Written by David E.H. Smith   

Re; The recently proposed C-CI Treaty's “penalty protection”, promotion of Investors' Dividends, the Alberta Securities Commission Treaty Input and The W.A.D. Accord, et al.

Regarding the foreign investor who many of the executives of Canada's most lucrative corporations covet and are continuing to try to render beholden to their corporations, particularly in the development of the natural resources that are continuing to be found in Canada, and who said:

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

I think that you will agree that the aforementioned "sucking up" to the "coveted" investor with the offer of privileged arrangements in the absence of, or, with the deliberate deprivation of information, not only increases the vulnerability of the "coveted" investor and the shareholders of their investments in the natural resource companies in Canada, but, the deprivation of the information greatly increases the vulnerability of Canadian investors, as well.

In the investment industry there is no substitute for good, solid information. The aforementioned "sucking up" that the "coveted" foreign investor is referring to are the privileged arrangements that the "coveted" foreign investor is being offered by elements within corporate Canada, particularly, their western chapters, as a substitute for good, solid information. The deliberate deprivation of the "coveted" foreign investor of the information makes him, his associates and their shareholders vulnerable. As a consequence of being deprived of the information some Canadians and Europeans are not surprised that the "coveted" foreign investor has insisted upon remedies that would render him harmless. Hence, the objectionable "remedy" in the Canada-China Investment Treaty (C-CIT, aka; FIPA).

Part of the information that the "coveted" foreign investor, and others, are being deprived and of which his shareholders depend upon, provides the basis for The Compensation that is embodied in The W.A.D. Accord. The Accord has raised some due diligence questions for all of the potential investors who have suggested that they have an interest in investing in the development of the aforementioned Canadian natural resources and its financing.

For those who are still not familiar with The WAD Accord (aka; The Australian Question), or, its more recent developments, The Accord asks if the particular amount of money in The Compensation to be paid annually (and/or, retroactively) to those who have been deprived of the information in The Accord, is adequate. And, if you are not familiar with how The WAD Accord is continuing to effect your endeavors & those of the shareholders, then you might consider obtaining a copy of The WAD Accord. As the less comprehensive version of The Accord is a matter of the public record, it can be accessed directly by way of the submission:

"Towards a More Informed Opinion regarding the Environmental Impact & Context of the NGP (Pipeline), et al".*

If you have any difficulty accessing The WAD Accord that is embodied in the aforementioned submission, then let me know and I can provide it to you.
The WAD Accord has raised some due diligence questions; some of them are:
1) what is a reasonable amount for the "coveted" foreign investor, the Canadian shareholders and others to pay as their portion of the Compensation; annually and retroactively?
2) how can the "coveted" foreign investor and perhaps others exculpate themselves from having to pay their portion of the Compensation?
3) how can the "coveted" foreign investor minimize the deprivation of the information as it effects his investments in Canada and via the Canada-China Investment Treaty? That is to say, what are the various different mechanisms for making the legitimate improvements to the Treaty without being penalized for bringing them up for the consideration of the other potential Canadian and potential Chinese investors, or, others?
4) how will the continuing deprivation of the aforementioned information regarding The WAD Accord, et al, continue to adversely effect the security of short and long term investments in Canada's natural resource sector as demonstrated by:
a) the growing protests, such as; “Idle No More” and acts of “civil disobedience”, etc. in Canada,
b) the arrangements involved with Native Canadian self-governance and land claims settlements, etc.,
c) sovereignty association to avoid the "inhumanity” in the basis for The WAD Accord and thus, eliminate the need to be exculpated (ie. at what point is moving to a sovereign Quebec, or, elsewhere, a prudent investment?)
and
d) the less than "democratic" element that is evolving in Canada, particularly in western Canada?
and
5) do you understand that as consequence of the "coveted" foreign investor's due diligence research that he, the shareholders and the others are "reluctant" to be associated with those Canadians who are facing the charges for their deprivation of the aforementioned information, such as:
a) depraved indifference,
b) reckless endangerment,
c) malicious intent
d) “deliberate ignorance”
and
e) etc.?
6) do the shareholders support the "coveted" foreign investor's disdain for the corporate Canada's representatives in the federal government who are trying to off load the encumbrances, liabilities, and other, hidden costs of some greatly improvable treaties which have very questionable intents, such as the Canadian government's treaties with Native Canadians, by introducing even more contentious, but, superseding treaties such as the Canada-China Investment Treaty to "protect" some privileged Canadian taxpayers and some investors? How much do you think it will cost the shareholders to cover the costs of re-opening the existing non WAD Accord treaties and re-negotiating the treaties with the 610+ Native communities across Canada in order to reconcile the previous, expedient arrangements of the precursor of what has become corporate Canada? How long do you think these due diligence negotiations will take before the aforementioned, Canadian natural resources can be ethically extracted, transported to our ports and borders for their sale to the global market? Will the extraction, transportation, sale, etc. of Canada's natural resources be sufficient to cover the other hidden costs of the aforementioned natural resources developments, as well?
and
7) et al?

Regardless, the "coveted" foreign investor, and, perhaps others, as well, is very concerned about being penalized for his need to obtain the due diligence information that you, he and others are being deprived of via corporate Canada's "facial", but, dangerous attempt to circumvent any of the encumbrances/liabilities presented by the existing "arrangements", and/or, treaties, that the government of Canada has made on behalf of corporate Canada, and/or, others, by way of the creation of the superseding Canada-China Investment Treaty.

As you and the shareholders are probably as concerned as the "coveted" foreign investor is regarding the continuation of being deprived of the aforementioned information about the basis of The Compensation that is embodied in The WAD Accord and other areas of the information deprivation that will continue to prevent you and the shareholders from making the financial and ethical decisions that enable you to maximize the value of your investments, you can learn more about The WAD Accord and how you can show your support for the "coveted" foreign investor's discontent with corporate Canada and their (corporate Canada's) representatives in Ottawa without being penalized by contacting me at the enclosed address, or, by discussing the above with your contacts with the government of China.

And, finally, would you prefer that the shareholders have equal access to the information in this letter, the aforementioned submission, etc., or, do you prefer that the information will continue to be used by privileged groups who can use the deprivation of the information for their exclusive profit? And, as I asked Canadian Security Intelligence Service and other organizations, which groups do you think would like to use the aforementioned information in order to further destabilize the global economy that corporate Canada is trying to increase its benefits from? And, do you have any preferences as to the location of the country where you, stock brokers, shareholders and others can attend tax write-off seminars** in order to learn more about the above and how the information will continue to effect the financial well being of you and the shareholders? Is there a particular winter month that you would prefer to get away to attend the aforementioned seminars?

I am not sure if I agree with those potential participants who have suggested that the deprivation of the information and the penalties in the C-CITreaty for improving the access to the prerequisite information is the culmination of corporate Canada's contribution to the global arrangements and demonstrates corporate Canada's desire and intent to close “their gates to their castle Canada” to protect their privileged few members from an effective "democracy" and its "costs". And, while a great deal has been accomplished in the research and the dissemination of the aforementioned information to most of the potential participants who have suggested an interest in developing the aforementioned natural resources, etc., there is more to be done. By showing your support of the "coveted" foreign investor you can obtain more of the due diligence information and the alternatives that are shaping, both; the "coveted" foreign investor's global arrangement of investments and the shareholders' arrangements, you can help eliminate, amongst other things, the "potential" for insider trading based upon the aforementioned information that substitutes good, solid information with "the sucking up", once and for all.

Incidentally, have you discussed with your contacts in China (and perhaps Europe) and the potential shareholders/investors who are interested in the development of the natural resources that are continuing to be found in Alberta and Canada, the uncertainty and the potential for further loss of profits that are being caused by the penalties for trying improving the recent version of China-Canada Investment Treaty (C-CIT, aka; FIPPA) and the recent attempts to enable the C-CI Treaty to supersede existing treaties, such as the existing treaties with Native Canadians. That is to say that the aforementioned penalties and attempts to supersede threatens to expose the legal , but, “unconscionable” intent of “The Net Effect” arrangements whereby the taxpayers are penalized for attempting to render themselves informed and harmless while the investors/shareholders increase their “profits” the more that the taxpayers, et al, attempt to legitimately obtain the aforementioned information in order to improve China-Canada Investment Treaty (C-CIT), et al.

Do you think that some of the potential domestic & foreign investors may not realize that the means exist to ascertain whether the financial penalties paid by Canadian taxpayers for allegedly criticizing, &/or, improving the C-CI Treaty, et al, are just another way of unethically, and perhaps, illegally raising the value of the investors' natural resource, et al, stock and their dividends' at the expense of the other concerned parties? Similarly, what do you think are the various different ways to determine whether the legitimate, due diligence questions that the concerned parties are, & will be, asking you & some of the other financial, &/or, government institutions, are being answered in order that the potentially penalized individuals can make more informed opinions & decisions regarding the processes, procedures, arrangements, et al, that are being made by the type of democracy that is evolving in Canada in the context of the global economy? What are the new penalties for the abuse of the aforementioned “higher dividends penalties”? Has the primary, direct beneficiary of the aforementioned natural resource developments corporate Alberta & Canada set aside adequate funds to pay for the investigation, prosecution, etc. of the alleged “higher dividend abusers”? How much do you think is a reasonable amount to set aside for the investigations, prosecutions, etc. of these alleged “higher dividend abuser” crimes given that many other areas of financing the investigations, prosecutions, etc. of other crimes have been reduced to the point of almost legalizing the alleged crimes, or, at least, make them profitable? What do you think is a reasonable amount of time before the aforementioned institutions get back to you with the aforementioned information in order that you can consider their information/proposal/arrangements & thus, enable you to form the basis of more informed opinions & decisions?

And, perhaps more importantly, what do you think is a reasonable amount of time before you & the aforementioned institutions get back to me & the shareholders who will potentially be operating in the area of your commission, with the aforementioned information in order that we can consider the information/proposal/arrangements from all of the relevant institution, & thus, enable us to form the basis of more informed opinions, decisions & more informed questions?

In conclusion, Mr. Rice, given the large impact that the recently proposed C-CI Treaty will have upon the economy and investments in Alberta, I was wondering how much input did your Alberta Securities Commission have bringing about the penalties for criticizing, challenging, &/or, improving the Treaty?
And, given the overwhelming stake that the potential domestic and foreign investors may have in the natural resources based companies that are under the provincial jurisdiction of your securities commission,
would you please share with me how the penalties in the recently proposed Canada-China Investment Treaty can:
1) protect the aforementioned potential investors from the existing treaties that the government of Canada has with Native communities located in Alberta, et al,
and
2) promote the value of these investments and increase the investors' dividends?

Regardless, I'll inform the government of China, et al, that you have received the enclosed information and legitimate questions. I can also convey to the government of China, et al; 1) your interest in clarifying your concerns regarding the penalties that may eliminate value of “The Net Effect”, 2) your willingness to consider the alternatives that can greatly appreciate the level investments in the present and future projects that are handled by your province's securities commission and 3) et al. On the other hand, Mr. Rice, what do you think is a reasonable portion for your investors to contribute to the aforementioned Compensation? That is to say; the portion that your investors/shareholders contributes to The Compensation will encumber and marginalize “The Net Effect” while your investors take their capital elsewhere.

I look forward to reading about your understanding of the above concerns and your answers to
the enclosed questions.

Sincerely,

David E.H. Smith
- Researcher
-"Qui tam...”

P.S. Do you agree with those who have suggested that the China National Offshore Oil Corporation's (CNOOC) purchase of Alberta based Nexen Co. is an important prerequisite that enables corporate China to sue the dividend poor Canadian taxpayers for their continuing to challenge the corporate backers of the C-CI Treaty & their corporate attempts to illegitimize the aforementioned human rights & environmental rights issues that are
legitimate prior to The Treaty & evade the legitimacy of these rights by superseding &
punishing Canadian voters by way of The C-CI Treaty.

* "Towards a More Informed Opinion regarding the Environmental Impact & Context of the NGP (Pipeline), et al" (Researched & Submitted by D.E.H.S., July 24, 2012 to the Enbridge Co.'s NGP Joint Review Panel) that contains, amongst other things, The W.A.D. Accord.
The submission can be accessed via the Internet by contacting:

Ms. Colette Spagnuolo,
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Process Advisor, Northern Gateway Project
(22nd Floor, 160 Elgin St. Ottawa ON K1A 0H3)
regarding:
Public Registry; File #A43076

**tax write-off seminars - see; "Towards a More Informed Opinion..." Canadians might consider writing to, as opposed to "talking" to, the politicians who are living in you constituencies to get them to walk you through the process that they, the politicians, are utilizing to set up the necessary mechanisms for handling your families travel costs, etc. to take you to the aforementioned information that they have been depriving you of for too long.

For more Info. & Questions re; The Relationship between Human (Nature) Rights & Economics in the C-CITreaty, the CETAgreement, et al, via The WAD Accord,
see; Facebook; David Smith, Sidney, BC