Brad Kempo B.A. LL.B.

Barrister & Solicitor [Alberta, Inactive]



914 – 950 Drake Avenue

Vancouver, British Columbia,

Canada V6Z 2B9

Ph. 604.609.0520


March 20, 2010 

Canadian Association of Democracy Advocates  

358 – 1320 Main Street

Toronto, Ontario  

Dear Sir & Madam:  



Re:  Addressing Systemic Inequities and Social Injustice in Canada; Institutionalized Security of Information Act & UN Charter Violations, Actions to be Undertaken by the International Community to Address Same




This is to confirm that I act in an agency capacity for a conglomerate of international public and private sector parties.  This correspondence provides general information for your association to review and outlines at its conclusion what my clients seek to achieve.



In September 2008 the RCMP's National Security Division (or INSET - Integrated National Security Enforcement Teams) launched an investigation into nationwide systemic government corruption, criminality and human right violations pursuant to The Security of Information Act (s. 20-23).  Because of the national security dimension, these facts and circumstances could not nor ever can be publicized. Therefore, the only way to generate the kind of collective awareness that would lead to accountability and reform was to contact those in government and the three constituents of the administration of justice (Bench, Bar and law enforcement) on an individual basis – now around 1,500 officials, recommend to each that an independent assessment be made and wider due diligence conducted; then consult with colleagues and counterparts across the country to develop a consensus on how to proceed to address these matters.


The Act states: 



20. (1) Every person commits an offence who, at the direction of, for the benefit of or in association with a foreign entity […], induces or attempts to induce, by threat, accusation, menace or violence, any person to do anything or to cause anything to be done 

(a)  that is for the purpose of increasing the capacity of a foreign entity […] to harm Canadian interests; or 

(b) that is reasonably likely to harm Canadian interests.


(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for life.


21. (1) Every person commits an offence who, for the purpose of enabling or facilitating an offence under this Act, knowingly harbours or conceals a person whom he or she knows to be a person who has committed or is likely to commit an offence under this Act.


(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.


22. (1) Every person commits an offence who, for the purpose of committing an offence under subsection 16(1) or (2), 17(1), 19(1) or 20(1), does anything that is specifically directed towards or specifically done in preparation of the commission of the offence, including 

(a) entering Canada at the direction of or for the benefit of a foreign entity, […] or a foreign economic entity; 

(b) obtaining, retaining or gaining access to any information; 


(c) knowingly communicating to a foreign entity […] or a foreign economic entity the person’s willingness to commit the offence; [and] 


(d) at the direction of, for the benefit of or in association with a foreign entity […] or a foreign economic entity, asking a person to commit the offence  


(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years. 


23. Every person commits an offence who conspires or attempts to commit, is an accessory after the fact in relation to or counsels in relation to an offence under this Act and is liable to the same punishment and to be proceeded against in the same manner as if he or she had committed the offence. 



2. (1) In this Act, 

“foreign entity” means 

(a) a foreign power, 


(c) a person acting at the direction of, for the benefit of or in association with a foreign power 

“foreign power” means

(a) the government of a foreign state,

3. (1) For the purposes of this Act, a purpose is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State if a person 


(a) commits, in Canada, an offence against the laws of Canada or a province that is punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of two years or more in order to advance a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause or to benefit a foreign entity;


(c) causes or aggravates an urgent and critical situation in Canada that 

(i) endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians, or

(ii) threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security or territorial integrity of Canada; 


(i)  impairs or threatens the capabilities of the Government of Canada in relation to security and intelligence; 

(j) adversely affects the stability of the Canadian economy, the financial system or any financial market in Canada without reasonable economic or financial justification;



Annexed to the complaint filed through the office of RCMP Superintendent Mike Aubry, Officer-in-Charge, Employee and Management Relations, in May '08 was the results of a three year research project compiling evidence of the origins of this systemic malfeasance, how it operated regionally and nationally and who the primary parties were and continue to be. 



The dissemination initiative was first launched in August '07 seeking to create that collective awareness hoping doing so would lead to achieving my clients' objectives of reform and accountability and addressing illegalities involving Canada's thirty-five year relationship with China. The dissemination initiative was completed in July '09.  They were seeking a ‘Made in Canada’ solution.  To date there is none and from all appearance there never will be.



The initiative's purposes were to provide full transparency with respect to these publicly unaware illegalities amongst the non-complicit, what my clients' objectives are and the tactics to be employed to achieve them.  They wanted everyone in government and the administration of justice to be cognizant of the facts and circumstances submitted to the RCMP so all could participate in reform and accountability. 



The RCMP investigation was terminated in March 2009 as a result of government and top-level law enforcement interference.   Doing so further justified my clients’ intervention in the otherwise sovereign affairs of the nation.   What originally validated the decision to effect a complete deconstruction and reconstitution of the Canadian system of governance and economy was because a politically and geo-politically bias Federal Court protected China’s secret de facto governance status of the country by dismissing a lawsuit that claimed damages for violations of the Act and what the RCMP sought to investigate.  



Lemieux J. sustained the federal government defendant’s claim of ‘national security’ privilege, unjustifiably balancing competing interests in favor of the state – preferring to protect the institutionalization of corruption, criminality and human rights violations and China’s interests in the country than fulfill the judiciary’s role of protecting sovereignty, the constitution and individuals from abuses of political, bureaucratic, law enforcement and corporate power:



After applying and weighing these factors, I am satisfied on the evidence before me, the importance of disclosing the redacted information does not outweigh the public interest in keeping that information from disclosure.  As to the nature of the public interest sought to be protected, the redacted information relates to how CSIS, Canada’s intelligence service, operates. Clearly, as I have found, such disclosure is injurious to the public interest. I adopt the words chosen by Justice MacKay in Singh (J.B.) v. Canada (Attorney General),, [2000] F.C.J. No. 1007, a case where the R.C.M.P. Public Complaints Commission sought disclosure of documents related to the 1997 APEC Conference. Justice MacKay, at paragraph 32, stated:


The public interest served by maintaining secrecy in the national security context is weighty. In the balancing of public interests here at play, that interest would only be outweighed in a clear and compelling case for disclosure. [emphasis mine]



The Justice also sustained the other production of documents confidentiality claim, ‘injury to international relations’, which was an implicit confession on the court record that a foreign government was involved in the facts that supported multiple causes of action.  The privilege exists in access to information legislation: a government can withhold sensitive documents claiming to release them to the public would ‘injure Canada’s relations with a foreign government’.



The case was dismissed on a technicality before getting to discoveries; and not once, given some half dozen opportunities, did defendant’s counsel cross-examine on affidavits, leaving the plaintiff’s credibility in tact.  That unchallenged credibility was critical in my clients’ assessment of what was alleged.  



Behind the ‘injury to international relations’ privilege claim was the establishment of Chinese de facto governance through an early 1970s geo-political alliance with this country’s political and corporate leadership.  This relationship led to, inter alia, China’s representatives being at the cabinet table federally and provincially who then began to embed unlawful Chinese interests in the fabric of Canadian governance and the economy.  



One of the defining moments in the research project was reviewing a study jointly conducted by CSIS and the RCMP in the mid-1990s, completed in 1997 and then buried by the Chrétien government. You will find the original text of The Sidewinder Report here: 



As the report documents, throughout the 1980s and 1990s not only the Beijing leadership and the richest tycoons of that totalitarian country like Li Ka-Sing, but also Chinese criminal organizations, have purchased large swaths of the Canadian economy and used their wealth to gain political influence across the country to the detriment of our national and economic security.  The accumulation of evidence about Chinese de facto sovereignty-sharing was overwhelming.  



There are some 1.3 million Chinese in the country.  Immigration policy was secretly formulated to allow upwards of a million members of the Chinese Communist Party loyal to totalitarian principles and practices to take residence here since the 1970s.  That is why the Chinese are the country’s largest minority – according to some statistics surpassing aboriginals. 



Canada's aboriginal population tops million mark: StatsCan

CBC News

January 15, 2008


Canada's aboriginal population surged past the million mark for the first time on a Canadian census, a spike of 45 per cent from a decade earlier. Statistics Canada, which released new data Tuesday from the 2006 census on Canada's aboriginal population, counted 1,172,790 Indian, Métis and Inuit people — 3.8 per cent of Canada's total population.



Canada not having the Chinese government’s “Approved Destination Status” (which strictly regulates citizens’ mobility abroad like the Soviets did behind the ‘Iron Curtain’) means high-ranking members of the PRC emigrated to the country and fused with the military, security apparatus and law enforcement to protect China’s sovereignty interests in Canada.



Not until December 2009 did the Chinese government designate Canada an approved destination for its citizens to visit, attend school or emigrate to:


China grants Canada Approved Destination Status

December 3, 2009

Beijing, China


Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced that the Government of China has granted Canada Approved Destination Status, a designation that makes it easier for Chinese nationals to visit Canada.  The Prime Minister made the announcement in Beijing following his meeting with Wen Jiabao, Premier of China.  





The question the research project had to answer was ‘why did this happen?’.  The project reconstructed from the history books how this country’s system of governance evolved over two centuries.  



Discovering what the research treatise calls the ‘Ottawa-Toronto-Montreal triangle of power and wealth’ – that cluster of political dynastic families, super wealthy individuals and families and the largest corporations in the land – it was determined that collectively and conspiratorially the operators of this ‘triangle’ had over generations hijacked Canada’s system of government through the institutionalization of nepotism and patronage.  These are some of the signposts of this phenomenon in the 19th and 20th centuries: 



Prior to 1837 both Upper Canada and Lower Canada were plagued with patronage, nepotism and corruption. Only those with the closest ties to government prospered. The rest were shut out of decision making and full participation in their own country's administration. 


Source:  Hansard, Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance), January 29, 2000 




MacEwan quotes [lawyer, politician and Chief Justice Sir Frederick William Alpin Gordon] Haultain as saying [in the late 1800s] on his return to the West, "The Government has been acting like a big pig trying to keep the little pigs from the trough."  


Source: David Kilgour MP (Lib. Edmonton SE) website




This corruption of the mind has been well described as the arrogance of power, and Liberal ministers are not immune from this near-universal human failing.  Louis St-Laurent’s minister of trade and commerce, C.D. Howe, once actually taunted the opposition about their powerlessness to prevent the Liberal government from doing whatever it wanted.  “Who’s to stop us?” he asked – not rhetorically – 1951.   


Source: The Perils of a One-Party State and the Consequences of Perpetual Liberal Rule, Peter G. White and Adam Daifallah (March 2004) 




[Trudeau’s] last weeks in office were marked by one of the greatest ever orgy of patronage appointments (146 in two days alone).  He still managed to leave 17 other senior positions to be filled by Turner, his successor, who did so, claiming during that epic TV debate, that he had “no option”. .” 


Source: Liberals at the Abyss: Paul Marin may be unable to navigate the Chrétien ‘puddle of sleaze’, Maclean’s, Peter C. Newman 




During the [1990s] Liberal decade of drift, the ugly face of nepotism has returned to Canadian government, this time stronger than ever. The Liberal Party of Canada has replaced the chateau clique and the family compact.


Source:  Hansard, Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance), January 29, 2000




The long Liberal hegemony in Ottawa has created a small, self-perpetuating oligarchy or aristocracy of governors, from which the vast majority of Canadians are permanently excluded and to which only bona fide members of the Liberal Party may expect to accede. Since power in the Liberal Party is concentrated in Ontario and Quebec, the source of all its leaders, or even more narrowly in Toronto and Montreal, few outsiders need apply. 


Source: The Perils of a One-Party State and the Consequences of Perpetual Liberal Rule 



The same clique of evermore politically affluent and wealthy families successfully ruled Canada throughout the 20th century due to ever-increasing concentrations of power and prosperity.  The said institutionalization, combined with the Liberals governing for some 75% of the last century, led to the complete consolidation of political authority – one that shared attributes with the 'totalitarian' paradigm of governance – and shielded by a cleverly manufactured façade of democratic respectability.  PM Trudeau – Mr. “Just Society” – upon taking office looked across the entire political, military, administration of justice and corporate landscapes and saw nothing but Liberals and closet Liberals and realizing there was no dissent, opposition or accountability, began to implement domestic policies that benefited the parochial interests of the wealthy and spread the detriments of those advantages across the entire population.  



An academic and legal analysis involves application of the ‘form vs. substance’ principle.  The law makes a distinction between reality and mere illusion created by deceivers to gain an unwarranted benefit.  



Three states of affairs the research treatise discovered which directly resulted from two centuries of institutionalized nepotism and patronage and the Liberals governing for some 75% of the 20th century are:


(i)   there is only the appearance of political pluralism;


(ii)  there is no functioning division of powers and meaningful accountability between the executive, legislative and judicial; and


(iii) there are no substantive tiers of political authority as constitutionally established in, for example, sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act. 



Canada’s governing structure and party system are completely factionless. 




Canadians have been misled for at least a generation into thinking (a) there are four major autonomous political parties, (b) we have a division of powers – a functioning set of democratic checks and balances and (c) one federal, ten provincial, three territorial and several dozen municipal governments all behaving independently; when in fact the opposite is true.  



The Canadian legal doctrine of ‘form vs. substance’ was articulated in this Tax Court of Canada case: 


CCLI (1994) Inc. v. The Queen, 2006 TCC 240

 Miller J. 


This case highlights the difficulty reconciling tax laws to commercial practice. I have attempted on previous occasions to mesh legal and economic realities for the purpose of making sense of our complex tax legislation: this approach has not been universally embraced. Certainty and legal form do trump economic substance, if legal form reflects legal substance. […] It is one thing to pit legal form against economic substance, but what if the question is framed as legal form versus legal substance? There are many examples where the courts find the legal form mischaracterizes the legal substance.


The American legal doctrine was expressed by a judge as follows:



On the basis of all the evidence in the record, we conclude that the transaction whereby the banks purported to become partners in [a new LLC, Santa Monica Pictures], only to exit some 3 weeks later, was not in substance what it appeared to be in form.


Source: Thornton J. quoted in Substance vs. Form: The Taxpayer Catch-22 (2004), Burgess Raby and William Raby  



The principle is also to be applied to China’s secret status here.  Our country looks like a peaceful democracy enjoying indivisible sovereignty when in fact the opposite is true on both counts.



The multi-generational consolidation of political power is nothing different than is found in communist and totalitarian states and dictatorships: a small tight-knit group bonded by blood and close association controls all facets of the state.  The only difference in Canada’s case is this paradigm of governance is hidden by a cleverly manufactured façade of democratic respectability.   



During the 1970s and at the height of the Cold War raged, Trudeau et al. not only had nothing in common with Canada’s neighbors and the NATO Alliance, they despised them for their emphasis on democracy, rule of law, transparency, accountability, human rights and an equitable distribution of wealth and opportunity.   And that’s where there was ideological affinity with Mao and Castro that led to the secret alliance and a geo-political marriage of the most intimate kind that evolved into Chinese de facto governance, or joint sovereignty.






One of the pillars of his domestic policy was economy monopolization and as a subset of that giving the Chinese a beneficiary front row seat to that process.


Here are some excerpts from the research treatise about this domestic policy:


      Jack Layton’s speech: Health care & Canada’s prosperity gap

       March 13, 2007 


The other kind of prosperity gap is that between rich and poor.  The income gap in Canada is at a thirty-year high and growing [says a] recent report released by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives...




Pierre Trudeau […] [got] low scores [by historians] for his mismanagement of the economy and fiscal framework during an era that saw Canada’s federal debt increase by more than 1,000 percent.


Source: The Best Prime Ministers of the Last 50 Years, by L. Ian MacDonald (Policy Options, June-July 2003)




In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the world economy was booming. 


Source: Gordon Thiessen, Governor of the Bank of Canada to the Canadian Club of Toronto, January 22, 2001 




Through the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, output per capita in Canada increased... […] Through the 1950s and 1960s and into the early 1970s, labour productivity in the overall business sector in Canada grew rapidly. It averaged close to 4 per cent per year. […] During the 1970s, world prices for the primary commodities that Canada exports soared relative to prices in general. And they remained high through to the early 1980s. 


Source: Gordon Thiessen, Governor of the Bank of Canada at the Fraser Institute, December 6, 1999




In the 1960s and 1970s real GDP per capita grew rapidly in Canada, averaging over 3 per cent per year.


Source: Government of Canada, Department of Finance




"For 20 years, they ran continually high deficits and continually growing debt, and Canada was skyrocketing out of control," recalled University of Toronto economist Jack Carr.


Source: Economists praise Canada's debt reduction record, September 27, 2006, 



Canadians have been taxed exorbitantly and more and more despite living in one of the wealthiest nations on Earth and the economy consistently performs well.


The economy lives and thrives only for the elite, not for the vast majority of hard working, inventive, innovative and committed Canadians.  They are taxed more and more and from different angles, directions and sources.  An excellent way to prove that the elite is extracting ever more wealth from over thirty million Canadians is to examine on what day these industrious workers stop paying for the federal government and start pocketing it for rent, mortgages, food, children expenses and other necessities of life.  ‘Tax freedom day’ is a way to gauge how much taxes are being paid.  That day has been later and later each year in the last twenty-five:


1981 – May 30; 1985 – June 6; 1995 – June 18; 2000 – July 2; 2003 – June 27; 2004 – June 28; 2005 – June 27; 2006 – June 19.


“The fact that Tax Freedom Day has been steadily increasing since 2001 and comes only four days earlier than its peak should be cause for concern. All the talk of tax relief has not resulted in meaningful reductions in the tax burden for Canadian families,” commented Veldhuis.


Veldhuis points out that Tax Freedom Day is not intended to measure the benefits Canadians receive from governments in return for their taxes. Rather, it looks at the price that we pay for a product: government. 

Source: Fraser Institute 


Tax Freedom Day Arrives Monday

June 16, 2006 


Statistics Canada reported on June 15, 2006, that the combined surplus for all Canadians governments was $26-billion last year (2005/06 fiscal year), the second highest level in 20 years. Governments collected revenues of $572.9-billion in taxes and spent $546.9-billion. The [Canadian Taxpayers Federation] found “revenues were up 6 per cent, outpacing the 4.1 per cent gain in spending.” “This is evidence governments of all political stripes are taxing Canadians too heavily.


June 20 [2007] was Tax Freedom Day in Canada; the day in the year when Canadians have worked long enough to pay the total tax bill imposed on them by Canadian governments and can finally start working for themselves.  

Source: Fraser Institute  



There’s been a generous use of bailouts and government favoritism through what are called ‘chosen instruments’:


The Government: Influencing and Being Influenced (2005)

by Dr. Robert W Sexty

Professor of Business Administration, Faculty of Business Administration, Memorial University of Newfoundland 


The influence and involvement of government in the business enterprise is substantial. [...] Canadian governments have a long history of coming to the assistance of failing business enterprises. Bailouts occur to varying degrees and can take different forms. [...] In the 1980’s, bailouts were common as, for example, with Dome Petroleum, Chrysler Canada, Massey-Ferguson ... Maislin Industries[; and] the 1992 bailout of Algoma Steel.




“Chosen instruments” have become another mechanism used to implement government policy, whereby a business enterprise within a particular industry receives some form of special attention from government through grants, purchasing policy, or tax incentives. The support from government usually goes to a technological leader, an enterprise that is positioned in the industry as a “lead” or “core” company. The intention is to pick a “winner” which will be supported, or preferred, by government for the purposes of developing new technology, or penetrating an export market. The enterprise is asked to concentrate on a particular technology, product, or process, and certain “understandings” surround the designation of the particular enterprise including: that other firms will stay out of that particular commercial activity, and that banks will support the enterprise because of the government favouritism. The government may also support the chosen instrument through a domestic purchasing policy, and some have speculated that such enterprises will be exempt from competition policy restrictions. 


The “chosen instrument” is most common in the aerospace, electronic, communication, and energy industries. Examples in the past include the Alberta Gas Trunk Line Co. (natural gas transmission), Interprovincial Steel and Pipe Co. Ltd. (pipe and other steel products), Spar Aerospace Ltd. (space technology), and Lumonics Ltd. (laser technology).




In addition to Bombardier, potential candidates for Chosen Instrument status, past and present, might include: The Big Six Banks, BCE, CAE, Canadian Airlines, Canadian Marconi, Canadian Pacific, Computing Devices, Dome Petroleum, General Motors Diesel, Nortel, Oerlikon, Pratt & Whitney Canada, Trans Canada Telephone Systems, Trans Canada Pipeline, Syncrude, etc. 




The most remarkable feature of the government’s policy of supporting Chosen Instruments is that the policy remains unwritten, unacknowledged and, at least partially unconscious.


Successive generations of officials have supported this policy and successive ministers of various ideological biases have bought into the policy.  It is one of the few consistent themes of post-war industrial policy in Canada and the closest the federal government has come to having a coherent industrial strategy. 


The policy remains unarticulated because it is controversial! If government picks winners then, by definition, it is also picking losers.  Determining where the public and private interests meet is an inherently subjective exercise and open to argument.  

Source: Chosen Instruments, Scott Proudfoot, July, 2000



Where was the country’s wealth going besides lining the pockets of the super rich?  One study indicates the government itself was creating a huge sucking sound; benefiting those riding the trans-generational nepotism and patronage bandwagon.



A CFIB study released in 2003, Wage Watch [discovered that] from 1998 to the first quarter of 2003, the federal public service has increased its workforce by over 20 percent – reversing the cuts made in the mid-1990s and driving overall public sector growth in Canada.  As a result, total federal government wages and salaries increased more than 28 percent from 1998 to 2002. Second, federal employees in public administration enjoyed a 15.1% wage benefit advantage in year 2000 over their private sector counterparts, up from 8.9 percent in 1995.  When benefits are factored in, the total advantage was a whopping 23.3 percent.



The outward signs of this multi-decade backroom agenda are observed in outward foreign direct investment statistics.  Outward FDI, the money Canada’s wealthy invest in other countries, is not only a sign of how healthy the economy is, it’s indicative In smaller nations like our of the number of investment opportunities the rich have in the domestic economy.  The more that is exported means there is less to invest in in the country.    



                                    Source: Statscan



It is inferred these stats have been significantly reduced to conceal the full extent of the embezzlement.



Thirty plus years after the creation of the foreign investment review board that shut out foreigners owning anything substantial of the Canadian economic pie led in part to what this chart depicts and what is reported here:


Should we worry about foreign takeovers?

by Madelaine Drohan

May 9, 2007 


Total foreign direct investment abroad by Canadians soared to $523.3 billion last year, up from $412.2 billion in 2003. 


Is Canada an Imperialist State?

by Cy Gonick

Canadian Dimensions

November/December 2006


[There was a] massive rush of U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) into Canada in the fifties and sixties. […] [Then t]here was … a period of active economic repatriation….  It began in the Trudeau era, which included the establishment in 1971 of the Canadian Development Corporation to encourage Canadian ownership of business enterprises; the monitoring of foreign investment through the 1974 creation of the Foreign Investment Review Agency… 




Not surprisingly, then, Canadian FDI has now reached sizable proportions -- over $400 billion per year, about two-and-a-half times higher than a decade earlier.  Canada ranks among the largest foreign investors in the world in terms of the proportion of GDP devoted to foreign direct investment. 




Direct investment abroad hit $523.3 billion, a gain of $63.7 billion or 13.8% from the end of 2005, the fastest percentage increase since the technology boom of 2000. 

Source: statscan 



Canada’s so-called free market economy was hit with a double-barreled shotgun by the super wealthy beginning in the early 1970s.  PM Trudeau and his successors borrowed vast sums of money from the foreign market, irresponsibly running up the national debt, and closed the borders to inward foreign direct investment to begin a process of reclaiming businesses owned by foreigners and to monopolize the economy for the wealthy’s own benefit and that of their foreign partners.



In time they not only owned all big business – every single major wealth generator – there was nothing left to invest in; and to create more income they exported virtually all of their profits.  If they needed money at home, they simply tapped the Treasury for it.



In terms of the evolution of a profoundly dysfunctional paradigm of governance, the research treatise argues that as the reigns of governance were transferred from one generation to the next the new members of the triangle elite looked at what their parents and grandparents got away with and pushed the envelope of corruption, criminality and impropriety to the point where by the early 1980s the country’s leadership was clinically sociopathic – nothing different than in other countries where total power and vast wealth produced sociopaths and psychopaths.  All officials in institutions of accountability were appointed by the elite so they could protect government officials, DND, the RCMP, CSIS, police and the corporate wealthy from being held to account as they were instruments of sustaining political power consolidation, wealth accumulation and then Chinese de facto governance.  



The embezzlement of Canada’s vast wealth followed; not only to satisfy uncontrollably addictions for more wealth, but also to fund Beijing’s Soviet-style imperialism.  



As a result of how the self-serving interests of the triangle elite evolved over two centuries there was an ideological affinity amongst political and corporate leaders with the communists in the early 1970s and a distaste to the point of hostility for the United States and NATO alliance.   Trudeau gravitated towards Castro and Mao at the height of the Cold War – a heretical foreign policy during that period of world history.


The research discovered that Americans considered Trudeau a communist:


Canada and the World: A History

Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade on Prime Minister Trudeau (1968 – 1984) 


[B]ilateral tensions that had plagued Canada-U.S. relations in the 1960s spilled over into the 1970s and 1980s. Trudeau and American President Richard Nixon, who met for the first time in 1969, did not like each other…




Trudeau was too much of a pacifist and a leftist for the Americans, some of whom considered him little more than a communist. He did nothing to change this perception…




[I]n 1972, Nixon declared that the special relationship between Canada and the United States was dead. "It is time for us to recognize," he stated, "that we have very separate identities; that we have significant differences.



The Sidewinder Report is a rare and valuable window into the secret world of cabinet policy and decision-making on federal and provincial levels over some three and a half decades.   The five months of research that followed the study’s review discovered the root causes for what was claimed in the Federal Court litigation, why not challenging credibility wasn’t fatal to the defendant and why the case was so quickly dismissed.  Chief and associate chief justices were appointed on the basis of their staunch loyalty to the non-transparent dimension of governance; proving to the international community just how failed and rogue the Canadian state was.  Once the court system proved loyal to violations of The Security of Information Act, the Criminal Code and domestically ratified international conventions, there was justification under international law to intervene in Canada’s otherwise sovereign affairs.


The research project closely examined members of the so-called ‘triangle: 



Puppets of Beijing

by Kevin Steel

Western Standard News

May 30, 2005


Back in the days of Chairman Mao, when China's economy was still heavily agrarian and backwardly collectivist, the future prime minister was already planting the seeds of commerce. "I first came to China in 1972, during the waning years of the Cultural Revolution. I was in business then," Martin said, in a Jan. 21 speech in Beijing. At the time, the aspiring businessman was working for Power Corporation of Canada, a firm with $16 billion in revenues controlled by Montreal's powerful Desmarais family. It was clearly an eye-opening experience because he's been making deals in China ever since. Canada Steamship Lines, the gargantuan shipping company Martin purchased from Power Corp. in the eighties, that is now run by his children, has taken advantage of China's cheap workers to build ships. Three CSL container ships were built in the Jiangnan Shipyard, controlled by the People's Liberation Army. A fourth was refurbished in Shanghai. Martin actually owns 35 per cent of China's Tangshan Jinshan Marine Co.



On the evidence there is no room for doubt where PM Martin’s geo-political loyalties were since entering politics:


The former deck-hand who bought the company

Paul Martin will be the first Canadian prime minister with a true, blue-ribbon background in business

by Glen McGregor

Ottawa Citizen

November 4, 2003 



Another avenue the opposition may choose to explore is the links between the new prime minister and his legions of political donors, who have contributed an astounding $11 million to fund Mr. Martin's leadership campaign. […] The donors' list shows that Mr. Martin's support from the business world is transnational, with Chinese billionaire Li Ka Shing and Hong Kong airline operate David TK Ho donors to the Martin leadership campaign, through Canadian companies. 



The country’s most politically affluent and wealthy corporations and families have intimate ties with China’s political elite (and its military industrial complex):  


Canadian Connection

by Mark Steyn

The Western Standard

March 23, 2005


[T]he few who do know [Paul Desmarais] know him as the kingmaker behind Trudeau, Mulroney, Chrétien and Martin.


His brother, Andre Desmarais, is the current Honourary Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Canada Chinese Business Council.  Mr. Desmarais was granted the Order of Canada.  



The nexus between Canadian political power, vast wealth and China’s Canada agenda indisputably resides in particular in the Desmarais family. 



In 1969, Power Corporation took a controlling-share in CSL. On December 2, 1970, Paul Martin, the 32-year old executive assistant to Power Corporation Chief Executive Officer Maurice Strong, was appointed to the CSL board of directors. 





Joint declaration by Canada and China

Government of Canada Privy Council Office

January 20, 2005


The Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Honourable Paul Martin, and the Premier of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China, His Excellency Wen Jiabao, today held bilateral discussions in Beijing.


These discussions have further cemented the relationship between our countries –a mature relationship based on friendship and mutual respect, and one which has brought substantial benefits and increased prosperity for citizens of both our countries.


Address by Prime Minister Paul Martin to the Canada-China Business Council Dinner

January 21, 2005

Beijing, China


It is a great pleasure to have the opportunity to again address the Canada-China Business Council, this time here in Beijing, where so many of you are achieving success. The CCBC embodies the longstanding and rapidly growing commercial connection between China and Canada – a relationship that offers benefits to the people of both nations, and symbolizes our shared desire to pursue and capitalize on the great potential that remains untapped.


Let me begin this evening by saying that I have had a busy and productive time in Beijing. I want to thank my hosts, President Hu and Premier Wen, for their warm welcome, for their gracious hospitality and for our discussions – which were thoughtprovoking, fruitful and candid. Tonight, I’d like to tell you how I see Canada-China relations – now and in the years to come.


I first came to China in 1972, during the waning years of the Cultural Revolution. I was in business then. At that time, China was a mystery to me and to much of the western world, an exotic stranger. I have come back many times since. I’ve watched the evolution and growth of this great country.



Premier Wen Jiabao and Prime Minister Paul Martin Exchange Congratulatory Messages on the Occasion of the 35th Anniversary of the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations Between China and Canada

October 13, 2005


On October 13, Premier Wen Jiabao and Prime Minister Paul Martin exchanged congratulatory messages on the occasion of the 35th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and Canada. 


The Following is the message from Premier Wen Jiabao to Prime Minister Paul Martin: 


On the occasion of the 35th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and Canada, I would like to extend, on behalf of the Chinese Government and people and in my own name, my warmest congratulations to you, and through you to your government and people. 


35 years ago, the joint efforts of the leaders of the two countries opened a historic chapter in China-Canada relations. The past 35 years witnessed the rapid development of bilateral relations, featuring frequent exchanges at all levels, fruitful results in cooperation in areas ranging from economy and trade to science and technology, education and culture, as well as close consultations and coordination on major international and regional issues. 


During President HU Jintao's state visit to Canada not long ago, the two sides agreed to upgrade the relationship to a level of strategic partnership, which will open up even broader prospects for the development of our bilateral relations. This move meets the needs of the common interests and the wishes of the two peoples, and also makes an important contribution to the stability and prosperity of the Asia-Pacific region. We would like to make use of this opportunity to work together with the Canadian side to further the bilateral cooperation in all areas and constantly enrich and deepen China-Canada strategic partnership. 



Added to The Sidewinder Report about ‘triangle’ operators facilitating the institutionalization of corruption and criminality in Canada is this:


Ottawa and Beijing: a Sad Story

by Robin Mathews

Asia Pacific Post 



A July 2003, U.S. Federal Research Division, Library of congress report called “Asian Criminal and Terrorist Activity in Canada, 1999-2002,” is very clear on the matter. It reports that “Ethnic Chinese triads, gangs, and syndicates have set up vast operations in Canada and constitute the greatest criminal threats in Canada. These Asian groups are involved in a wide variety of criminal activities, primarily in larger population centers.” (p. 38)



During the closing event of the Liberal Party Convention on December 2, 2006, PM Chrétien confessed to government's trans-ideological commitment to embedding Chinese interests in the fabric of Canadian society.  It resulted because of the …  



…work started in 1970 by Pierre Trudeau, followed by Brian Mulroney, by Paul Martin and by myself.  




[O]ne day in front of thousands of people in the Great Hall in Beijing, [the] Premier … said “Canada is the best friend of China”.



The multi-decade marriage between the two countries led to the creation of special communication channels between Beijing’s high command and its loyal followers of its Canadian sovereignty-sharing foreign policy.  In addition to face-to-face and synergistic interaction, the rich, powerful and Chinese decided to pump unfiltered content from China straight into Canada. 


Channels of distortion allowed in Canada

Asian Pacific Post

January 10, 2007


Over Christmas and without much ado, the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), our guardian of the airwaves, approved nine Chinese state-run television networks to broadcast their shows in Canada. The networks called the ‘Great Wall Package” are wholly-owned by China Central Television, the main state-run television network in China. 


The nine channels will carry news, sports and entertainment programming in several Chinese dialects to capitalize on Canada’s rapidly growing Chinese-speaking market. 


The networks’ journalists and producers are overseen in China by the China Radio Film and Television group, which describes itself as “an important mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee, an important cultural battlefield for the CCP and our country”.


Controversial Chinese TV Seeks Spot in Canada

by Jason Loftus

Epoch Times

February 23, 2006


The Canadian cable and media giant Rogers Communication is facing growing criticism over its efforts to bring to Canada nine Chinese-language television networks from mainland China, dubbed the "Great Wall" package.  Critics say the channels, all state-run by the Chinese communist regime, are simply propaganda organs of the ruling communist party and would drown out homegrown and independent Chinese TV. Rogers, on the other hand, has lauded the stations for their entertainment and cultural programming, downplaying the propaganda element and saying the stations will offer Chinese-Canadians more choice. 




Loyal Mouthpieces 


The China Radio Film and Television Group, which oversees all nine of the applicant channels, describes itself as "an important mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee, an important cultural battlefield for the CCP and our country." China Central Television, which is among the nine channels, also describes itself as a mouthpiece of the communist party. 


The application by China Central Television and the others to broadcast on Canada's airwaves is in line, then, with orders Chinese chairman Hu Jintao gave to a conference on Party propaganda and ideology in December 2003. 


"You should continue to see the strengthening and improving of our propaganda exports as a strategic mission, one wed to the battle of propaganda and ideology," he said. 


Other officials have echoed Hu's statements in speeches to China's media brass. 


"Radio, film, and television propaganda overseas is an essential and critical part of our Party's foreign propaganda," Tian Jin, deputy director of the State Administration for Radio Film and Television, told a conference on overseas media strategy. "It is a global and strategic undertaking in service of the Party and the nation." 


But in gaining access to foreign airwaves, the communist party seems to have learned overt propaganda won't work. That's why culture has become a cornerstone of the propaganda effort.  





Chinese TV in Canada opens door to propaganda

by Elaine Xie

Winnipeg Free Press

January 14, 2007


[T]he Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission quietly released a long-awaited decision, approving nine controversial state-run television channels from China for broadcast on Canada's digital cable network.



You will recall the days immediately preceding the filing of the election writ in September 2008.  One would think Harper would have used Ottawa as his platform or returned to his Calgary riding to formally announce his candidacy.   Instead, and most peculiar when not contextualized in terms of Chinese joint-sovereignty, was what he did instead:


Tories a safe choice for middle-class families: Harper

by Andrew Mayeda

The Gazette

September 8, 2008


RICHMOND, B.C.  Harper visited the picturesque home of Edwin and Fei Huang, a young Chinese-Canadian family whom the Conservatives said have benefited from government policies… 


Prime Minister Stephen Harper kicks off his federal election campaign at the residence of Edwin Wang in Richmond, B.C., Monday morning. Picture left to right are Xinoau He, Fei Chen, her 14-month-old son Eric Wang and Harper.  Photograph by Sam Leung/Vancouver Province 




Conservative Party Leader Stephen Harper talks with the Huang family, father Edwin Huang, 14-month-old Eric, four-year-old Renee and mother Fei Chen, during a campaign photo-op at their home in Richmond, B.C., Monday Sept. 8, 2008. (Tom Hanson/The Canadian Press)  




Richmond is western Canada’s premier hub for Chinese interests in western Canada.  Here are the city’s demographic facts and figures:



The most commonly reported ethnic origin in Richmond is Chinese, with 78,790 people or 45 percent of the City’s population having this background. This proportion has grown from 34% in 1996 and 40% in 2001. The next ten most common ethnic origins are shown in the table below. The ethnic origins that have grown the most in recent years are Chinese, Filipino and East Indian. […]  The predominant minority group in Richmond is Chinese, at 44% of the total population (the highest proportion in Canada by a wide margin). 

                 Chinese                                                                   78,790

                 English                                                                    23,945

                 Scottish                                                                   16,935

                 Canadian                                                                 15,475

                 East Indian                                                              12,390


                 Total Population                                                    173,570 





In many instances politicians, owners and executives of the largest companies and principals of banks and investment firms in the country are members of other corporate boards and of private sector associations.  The research treatise argues the following about assessing culpability under The Security of Information Act:



To determine how connected to a person is to and knowledgeable about a country’s governing faction and the super wealthy, an analysis needs to look closely not only at nepotism and patronage driven appointments, but also and as importantly with whom an individual is linked to through associations, organizations and societies.  Since national, regional and local communities are comprised of social networks in and through which the agendas and business of government and corporate activity are conducted and advanced, discovering who are on boards reveals what the network is capable of procuring, pursuing, protecting and achieving because of interlinking spheres of control and influence.  Since membership in Canada’s federal, provincial and municipal governments and the administration of justice are all tightly controlled through the micro-management of upward mobility opportunities, who someone is linked to through these associations betrays what and how much he or she knows about and contributed to the non-transparent constituent of governance.



In addition to the public sector and administration of justice as described supra, many of Canada’s largest corporations, all banks and most investment firms have now being edified; creating in the private sector what was achieved in the public sector and the administration of justice’s three constituents (Bench, Bar and law enforcement) during the last two years.  A collective awareness is essential for several reasons, and during that process is delivered formal notice of my clients’ intention to effect fundamental structural reform of governance and where in the private sector there is complicity and loyalty to the China agenda changes in ownership, management and operations.  



If you have any questions or concerns, do not hesitate to contact me.  Part II will be delivered in due course.  


Best regards,

Brad Kempo B.A. LL.B.

Barrister & Solicitor [Alberta, Inactive] 



Make a Free Website with Yola.