China – Canada Investment Treaty (C -CIT, or, aka; Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA)? Setting aside any beliefs, assumptions, etc. that you may have, for a moment, Ms. May, have you actually asked your party executives what considerations have they received, &/or, are continuing to receive from the relevant lobbyists’ clients regarding the Treaty & The WAD Accord, et al? Is this arrangement (Ed.; as you put it) “…a partisan issue…”?
&
3) et al.

Regarding your comment:
“I am hopeful that we can force the issue into daylight”,
it may be helpful if you listed the various different ways that you intend to accomplish this,
whether your party is in power, or, not. I can also think of a few Canadians that would like to
know how you intend to “un ring” the bell after the Treaty, et al, is signed & becomes enforceable &
thereby, render the vast number of non supplicating Canadians, et al, who may want to challenge
The Treaty, The WAD Accord, et al without the fear of recriminations, retributions, tax penalties, etc.

On the other hand, while some Canadians, et al, may remain “hopeful” that you will answer,
not only my (“our”) previous simplest & most basic questions, but, also answer the questions
in this letter to you, some may not. You may rest assured, however, that unlike you, I have no intention of forcing you to do anything about your “such blatant disrespect” because, as you point out later in your letter, “…this is not a partisan issue…”.

Regarding your statement:
“…help to educate Canadians by talking to your friends
and neighbors, writing letters to the editor in local and national newspapers, calling
in to talk radio shows, and filling up the comment boards of news website…”,
I’ve done this & all of those listed are still waiting for your answers to our simplest & most
basic questions in order that we can continue to help you do your job. Some of the above may still be willing to “correspond” with you.

Regarding your statement:
“Realizing what the Conservatives were attempting to do…”,
does your realization enable you to answer these questions that will enable all Canadians, et al,
to continue to help you do your job:
1) does the Treaty adequately protect China from having to pay any, &/or, all of the “punitive”
compensation that is embodied in The WAD Accord, et al?
2) does the Treaty adequately protect the exclusive, relevant lobbyists’
clients in Canada from having to pay any, &/or, all of the compensation that
is embodied in The WAD Accord, et al?
3) does the Treaty adequately punish non supplicating Canadians via tax penalties
for challenging the Treaty on the basis of The WAD Accord, &/or, other legitimate
causes?
4) does the Treaty adequately reward the primary beneficiaries of the Treaty for
punishing the aforementioned non supplicating Canadians via tax penalties
who would like to challenge the Treaty on the basis of The WAD Accord, &/or,
other legitimate causes?
5) how can the non supplicating Canadians, et al, use The WAD Accord to reward
& exculpate themselves from both; the C-CITreaty & the aforementioned WAD Accord
compensation, et al?
&
6) et al?

Regarding, your statement:
“…are continuing to pursue all available options to stop the treaty’s approval”.
Well, Ms. May, let’s just see how sincere you are about this statement. Would you like to know some of the various different legitimate ways of stopping the treaty, &/or, how to eliminate the threat that the Treaty makes to its challengers, et al? Would you, &/or, the executives of your party be prepared to break the covenant between the lobbyists’ clients & the executives of the political parties and “sacrifice” the considerations from one of the initiating (the most relevant) lobbyist’s clients, who is unethical & less than humane, in order to stop the Treaty, &/or, to reconcile the basis for the Compensation that is embodied in The WAD Accord, et al?
What do you think would be the value for those that could provide you with the information
to carry out the intention of your sincere statements? On the other hand, do you think that you, &/or, your party, &/or, some concerned Canadians put a greater value on stopping the Treaty than its promoters put on guaranteeing that the Treaty will be implemented “as is”, or, nearly “as is”?
Would you, &/or, your party, &/or, some concerned Canadians, et al, be willing to use The WAD Accord in order to render more Canadians harmless from the Treaty, &/or, the Compensation that forms the basis for The WAD Accord?

And, finally, Ms. May, which Chinese leaders (as opposed to “politicians”) have you, &/or, your party executives talked to who are trying to avoid paying any of the costs of what they perceive is a Canadian lobbyists’ client vs. taxpayers’ problem/situation/issue, &/or, et al? That is to say, Ms. May, have they, the non political leaders of China, convinced you & your party executives that it is the amount of money that Chinese lobbyists’ clients are afraid of having to pay/contribute as a consequence of the Compensation that is embodied in the WAD Accord that is just too large?

Are these questions for the aforementioned Chinese leaders, et al, too onerous for your
understanding of the interrelationships between human nature, business/finance & one’s
desire to appear polite/tolerant regarding “cultural-ism” & racism vs. “racism”?

By way of closing, Ms. May, I will not use this opportunity to nudge/remind you, your staff,
&/or, your party’s executives that you can re-try to illuminate me & other Canadians, et al,
with your sincere & humble consideration of all of my (our) questions & your ability to answer
them succinctly & in a timely manner. I would also suggest that if you do not have the information, &/or,
have not found anybody to answer the aforementioned questions, would you mind just saying so?
And, if you do not know, & do want to know, then why don’t you just ask me; who knows? And, if you do not understand the significance of some, &/or, any of the questions, &/or,
information that I have provided you, et al, then, just ask me.

On the other hand, don’t you think that the voters, et al, have to hear the Green Party (or, other) say:
“We (the Green Party) wouldn’t trade the continuation of the voters deprivation of this
aforementioned information for 10, or, 100, or, a majority of House of Commons seats to
protect the less than ethical lobbyists’ clients that are controlling the Conservatives, et al”.

Ms. May, Ms. McMillan, et al, do you want to get cracking on these questions & the
enclosed together? Yes ___ , or, No ___?

Sincerely,

David E.H. Smith
– Researcher
– Qui tam…

P.S.1 – In regard to The WAD Accord, have you found it yet? And, if so what do you think is
the significance of The Accord? Do you understand how The Accord, in conjunction with
the other material in my submission to the Enbridge Co.’s NGP Joint Review Panel,
can be used by the Chinese, et al, to improve The Treaty, et al? What are the other
positions that are presented in the submission “Towards a More Informed Opinion…”
that will enamour your party with the Canadian voters, et al?

Was the Privy Council’s Office helpful in accessing from C.S.I.S. the names of some of the intelligence services that CSIS, et al, would prefer to be utilized in order to start getting the aforementioned information directly to the most vulnerable ie. the most disadvantaged, Canadians in a politically deniable manner? Which intelligence services do the Canadian lobbyists’ clients suggest are “less than preferable” in helping to start getting the aforementioned information directly to the most vulnerable Canadians in a politically deniable manner? And, what , if any, attempts have you made to clarify the above, &/or, the enclosed with C.S.I.S., et al?

P.S.2 – Do you think that some of the aforementioned questions helps you, your executives,
Canadians voters, &/or, et al, to check some of the assumptions of Canadian voters, et al, &/or,
to distinguish some of the beliefs of Canadian voters, et al, from that which is understandable &/or,
just believable? Can the same be said of your answers to the aforementioned questions?
Ms. May, we are not in an ecclesiastic edifice (Ed.; parliamentis not an ecclesiastic edifice); let’s not pretend otherwise.

You can access The W.A.D. Accord by following the thread below to my submission in the
enclosed copy of my letter to Mr. Stewart Phillip,
or,
you can contact directly:
Ms. Colette Spagnuolo
Process Advisor, Northern Gateway Project
GatewayProcessAdvisor@ceaa-acee.gc.ca
22nd Floor, 160 Elgin St. Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 | 22em etage, 160, rue Elgin, Ottawa ON K1A 0H3

cc.

Editor’s Note; The W.A.D. ACCORD; see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com
*******                                                                                                                                                 Your DONATIONS for the ongoing research & the dissemination of the relevant information will be gratefully accepted & can be sent to;

David E.H. Smith
112-711 Johnson St., Victoria, BC  V8W 1M8

*******
To SHARE Information & Questions re; The Relationship between Human (Nature) Rights & Economics in 1) the C-CI Treaty, the CET Agreement, TPP, et al, and 2) Native Canadian Treaties via The WAD Accord
and the List of RECENT ARTICLES, LETTERS & NOTIFICATIONS by DEHS.
see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com
*******

Please consider sharing the enclosed information & questions with 10 members of your family, friends, associates in order that they can use the due diligence info to make more informed decision about their families’ financial planning, & then they can share it with 10 others…
******

11) President Xi Jinping; YOU’VE BEEN SERVED with “The NOTIFICATION of the Preexisting CHALLENGES to C-CITreaty”, et al.

President Xi Jinping, President of the People’s Republic of China, et al;

It may be regrettable that you are being served with:

“The NOTIFICATION of Preexisting CHALLENGE to the CANADA – CHINA
INVESTMENT TREATY” (Ed.; and The TRANS PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP)
but, due to the corporate Canada’s inability, &/or, lack of willingness to answer
some of the most basic questions regarding:
1) the inter relationships between the basis of The Compensation that embodied in The W.A.D. Accord
and
the Canada – China Investment Treaty (C-CIT), ie. how much are corporate China, its shareholders, your people going to pay into The Compensation
and
2) the uncertainty caused by the secret mechanisms for investigating, adjudicating & penalizing the non shareholders for the abuses, arrangements, et al, of the C-CITreaty by of corporate Canada, et al,
the serving of the Notification to you & the people of China has become necessary.
Please see the enclosed copy of “The Notification” that Prime Minister Harper (& the attached article including references & the means to access more information) has been served with.

Having said that, I think that you may agree with me that you & I may be able to take this opportunity to ensure that corporate Canada’s latest attempts, by way of all of the political parties that are operating in Canada, to “suck up”* to corporate China, et al,
and
to make the government of China, et al, beholden to corporate Canada by way of the development of the natural resources that are being found in Canada,
will not prevail.

By way of closing, I am looking forward to reading about your improvements to The C-CI Treaty that would enable all of the people of both; Canada (including the 95% – 99% Native & non Native Canadians who are non shareholders) & China to obtain the direct cash benefits that can be derived from the development of Canada’s natural resources & over a much longer period of time, particularly in the area of the co-manufacturing of the aforementioned resources & the financing of the projects & their infrastructures.

*”suck up”; Who is the “coveted” Chinese investor who said:
“It’s not that we are racists when it comes to dealing with Canadians,
it’s just that we can’t stand the way that you suck up to us.”?

Sincerely,

David E.H. Smith
– Researcher
– “Qui tam…”
*******                                                                                                                                                    Your DONATIONS for the ongoing research & the dissemination of the relevant information will be gratefully accepted & can be sent to;
David E.H. Smith

112-711 Johnson St., Victoria, BC  V8W 1M8

*******
To SHARE Information & Questions re; The Relationship between Human (Nature) Rights & Economics in 1) the C-CI Treaty, the CET Agreement, TPP, et al, and 2) Native Canadian Treaties via The WAD Accord
and the List of RECENT ARTICLES, LETTERS & NOTIFICATIONS by DEHS.
see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com
*******

Please consider sharing the enclosed information & questions with 10 members of your family, friends, associates in order that they can use the due diligence info to make more informed decision about their families’ financial planning, & then they can share it with 10 others…
******

10) The UN’s SR, Mr. ANAYA; ”IGNORAMUS et IGNORABIMUS”; “ABORIGINAL CANADIANS, INFO DEPRIVATION, & The Growing GLOBAL CORPORATE ECONOMY”

Re; (the) your May 23, 2014 article entitled ” ‘Dramatic Contradictions’: James Anaya’s report on dismal living conditions of Canada’s First Nations” by Ms. P Palmeter, there may be several reasons why the UN envoy on Aboriginal affairs, Mr. Anaya, & others, seem to be repeating previously stated positions yet again. Some of the reasons that your potential,
new readers, both Native & non Native Canadians, may not have had the opportunity to consider some of the issues are:
1) and, at the risk of repeating myself to those who have had to the opportunity to study the significance of the Latin phrase:
“Ignoramus et ignorabimus” (Latin): “We don’t know & we will not know,”,
the phrase raises two important due diligence points regarding Mr. Anaya’s statements.
a) he may not know about the recent developments effecting Aboriginal Canadians; in other words, by Mr. Anaya not knowing about the recent developments, he may not be competent to discuss information that he is being deprived of regarding these recent developments
&
b)
by saying that “I will not know” about the recent developments regarding Aboriginal Canadians, Mr. Anaya may be insincere. The determination of his sincerity may be ascertained if one can determined that he did/does “know” about the recent developments. Regardless, once the aforementioned determination is made, it might be worth asking Mr.
Anaya, et al, about his lack of willingness to share the information that he may be depriving the most vulnerable (95% – 99%) Native & non Natives community members (the most “vulnerables”) of, both; foreign & domestic.

The response of Mr. Anaya, et al, about his lack of willingness to share the information is important in that it can help the most “vulnerables”, et al, determine the intent of Mr. Anaya,
et al. That is to say; is Mr. Anaya, et al, depriving the most “vulnerables”, et al, of the information part of an arrangement intended to keep some of the other parties from benefiting from the information, such as; the “coveted” foreign investor, as a means of, for example, effecting the value of a company’s future IPO (Initial Public Offering), etc. as a consequence of the Canada – China Investment Treaty & other trade agreements?

Perhaps, the most significant point here is, if you do not ask your representatives (journalists), et al, what they know & are willing to share, you will not know, &/or, you may become a victim of someone who maybe leading you to “believe” his various different scenarios that will not help you quantify how much it will cost you. Nor, will he tell you how much he, et al, will be making as a consequence of you making nothing, & your deprivation of the due diligence information. On the other hand, perhaps he will give you a hope that you may make something in the future if you remain uninformed.

Therefore, find enclosed the Oct. 5, 2013 letter to Mr. Anaya, et al, regarding the link between:
the deprivation of the information (for example; the criteria for
ascertaining the health & robustness of a Native Canadian
community’s economy that is embodied in The W.A.D. Accord, aka; “The
Australian Question”)
and
the unconscionably high rates of suicides, etc.

Once you & your readers have ascertained that Mr. Anaya, et al, has received the Oct. 5, 2013 letter you will be able to ask other questions, et al, & then, draw your own conclusions. (Google; “The W.A.D. Accord”, &/or, “The Australian Question”)

On the other hand, after you have made some of your own conclusions about the
deprivation of the information, et al, you & your readers may wonder what is the significance of the aforementioned deprivation of information, not only in regard to The WAD Accord/suicides,
but,
in regard to the growing global corporate need to control the financing, the access, the development, manufacturing, distribution, etc. of the natural resources that are continuing to be found in Canada, et al, by way of the arrangements in The C-CITreaty, Eu CETA, TPPartnership, NAFTA, et al. Many of these natural resources are on Native land, or,
accessible via Native land, &/or, land that has yet to be negotiated.

Therefore, one of the questions is; who is going to pay The Compensation that is embodied in The WAD Accord as a consequence of the aforementioned deprivation of the information? As it presently stands, corporate Canada & perhaps, others, may want The
Compensation, the “net” amount, to be paid by the NON shareholders. Another question; what are the various ways that corporate Canada can use the proceeds of the aforementioned arrangements’ (Treaties/Agreements) secret tribunal’s punitive damages, paid by the non shareholders, in order to pay for the costs of foreign & domestic lobbying and development while also using the funds to increase the value of its dividends &
stocks?

And, who “qualifies” as a NON shareholder is another interesting question. For instance, the recent push to turn Aboriginal communities into municipalities makes the communities even more vulnerable as these Native communities can then be sued by the corporations that are the signatories of the NAFTAgreement, the C-CI Treaty, the EU-Canada CETAgreement, the TPPartnership, et al, if Native municipalities seem to be preventing the aforementioned
corporations (& their boards of directors, including “The Canadians”, & their shareholders) of the profits that can be derived from the development of the aforementioned natural resources.

(Google; “The TERMINATION PLAN” for Native Canadians, et al; The COUNTER
OFFER REFERENDUMS; The WAD Accord, The Notification of C-CI Treaty
(CETA & TPP), The Termination Plan, The T.P. Counter Offer, et al
and
“Death of First Nations; Birth of ‘Sue-able’ First Municipalities”)

And, while some have suggested that it may be regrettable that the “net” costs of developing, management, administrating, policing & adjudicating these arrangements (Treaties, Agreements, et al), have been, & will continue to be paid for by the non shareholders, including the unconscionably high rate of suicides (“acceptable collateral damage” as the cost of maintaining “peace, order & good government”), the present & future liabilities & punitive damages (the “net” amounts) awarded by the secret treaty/agreement tribunals (“The Star Chamber”) will be paid for by the citizens of the municipalities who are allegedly “depriving” the corporations & their shareholders from the potential profits derived from the development of the aforementioned natural resources
&
the non shareholders, in general, through further cuts to existing programs & services (education & health care) , transfer payments, etc.

By way of closing, the above information raises some interesting questions as to who knows what & is willing to share it with the 95% – 99% of the populations of the countries that are effected by the aforementioned arrangements (Treaties, Agreements, Partnerships, etc.).
For instance; what has corporate China learned & has proposed as a consequence of President Xi Jinping (China) being served with “The Notification of the Preexisting Challenge to The China – Canada Investment Treaty”
versus
what corporate Canada has learned & is willing to share about the information that Prime Minister Harper (Canada) has received in the cover letter enclosed with “The Notification…” that he, et al, has been served with?

(Google; “President Xi Jinping; You’ve Been Served…” and “PM Harper; You’ve Been
Served…”)

What did the Chinese Minister of State Security, MSS, suggest about “renditioning” the aforementioned information for CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Service) in a politically deniable manner & thereby, exculpate corporate China from paying any amount for The Compensation?
(Google; “The C-CI TREATY; CHINA’S KIND HELP, from
its MINISTRY of STATE SECURITY (MSS) may be ACCEPTED by the CANADIAN
SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE (CSIS) IF…there is ADEQUATE PLAUSIBLE
POLITICAL DENIABILITY”).

Similarly, how much of “The Threat Assessment; CSIS” did the head, et al, of CSIS, &/or, others share with the “coveted” foreign investor, President Xi Jinping, Mr. Geng Huichang (MSS), et al.
(Google; “The Threat Assessment; CSIS”)

And, in regard to Mr. Anaya, which of the UN general secretaries, former & present, are more conversant with The WAD Accord & its Compensation, etc. in the context of the growing global corporate economy? And, which countries’ representatives to the UN are also conversant?

How much of the aforementioned information, et al, have your municipal, &/or First Nations communities, provincial, federal representatives, provided to you willingly & knowledgeably?

And, how anxious are Canadians, et al, to move to a sovereign Quebec, &/or, other jurisdictions that regard the contributing factor to the aforementioned suicides, etc. as inhumane & unethical, in order to exculpate themselves of their contribution toward The Compensation & other hidden costs & liabilities associated with the aforementioned arrangements (Treaty/Agreements)?
Is corporate Canada trying to off-load their liability for exacerbating the situation by trying to get China, et al, to pay the entire Compensation as a part of China’s “hidden” cost of becoming beholden to corporate Canada & its secret arrangements?
(davidehsmith.wordpress.com., or, Google; “SECRET C-CITreaty & CETA TRIBUNALS* are INSIDER TRADING; corp. Canada tells China to “Hit the Road” if Chinese style anti-corruption Blows “Arrangements” between Can. Lobbyists’ Clients & Parties’ Executives (W.A.D. Accord**)? NON Shareholders
HAVE TO pay”.)

And, finally, getting back to the comments regarding racism & polite “tolerance”, you & your readers might consider:
1) writing CSIS & sharing what you learn from them about their comments regarding our correspondences about “despots & diaspora” as it pertains to Native Canadians, &/or, non Native Canadians
&
2) writing the “coveted” Chinese investor who said:

“It’s not that we are racist when it comes to dealing with Canadians,
it’s just that we can’t stand the way that you suck up to us”.

Do you, the editor of Rabble, Ms. Palmeter &/or your potential readers in China, Europe, the Trans Pacific nations & North America think that the “coveted” investor was referring to the sucking up by corporate Canada,
or,
by “our”/your political leaders/salesmen?

And, finally, is it conceivable, possible, probable, &/or, likely that some Native leaders may also be benefiting from depriving their community members of the aforementioned information? And, do you understand how The W.A.D. Accord can be used to ascertain which leaders, both; Native & non Native, are the deprivers of the information? And, do you understand the significance of this determination?

And, how much of the enclosed information was Iran’s Mr. Mohammad Javad Larijani Sec-Gen High Council of Human Rights willing, &/or, able to confirm?

I look forward to reading about your understanding of the above & enclosed material. Similarly, I look forward to reading about the various different ways that you want/need to start getting the aforementioned information & questions to the most vulnerable community members for their humble consideration, discussion & sharing in forums that are free of retributions & recriminations.

Sincerely,

David E.H. Smith
– Researcher
– “Qui tam…”

*******                                                                                                                                                     Your DONATIONS for the ongoing research & the dissemination of the relevant information will be gratefully accepted & can be sent to;

David E.H. Smith
112-711 Johnson St., Victoria, BC  V8W 1M8

*******
To SHARE Information & Questions re; The Relationship between Human
(Nature) Rights & Economics in 1) the C-CI Treaty, the CET Agreement, TPP, et al, and 2) Native Canadian Treaties via The WAD Accord
and the List of RECENT ARTICLES, LETTERS & NOTIFICATIONS by DEHS.
see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com
********
Oct. 5, 2013
Mr. Anaya, the Office the United Nations Special Rapporteur
on the rights of indigenous peoples, et al;

Regarding your meeting with the government of Canada in, or, around Oct. 15, 2013 concerning the rights of Native Canadians, I would like to inform you that there have been several developments since I last wrote to you regarding:
1) the relationship between:
a) the unconscionably high rates of despair, disenchantment, suicides, unemployment,
poverty, etc. that are found in many of the First Nations communities across Canada (Please see; ”
and
b) the deprivation of the information to the most vulnerable members of the aforementioned communities by the government of Canada, et al
and
2) the deprivation of the most vulnerable members of the information & questions that are embodied in the comprehensive version of The W.A.D. Accord including the details of The Compensation in The Accord to the most vulnerable members for their information
deprivation.

For a summary of the above information, please see the articles below entitled;
1) “HELP is on the WAY?”
and
2) the less comprehensive version of “The W.A.D. Accord” including The Compensation.

Since sending you this information there have been more recent developments. Please see
below the information & questions in the letters below entitled:

3) “Prime Minister HARPER; YOU’VE been SERVED with “NOTIFICATION of
Preexisting CHALLENGE to the CANADA – CHINA INVESTMENT TREATY”
and
4) “TARGETING 95% – 99% CANADIANS (the Most Vulnerable Native…”.

Would you please acknowledge that you have received this letter and the enclosed information & questions.

And, now that you have received the new information, I, et al, would also hope that you would follow up the new questions by making sure that the government of Canada, corporate Canada, et al, are aware that we are all very concerned with their program for starting to get this most simple & most basic information (& questions) to the most
vulnerable members of the aforementioned communities, et al, for their humble consideration, improvements, questions, alternatives, etc. in forums where there is no fear of recriminations, or, retributions.

Sincerely,

David E.H. Smith
– Researcher
– “Qui tam…”

*********
1)
“NATIVE SUICIDES LINKED TO INFO. DEPRIVATION”
HELP IS ON THE WAY?
(CAN)- Re; the NUNAVUT & NESKANTAGA First Nation’s high rate of SUICIDES.
After discussing with a PSYCHOLOGIST (Native), et al, the relationship BETWEEN:
the DEPRIVATION of the most vulnerable Native community members, et al, of the simplest & most basic information, such as the information in The W.A.D. Accord (aka; “The Australian Question”)
and
the high rates of:
1) SUICIDES,
2) despair,
3) disenchantment,
4) unemployment,
5) poverty,
6) etc.,
that are found in many Native communities, et al, across Canada,
the PSYCHOLOGIST CONCURRED.

I have subsequently shared some of the aforementioned information, et al, with, &/or, have had the information & questions improved by, amongst others:
1) senior politicians & bureaucrats; both, federal & provincial, Canadian, et al,
2) the relevant lobbyists’ clients & the executives of the political parties operating in Canada,
3) the “coveted” foreign investor, et al,
4) the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
&
5) et al.

If you are interested in utilizing the aforementioned information to minimize, &/or, ELIMINATE the aforementioned major contributing factor to the SUICIDES, etc,
&/or,
have questions regarding the basis for The Compensation (similar to the compensation re; the Residential Schools, except larger, et al) to the most vulnerable community members, et al, for being deprived of the aforementioned simplest & most basic information,
then,
you might consider contacting the above groups & individuals in order to obtain some of
the information that is The W.A.D. Accord, etc.,
then,
contacting me by mail at:

David E.H. Smith
112-711 Johnson St., Victoria, BC  V8W 1M8

.

By way of closing, does the information in this letter & the information in The WAD Accord belong to you, or, to the community members?
And, what do the psychologists that the Nunavut & Neskanataga, et al, are utilizing know about the aforementioned relationship? And, do they concur, or, not?

How much of the enclosed information & questions was Iran’s Mr. Mohammad Javad Larijani, Sec-General High Council Human Rights able, &/or, willing to confirm.

Sincerely,

David E.H. Smith
– Researcher
– “Qui tam…”                                                                                                                                    *******                                                                                                                                                     Your DONATIONS for the ongoing research & the dissemination of the relevant information will be gratefully accepted & can be sent to;

David E.H. Smith

112-711 Johnson St., Victoria, BC  V8W 1M8

*******
To SHARE Information & Questions re; The Relationship between Human
(Nature) Rights & Economics in 1) the C-CI Treaty, the CET Agreement, TPP, et al, and 2) Native Canadian Treaties via The WAD Accord
and the List of RECENT ARTICLES, LETTERS & NOTIFICATIONS by DEHS.
see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com
******
Please consider sharing the enclosed information & questions with 10 members of your family, friends, associates in order that they can use the due diligence info to make more informed decision about their families’ financial planning, & then they can share it with 10 others…
******

9) PM HARPER; YOU’VE Been SERVED with; “NOTIFICATION of Preexisting CHALLENGE to the C-CITreaty (FIPPA), the CETAgrement & The TPPartnership “

PM HARPER; YOU’VE Been SERVED with; “NOTIFICATION of Preexisting CHALLENGE to the C-CITreaty (FIPPA), the CETAgrement & The TPPartnership “.

Aug. 15, 2013

Prime Minister Stephen Harper,
Parliament Building,
Ottawa, Ontario.
K1A 0A9

Re; PM HARPER; You’ve Been SERVED with; “NOTIFICATION of Preexisting CHALLENGE(s)…”

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Leader, Conservative Party,
Mr. DAN HILTON, Executive Director CP,
& Mr. Edward Fast, Minister for International Trade & Minister for Asian-Pacific Gateway;

I do not mean to rude, but, please do NOT thank me for any interest that I may, or, may NOT have regarding the existing, un ratified Canada – China Investment Treaty C-CIT; FIPA)
& the Canada – EU Comprehensive Economic & Trade Agreement (CETA);
I am just doing my due diligence research which will enable me, et al, to ascertain whether to support, improve, or, reject the Treaty, &/or, Agreement.

However, as a consequence of your not answering the simplest & most basic questions regarding:
1) the basis for The Compensation that is embodied in The W.A.D. Accord (a.k.a.; The Australian Question)
and
the lack of certainty regarding the proportions that corporates: Canada, China & European Union will pay for total amount of The Compensation that is embodied in The W.A.D. Accord as a consequence of the C.-C.I. Treaty & the Canada – EU C.E.T. Agreement
and
2) the lack of certainty regarding corporates: Canada, China & European Union agreements to pay for total amount of the costs of the punitive penalties, damages, costs, administrative, legal fees, etc. that may arise as a consequences of:
A) the CHALLENGES to the C.-C.I. Treaty & the Canada – EU C.E.T. Agreement,
B) the costs of the on-going research & dissemination of the information regarding the C.-C.I. Treaty & the Canada – EU C.E.T. Agreement to all of the parties that have expressed an interest in the development of the natural resources that have been found, & are continuing to be found, in Canada & thereby, render the non shareholders, et al, of the enterprises that can be derived from the aforementioned Treaty, &/or, Agreement, harmless
& thereby, prevent any abuses of the aforementioned costs, such as, using to the costs of The Challenges to increase the “profits” of the shareholders & the relevant corporations,
please be advised that;
YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED with:

“NOTIFICATION of Preexisting CHALLENGE to the CANADA – CHINA
INVESTMENT TREATY”
and
“NOTIFICATION of Preexisting CHALLENGE to the CANADA – EUROPEAN UNION
COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC & TRADE AGREEMENT”.

Is corporate Canada’s funding pool, & those of corporate China & corporate European Union, adequate to pay the aforementioned innocent, &/or, harmless taxpaying voters’, et al, for any, &, all, of the aforementioned costs of
1) “Preexisting Challenges” to the Canada – China Investment Treaty C-CIT)
& the Canada – EU Comprehensive Economic & Trade Agreement (CETA)
& the “After the Fact Challenges” if The Treaty, &/or, The Agreement are implemented/ratified?

Do you also understand that by not answering the aforementioned simple & most basic questions it will be an admission of guilt and will enhance the punitive damages awarded to non shareholders if, &/or, when the aforementioned Treaty, &/or, the Agreement have been ratified?

Would you please acknowledge that you have received the aforementioned C-CIT & CETA notifications?

Do you, Misters Harper, Hilton & Fast acknowledge that you have received the enclosed C-CIT & CETA notifications & the relevant references* in order to access the less comprehensive version of The W.A.D. Accord, including The Compensation?

Sincerely,

David E.H. Smith
– Researcher;
– “Qui tam…”.

cc.

P.S. – Did you not get my emails regarding the aforementioned “NOTIFICATIONs”, or, is there something wrong with your email addresses? Do you suggest that we correspond by registered mail?

*Reference:
For those who may not be familiar with The WAD Accord, &/or, its recent developments, The Accord can be accessed on line by way of the submission entitled:

“Towards a More Informed Opinion regarding the Environmental Impact & Context of the NGP (Pipeline), et al”, Researched & Submitted by D.E.H.S., July 24, 2012 to the Enbridge Co.’s NGP Joint Review Panel..

Contact:
Ms. Colette Spagnuolo,
GatewayProcessAdvisor@ceaa-acee.gc.ca

(or, davidehsmith.wordpress.com.)
*******                                                                                                                                                    Your DONATIONS for the ongoing research & the dissemination of the relevant information will be gratefully accepted & can be sent to;
David E.H. Smith

112-711 Johnson St., Victoria, BC  V8W 1M8

*******
To SHARE Information & Questions re; The Relationship between Human
(Nature) Rights & Economics in 1) the C-CI Treaty, the CET Agreement, TPP, et al, and 2) Native Canadian Treaties via The WAD Accord
and the List of RECENT ARTICLES, LETTERS & NOTIFICATIONS by DEHS.
see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com
*******

Please consider sharing the enclosed information & questions with 10 members of your family, friends, associates in order that they can use the due diligence info to make more informed decision about their families’ financial planning, & then they can share it with 10 others…
******