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.****’
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 ,
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”?
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,
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
3) be expanded to provide over 100% employment of the most vulnerable
members of an Aboriginal community,
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
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
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.
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
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.
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)
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
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)
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…”.


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?

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,
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

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,
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
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



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



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