Leaked Government Document: Lloyd Axworthy, The Chinese Militarization of Canada


February 19, 2009

The University of Winnipeg
515 Portage Avenue
Winnipeg, MB R3B 2E9

Attention: Valerie Gilroy, Counsel

Dear Madam:

Re: Formal Complaint Against Lloyd Axworthy, President & Vice-Chancellor

This is a formal disciplinary complaint against the above-captioned for conduct that brings the integrity of the University into serious disrepute; and which warrants his dismissal with cause from the University executive.

The evidence on which the complaint is based has been posted on a password protected website:

Web address: coalition.synthasite.com
Login: reform
Password: accountability

After reading the Introduction, use the link entitled “Website Navigation” to access the table of contents.  It was organized in a manner that provides a step-by-step understanding of all domestic and geo-political dimensions.   The observations, inferences and conclusions articulated therein have been extensively reviewed and deemed accurate and credible by a plethora of interested parties within the international community – who are identified with specificity on the website. 

Mr. Axworthy’s political career consists of being a Cabinet Minister as follows:

  • Minister of Foreign Affairs (1996.01.25 – 2000.10.16)
  • Minister of Labour (1993.11.04 – 1995.02.21)
  • Minister of Employment and Immigration (1993.11.04 – 1996.01.24)
  • Minister of Western Economic Diversification (1993.11.04 – 1996.01.24)
  • Minister of Transport (1983.08.12 – 1984.09.16)
  • Minister responsible for the Status of Women (1980.03.03 – 1981.09.21)
  • Minister of Employment and Immigration (1980.03.03 – 1983.08.11)

He was also a member of various parliamentary committees:


  • Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade (1991.05.13 – 1993.09.08) 
  • Special Committee on the Peace Process in Central America (1986.09.30 – 1988.10.01) 


  • Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade (1991.05.13 – 1993.09.08) 
  • Subcommittee on Arms Export of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade (1991.05.13 – 1993.09.08) 
  • Subcommittee on Development and Human rights of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade  (1991.05.13 – 1993.09.08)
  • Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade (1989.04.03 – 1991.05.12)
  • Subcommittee on International Debt of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade   (1989.04.03 – 1991.05.12)
  • Subcommittee on NORAD of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International trade (1989.04.03 – 1991.05.12)
  • Special Committee on the Peace Process in Central America (1986.09.30 – 1988.10.01)
  • Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade  (1986.09.30 – 1988.10.01)
  • Standing Committee on Agriculture (1984.11.05 – 1986.08.28)
  • Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade  (1984.11.05 – 1986.08.28) 
  • Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence (1984.11.05 – 1986.08.28)
  • Standing Committee on Regional Development (1984.11.05 – 1986.08.28) 
  • Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs (1979.10.09 – 1979.12.14)
  • Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs (1979.10.09 – 1979.12.14)
  • Standing Committee on Transport and Communications (1979.10.09 – 1979.12.14) 

Committees – Joint, Member

  • Special Joint Committee on Canada’s International Relations (1984.11.05 – 1986.08.28) 

This is general information available to the public on him:

When the Liberals returned to power in 1993 under the leadership of Jean Chrétien, Axworthy became one of the most important Cabinet ministers. After the election, he was given responsibility for the vast new Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC), and launched a major overhaul of employment insurance.

Axworthy’s true interest was in international relations, and in a 1996 cabinet shuffle, he became Minister of Foreign Affairs. Axworthy excelled in this position, becoming a strong advocate of Canada’s tradition of multilateralism. His greatest success was the Ottawa Treaty, an international treaty to ban anti-personnel land mines. He also campaigned against the use of child soldiers and the international trade in light weapons.

Source: wikipedia.com

These are some of the reviews on his book Navigating a New World: Canada’s Global Future:

Axworthy’s book chronicles his efforts to create a global “soft power” movement during his term as Canada’s foreign minister from 1996 to 2000 and since becoming director of the Liu Institute for Global Issues at the University of British Columbia. He defines soft power as a “revolutionary” mix of foreign aid, multilateral diplomacy, and simple persuasion to achieve change in war-torn areas like Uganda and Afghanistan. Axworthy devotes much of his book to vivid behind-the-scenes accounts of his efforts pursuing this agenda, including his work on the 1999 land-mine treaty and the International Criminal Court. Axworthy isn’t entirely impartial; this is, after all, a memoir. He ignores some key controversies from his watch, like Canada’s nuclear assistance to China’s repressive regime and Ottawa’s efforts to undermine UN protections for indigenous peoples. Nonetheless, Axworthy’s book is a good read for anyone interested in an insider’s critical view of some of the key flashpoints and ongoing crises of the post-Cold War world.


“Axworthy…charted Canada’s place in the world in the latter [decades] of the 20th century, and in so doing defined new possibilities for [our] country…. Axworthy’s signal contribution [as foreign minister] was to revive the sense of Canadian internationalism …


“Mr. Axworthy has redefined diplomacy. He has shaped a global society where the safety of the individual is at the center of international priorities.

The evidence on which this disciplinary complaint is based reveals that these perceptions have fallen victim to what my research calls “democratic respectability façade generation”.  It is a cleverly constructed image of Canada as a mature and healthy democracy behind which all manner of illegality, unconstitutional conduct, corruption, human rights violations and international law infringements are systemically perpetuated.  There has been multi-decade, multi-institutional participation. 

Mr. Axworthy is also Senior Associate at the Liu Institute for Global Issues – on the evidence a think tank with Chinese de facto governance and militarization agendas.

The Institute’s Namesake is Dr. Jieh Jow Liou: indicated on the Institute’s website to be

“a distinguished international businessman, political figure and philanthropist. [He] is dedicated to fostering greater understanding globally, and is a strong believer in the importance of education as a basis for dialogue and cooperation between nations. Dr. Liou and The Liu Foundation generously contributed the major portion of support for establishing UBC’s Liu Institute. The Liu Institute for Global Issues was established in September 2000.

Said of him during the 1995 awarding of a Honourary Doctorate is the following:

Mr. Chancellor, working for harmony, understanding and co-operation between cultures and nations creates a priceless gift for our world and an important legacy for future generations. Liou Jieh Jow is well-known and respected internationally for his accomplishments in three arenas: politics, business and philanthropy. He has excelled in all because of his strong commitment to developing understanding and good will between different peoples and countries. Liou Jieh Jow was educated at the National Taiwan University, where he earned a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science. This helped to prepare him for a political career that saw him serve as a member of the National Assembly of the Republic of China from 1969 to 1991. In 1986 he was elected to the Presidium, a small group of senior Assembly members.

On the evidence he is a high-ranking member of China’s military and/or intelligence establishment; his emigration here arranged jointly by the Chinese and Canadian governments to become a constituent of what is now a foreign army on our soil of some one million (See analysis in Submission One on the website).

Mr. Axworthy’s very recent views – when reinterpreted through the research’s prism of findings – aids in the perpetuation of Canada’s publicly unaware paradigm of governance – a dimension of which involves a seething hostility for all things American (Submission One):

Lloyd Axworthy on the Bush legacy: Injustice that crossed the 49th Parallel

National Post

November 27, 2008

As the Bush administration wends its way to a weary end, Canadians might be surprised and more than a little dismayed to know just how deeply many of our own basic values have been affected and our policies altered during the past eight years. For the Bush legacy does indeed reach north of the 49th Parallel and exerts a major drag on our present-day ability to adapt to a rapidly changing global landscape and to a very different political leadership in the United States.


The Bush administration’s policies have also served to deflect Canada from its historic role as a peacemaker.

There is a profound ideological-based bias operating here.  He knows how much of a staunch coalition partner the former President was.  His diplomacy (fully documented on the website) was tenacious, on occasion coercive; and always resolute – staying on message about the need for Canada’s rich and powerful to decouple the country from China’s global sphere of control and influence and evict the Beijing leadership’s army from Canadian territory.  His remarks are also to be assessed in light of what happened during the first full day of the Beijing Olympics and other arrogant belligerence as documented.  They are considered to be implicitly endorsing that event – one which confirmed the ever-increasing threat level China poses in terms of seeking global hegemony with Canada as one of its primary partners.

Another speech corroborates what the evidence indicates is his post-Cabinet agenda and bias – ones that aggressively protect and advance the country’s non-transparent constituent of governance and relationship with the PRC:

Time to redefine ties to US.

by Lloyd Axworthy


The reality is that we are dealing with an American political system currently steeped in the ideology of “empire.” It recognizes few rules, adheres only to those treaties that are expedient to basic interests, and believes that the only political currency that counts is the exercise of raw power.

In its mildest form, it practises a la carte bilateralism, co-operating only when it wants to, and when it suits short-term domestic or international objectives. In its bad days, it simply follows a strategy of “take no prisoners,” “damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead,” “don’t tread on me,” “America First,” or any other of the clichés used by ultra-patriots. These are the extant policy directives from the White House.


Anyone who thinks that neighbourly proximity brings favours or privileges is living in a dream world. In the changing landscape of U.S. politics and policies, Canada lacks the necessary traction. We rely too often on old connections and our ability to negotiate a crisis, rather than trying to anticipate issues and build a different political case to meet the challenges that the new, parlous state of U.S.-Canada relations presents. Part of the problem is that we are working through a system of border arrangements that are obsolete. Of the more than 200 treaties governing our relationship, most rely on goodwill — they have no prescribed set of dispute-settlement mechanisms that are binding or subject to arbitration procedures.


Let’s face it: This is a painful and uncertain time in our relations with the United States. Muddling through from crisis to crisis won’t work. Neither will listening to the chorus of continentalist claptrap promoting more U.S.-Canada integration — look no farther than the present disputes to see where such policies have landed us …


The emergence of new economic powers like China, India, Brazil and South Africa provides markets hungry for the resources and know-how that Canada possesses.


The late Tory political thinker George Grant wrote a book called Lament For A Nation, in which he debunked the assumption — made by too many Canadians — that our prosperity, security and well-being could be easily obtained by simply riding on the economic and political coattails of the Americans rather than by paying real attention to our own institutions and defining our own way. The Bush administration’s actions and attitudes make Grant’s lament worth reconsidering. It’s time to redefine this historic relationship.

His description of the dynamic between Canada and the U.S. intentionally masks the true reality.  And, par for the political course, his solution for the completely deteriorated relationship with the U.S. is to hug China even more; rather than undertake what so many in the international community not just call for, but demand – which is to sever all political and military ties with the PRC to be in compliance with domestic and international law.  Only then will our southern neighbour embrace us.

His and his government’s loyalty to China’s interests were underscored in this news report: 

Montreal’s Shanghai Gardens Cover-up Labour Abuse

Rights & Democracy

July 14, 2000

Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy, who begins a visit to China today to discuss human rights, should look into reports of labour abuse in the construction of the Montreal Gardens in Shanghai.

Montreal – Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy, who begins a visit to China today to discuss human rights, should look into reports of labour abuse in the construction of the Montreal Gardens in Shanghai.

Workers at the gardens, which are funded by the City of Montreal, the Quebec and federal governments and Canadian corporations, are subjected to long hours, poor living conditions and low wages.


Canadian taxpayers are paying more than half of the estimated $5.61 million Montreal Gardens project, which has been the brainchild of Montreal Mayor Pierre Bourque, while corporations such as Power Corporation, Air Canada and Cinar have contributed another million dollars.


Canada has engaged in a bilateral human rights dialogue with China since 1997. Mr. Axworthy should investigate how Canadian taxpayers’ dollars are contributing to abusive practices, Rights & Democracy said today.

[underscore added]

This is one of several public record documents that prove Canadian taxpayer dollars have gone to maintain strong geo-military ties with the PRC.  This activity when understood in its full context is an affront to the sensibilities of every citizen. 

An important question was once asked by the media:

How do we know if ‘Team Canada’ policy failed in China?

by Tom Korski

The Hill Times

April 7th, 2008

Team Canada diplomats theorized their trips to China would make us wealthy and China democratic, but never spelled out how that was supposed to work. Did it work?

On the evidence only the top tier of wealth in the country benefited from the multi-decade relationship with China.  Everyone else was the recipient of the burdens that flowed from it.  The prosperity gap widened because of it.  Tax Freedom day got pushed further into the year.  Poverty, and child poverty never improved and in many ways got worse.  The economy became more monopolized and more of the country’s wealth was embezzled – some going to fuel the Chinese global hegemony initiative.  I refer you to, inter alia, the website posted chapter Revisiting Clandestine Economy Monopolization and Wealth Plundering: The Costs to All Canadians and Upper Income Bracket Fiefdom Treatise Recipients for the evidence and arguments on this point.

Academics around the world were relatively unanimous in the mid-1990s that injecting capitalism into China would produce some measure of political pluralism.  Instead, and learning from Canada’s Liberals how to run a secret totalitarian society with a capitalist economy, the Beijing leadership used that knowledge, experience archive and its own ever-increasing wealth to clamp down more heavily and employed Canada-proven mechanisms to placate and co-opt dissident factions.

In 1996 academic policy advice was falling on deaf ears because the Chrétien government had already formulated its position on the relationship.  

Canadian Centre for Foreign Policy Development

November 19, 1996

[T]he Canadian Centre for Foreign Policy Development hosted a consultation on Canada-China relations. The purpose of the consultation was to provide Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy with policy options for Canada on how best to promote political stability, security and respect for human rights in China.

Participants were invited from across Canada and included academics, representatives of Amnesty International, and members of the Chinese-Canadian community. Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific) Raymond Chan chaired the first hour of the consultation and Steven Lee, the remainder. Officials from the department attended and contributed useful policy information. The following views were widely agreed upon:

Political Stability

Canadian Policy on institution building in China should focus on educating the judiciary and training Chinese corporations and individuals in Canadian business skills and best practices. Special attention should be given to engaging key people and groups in outlying provinces.

Where possible, information technologies should form an integral part of Canada’s institution building efforts.

Human Rights

At every opportunity, the Canadian government should present lists of detained dissidents to Chinese authorities. In addition, the government should monitor and report on the Chinese government’s violation of its own legal procedures, especially in light of the new legal code.

To improve respect for human rights in China as a whole, the government should work with business to formulate a code of corporate conduct for Canadian companies. The code should not be China specific but apply to all Canadian commercial activity abroad.


Considering the important political role the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) will play in the formation of the post-Deng government, Canada needs to directly engage the PLA in “track two” dialogues within the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Canada also should engage the PLA in Canadian civil control of the military and other relevant experience as a democratic development, confidence-building and counter-nationalism effort.

The foregoing was merely an exercise in democratic respectability façade generation; going through the motions to make it appear like the federal government was acting as a sovereign nation helping the emerging nation with modernization. 

With respect to political stability, China’s judges were let in on the ugly secret about Canada’s administration of justice – a government-bias that first exposed itself during the Federal Court lawsuit I commenced and thereafter corroborated by both the research project and the results of treatise dissemination and accountability initiatives. 

On the security issue, the instruction that Canada offered was how to keep the country under military lock-down in the event there was some measure of popular control on the PLA.

On human rights, this was just lip service – plain and simple.  There never was any bona fide intent to use persuasion or pressure to effect reform in that area.   With human rights violations having become institutionalized in Canada is more evidence of just how hypocritical Mr. Axworthy, the Prime Minister, Cabinet and other top level officials were at that time.

All talk by the Chrétien government about advancing human rights issues is to be also understood upon a critical analysis of this policy decision: 

Determining Basic Human Needs in the Tibet Autonomous Region

The Canada Tibet Committee

January 2001

The United Nations General Assembly passed three resolutions supporting Tibet citing various violations to the fundamental rights and freedoms of the Tibetan people, including the right to self-determination. […] Even though Canada officially recognized the government of the People’s Republic of China, it did not take any position on Chinese territorial claims. Until 1997, the position of the Government of Canada regarding Tibet’s political status was clear:

Canada takes no position with regard to specific Chinese territorial claims; it neither challenges nor endorses them.

Following the agreement which established the Canada-China Bilateral Dialogue on Human rights in March 1997, Canada’s position on Tibet was modified to meet Chinese requests. In 1998, Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Lloyd Axworthy confirmed the reversal by restating his government’s official position on Tibet’s status in the following way:

When Canada established diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China in 1970, we recognized the PRC as the sole legitimate government of China. Canada does not recognize the Tibetan “government-in-exile” led by the Dalai Lama based in Dharmsala, India.

This is more corroboration of the secret military pact between Canada and China.

The aspect about corporations and sensitivity to China’s “abuse record” is more façade generation.  The companies owned by the Thomsons, Desmarais, Rogers, Stronachs, Shaws and Pattisons of the country were actively participating in Canada’s secret paradigm of governance in which criminality, corruption and human rights abuses were institutionalized through a whole spectrum of departments and agencies; and they were working cooperatively with their provincial and municipal counterparts and the country’s most politically connected corporations.  Since they’ve been complicit at home there was going to be no sensitivity to the matter abroad.  In fact, as is seen in the economic genocide of Canada’s aboriginals and energy companies operating in Sudan, the federal government and the top tier of power and wealth were complicit in genocide in that country.  (See evidence and arguments in the case study on John Manley on the website regarding Sudan)

To answer the question posed by the Hill Times, Team Canada’s objectives on democratization, in which human rights protection is a fundamental and integral part, was a dismal failure. Why?  Because there never was any bona fide intent to pursue the matter with the Chinese.  It was all meant to make Canada look like a defender of the inherent dignity of the individual.  It was all designed to perpetuate an image that reflected what Canadians believed strongly in. At all material times Canadians such as myself were being chattelized, enslaved, experimented upon, brutalized and tortured. 

During the December 2006 Liberal Leadership Convention – and thus in front of the party faithful and China-loyal – PM Chrétien said this about the secret relationship:

I was in China and Hong Kong too.  And I think it is sad. I think that Harper is even less popular there than in Canada. [audience laughter]  I met 18 times the President of China.  I discussed human rights every time. [audience applause]  I was the first western leader to make a public speech on human rights in China and it was at the University of Beijing. For those who say we didn’t speak about human rights I had [the] President [of China] … in Ottawa, in front of the press and the journalists, the journalists were asking him questions on human rights.  We were not hiding.  Nobody had done it publicly before.  [audience applause]

We trained judges for them.  We helped them develop modern laws; helped them on the criminal code.  Great progress have been made in the last 15 years there. But a lot more has to be done and we have to keep pushing. But engage them; don’t insult them.  [audience applause]  It is the West, it is the West, particularly British Columbia that is paying the price for this immature policy that run the risk to destroy – to destroy 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”.


Canada’s Fruitless Human Rights Dialogue with China

by Charlie Gillis


July 9, 2007

Through the mid-1990s, the governments of Jean Chrétien had signed onto a series of resolutions at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights condemning China’s rights record. But by 1997 – due in part to vigorous lobbying on the part of the Chinese – this multilateral shaming was starting to lose support. That year, to the dismay of NGOs, Canada followed the lead of other Western countries and switched course, agreeing to take their complaints against China behind closed doors in government-to-government discussions. It was left to foreign minister Lloyd Axworthy, one of the Liberals’ most respected civil libertarians, to justify what many activists regarded as a sop to big companies hoping to trade with an emerging economic colossus. “We concluded that Canada could have a greater influence on the state of human rights in China,” Axworthy said at the time, “by pursuing and intensifying our promising bilateral measures.”

Another author weighs in on his contributions to Canada and what he’ll be remembered for:

Axworthy’s Other Legacy…

by Andrew Thompson


February 14, 2007

Lloyd Axworthy’s greatest accomplishment might be that he has inspired the next generation of Canadian leaders.

When historians look back at Lloyd Axworthy’s tenure as Minister of Foreign Affairs from 1996 to 2001, my sense is that he will be remembered fondly, although perhaps for reasons that are not yet obvious. Under Axworthy’s guidance, Canada pursued a human security agenda, the principal aim of which was expand the traditional notion of state security to include the security of the individual. These five years will likely be remembered as a time of tremendous activity for Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs, as Canada played leading roles in several highly successful and groundbreaking international initiatives.


For all that Axworthy achieved as Minister, my sense is that his greatest achievement is still to come. For many young people in Canada, human security is the future.

The author also states:

Axworthy’s biggest crime was that, in pursuing initiatives that were of low strategic importance to Canada and fundamentally at odds with Washington’s interests and priorities, he placed undue strain on the Canadian-American bilateral relationship. My own view is that these criticisms have been overblown, but this is an issue for future scholars to resolve.

In light of my research it is now evident why “Canada [was] fundamentally at odds with Washington’s interests and priorities”.  The “strain” was the secret militarized totalitarian paradigm of governance that was evermore threatening U.S. national and economic security.  

As for the remark about the former Foreign Minister’s greatest legacy is inspiring the next generation of leaders, given what ‘trans-generational institutionalized nepotism and patronage’ produced and the Liberals did in the 20th century to completely consolidate power and how sociopathic that exercise of political authority became – and more so after being married to internationally reviled serial human rights abusers – my clients have decided none of those up-and-comers linked directly or indirectly to him and the top tier of power and wealth will never make it into positions of public interest responsibility.

The university’s investigation ought to also review what his other Cabinet portfolios were and how they contributed to advancing illegal, unconstitutional and internationally unlawful activities.  Beyond being Foreign Minister he was the:

  • Minister of Labour (1993.11.04 – 1995.02.21)
  • Minister of Employment and Immigration (1993.11.04 – 1996.01.24)
  • Minister of Western Economic Diversification (1993.11.04 – 1996.01.24)
  • Minister of Employment and Immigration (1980.03.03 – 1983.08.11)

He was the immigration minister when Chinese military emigration was fully underway in the early 1980s; and when heading that department again in the early 1990s picked up where he left off advancing the militarization of the Canadian state.   His role as labour, employment and western diversification ministers substantively helped embed those foreign assets in the private sector; and not only throughout the nation but also and especially in Western Canada.   A primary monopolization target and hegemony funding resource then and now: the oil sands with its tens of trillions of dollars of wealth.  

The former Foreign Minister’s participation in the consolidation of political power that led to a late 20th century version of totalitarianism and Chinese de facto governance and militarization of the Canadian state is not to be comprehended in isolation – only in terms of his department’s policies and decisions.  Valuable corroboration exists in what the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues of the day said and did.  I direct your attention to what is documented about the former PM in Submission One on the website and the case studies posted there on the complicity of former Deputy Prime Minister John Manley and former Attorney General Anne McLellan in this nefarious government activity (see the “New Supplementals” Table of Contents for links).

Mr. Axworthy is not like tenured academics.  They, generally, have never been employed in the public sector.  Having been so places him in an environment that is on many levels at odds with – or, to use another expression – in a conflict of interest position with the academic community.   Not only having such a long experience in government, but also the top tier position he held in Cabinet and the activities in which he was involved in policy and decision making, what he’s done and what his current personal agenda is inferred to be must be critically assessed.  His government employment leads to the need to examine closely his public, quasi-public and private sector relationships.  He has deep links to the top tier of power and wealth in this country – and the research project, which corroborates what was pled in the lawsuit and observed during the dissemination and accountability initiatives, reveals where his loyalties are.  There is merit to the argument that he is going to use his position at the University and Liu Institute to advance interests that are contrary to Canadian principles, values and beliefs; not to mention both domestic and international law.

To determine how connected a person is to a country’s governing faction and wealthy class, an analysis needs to look closely at patronage-driven appointments and as importantly with whom the individual is linked to through agencies, associations, organizations and societies.  Since national, regional and local communities are comprised of professional and social networks in and through which the agendas and business of government and corporate activity are conducted and advanced, discovering who are on boards and academic institutes reveals what the network is capable of protecting, pursuing and achieving because of interlinking spheres of control and influence.  The research discovered ‘factionless governance’ in Canada’s federal, provincial and municipal government policy and decision making, the administration of justice and quasi-public sector institutions. They are all tightly controlled by the country’s governing elite.  Thus who someone is professionally linked to betrays what and how much is known about the secret policies, interests and agendas discovered during the research project; and concomitantly whose interests can be protected and advanced.

Mr. Axworthy is both complicit and remains staunchly loyal to those who are to this day.  Neither can be tolerated at your University; and in the circumstances as historic and profound as they are, therefore, a disciplinary investigation is warranted; and serious sanctions as recommended above are justified.

If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact the writer.

Yours truly,

Brad Kempo

Federal Court of Canada Amended Statement of Claim

Exact copy filed

For a list of causes of action and events and circumstances during the litigation, click HERE

Credibility of all these facts was never challenged by the defendant; click HERE to read the procedural rules and law on this point










the Defendant with no reason or justification in law intentionally and in a malicious, high-handed, arbitrary, oppressive, deliberate, vicious, vindictive, brutal, grossly fraudulent, evil, insulting, outrageous, callous, disgraceful, wilful, wanton and in contumelious disregard of ordinary standards of morality or decent conduct and without any consideration of his legal and constitutional rights and freedoms, initiated and perpetuated the campaign of entrapment and punishment as described herein. The punishment took the general form of the Plaintiff being targeted from June 1987 onwards by the Defendant for removal from and isolation within mainstream Canadian professional, social and corporate life through a multitude of criminal and tortious strategies, techniques and tactics as described herein.

“IT IS ALLEGED that you, in an action in the Court of Queen’s Bench, between October 1 and December 21, 1990, Brule Creek Ranch Ltd., et al. v. John Burns et al., did allege fraud on the part of Richard Heiser, Barrister and Solicitor, when evidence of fraud on his part was non-existent, and that such act or conduct is conduct deserving of sanction.”

“IT IS ALLEGED that in a letter to the Law Society of Alberta dated May 8, 1991, you maliciously and wrongfully accused Richard Heiser, Barrister & Solicitor, of fraudulent activities in connection with an action in the Court of Queen’s Bench, Brule Creek Ranch Ltd., et al. v. John Burns et al….”

“The essence of the first complaint is that the Member, as counsel for the defendant/applicant, made unsubstantiated allegations of fraud on the part of opposing counsel. The essence of the second complaint is that he wrongfully and maliciously repeated the same allegation in a complaint he made to the Law Society about that counsel some five to seven months later, being his letter of May 8th, 1991.”

“The Committee finds that on his admission to the bar, the Member set up practice on his own. Although he appears to have had a number of sources to whom he could refer for advice (as to which more will be said below) he was essentially practicing on his own without hands-on supervision or any immediately available sources of advice. And of course, he only would refer to a mentor when he chose to, and on a definition of the problem as he saw it.

He called Heiser as his own witness, an indication of how lacking his arsenal was to submit any evidence of fraud or perjury. There was none. If that was not patently obvious to the Member at the start of the application then it must have been so by the end.”

“The Member complains that Cooke J. refused to admit evidence that he wished to call, namely that of the opposing client, in person or by way of Affidavit. Entirely apart from the dubious utility of such an exercise, we do not entertain this submission, and find no merit to the Member’s complaint in this respect. “

“… there was no evidence for these suspicions and they were groundless and not the sort that would be long entertained by a reasonable person…”

“We wish to stress that this was a totally erroneous view of the situation with which we in no way concur. Any experienced lawyer would quickly have seen that this suspicion was unfounded and that Heiser had acted as a lawyer, with a duty both to the Court and to his client, ought to have acted in an adversary system. His conduct was entirely proper.”

“However the Committee was unable to come to the same conclusion on the second count. But the time of his May 8, 1991 complaint, the Member had had five months to reflect on the fact that there was absolutely no evidence to support any suggestion of fraud. This had been independently – and conclusively – found by Justice Cooke. The refusal of the police to charge Heiser only re-emphasized the point to any reasonable observer. Yet the letter was intemperate and hostile in the extreme, repeating the old allegations plus new additions in the strongest of terms, when the Member must have known there was no support. It was written with malice in every sense of the word, fuelled by personal animosity and anger. We convicted the Member on this charge, and had strong reservations about the confrontational and aggressive tone that his evidence before us indicates.

Although his inexperience may explain this aggressive approach, it does not excuse it. Lawyers are, and should treat each other as, ladies and gentlemen. Restraint and politeness, not hostility and anger, should govern their communications with one another. The tone revealed herein displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the adversarial system and the lawyer’s role therein.

One final point must be addressed. Mr. Hurlburt, Q.C., who is a senior and respected member of the Bar, gave evidence. The Member indicated that he relied on Mr. Hurlburt’s advice, as well as the advice of other esteemed members of the Bar and Bench. While his knowledge of the need to seek more senior advice is commendable, the Member himself must take responsibility for the steps that he takes. He cannot hide behind the reputations of his mentors. Nor can we delegate our duty to them and defer to their views, however high our regard for them is. Especially when those views are given on a summary of the facts provided to them by the Member. We do not know what he told them or on what facts they relied in order to reply. It was probably the version he recited to us which – at least by May, 1991 – he must have well known bore no relationship to the facts of the file. Had he bothered to ask Heiser, he would have found this out even earlier. Had he paid the slightest attention to what was before him and what was being independently concluded, he would have eventually realized that. Instead he let his personal anger, and his identification with his client’s interests, blind him to the obvious.

In doing so, and this inability to apply any independent analysis to the file or distance himself from his emotions, he did not serve the client well. A charge in that regard could have been justified. To not only repeat but increase those allegations in the letter of May 8 and suggest an immediate suspension, was most unprofessional.”

lead to a complete obliteration of his feelings of privacy and security.

and which would directly impact on and cause loss, damage and injury to his

which would in perpetuity be a matter of record whenever involved in seeking membership or upward mobility in public or private associations, societies and organizations, purchasing insurance, negotiating mortgages and otherwise when required to do so by law or policy.

  1. 188.            Upon being flown by his mother back to Vancouver on or about January 4, 1994, the Plaintiff continued his slow healing recovery process. It was his intent to attain a state of emotional normalcy at his earliest convenience. He was now ready to decide how to proceed with his life given the enormous administrative hurdles there were to returning to active practice. He decided that Alberta was a province to which he would never return and eventually contacted the Law Society of British Columbia to transfer his license to practice.

then the Plaintiff’s could and did reasonably assume there were genuine business opportunities. 

the Plaintiffs designed and implemented a concentrated marketing strategy that was reasonably expected to generate subscriber revenue. The Defendant maliciously interfered with potential subscribers attempting to contact the corporate Plaintiff by telephone, fax, e-mail and Canada Post mail during and after the marketing strategy was executed to frustrate (2) and (3).

the Defendant knew or reasonably ought to have known there would be further damage to both the Plaintiff and the corporate Plaintiff from directly or indirectly interfering with the corporate Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff proposes that the trial of this action be held at the Law Courts at 700 West Georgia Avenue, Vancouver, British Columbia.

DATED this _____day of March 2003.

___________________________ ____________________________

The Plaintiff, Brad Kempo
Corporate Plaintiff