Royal Commission or Judicial Inquiry Case #1

[admin]

the public appears to get it, while the media and the leaders still are not awake.................

the public is acting out of fear and mistrust, while leaders are trying to calm and reasure with words.

Let me respectfully suggest what might be needed before this crisis comes to and end.

We may need to hold an investigation, a public inquiry into the root causes that allowed this crisis to start.

When we crash an airplane we hold investigation. When we have tainted blood in our health care system we have a Royal Commission.
Even tainted meat is recalled and the underlying causes rooted out and cleaned up. It is only in financial baloney that tainted product can be sold without recall, without recourse and without investigation. Why?

Why are major financial institutions who sold this stuff not asked why they asked for permission to break our laws to sell it in our country?

Why are our securities commissions not asked why they gave permission to their friends to break our laws to sell this stuff?

Investoradvocates.ca has copies of the permission slips given to these firms to break the law and sell this stuff. Where is the investigation into this largest crash in Canada's history? What if our financial institutions and regulators were partially to blame? Will they investigate themselves?

[admin]

Open letter to Political Candidates


CONSUMER/INVESTOR CRISIS



Canadians are losing their invested savings at an alarming rate due to investment industry fraud and wrongdoing. The estimated annual loss from fraud and wrongdoing is in excess of $20 billion. In addition the Ambachtsheer study estimates Canadian investors in mutual funds are losing $25 billion per year due to excessive fees and charges and this will reduce their retirement savings by 50%.



The Asset Backed Commercial Paper debacle and the current global financial crisis accentuate the failure of industry regulators to protect investors.



Canadians’ retirement security is at risk as pension funds as well as small retail investors are seeing their investments decimated by losses due to excessive executive compensation, creative accounting practices, systemic fraud and wrongdoing, and the sale of unsuitable structured products to Canadians unaware of the associated risks.



On a personal level, we can relate to these dishonest practices because in 2005, financial predators stole our identity and our retirement savings ($80,000) by transferring funds (via Desjardins Financial Security) from our RRSP's and RRIF's to B2B Trust, a subsidiary of Laurentian Bank of Canada. Unknown to us, the money was invested in a 3rd mortgage held in trust by B2B Trust and secured by an over valued property that defaulted soon afterwards and caused the loss of our life time savings. This type of product (RRSP/RRIF invested in 3rd mortgage) is an abuse of Canadian laws and regulations. It was created by a greedy industry and it must not be allowed under the Canadian Income Tax laws administered by Revenue Canada Agency. We are now engaged in an endless court battle that predictably will side with the industry and leave us as welfare recipients in our penultimate senior years. Many other seniors are suffering the same fate.



Simply creating a national regulator will not save our seniors unless there is fundamental change.



Government must act to legislate:

· Laws to improve securities regulation and enforcement

· An independent authority to represent the interests of consumer/investors

· A special court and judges to deal specifically with financial crime

· Provision of restitution and compensation for victims of investment fraud and wrongdoing



What are you prepared to do to protect Canadians savings and investments to enable them to have retirement security?



SIPA (Small Investors Protection Association) has members in ten provinces and works with the United Senior Citizens of Ontario and the National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation. SIPA is also a participant in the Common Front for Retirement Security that includes over 20 organizations representing millions of seniors and pensioners.





Sylvio and Monique Gagnon

Ottawa

Members of SIPA

[admin]

These are my talking notes for Canada AM interview this morning. They did not all get covered in time, however they represent some of the reasons why we need an outside investigation (Federal Inquiry) into what allows financial pandemics to infect Canadians.

investoradvocates.ca

about 1000 financial investigators/expertsinsiders after learning the industry does not follow its own ethical guidelines

tainted investment products and advice are costing Canadians more than all of the property crimes in the entire country

financial industry police themselves around trillions of dollars and these folks are financial genius's, not ethical masters

skim just 2% of your investment return for myself, your retirement account will be worth about half, over a 35 yr period, compared to what it should have been HALF

if a company in Canada wishes to sell a tainted investment product, or give tainted advice, they will be given a free pass to break securities laws

thousands of free passes to break our laws............CIBC, TD, BMO, gaining exemption to sell tainted investment paper to consumers without having to meet the standards of the securities act

illegal to sell tainted meat products in Canada, but because financial industry is self regulating, they often sell tainted investments KNOWINGLY to the public...............the attitude is "to hell with you if you cant take a joke, we police ourselves........................

Private industry police patrol financial markets. Trade and lobby groups for the industry. Real police have no invitation to investigate fraud, forgery, most of the financial crimes in Canada never get reported to the RCMP.

1200 fraud convictions to 2007 in USA
1 guy in Canada

you cannot represent yourself as a dentist, doctor lawyer or engineer unless you are so licensed
you CAN represent yourself as a professional advisor even while registered and licensed as a salesperson

[admin]

how to build a fraud and get away with it in canada?

one of the four key cornerstones beneath every financial fraud or abusive/predatory practice I have witnessed in nearly three decades is...............

the ability to self regulate, to self police, to work under the "honor system".


It is an absolutely key element in each and every financial fraud I am aware of, in it's success in preying on Canadian consumers, and in it's success in not getting caught nor prosecuted in Canada. Financial crime truly does pay in Canada partly due to letting financial "rocket surgeons" (GW Bush quote) regulate themselves.

[admin]

you cannot knowingly sell tainted meat in Canada, but you can knowingly sell tainted investment products

dont believe me?

look at the thousands of legal exemptions (permission to break our laws) granted by our securities police to financial firms to sell this crap. Knowingly applying for permission to sell crap that does not meet our laws.

damages amount to amounts greater than all the property crime in the entire country

dont believe me?


1. Financial crime is a minimum of $30 bil and more likely $60 bil per year according to research (you recall some of the research for W5 no doubt)
2. Property crimes, (auto theft, B & E, theft under $5000, possession of stolen goods, theft over $5000) in Canada total about $40 billion each year.
(source stats canada)

Thus the amount of damages against Canadians from self dealing or predatory investment practices is equal to or greater than every property crime in the country, and this amounts to about half of every criminal code violation in the country.

[admin]

With nearly thirty years now spent trying to figure out the financial and investment industry in Canada, I have a slight understanding.

I understand that the industry is self regulating, purports to professionally serve the public before serving itself, and has found methods to convince the public that it is fully capable of policing its own without outside interference.

The problem seems to be that although the industry has been able to write the industry rules, police the industry rules, judge all industry infractions, and enforce all industry codes, it seems that those people in the industry who are given this much authority are unable to understand that those rules and regulations might also apply to themselves.

Given this much free rein, this much money at stake, and nothing but the "honor system" in which to operate, it makes perfect sense to me now.

[admin]

Sept 30, 2008

To: Rt. Hon Stephen Harper

At this time of financial crisis in Canada and North America, I am writing to request a public inquiry be held into some of the known root causes of todays and previous financial crisis.

As a twenty-year veteran of the financial services industry, myself and others from the industry feel we have an understanding of the systemic issues that allow these crisis to develop.

I have tried for some time to raise these issues into view, so that the public interest can be better protected. While I say that these causes are known, they are known usually to members of the financial services industry. They are allowed to be voiced rarely, if ever, and then only by those who no longer feel their jobs threatened by the code of silence that pervades the industry.

I feel it is now time to allow members and former members of the industry to be heard on this topic in a safe environment. It is time to have a peek behind the curtains at what truly goes on in the financial services industry. Without public airing of the common rot that lay at the foundation of these problems, we will in all likelihood continue to suffer from disaster after disaster.

The nature and intent of this proposed inquiry should be focused on the systemic practices of our financial services industry, as well as our financial regulatory system that allow financial abuse and predatory practices to flourish. The evidence and examples to be presented to this inquiry, demonstrate a collective and complicit effort to place profits and self-interest ahead of the interests of the public and before the duty of care owed to customers. We feel these issues can be best identified by persons who come forth without conflicts of interest.

If Bay Street and Wall Street, and by connection, the financial regulators, and self regulators have allowed us to get into the situation we find ourselves, perhaps it is time to take a look at some of the systemic foundational problems of the system they have designed? I feel it would be appropriate to entertain a glimpse at perspectives from experts who are able to come at the problem without the weighty encumbrance of an industry salary. Richard Nixon stated, “you can't trust the man who was picked by the man that made the mess to clean it up”.

I request that this public inquiry be conducted at all times in full view of Canadians, and at all times by an impartial and objective panel whose credentials are beyond reproach. I ask that financial industry persons not be allowed to investigate or judge themselves any longer.

I trust that the future financial health of our country will allow the request for this public inquiry to move into action at the earliest convenience.

I thank you for your time and I look forward to your action on behalf of Canadians.

Larry Elford (former CFP, CIM, FCSI, Associate Portfolio Manager, retired, 2004)

lelford@shaw.ca

PS. Other federal members have in the past, deflected responsibility for this inquiry down to a provincial responsibility. Some of the evidence that will be presented to this inquiry shows that the provincial regulatory regime has condoned, as well as aided and abetted investment practices that are not in the public interest. Practices, which allow a perfect storm like today’s crisis to grow. For this reason, it would not be appropriate to allow provincial agents to investigate themselves. I feel that this requires the federal government to act and to act decisively.

CC: Federal Candidates, Media Contacts

[admin]

'Compelling evidence' needed for Anton Piller order: Alta. C.A.
SOURCE: Affleck Greene Orr LLP
AUTHOR: Hooman Zargarzadeh


The rules governing examinations for discovery require litigants to disclose all documents relevant to a particular action to their opponent subject to considerations of solicitor-client privilege, litigation privilege, and settlement privilege. These rules rely on the good faith of the parties not to conceal or destroy any relevant documents.

When, however, a party suspects that the other may destroy evidence, it can ask the court for what is called an Anton Piller order without prior notice to its opponent. Such an order compels the party subject to the order to allow access to its premises to search and seize documents specified in the order so that they may be preserved for use in the litigation. Because of their intrusive nature, Anton Piller orders are issued only when the applicant is able to demonstrate (1) a strong prima facie legal claim; (2) very serious damages resulting from the defendant’s alleged misconduct in the underlying cause of action in the litigation; (3) convincing evidence that the defendant has the documents that are sought to be seized; and (4) a “real possibility” that the defendant may destroy those documents before the discovery process if they are not preserved.

In its 2007 decision in Catalyst Partners Inc. v. Meridian Packaging Ltd., [2007] A.J. No. 667 (C.A.), the Alberta Court of Appeal considered what evidence is required to satisfy the fourth of the above criteria – typically the main obstacle to obtaining an Anton Piller order. In overturning the lower court’s decision and setting aside the Anton Piller order in this case, the Court of Appeal made it clear that strong evidence showing a real possibility the defendant will destroy documents is necessary before such an extraordinary order will be granted.

The underlying litigation arose from a contract under which the defendant, Meridian, blended chemicals for the plaintiff, Catalyst. During their business dealings, Catalyst had given Meridian certain confidential information, including chemical formulas for the blending process and a list of its customers. When the parties ended their contract, Meridian did not return the confidential information to Catalyst as required under the contract and Catalyst accused of Meridian of misusing its proprietary confidential information. Catalyst then obtained an Anton Piller order on the basis that Meridian might destroy the confidential, proprietary documents relating to certain chemical formulas and customer lists in its possession if those documents were not seized and preserved.

In deciding whether to grant an Anton Piller order, courts typically infer a real risk of destruction of documentary records from evidence of dishonesty or misconduct by the defendant in relation to the underlying dispute. Here Catalyst pointed to five circumstances showing Meridian’s dishonesty and a risk that it would destroy confidential documents. The Alberta Court of Appeal concluded none of the plaintiff’s allegations supported such an inference.

Firstly, the Court of Appeal rejected Catalyst’s claim that an intention to destroy documents could be inferred from the fact that Meridian kept its confidential information. The Court accepted Meridian’s explanation that it did not return the materials simply because nobody asked it to do so.

The Court also rejected Catalyst’s second allegation – that Meridian was complicit in unfair competition against Catalyst by a former customer’s employee – finding that the link between the employee’s misconduct and alleged dishonesty by Meridian to be tenuous at best.

Similarly, the Court of Appeal refused to draw an inference of dishonesty from Meridian’s failure to fully comply with a court order that it return a certain of Catalyst’s property.

Finally, the Court of Appeal rejected Catalyst’s claims that billing irregularities by Meridian and inconsistencies between the affidavit of Meridian’s manager and his testimony on cross-examination indicated dishonesty – finding that they were more indicative of carelessness than dishonesty.

The moral of the story? An Anton Piller order, often called a civil search warrant, is a very invasive and extraordinary remedy. It infringes privacy rights and can adversely affect the reputation of a party in the community. Consequently, a party seeking an Anton Piller order cannot simply rely on information that it suspects might show the defendant in a bad light to obtain the order. In order to obtain such an order, the evidence to support an inference of dishonesty and a real risk of the destruction of relevant documents must be very strong and compelling.

Catalyst Partners Inc. v. Meridian Packaging Ltd. [2007] A.J. No. 667 (C.A.)

Hooman Zargarzadeh is an articling student with Affleck Greene Orr LLP in Toronto. This article was first published in the October 2007 issue of The Litigator.

[admin]

Anton Piller order: A powerful tool, but be wary of pitfalls
SOURCE: Blaney McMurtry LLP
AUTHOR: John Polyzogopoulos

This is the second of three articles on unusually forceful, difficult-to-obtain court orders that can enable companies that fear they are the victims of such illegal activities as fraud, intellectual-property theft, and trade secret theft to capture evidence before it might be destroyed or to freeze assets that could be used to pay claims they might win.

The first article in this series focused on Norwich orders, which allow a person to obtain information from a third party, in particular a proposed defendant’s bank, before moving forward with the claim against the defendant himself (see the January 2008 issue of Commercial Litigation Update).

This article focuses on obtaining information from the target defendant immediately upon making the decision to bring the claim, without having to wait for the normal voluntary discovery process, which may not take place until months after the lawsuit has already been started. Such orders are called Anton Piller orders, named after the famous English decision in which one was first made.

In its most recent pronouncement on Anton Piller orders, in its decision on Celanese Canada v. Murray Demolition Corp., The Supreme Court of Canada has actually described an Anton Piller order as being a “private search warrant.” In his opening paragraph in the Celanese decision, Justice Binney states:

“An Anton Piller order bears an uncomfortable resemblance to a private search warrant. No notice is given to the party against whom it is issued. Indeed, defendants usually first learn of them when they are served and executed, without having had an opportunity to challenge them or the evidence on which they were granted. The defendant may have no idea a claim is even pending. The order is not placed in the hands of a public authority for execution, but authorizes a private party to insist on entrance to the premises of its opponent to conduct a surprise search, the purpose of which is to seize and preserve evidence to further its claim in a private dispute. The only justification for such an extraordinary remedy is that the plaintiff has a strong prima facie (Latin, meaning on its face) case and can demonstrate that on the facts, absent such an order, there is a real possibility relevant evidence will be destroyed or otherwise made to disappear.”

As can be seen, therefore, the Anton Piller order can be a very powerful tool to help in the investigation process and to preserve evidence. It is difficult to obtain, however, and there are many pitfalls that can befall a litigant and counsel if not done properly.

As set out by Justice Binney in the Celanese decision, there are four central conditions that must be met before the making of an Anton Piller order:

the plaintiff must demonstrate a strong case;
the damage to the plaintiff as a result of the defendant’s alleged misconduct, potential or actual, must be very serious;
there must be convincing evidence that the defendant has in its possession incriminating documents or things; and
it must be shown that there is a real possibility that the defendant may destroy such material before the discovery process can do its work.
In cases where there is fraud, it is usually easier to satisfy these requirements. The more difficult cases are the pure commercial cases involving unfair competition, where the plaintiff alleges that the defendant is misusing confidential, proprietary or intellectual property claimed to be owned by the plaintiff. These cases are not on the same level as fraud and therefore the mere fact that a defendant may be using information that is claimed as proprietary by the plaintiff does not amount to the level of fraud such that a court can infer that evidence or documents will be destroyed if an Anton Piller order is not granted.

Where an Anton Piller order is granted, the plaintiff, through its counsel, is essentially given the right to show up at the defendant’s door unannounced and demand that documents and other physical evidence be immediately turned over.

Anton Piller orders are so draconian and involve such a gross and serious violation of a defendant’s privacy rights that the Supreme Court saw fit to delineate in Celanese a set of guidelines for the preparation and execution of an Anton Piller order. The guidelines are as follows:

the order should appoint a supervising solicitor who is independent of the plaintiff or its solicitors and is to be present at the search to ensure its integrity;
the plaintiff is required to provide an undertaking and/or security to pay damages in the event that the order turns out to be unwarranted or wrongfully executed;
the scope of the order should be no wider than necessary and no materials shall be removed from the site unless clearly covered by the terms of the order;
the terms setting out the procedure for dealing with solicitor/client privilege or other confidential materials should be included in the order with a view to enabling defendants to advance claims of confidentiality over documents before they come into the possession of the plaintiff or its counsel or to deal with disputes that arise;
the order should specify that items seized may only be used for the purposes of the pending litigation;
the order should state explicitly that the defendant is entitled to return to court on short notice to discharge or vary the order or vary the amount of security;
the order should provide that the materials seized be returned to the defendants or their counsel as soon as practicable;
the order should provide that the search be commenced during normal business hours, when counsel for the party about to be searched is more likely to be available for consultation;
the premises should not be searched or items removed except in the presence of the defendant;
the persons who may conduct the search and seize evidence should be specified in the order or be specifically limited in number;
the order should require that it be served together with the statement of claim and the supporting affidavits used to obtain the order and the plaintiff’s counsel or the supervising solicitor should explain to the defendant in plain language the nature and effect of the order;
the defendant should be given a reasonable time to consult with counsel prior to permitting entry to the premises;
a detailed list of all evidence seized should be made and the supervising solicitor should provide this list to the defendant for inspection and verification at the end of the search and before materials are removed from the site;
where this is not practicable, documents seized should be placed in the custody of the independent supervising solicitor and defendant’s counsel should be given reasonable opportunity to review them to advance solicitor/client privilege claims prior to the release of the documents to the plaintiff;
where ownership of material is disputed, it should be provided for safe keeping to the supervising solicitor or to the defendant’s solicitors;
the order should specify that the responsibilities of the supervising solicitor continue beyond the search itself to deal with matters arising out of the search;
the supervising solicitor should be required to file a report with the court regarding the search and seizure; and, lastly,
the order may require the plaintiff to bring a further motion to the court for a review of the execution of the search.
In Celanese, the defendant sought to have the plaintiff’s solicitors removed as solicitors of record because they had reviewed documents that were protected by solicitor/client privilege that had been seized during the execution of the Anton Piller order. There had not been proper procedures put in place to deal with privileged documents before they would be reviewed by the plaintiff’s solicitors. The plaintiff’s solicitors were removed as counsel, undoubtedly resulting in much expense and inconvenience to the plaintiff.

In their initial discussions with counsel, clients should be aware of the possibility of seeking an Anton Piller order where there is good reason to believe that the proposed defendant was not acting in good faith and may destroy documents or evidence if put on notice of a claim. Experienced counsel should be engaged when considering whether to seek an Anton Piller order, as they are difficult to obtain and even more difficult to properly execute.

The third and final article in this series will focus on Mareva injunctions, which involve the freezing of the defendant’s assets at the beginning of the case to ensure that there are assets available to satisfy a judgment for the plaintiff, which may (or may not ever) be granted at the end of the case.

John Polyzogopoulos is a partner of Blaney McMurtry LLP and a member of the firm’s Commercial Litigation Group. Copyright 2008 John Polyzogopoulos andBlaney McMurtry LLP. Reproduced with permission.

[admin]

There have been documents submitted into the Alberta Legislature public record, as well as in Ottawa, submitted as part of testimony to Finance Committee on Asset Backed Commercial Paper.

These documents outline and illustrate a Canada wide campaign to defraud Canadians of up to $800 million dollars. It is by no means the largest fraud in Canada but it is the most unique in my opinion for several reasons:

1. It was done with the help, and cooperation of thirteen provincial and territorial securities commissions. If an inquiry were to be done on this case alone, it would invalidate the existence (in my opinion) of this entire securities regulation system.

2. It is one of the best documented cases, with public record access to nearly every incriminating document.

3. It has received support to cover the fraud at every level of securities, legal and criminal enforcement due to the sensitivity of it.

It is one of the best examples I can point to which proves the failure of our current system, the lengths some persons will go to in order to cover their crimes, and the ways and means that any "system" will use to protect itself when caught in improper actions.

I will be happy to direct those industry researchers towards the documents, which can be found in the FINA committee files and evidence into the Asset Backed Commercial Paper. They do not relate to ABCP except they were submitted in order to reinforce testimony which claims that the industry is willing and able to act in a fraudulent manner, and that the protective system in Canada is allowing this in plain daylight.

[admin]

Memo to Members - Expert Panel on Securities Regulation

SIPA made a formal submission to the Expert Panel on Securities Regulation and met with them in Toronto last Wednesday. They have travelled across Canada speaking with stakeholders.

We encourage all members to make at least a brief submission to the Expert panel. Tell them about your experience with the regulators and the investment industry. If you lost money tell them about it. They need to know how small investors are losing their savings due to systemic wrongdoing practices in the investment industry.

Keith Ambachtsheer’s study on mutual funds suggests that Canadian mutual fund investors are being skimmed of 3,8% per year and this could result in your retirement savings being reduced by 50%. He suggests that Canadian mutual fund investors are losing $25 billion each year.

Because of the impact on small investors and seniors, we believe that a public inquiry into investment industry wrongdoing is warranted much more so than any of the inquires being proposed at this time.

Many investors have lost money with mutual funds, Seg funds, income trusts, principal protected notes, and other structured products. Investors have also lost money with Bre-X, Nortel, Eatons, Air Canada, and other corporate skulduggery while the executives escaped with the loot. The regulators are not protecting investors and are not getting their money back.

The current regulatory system is captive to the investment industry. There are so many different regulatory bodies provincially and federally that most Canadians can’t figure it out. There is no one authority that an investor can go to with a problem.

We have asked that the Government revise the regulatory system and establish a national investor protection authority so investors with a problem will have one point of contact and not be sent in circles trying to determine who is responsible.

We believe investor protection should not be delegated to the SROs which represent the industry.

So please make a brief submission to the expert panel and add your comments to those who are speaking out.

The Panel Chair is Hon. Tom Hockin, P.C., Former Minister of State (Finance) and former President, Investment Funds Institute of Canada (IFIC). Information about their mandate, terms of reference and panel members can be found here: www.expertpanel.ca.

For additional information you can also contact:

George Bentley

Communications and Consultations Manager
Expert Panel on Securities Regulation
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0G5

Tel: 613-947-8613
Fax: 613-947-2289
e-mail: George.Bentley@fin.gc.ca

Or you can make your submission to Commscons@expertpanel.ca

Thanks for your support.

Stan Buell, President
Small Investor Protection Association
P.O.Box 325, Markham, ON, L3P 3J8
website: www.sipa.ca
e-mail: stanbuell@rogers.com
tel: 905-471-2911

Working for Investors

[admin]

Who's going to jail for this?

It is the responsibility of the government to provide leadership to protect Canadians, their investments and pension plans from activities that border on the criminal. This is why the 3.2 million working women and men who are the members have grave concerns with the federal Finance Department’s unwillingness to demonstrate leadership in reacting to the Asset Backed Commercial Paper (ABCP) scandal. Together, the members of our Congress hold over $300 billion in pension assets.

We are calling on the government to set up a public inquiry into the causes of this financial disaster and to recommend steps that can be taken to ensure it does not happen again. Clearly we need firm government action and regulatory measures to rein in these corporate pirates.

Eight months ago, bank and non-bank ABCP was once stamped by bond raters, financial advisers, credit unions, banks and finance houses as a “secure, low risk investment”. Last August, working Canadians discovered that the opposite was true.

This is one of the worst boondoggles in the history of Canada’s economy. A market once worth over $36 billion has been frozen and exposed as an outright sham. A secretive process has brokered an industry deal that ensures no one will know what happened. That is unacceptable. Working families want assurances that the perpetrators to this mess will be held accountable.

Sadly, the federal Minister of Finance’s response is: “the broader public interest will be best served through a market-led solution.” The clear message: Canadians will have to settle for a “fend for yourself” approach.

Studies suggest the pension plans of working Canadians will now take a major hit – estimates suggest the losses are between $7 to $13 billion. Royal Bank indicates that ABCP has already lost 40% of its original value.

Last week, an oil company executive (whose company had $1.4 million invested in ABCP) a question on everyone’s mind: who’s going to jail for this?

Canadians need a public inquiry to truly address the issues that led to the ABCP scandal. In fact, if what took place in this instance among financiers and bakers took place in most other areas of our economy, the RCMP would be asked to investigate.

[admin]

Canada: Government of Canada

Definition of organized crime:


It is serious crime planned and carried out by a group of at least three people to benefit one or more members of the group. (www.organizedcrime.ca)

WIth Steven Sibold (former Alberta Securities Commission chairman) writing in today's Globe ( viewtopic.php?t=110) (or see flog topic "solutions") that self regulation is typically not concerned with punishment for crimes committed and that this is better suited to police work...........he seems to be saying that financial crimes pay in Canada.

How long before Canada's self regulated financial industry gets the public reputation of being "organized crime"?

[admin]

On April 26, 2007, the National Pensioners & Senior Citizens Federation (450 clubs and chapters with 1,000,000 members), the United Senior Citizens of Ontario (1000 clubs with 300,000 members) and the Small Investors Protection Association jointly requested a national inquiry on the malfunctioning of Canada's securities and accounting regulation and white collar crime enforcement system.



Diane Urquhart

Independent Analyst

Tel: (905) 822-7618

Cell: (416) 505-4832

[admin]

Federal NDP calls for a Canadian Securities Commission

Party launches campaign to crack
down on corporate criminals

Ottawa (25 May 2007) - The New Democratic Party is calling for a Canadian Securities Commission with clout to replace the toothless network of provincial securities commissions that now 'protects' private investors in Canada - including worker pension funds.

The proposal is the centrepiece of a national campaign launched by the NDP on Thursday to put a brake on corporate crime in Canada.

“Since the Bre-X scandal ten years ago, there have been dozens of corporate swindles that have bilked average Canadians out of millions of dollars and no one is in jail because we don’t have the laws to put them there,” says Winnipeg MP Judy Wasylycia-Leis, the NDP finance critic.

“We must overhaul corporate accounting practices and insider trading laws, and introduce accountability provisions. We must demand better from our public companies. The ‘wild west’ of financial markets must find a new sheriff,” she says.

Canada lags behind the world

Canada is the only G8 countries that has not done anything in recent years to toughen its laws on corporate accountability.

“Germany, France and the U.K. all have new laws in the post-Enron era,” notes Wasylycia-Leis. “The United States and Australia introduced tough legislation on accounting and whistleblowers, both under conservative governments. We’re calling on victims of corporate crime to take the lead and join us in fighting for reform. That’s the only way this minister will act.”

The campaign coincides with the Conrad Black trial. The Toronto tycoon is currently in the midst of a multi-million-dollar trial in Chicago. At the heart of the case are tens of millions of dollars in tax-free "non-compete payments" that prosecutors allege were paid fraudulently to Black and his associates.

The Ontario Securities Commission - which sets the standard for other securities commissions in Canada - has distinguished itself by doing virtually nothing to call Black to account throughout his long and controversial corporate career.

Wasylycia-Leis said the NDP campaign has three key elements:

Protecting Canadian Investors by:
• Establishing a Canada Securities Commission to which all provincial securities commissions would have to report;
• Creating new accounting oversight committees with independent auditors;
• Forcing Canadian executives to face higher standards of disclosure, and,
• Ensuring that independent corporate board members are truly independent.

Fighting for Canadian workers by:
• Pushing for genuine whistleblower protection, and,
• Establishing new rules for corporate perks and disclosure.

Policing the financial 'Wild West' by:
• adopting an expanded and independent mandate for the RCMP's Integrated Market Enforcement Team (IMET);
• Raising Canadian corporate accounting practices and laws to tougher international standards, and,
• adopting laws to prevent non-compete payments.

The National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) has long supported the concept of a national securities commission to assist in protecting Canadians from white-collar fraud and corporate wrong-doing. NUPGE

Web posted by NUPGE: 25 May 2007