1. We are currently experiencing issues with viewing and uploading images, our team is working on the issue.
    Dismiss Notice

Send Ann McLellan to COURT!

Discussion in 'Canadian Patients' started by gb123, Apr 20, 2017.

  1.  
    gb123

    gb123 Well-Known Member

    Anne McLellan, a senior adviser at Bennett Jones LLP. In addition to promoting itself as the "go-to" advisory firm in the marijuana sector, Bennett Jones and a dozen of its lawyers are listed on securities documents as being granted stakes in one of the companies positioned to profit from legalization.


    nuff said..

    its time to bring light to her of being the criminal she is..

    by e bye Annie..this is your time to go!! (:

    As the federal government prepares to legalize marijuana, questions are being raised about a former Liberal minister's role in shaping that legislation while working for a prominent law firm poised to capitalize on the lucrative new industry.

    The new bill being unveiled Thursday in Ottawa relies heavily upon the recommendations of a federal task force chaired by former Liberal deputy prime minister Anne McLellan, a senior adviser at Bennett Jones LLP. In addition to promoting itself as the "go-to" advisory firm in the marijuana sector, Bennett Jones and a dozen of its lawyers are listed on securities documents as being granted stakes in one of the companies positioned to profit from legalization.

    In recent weeks, since wrapping up her work on the task force in December, Ms. McLellan has been speaking at industry-sponsored events across Canada, where she is touted for her role as an insider on the task force that helped design the new legislation, while also promoting her as a member of the law firm.


    Explainer: Legal marijuana is coming but what does it mean for you?

    Ms. McLellan says she sees no problem with her dual role working for a firm that both advises – and invests in – the burgeoning commercial marijuana industry while also speaking about her past work chairing the federal panel that guided Ottawa in its push to legalize cannabis.


    "When I do these speaking engagements, I do so in my role as the former chair of the task force. I'm not there as senior adviser at the law firm of Bennett Jones LLP," she said. "It cuts both ways, I suppose, in that it's absolutely fair for people to know where I am employed, and with whom."

    But the dual role is drawing criticism from people inside and outside the industry, who question whether it is appropriate. This is particularly the case, critics say, because key recommendations of the task force place the legalized recreational cannabis industry, expected to be worth billions of dollars, in the hands of a few dozen medical marijuana producers – including companies her firm may advise.

    Securities documents list Bennett Jones and at least 15 of its employees as having been issued several hundred thousand shares last summer in Supreme Pharmaceuticals, a company the firm has also advised.

    "When selecting its task-force chair, our government would have done well not to provide fuel for this reasonable concern," said Michael DeVillaer, a drug-policy expert at McMaster University, in a recent report on marijuana legalization.

    "That fuel was provided when government selected someone whose employer was not only intimately tied to the cannabis industry, and had identified that industry as a premium growth opportunity, but was also positioned to benefit financially from that industry's success."


    Brent Zettl, president of CanniMed Therapeutics, one of roughly 40 licensed producers in Canada, said even if the government knew about Ms. McLellan's interest, the public should be made more aware of the issue.

    "Clearly it's in the grey area," he said of the situation.

    Ms. McLellan, who is not listed as a shareholder in the securities documents, said the potential conflict of her role was properly disclosed at the outset of the task force and care was taken to ensure there were no issues. She said she had no knowledge of her firm investing in any cannabis companies.

    On Wednesday, a spokesperson for Health Canada issued a statement that said Ms. McLellan and the other eight task-force volunteers declared their interests and affiliations and signed confidentiality agreements that stipulated they could not release government material without permission. The statement thanked Ms. McLellan and the task-force members for their work, which ended with the Dec. 13 submission of their final report.

    Ms. McLellan said she has handed out Bennett Jones business cards while meeting with companies as the chair of the independent panel last fall, but only as "a matter of convenience – not promotion of the law firm."

    "I am very sensitive when I do these things to not wanting to be seen to be promoting Bennett Jones. So it is a fine balance that one walks here."


    The Bennett Jones partner who spearheads the firm's work in the cannabis sector was unavailable for comment Wednesday. However, Peter Zvanitajs, senior media adviser at Bennett Jones said: "If you talked to Anne, then she provided the [company's] comment."

    Supreme Pharmaceuticals said it had no comment and referred The Globe and Mail to the company's filings with Canada's securities regulator.

    The federally licensed producers stand to be the big winners as the government is expected to unveil a bill that ramps up production from these companies to supply demand for recreational cannabis.

    Arthur Caplan, head of medical ethics at New York University's school of medicine, said Ms. McLellan can better manage the issue by disclosing at speaking events that she works for a company heavily involved in the marijuana sector.

    "It's not that she can't be truthful or say something important, but you have to have a certain skepticism about her comments," he said.

    Mr. DeVillaer said simply disclosing the conflict of interest is not enough.

    "The financial interest was property declared, but that makes it no less of an interest," Mr. DeVillaer said. "The purpose of declaring the interest is to expose it to public consideration as to whether it constitutes a conflict of interest."

    His report concludes the dual role is "an unacceptable conflict that is incompatible with the protection of the public's health."

    Mr. DeVillaer said this week that the speaking events Ms. McLellan has conducted since wrapping up the task-force work also deserve scrutiny since the line between the law firm and the government task force in promotional material promoting the events is unclear.
     
    GroErr, Nadine Bews, WHATFG and 2 others like this.
  2.  
    gb123

    gb123 Well-Known Member

    Make the Lies and deceit known people!!..
    they need to be put behind bars for this mess..
     
  3.  
    GrowRock

    GrowRock Well-Known Member

    So miss Ann can operate in gray area but dispensaries are being raided for laying in a legal gray market????o_O Why is it that people in politics are not held to the same law as the tax payers who pay there fucking wages???
     
    Rusher, SirLoweed, GroErr and 5 others like this.
  4.  
    TwistedToker

    TwistedToker Well-Known Member

    Anne is just one person, but it may be the trigger for media to start investigating who profits from legalization. It will implode on their greedy asses eventually.
     
  5.  
    gb123

    gb123 Well-Known Member

    letting enough know and until it effects them...
    then they sure follow along quick..
     
    GrowRock and CalyxCrusher like this.
  6.  
    WHATFG

    WHATFG Well-Known Member

    Hahahahahahahaha......hahahahahahahaha......
     
  7.  
    Nadine Bews

    Nadine Bews Well-Known Member

    One must write up and file a demand for a judicial review of the composition of the Task Force under section 18 of the Federal Court Act on the ground that the Minister is violating section 5(1) of the Lobbyist Act.
    REGISTRATION OF LOBBYISTS

    Consultant Lobbyists Requirement to File Return

    Section 5(1) An individual shall file with the Commissioner, in the prescribed form and manner, a return setting out the information referred to in subsection (2), if the individual, for payment, on behalf of any person or organization (in this section referred to as the “client”), undertakes to

    (a) communicate with a public office holder in respect of

    (i) the development of any legislative proposal by the Government of Canada or by a member of the Senate or the House of Commons,

    (ii) the introduction of any Bill or resolution in either House of Parliament or the passage, defeat or amendment of any Bill or resolution that is before either House of Parliament,

    (iii) the making or amendment of any regulation as defined in subsection 2(1) of theStatutory Instruments Act,

    (iv) the development or amendment of any policy or program of the Government of Canada,

    (v) the awarding of any grant, contribution or other financial benefit by or on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada, or

    (vi) the awarding of any contract by or on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada; or

    (b) arrange a meeting between a public office holder and any other person.
     
  8.  
    gb123

    gb123 Well-Known Member

    Hey Nadine....
    time to redeem eh

    thanks (:
     
    Nadine Bews likes this.
  9.  
    Nadine Bews

    Nadine Bews Well-Known Member

    LOBBYING

    1. Lobbying is communicating, with public office holders, for payment with regard to:

    a) Making, developing or amending of federal legislative proposals, bills or resolutions, regulations, policies or programs;

    b) Awarding of federal grants, contributions or other financial benefits; and

    c) Avoid misleading public office holders by taking all reasonable measures to provide them with information that is accurate and factual; and

    d) Use and disclose information received from a public office holder only in the manner consistent with the purpose for which it was shared. If a lobbyist obtains a government document they should not have, they shall neither use nor disclose it.

    2. A system of registration of paid lobbyists has been established under the Lobbyist Act in order for the public to know who is engaged in lobbying activities.

    3. TheLobbying Actand associated regulations come into force on July 2, 2008.

    a) The position of Registrar of Lobbyists is repealed and the Commissioner of Lobbying, an independent Agent of Parliament, is created. The Commissioner is provided with expanded investigative powers and an education mandate.

    b) A new category of public office holder is identified within the federal government known as the designated public office holder (DPOH) and includes Ministers of the Crown or Ministers of State and any person employed in their offices who are appointed under subsection 128(1) of thePublic Service Employment Act;public office holders, who occupy senior executive positions, whether by the title of deputy minister, chief executive officer or by some other title, or associate deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers, or occupy a position ofcomparable rank.

    c) Lobbyists are required to disclose certain details regarding their "oral and arranged" communications with DPOHs. DPOHs, for their part, are required to confirm to the Commissioner the accuracy of the information submitted by lobbyists. Payments or other benefits that are contingent on the outcome of any consultant lobbyist's activity are banned.

    d) Lobbyists are required to disclose certain details regarding their "oral and arranged" communications with DPOHs. DPOHs, for their part, are required to confirm to the Commissioner the accuracy of the information submitted by lobbyists.

    e) Payments or other benefits that are contingent on the outcome of any consultant lobbyist's activity are banned.

    f) The period during which possible infractions or violations under the Lobbying Act and the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct may be investigated and prosecution may be initiated is extended from two to ten years.

    g) Monetary penalties for lobbyists who are found guilty of breaching the requirements of the Lobbying Act are increased to a maximum of $200,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both.

    h) The Commissioner is given the authority to prohibit individuals convicted of offences under the Act from conducting lobbying activities for a period of up to two years.

    4. Lobbyists must observe the highest professional and ethical standards and should conform fully with the letter and spirit of theLobbyists' Code of Conductas well as with all relevant laws, including theLobbying Actand its regulations.

    Consultant Lobbyist

    5. Consultant lobbyists are self-employed or employed by firms that have a specialty in government relations, law, accounting or strategic advice and are required to register all of their lobbying activities.

    6. TheLobbyists’ Code of Conductrequires that lobbyists should:

    a) Act in a manner that demonstrates respect for democratic institutions, including the duty of public office holders to serve the public interest; and

    b) Conduct all relations with public office holders with integrity and honesty; and

    c) Be open and frank about their lobbying activities; and

    d) Inform each client of their obligations as a lobbyist under theLobbying Actand theLobbyists’ Code of Conduct.
     
  10.  
    Nadine Bews

    Nadine Bews Well-Known Member

    Because you do not know how to prepare and file a demand for a judicial revue under the Federal Court Act section 18, it is just that simple.
     
  11.  
    WHATFG

    WHATFG Well-Known Member

    We might want to consider not relying on the honour system anymore.
     
  12.  
    TheRealDman

    TheRealDman Well-Known Member

    As simple as what you tried to do in Allard. How did that work out for you again? Oh right, you didn't know jack shit about what you were doing and the judge tossed your alleged claim.
     
  13.  
    BobCajun

    BobCajun Well-Known Member

    The biggest problem is that none of the 3 major parties have an interest in fighting to defeat the bill, because they'll all in it one way or another. If not directly owning shares, they're flogging the LPs as good investments for foreign investment funds and institutions to make it look like they're working to boost the economy. They may provide a few jobs to trimmers and whatnot but obviously the profits from those foreign investment firms won't be staying in Canada. What they're really doing is selling out to foreigners to get short term appearance of economic benefit but long term net loss of Canadian wealth. It won't be US citizens coming to Canada who buy most of that weed, it'll be Canadian citizens. Canadians will be sending their money largely to the US and other countries.

    It'll be much like the liquor industry; "Canadian production of distilled spirits is highly concentrated among a few firms and the bulk of domestic spirits production in Canada is foreign-owned." source
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2017
    Nadine Bews likes this.
  14.  
    Nadine Bews

    Nadine Bews Well-Known Member

    RealDemon - It was not for lack of merit, only for failing to file 3 copies and a form 66 Record of Motion so I decided to tidy it up a bit and good things take time to prepare. If you are willing to pay the registry fees, I shall be pleased to prepare a demand for a judicial review of the Task Force and its composition on the grounds that the Minister is in conflict of interest and classified as a 'designated public office holder' (DPOH) under the Lobbyist Act 2008 and has failed to register as such with the Commissionaire of Lobbyists.
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2017
  15.  
    willieboy

    willieboy Active Member


    How are the kidnapping charges coming along ?
     
  16.  
    TheRealDman

    TheRealDman Well-Known Member

    RealDemon....nice! :)

    When dealing with these matters, it's best to leave it to professionals...not self-proclaimed Interweb warriors like yourself...who think they know what they're doing.
     
    GrowRock, GroErr and TwistedToker like this.
  17.  
    TheDizzyBizzy

    TheDizzyBizzy Well-Known Member

    Also... let's play 6 degrees of separation. (hover italics for hyper links)

    The CEO of Lift, a lawyer named Matei Olaru, an 'industry consultant' and corporate lawyer with ties to the IMF is an associate of Hugo Alves and Michael Lickver... who are principle holders at Bennet Jones.... who pay Anne McLellan money to sit around and and 'advise', apparently. Who then gives Interviews to Lift which are used to communicate to shareholders key policy pieces before they're officially released.

    This is more evidence that Lift is a front for the LPees and their big government cronies to steal the weed from the people. Pass it on.
     
  18.  
    GrowRock

    GrowRock Well-Known Member

    Yawn.... go make some false accusations that don't seem to hold up......
     
  19.  
    BobCajun

    BobCajun Well-Known Member

    It's similar to the "renewable energy" scam. A bunch of politicians get into the wind turbine or solar panel business and then make legislation favorable to those companies. Canada is a free fraud zone. It's so insignificant as nations go that politicians figure they can get away with pretty much anything, and apparently they're right. There's also no point in expecting the other political parties to fight against the Liberal policies because they're all just as dirty as them. The Canadian political system is so stupid that it's dead easy for politicians to exploit and nobody be able to legally stop them. Where the hell else could a Government ram through such an idiotic bill as the Cannabis Act? Maybe some shitty third world nation like Uruguay.
     
  20.  
    gb123

    gb123 Well-Known Member

    like a BROKEN RECORD

    this will get dealt with by the courts slowly but surely!!
     
    GrowRock and VIANARCHRIS like this.

Share This Page