RCMP ACT
Subsection 45.42(2)
FILE NO.: PC-2009-0758
Dear Mr. Kennedy,
Thank you for your Final Report.
Unfortunately you made assumptions in your ruling that were not yours to make and you should have checked with me before making those assumptions.
You assumed you had permission to rule using only the information you had on hand which you did not. I required you by phone call to Shirley Smith to delay your ruling until you had first read my following December 4th letter to Intake Officer Shirley Smith. I called Shirley Smith and asked that the ruling be delayed pending my submission of additional information before you made your ruling. My submission of the extra information was delayed by my serious head injury and by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. My request that you delay your ruling was a legitimate request that you had no right to ignore regardless of the exalted status you may think you have.
The entire case hinges on the following: How was the approval to transfer the Seaton Lands accomplished without the air quality study being done as required by the General Terms of Reference in the EA Act? The public was led to believe normal procedure was followed but it was not. That constituted a fraud that should have been easily detected by even a cursory forensic investigation. Fraud is a criminal offence that does not require an invitation by Environment Canada to investigate. There is no legislation that allows the government to deliberately mislead the public on a multibillion dollar land deal for any reason.
I received a phone call on December 9, 2009 from your office on behalf of Shirley Smith. Your representative informed me that you had in fact read and considered my December letter. I find that curious because there is no mention anywhere in your comments about the additional information. For instance, the fact that the Ministry of the Environment does not physically own the equipment needed to conduct the type of air quality assessments required by the Purpose of the Environmental Assessment Act should have stood out like a beacon to anyone who was taking the information seriously. That means even the fake air quality study inserted into the Seaton EA was itself conducted in such a manner that rendered its original work fraudulent. I don’t know how much plainer a fraud has to be for you to be suspicious that just maybe something is really wrong with the Seaton Assessment. The police did not have this information in their original investigation. But if they had conducted the investigation in the sincere forensic manner that I requested, they would have uncovered this information.
In fact that one single piece of information reveals that every EA Air Quality study ever done by MOE is suspect, not just Seaton. When you understand that; why then you arrive at an epiphany. You suddenly understand why the air pollution death record does not match the regulatory expectations we are led to expect by MOE. In fact the death rate is 80% worse than MOE even knows about. Yet these are the people charged with protecting our respiratory health. Death is one thing. The respiratory injuries are so high, both the federal and provincial Environment ministries have steered clear of asking for that information since it was first done (for the only time in the year 2000.) Doesn’t that bother you even a little? How could you miss that? What kind of Monitors get paid for not monitoring while people are killed and injured?
Your reference to the Final Report of the original investigation sent by the Commissioner’s delegate generated by my original request for review
Your role compels you to make an objective examination of information provided. If you had waited for the extra information I was gathering, you may have made a completely different ruling with respect to the criminal issues. Since the RCMP did not do the investigation, they could not determine one way or the other whether there was crime or not. The additional work I asked you to wait for is all work I had to do that I expected the RCMP to do.
Apparently the expectation by police forces and your office is that if a crime involves the environment, both the police and yourself expect a member of the public with no official resources at their disposal conduct a full scale forensic investigation on their own at arms length from the source information and then present the police with with the entire case gift wrapped so they and you don't have to do any more than simply read an interesting adventure story.
You assumed that the contact given to me at Environment Canada by the RCMP was a valid one. That was a wrong assumption. Environment
Goaded by your comment I made another attempt to involve Environment Canada to see if I was right or not about the likelihood of Environment Canada cooperating. It turns out I was right. There is no one at Environment Canada interested in helping on this subject. There is no one with the courtesy to even call back.
You assumed that my statement that there “is likely not a judge anywhere who would convict on the evidence I presented” was a stand alone comment. It was not. It was taken out of context. The reason the JPs said there could be no convictions was due to the amount of corruption between police officials and judges at the regional level. It had nothing to do with the quality of the evidence. That is why I abandoned trying to have the issues investigated at the regional level – the police are corrupt. I have investigated other important cases that demonstrated police corruption clearly. In those cases, the Durham Regional Police were implicated in one and in the other, Chief William Blair’s office was implicated. The evidence is well documented and irrefutable.
Your belief that Constable Eddie made notes during her dealings with me are in error. She sat like a statue through her only contact with me. She did not meet with me until the day she and Corporal Clarke came to give my file back without having done any investigating. Neither she nor Clarke took notes. They appeared to be embarrassed to me. She may have made notes afterwards but not in my presence. If they had been taking notes, the investigation would then have had to continue beyond that day in order to incorporate her notes but it didn’t. Their stone facedness at the time made me suspicious of their motives and that is I made my original complaint and requested that they and their alleged investigation be itself investigated. How you made your ruling without understanding that is beyond me and likely secret too.
The officers did not explain that the RCMP could only be involved in the investigation of an Environmental Assessment crime at the invitation of the Ministry of the Environment. So that right there was them not doing their jobs. I wouldn’t mind betting the reason they didn’t tell me was because they didn’t know that either.
You don’t seem to understand that I originally did attempt to involve the OPP in the investigation. However the OPP at that time were so hopelessly mismanaged (pre-Fantino) that I was never able to make contact with any officer at OPP headquarters who could understand what I was talking about. It was an organization that was hopelessly befuddled. I have since had no contact with the OPP since they bungled the Julie Inwood case in 2007/8. As Julian Fantino was directly and personally involved in the abysmal handling of that case, I have not had reason to involve him in this case that is even more complicated. The OPP are good at cops and robbers, conducting drug stings and issuing speeding tickets but that is their glass ceiling.
Since you limited your review to the mechanics of whether or not the investigation decision was or was not handled properly, you failed entirely to explore the validity of my claims. How could my claims be verified if no one investigated anything? How can you be satisfied the RCMP did its job when they did not do anything they were asked to do? As such you took for granted that Section 48.1 was a relevant stance in this case. I beg to differ; criminal acts embedded in the Land Transfer supercede mere environmental legislation misdemeanors. Section 48.1 does not preclude the RCMP from conducting a criminal investigation of civil servants who have committed a criminal offence.
Not only did you wrongly use that as a basis for your decision, you did so without that Section being made available to me without having to resort to a Privacy of Information Request that costs $5.00. You could have quoted that or photocopied it and included it and saved me $5.00.
Further, you state “According to the operational manual, members must only investigate complaints referred to them by Environment Canada.” Well sir that may be in their operations manual but if so, it contravenes the Rule of Law and thus the Criminal Code. Since when can anyone tell any police officer whether or not a criminal offence can be investigated? This is utter nonsense. The RCMP does not have to circumvent legislated process to investigate Criminal Code offences. There is no way Environment Canada can stop the RCMP from investigating crimes, environment or no environment.
In your summary you make another assumption: you assumed there would be something in the record that might indicate political tampering with the investigation. Do you seriously think there would be a record if there were political tampering? What kind of criminal leaves a letter of notification behind him or her on purpose?
So far in my dealings with the various levels of policing; and you sir, I feel like I'm dealing with mentally challenged individuals and an intentional cover up. It's hard to believe so many people could be in such positions of responsibility and decision making, making very good incomes and yet being so incapable of absorbing what to me are very simple concepts.
Bear in mind that I’ve been involved in three other EAs and the same deceptions and dodging tactics are being used up to and including altering the purpose of the Environmental Assessment Act in order make it seem like the government is complying with its terms. That is another fraudulent act.
The government is doing everything possible to keep me from exposing what MOE is doing on Air Quality issues. They have a lot to hide.
Yours truly,
John Newell,
