Corruption & Whistleblowers

Systemic Third-Party Influence in Canadian Institutions

Click to Sign the Petition.

December 19th, 2023

My Continued and Unfruitful Attempts to Find Safe Avenue

In an absence of legal aid and customary safe avenue through police, systemic obstruction of justice in the courts, and continued online and on-heels mischief including compromised privacy, I escalated to various public sector agencies. These include the Canadian Judicial Council ("CJC"), the Office of the Auditor General, the NS Police Complaints Commissioner ("POLCOM"), and the Office of the Ethics Commissioner ("CIEC"). CJC responded, reassigning my action number to "23-666" and refusing to process the file. POLCOM, having been likewise served with hard evidence concerning obstruction in justice, this time pursuant to CCC 137, also refused to process the file. These accounts are as unprecedented as the original affidavit evidence. I received no response from the remaining two agencies as of yet (December 2023). The Canadian Bar Association, best described as an advocacy group, advised that it does not "collaborate with litigants", or accept "intervention proposals from the public". I was instead a litigant seeking intervention. I quoted their rules alongside a quote form their former Director (Nov 22 Affidavit, page 278).

A Cavalcade of Corruption

Contemporary partisan mudslinging has evolved from complaints concerning discretionary (but lawful) allocations of Canadian taxpayer money, to ongoing allegations of serious federal criminal offenses committed by public servants and government agencies. I cite this because it aligns with the testimony on this website, although there are caveats. Given their complaints concerning procedural obstructions and lack of support through policing agencies, the frustration these MPs express appears to mirror my own.

Am I thus consoled by the plethora of Conservative MPs who enthusiastically call out various scandals involving government agencies and/or government officials? Likewise, am I confident that a new government, presumably led by Mr. Pierre Poilievre, will help pave the way to fixing the issues presented on this website? These questions can be approached in various angles. To begin with, I can state that they have been aware of this matter since mid 2022, and likely much earlier than that. I take note that while agency and constituency are material considerations, the cases these MPs vigorously cite on social have taken place beyond their ridings. Likewise, Public Servants are humans before they are government employees. Whereas these MPs have concerned themselves with state scandals generally speaking, I found it worth considering that they might venture an interest in this one.

Please review the contents on this website to learn about this scandal, if you have not done so already.

When my current MP’s assistant advised no consideration would be given beyond the Canadian Judicial Council (which likewise dismissed my outreach), I approached both Conservative and NDP MPs, and the Senate. Notwithstanding the customary framework of constituency districts, I had not received any reply, let alone any courtesy response, from any of the parties contacted, including those expected to yield a courtesy response by means of their zeal in addressing other scandalous matters. Said outreach is included in Affidavit records. The Parliament and the Senate are aware, and have been for some time.

It's all (in) an Act

In fairness to the Public Servants contacted, and in consideration of why they may have neglected to intervene, I weigh a reasonable balance of probabilities. Adjudicative and public service agencies are expected to execute the roles they were designed for. I am likewise mindful that soliciting aid from a Parliamentarian is beyond the parameters of a request they might be expected to action. Yet, I am not of the opinion that it would be suitable for Public Servants to use constituency or similar technical barriers as an excuse to prevent them from acting like decent human beings in events where they might be in position to blow whistles. That said, MPs are empowered to act in such circumstances by law, under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (S.C. 2005, c. 46) (the "Public Servants Act"), and the Conflict of Interest Act (S.C. 2006, c. 9, s. 2) (the "COI Act"). My reference begins at section 16(1) of the Public Servants Act, whereas any public servant may act as a whistleblower while being insulated from reprisal (s. 19).

Bill C-290 seeks to introduce amendments to the aforementioned two Acts. With respect to s. 16(1), Bill C-290 revises the Public Servants Act by including Former Public Servants to the initial paragraph, and removing the terms "substantial and specific danger" in subsection (b) with, "a danger", making the verbiage more flexible (link).

Disclosures which are not considered urgent are made to the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner (https://psic-ispc.gc.ca/en), pursuant to sections 12 through 14 in the Public Servants Act as shown.

Per s. 33(1) in the Public Servants Act, any individual can approach the Commissioner, who is empowered to begin an investigation, as is the case with the Office of the Auditor General.

An important proposed revision in Bill C-290 concerns the removal of section 23 of the Public Servants Act as shown below in relation to s. 33(1). The removal of s. 23 clause rightly assumes acts of wrongdoing can be limited to specific departments, agencies, and/or offices, whereas the current rule as written might enable a perpetrator to block further investigative efforts. S. 23 is as follows:

The COI Act is of equal relevance in review of systemic obstructions in justice concerning this matter and the conduct of state-sponsored mischief, inexorably attributed to offshore and domestic CAF contractors. The following statutes apply.

Perspectives on Systemic Third-Party Influence

Corruption is cemented in the tapestry of human political history. Yet, we can explore a different question concerning the existence of systemic third-party influence in Canada. Aside from painful events which would reasonably cause a Citizen to lose faith in their country’s institutions, one can explore realpolitik objectively. Can a case be made that Canada’s Parliamentary system, originally authentic and robust, is suffused with third-party interests? I believe a case can be made aside from the evidence in my Affidavits, and aside from the fact that UN/WEF declarations which have stated as much. We can explore an inference of likelihood considering a reflection on sociopolitical realities.

Canada’s system of Parliament is a social construct like any other system of governance. Social constructs arise from our basic tribal need and are developed through prevailing beliefs and values, as measured against practical circumstances. These of course evolve over time. Canada’s basic system of governance was formed 156 years ago in the Victorian era. The Charter, although having undergone iterative changes, has historical roots dating much earlier than that. Our current era presents us with entirely different conditions, and an entirely different set of commonly-accepted philosophical assumptions and values. There is no reasonable defense in normalcy bias as it relates to the direction of Canadian politics.

20th Century academic Michel Foucault understood tribalism in a contemporary postmodern context as it relates to power supplanting categorical truths (ie., the concept of inalienable rights). According to Foucault, society is shaped by influential networks of people disseminating power, based on ideological positions they ascribe to be relevant by way of consensus. When irreconcilable conflicts emerge and one group holds more clout than another, the result is an ideological caste system. Examples of institutional ideological bias are furnished in my Q/A II page. Likewise, it is sometimes easier to locate like-minded people online via refined search than in one's neighborhood. Foucault might then argue the most cohesive networks are international networks. Over 200 human rights groups had decried the 2019 union of the UN and the World Economic Forum shortly following its promulgation. Gonzalo Berron of the Transnational Institute warned that "it moves the world dangerously close to a privatized and undemocratic global governance".

Postmodern assumptions do not recognize independently objective categories such God, metaphysics, or absolute truths. They instead assume that these categories are created by people. Thus, human rights are a myth in the objective sense. Human rights in a postmodern context are instead "good social policies" which are deliberated in boardrooms, and are likewise subject to change. Bill Gates for instance might decide another's intrinsic worth, in collaboration with Sam Altman, Elon Musk, or any other of their boardroom buddies, regardless of what is written in a Charter. Recently, top WEF Advisor Dr. Yuval Noah Harari envisioned a "useless class", along with decrying an objective basis of law and human rights. Dr. Yuval is an avowed transhumanist, as are most stakeholders in positions of influence today. A concept of inalienable rights requires consideration of where and how those inalienable rights are derived. Case in point, John Locke, the father of the original Charter idea, held that inalienable rights were conferred by God. Contemporary leaders no longer hold this position, by and large. Beliefs and values matter.

Whereas Canada's Constitution remains the law of the land, the dichotomy introduced by postmodern assumptions creates a nutrient-rich environment for corruption and the prejudicial application of law (see Bill of Rights, section 2(e)) when ideological conflicts arise. Postmodern technocrats hate Constitutional frameworks because they ascribe to categorical truths they believe should be subject to change. In 2019, the UN/WEF began calling for a "new social contract", and a "re-imagining" of human society from the ground-up. Whether or not the human race is willing to adopt a reconfigured social contract (globally) in accord with the UN/WEF agenda remains the political question of our day, and likewise, the manner by which rank-and-file Citizens are able to participate in those issues.

Is it thus conceivable that a western government like Canada could utilize its agencies and resources to persecute and commit hate crimes against segments of its population? Based on the foregoing, yes, in view of a perceived threat to an established vision or ideological principle. The same happened in the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, Nazi Germany, and in most every century prior in human history in one form or another. It's called social engineering. Social engineering occurs as a means to facilitate mandates which might seem controversial to the public at face value. When the Ottawa Citizen reports CAF expenditures in excess of $10 million for social listening technologies to profile Canadian Citizens, and former CAF leaders claim our defense forces have been repurposed as information warfare agents vectored towards our Citizenry, Canadians should take heed.

Likewise, the same principles apply concerning covert programs designed to meet measurable objectives which may conflict with Constitutional law. Some authors including former MPs have suggested this has been happening for decades in North America. The live testing of 4IR technologies for a perceived greater good would be one such example, and it would by no means be a historical outlier in principle.

In short, the key to understanding the reasoning behind systemic corruption in state and state-sponsored institutions involves an understanding of prevailing philosophical assumptions, beliefs, values, goals, and culture, all of which are markedly different today than they were ten years ago, and most certainly different than they were in the 20th century, for those old enough to recall. The systemic corruption suffused in headlines today, and in this matter, are a result of new values conflicting with legacy systems.