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
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 ___?


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,
you can contact directly:
Ms. Colette Spagnuolo
Process Advisor, Northern Gateway Project
22nd Floor, 160 Elgin St. Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 | 22em etage, 160, rue Elgin, Ottawa ON K1A 0H3


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
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…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s