It has been a tumultuous time in the world of government secrecy. This week, former CSIS director Reid Morden was named to assist the Arar commission shift through evidence the government claims must be kept secret, and advise on how much can be released in the inquiry's interim report. Mr. Morden's appointment comes days after Ottawa abandoned efforts to retract on national security grounds documents it had already released. Comparing these papers' full versions with the censored copies raises the question: Do Ottawa's secrecy claims conflate "national security" with "embarrassing to the government"?

Also this week, completing his term as Canada's information commissioner, John Reid fired a devastating broadside at what he called the "stubborn persistence of a culture of secrecy in the Government of Canada" and renewed his regular condemnation of the broad secrecy laws enacted by Bill C-36, Canada's 2001 anti-terrorism law.

And in late May, the judge in the Juliet O'Neill case ordered the disclosure of RCMP documents concerning the ill-fated raid on the Ottawa Citizen reporter; a raid apparently sparked by her reporting on the Arar matter. The government may now resist that disclosure on national security grounds. External observers may be forgiven for their skepticism. At one point, the RCMP claimed that releasing information about a building's location would harm national security; the building in question was marked with an exterior RCMP sign. We can all agree that there are secrets that states must keep in safeguarding the security of their citizens. But Canada's secrecy laws do nothing to guarantee that national security, rather than impunity, drives secrecy decisions.

Of all our information laws, the most thoughtful is Canada's Access to Information Act; Canada's intelligence community told researchers in 2001 that it sufficiently protected national security secrets. In this statute, national-security exceptions to information disclosure are carefully drafted and depend on clear standards, not murky notions like "national security." What's key is that the information commissioner, and ultimately the Federal Court, review use of these exceptions.

Unfortunately, the Access Act's relative clarity is not echoed in the Canada Evidence Act (amended by the 2001Anti-Terrorism Act). The new Evidence Act creates classes of secret information broader than the equivalent Access Act provisions. Where the Evidence Act is employed, meaningful external scrutiny may be short-circuited by mere government issuance of a "certificate" that can only be reviewed in court on very limited grounds, and can trump the Access Act. It could also be used to rein in the Arar commission and the judge in the Juliet O'Neill case.

These new powers should also be read in light of the government's failure to repeal section 4 of the venerable Official Secrets Act, now called the Security of Information Act. Under this provision, unauthorized disclosure of even non-secret but "official" government documents could result in criminal prosecutions. Where the document is "secret" within the act's (undefined) meaning, the prospect of being found criminally culpable multiplies. Worse, the act criminalizes receipt as much as disclosure, making leaked government information a hot potato. The net effect is to chill information-sharing, even when it's in the public interest.

In 1986, the Law Reform Commission condemned this statute "as one of the poorest examples of legislative drafting on the statute books." For these reasons and more, section 4 of the act is probably inconsistent with Charter rights. Section 4 also compares unfavorably to the United Kingdom's much more restrained Official Secrets Act (which carefully defines the sorts of information captured by the criminalization of disclosure, and requires that disclosure of even sensitive information be "damaging" before criminal culpability will attach).

Given their ambiguities and scope, proper use of Canada's secrecy laws depends on government good faith. Where the rights of individuals such as Maher Arar and Ms. O'Neill are at stake, good faith is not good enough. Ottawa should replace section 4 with the more temperate U.K. approach. It should harmonize its definition of national security across the statute book, closing the door to self-serving interpretations. And it should rethink the overboard Evidence Act provisions.

These amendments would not put national security at risk. Instead, they'd remove secrecy laws as a potential obstacle to legitimate public scrutiny. Mr. Arar would receive answers to some of his questions, and Ms. O'Neill could report on them. Craig Forcese teaches national security law at the University of Ottawa and is co-author with Aaron Freeman of The Laws of Government: The Legal Foundation of Canadian Democracy.

OTTAWA -- The Arar commission is turning to Reid Morden, one of Canada's foremost experts on international security issues, to try to break a logjam with the federal government about the public release of information.

Mr. Morden, who was both Canada's most senior diplomat and intelligence officer, will serve as a special adviser to the commission on national security matters to provide guidance on evidence heard in secret that can safely be released in public.

Mr. Justice Dennis O'Connor, who heads the commission, faced a barrage of government objections earlier this year when he attempted to make public a summary of evidence about the RCMP's involvement in the U.S. decision to deport Ottawa computer engineer Maher Arar to Syria, where he was tortured.

Justice Department lawyers said release of the evidence could damage national security and diplomatic relations with other countries.

Mr. Morden will be able to give the commission expert advice because of his unique experience in the federal government, the commission said in a news release.

He is the former director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and deputy minister at the Department of Foreign Affairs. He's now the director of the independent inquiry into the scandal-plagued UN oil-for-food program.

Prime Minister Paul Martin convened the Arar public inquiry last year because, he said, "I want to get to the bottom of this."

Since then, his government has raised a series of objections to attempts by Judge O'Connor to make evidence public.

Commission counsel Paul Cavalluzzo said if the government continues to object to what Judge O'Connor wants to disclose -- at the time the commission completes its report later this year -- Mr. Morden may be called as an expert witness to testify.

Knowing that the commission is to some extent relying on Mr. Morden's advice, the government may be less likely to object, Mr. Cavalluzzo said.The commission has managed to get some incriminating information on the record, including the disclosure last Friday of a document suggesting that CSIS, did not want Mr. Arar returned to Canada even after Canadian diplomats suspected the man was being tortured.

Meanwhile, federal Information Commissioner John Reid released a report yesterday stating that bureaucrats are using delays as a strategy to thwart release of information that should be public.

Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, who promised last year to reform the Access to Information Act to make it easier for the public to learn about government activities, has been backtracking on that promise, Mr. Reid said.

The Martin government seems to want to increase secrecy and weaken the act, he said.

Advocates of open government say one of the most needed reforms is amending the act to make it an offence for bureaucrats to destroy documents.

To: Media
cc: Politicians and law enforcement
bcc: Citizens please forward

From:
David Hawkins, Foundation Scholar, Cambridge University and founder of the Citizen's Association of Forensic Economists at Hawks' CAFE

Subject:
Hawks' CAFE prepares 9/11 + UN Oil-for-Food RICO suit against Canadian Privy Council and CAI

With evidence of UN oil-for-food fraud by the Canadian Privy Council and its apparent support for the 9/11 attack on America and later insurgency in Iraq, Hawks' CAFE is preparing an online-citizen's racketeer influenced corrupt organization (RICO) suit to recover public equity in the UN program from individual privy councilors and private equity funds run by the Canadian American Investors (CAI) group in Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto and New York.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/key/PrivyCouncil.asp
http://www.caifunds.com/Special.htm

By connecting a series of insurance and security frauds, Hawks' CAFE has traced UN oil-for-food money through the Canadian Privy Council Office with financial and/or intelligence links to the al-Qaeda and Ba'ath Party leaders responsiblefor global terror attacks on innocent citizens.
http://parisien.org/arabic1.htm
http://parisien.org/services.htm

The Citizen's Association of Forensic Economists at Hawks' CAFE believes that certain Canadian privy councilors, including Jean Chrétien, Brian Mulroney, Conrad Black, Paul Desmarais, Paul Martin, Alfonso Gagliano, Frank McKenna and U.N. financial adviser, Maurice Strong, are sabotaging investigations into the UN oil-for-food program in a conspiracy to conceal UN bribes and kickbacks to insiders, international trafficking in WMD material and money laundering by the Treasury Board of Canada.
http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=41134&SelectRegion=Iraq_Crisis

We see an example of such sabotage in the selection of former Canadian public servant, Reid Morden, by the former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman, Paul Volcker, [read selection by privy councilor, Maurice Strong] to lead the UN's self-sponsored investigation into the UN Oil-for-Food scam.

Hawks' CAFE believes its associates are well qualified to trace and recover the money stolen from the UN programme and apparently used in the 9/11 terror attacks while Mr. Morden must be disqualified on at least four counts.

1. In March 2001, Mr. Morden appears to have been instructed by the Privy Council to divert the attention of CSIS and the U.S. State Department away from the imminent 9/11 terrorist attack by al-Qaeda. Just five months before 9/11, this former CSIS chief (1987 to 1991) went public with accusations that Canada's Liberal government was soft on terror and suggested it focus on the Sikh groups, Babbar Khalsa and the Khalistan Liberation Organization, the Basque separatist group ETA, the Kurdistan Workers Party and Irish terrorist groups of both religious persuasions. As additional camouflage, Mr. Morden also criticized Paul Martin P.C., Minister of Finance, for attending a dinner in Toronto in 2000 for a Tamil group accused by both CSIS and the U.S. State Department of raising money for the Tamil Tigers who are engaged in terror attacks in Sri Lanka in a bid to create a separate Tamil state.
http://webhome.idirect.com/~sluna/np030901.htm

2. Back in March 2001, Morden was the chairman of KPMG Corporate Intelligence Inc. A year later, KPMG was placed "under investigation by the SEC and tax authorities in California and New York for advising at least ten banks to shift as much as $ 17 billion of bank assets into shell regulated investment companies, allegedly to shelter more than $ 750 million in income from taxation". According to KPMG tax professionals interviewed by [IRS] Subcommittee staff .. KPMG apparently possessed sample insurance policies that promised to reimburse the policy holder for a range of items, including penalties or fines assessed by the IRS for using SC2, essentially insuring the policy holder against being penalized for tax evasion" KPMG engaged in a continued pattern of deceit during the Missouri Department of Insurance's investigation into General American's liquidity crisis. The record is replete with KPMG witnesses giving false testimony, evasive answers and just "playing dumb" in an apparent hope to avoid State of Missouri regulatory scrutiny and the filing of this Petition". KPMG wanted to hide .. misrepresentations, gross breaches of its professional obligations and numerous failures regarding full and fair financial reporting for General American."
http://222.ecommercetax.com/Official_docs/tax_shelter_study.htm

OurTrent Editor's Note: We have been advised that the above link may not be available and that in the alternative we were directed to articles mentioning KPMG in the May 2005 JereBeasleyReport (STATE OF MISSISSIPPI SETTLES WITH MCI on pages 4/5 and KPMG TO PAY FOR ITS ACCOUNTING FRAUD on page 17).

3. In October, 1995, Mr Morden was president of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd when he helped the Privy Council put together a clandestine CANDU contract with China. A second phase of the CANDU deal with China was signed in Ottawa during the controversial and much-protested visit of Premier Li Peng (AKA the "Butcher of Beijing"). Documents were signed by Li Peng and Prime Minister Jean Chrétien [P.C.], as well as AECL President Reid Morden, and his counterpart in the China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC), Jiang Xinxiong. AECL and the Canadian government have not made clear the exact nature of this second-phase agreement, but Morden stated that "we are now essentially ready to complete work on a commercial contract".
http://www.ccnr.org/exports_2.html

4. Mr. Morden served as deputy minister of Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs during a period in which he helped the Privy Council to detach Canada from what is now known as the "Coalition of the Willing", including America, Australia and the U.K. Reid Morden appears to have conspired with the Privy Council to align Canadia's foreign policy with France, Russia and China - three essentially-fascist and extraordinarily-corrupt members of the UN Security Commission "and the so-called "Axis of Evil" " Iraq, Iran and North Korea. None of these countries have any interest in tracking public equity stolen in the UN Oil-for-Food programme.
http://www.jsasports.com/Lowell%20Ponte.htm

To follow news and correspondence on Hawks' CAFE preparations for an online RICO suit against the Canadian Privy Council and the CAI group, please visit URLs below..........
http://www.davidhawkinsresearch.com/source/cafe-002.html

NEW YORK (AP) - Big Four accounting firm KPMG LLP said Thursday it takes "full responsibility" for unlawful conduct by former KPMG partners and is trying to resolve the matter with the U.S. Department of Justice "fairly and expeditiously."

Since February 2004, the Justice Department has been investigating certain tax services that were offered by KPMG from 1996 to 2002.

This is part of a larger tax-shelter investigation into the role of accounting firms, law firms, large banks and taxpayers who participated in the development, promotion and implementation of tax shelters.

In a statement Thursday, KPMG said it has taken action to ensure that no wrongdoing occurs again and it no longer provides the services in question.

KPMG said it remains in discussions with the department and continues to co-operate fully with the investigation, stating that it "looks forward to a resolution that recognizes the significant reforms the firm has already made in response to this matter while appropriately sanctioning the firm for this wrongdoing."

© The Canadian Press 2005

NEW YORK — Accounting firm KPMG LLP, which has been under investigation by the federal government for selling questionable tax shelters, said Thursday that there was unlawful conduct by some former KPMG partners, but that is has taken steps to prevent it from happening again and is cooperating with the Department of Justice's probe.

In a statement, KPMG said it has taken action "to ensure that those responsible for wrongdoing have been separated from the firm." It did not say in the statement how many people were involved, but said the firm take "full responsibility" for the unlawful conduct.

It said it no longer provides the tax services in question and that it has taken steps to make sure such unlawful conduct doesn't happen again. That includes "firm-wide structural, cultural and governance reforms" to ensure "the highest ethical standards," KPMG said.

The announcement came after The Wall Street Journal reported in Thursday's editions that federal prosecutors have built a criminal case against KPMG for obstruction of justice and the sale of abusive tax shelters. The newspaper said top Justice Department officials are debating over whether to seek an indictment at the risk of killing one of the four remaining big accounting firms.

The firm said that since February 2004, the Justice Department has been investigating certain tax services that were offered by KPMG from 1996 to 2002. It said the inquiry was part of a larger tax shelter investigation into the role of accounting firms, law firms, large banks and taxpayers who participated in the development, promotion and implementation of tax shelters.

KPMG said it remains in discussions with the DOJ and continues to cooperate fully with the investigation, stating that it "looks forward to a resolution that recognizes the significant reforms the firm has already made in response to this matter while appropriately sanctioning the firm for this wrongdoing."