00 — CRIMINAL CHARGESForm 2 Information — Section 504 of the Criminal Code
I have laid a Form 2 Information under Section 504 of the Criminal Code of Canada against Captain Rebecca Covey (CFNIS), Vicky Bae (United Front Networks), Justice of the Peace Donna Dombovski, and other individuals acting in concert within the Canadian Armed Forces and judiciary.
The Information contains 29 counts including accessory after the fact to murder, criminal negligence causing death, breach of trust, fabricating evidence, fraud on the court, attempted murder, harassment, aggravated assault, false confinement, torture, high treason, sedition, intimidation of a justice system participant, defamatory libel, targeting of employment, political suppression as economic warfare, and party to offence (s.21) in the murder of Travis.
ADDITIONAL CHARGES ADDED — CAPTAIN REBECCA COVEY
The following additional charges have been added to the original Form 2 Information against Captain Rebecca Covey:
- COUNT 13 — Targeting of Employment: Deliberate interference with the veteran's employment and professional relationships. The veteran's financial independence was systematically destroyed while he was fighting the politically motivated prosecution.
- COUNT 14 — Political Suppression as Economic Warfare: The targeting of employment constitutes a coordinated campaign of economic destruction designed to prevent the veteran from funding his own legal defence and public advocacy. This is political suppression through financial destruction.
- COUNT 15 — s.21 Party to Offence — Murder of Travis: Captain Rebecca Covey is named as a party to the offence under s.21 of the Criminal Code in connection with the murder of Travis. The CFNIS apparatus that Covey operated within created the conditions, suppressed the evidence, and obstructed the investigation. s.21 applies in totality.
- COUNT 16 — Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice (s.139): Using the CFNIS investigation to suppress a legitimate report of foreign interference rather than investigate it. The investigation was turned against the whistleblower, not against the threat he identified.
- COUNT 17 — Institutional Hate Crime: The attempt to label an Indigenous combat veteran as a Nazi while prosecuting him for his political opinions constitutes a hate crime. Captain Covey's participation makes her a party to the institutional hate crime under s.21.
s.21 (party to offence) applies in totality across all 29 counts. This filing is published for public record, is sent hourly to the Canadian Forces, courts, and national media, and every send is screenshotted and documented on the Delivery Evidence page.
Every count cites applicable provisions of the Criminal Code, National Defence Act, Security of Information Act, CSIS Act, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadian Human Rights Act, UN Convention Against Torture, ICCPR, UNDRIP, and the Rome Statute.
The document includes a Legal Authority section citing Supreme Court of Canada and Ontario Court of Appeal case law establishing that:
- This Information may be submitted at any courthouse in Ontario (R v Ellis (J.), 2009 ONCA 483)
- A Justice of the Peace must receive it — the duty is mandatory, not discretionary (Dowson v R, [1983] 2 SCR 144, SCC)
- A JP who refuses is acting without jurisdiction and the remedy is mandamus (R v Grinshpun, 2004 BCCA 579)
- A private citizen has the right to lay charges for indictable offences (R v McHale, 2010 ONCA 361)
⚖ Oath of Allegiance — Canadian Armed Forces
“I, Daniel Perry, do solemnly swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles the Third, King of Canada, His Heirs and Successors. So help me God.”
The oath I swore when I joined the Canadian Forces. The same Crown whose officers I am now compelled to charge under s.504 of the Criminal Code.
01 — THE LAWPublic Servants Disclosure Protection Act (PSDPA)
Canada's primary whistleblower protection law is the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (S.C. 2005, c. 46), which came into force in 2007.[1]
On paper, the PSDPA is supposed to protect federal employees who report wrongdoing. In practice, it has been described by legal experts as one of the worst whistleblower protection frameworks in the world.[2]
| Feature | What the Law Says | What Actually Happens |
|---|---|---|
| Burden of Proof | The whistleblower must prove that employer actions were intended as reprisal | This is nearly impossible to prove. Employers can cite any alternative justification. |
| Remedy Access | Only the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal can provide remedies | Access is controlled by the Integrity Commissioner. In 18 years, only 7 whistleblowers have been referred. Zero remedies have been ordered.[3] |
| Military Exemption | The Canadian Forces are exempt from the PSDPA | Military whistleblowers have effectively zero statutory protection. They are told to use "comparable" internal processes that do not exist in meaningful form.[1] |
| Intelligence Exemption | CSIS and CSE are also exempt | The agencies most likely to encounter foreign interference have no whistleblower protection framework.[1] |
| Mandatory Review | The Treasury Board President must conduct a 5-year review | The law requires this review. It has never been conducted. The government has been in violation of its own statute since 2012.[3] |
| Internal Processes | Departments must establish internal disclosure mechanisms | According to testimony before the Standing Committee on Government Operations, federal employees believe internal processes are designed to contain problems, not resolve them.[3] |
0
remedies ordered for whistleblowers under the PSDPA in 18 years of operation. The law exists to create the appearance of protection without providing any.
02 — INTERNATIONAL RANKINGHow Canada Compares
| Country | Whistleblower Law | Key Protections |
|---|---|---|
| United States | Whistleblower Protection Act (1989), Military Whistleblower Protection Act (10 U.S.C. §1034) | Dedicated military protections. Inspector General investigation mandated. Burden on employer to prove no reprisal. Financial rewards under False Claims Act. |
| United Kingdom | Public Interest Disclosure Act (1998) | Covers public and private sector. Employment tribunal access. Compensation for unfair dismissal. No cap on damages. |
| European Union | EU Whistleblower Directive (2019/1937) | All member states must implement. Anonymous reporting allowed. Reverse burden of proof. Covers military and intelligence. |
| Canada | PSDPA (2005) | Federal public servants only. Military exempt. Intelligence exempt. Burden on whistleblower. Zero remedies in 18 years. Ranked among worst by IBA.[2] |
The United States has had dedicated military whistleblower protections since 1988. Canada has never enacted comparable legislation. A Canadian soldier who reports foreign interference inside the military has less legal protection than an American civilian reporting a billing error.
03 — FOREIGN INTERFERENCELaws Canada Passed While Prosecuting Me
While I have been under prosecution for six years for reporting foreign interference, the Government of Canada has:
- Established the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference (Hogue Commission, September 2023) to investigate foreign interference in Canadian democratic processes.[4]
- Received the NSICOP Special Report (June 2024) which identified parliamentarians who had engaged, wittingly or semi-wittingly, with foreign state actors.[5]
- Passed Bill C-70: Countering Foreign Interference Act (Royal Assent June 20, 2024), creating a Foreign Influence Transparency Registry, expanding CSIS warrant powers, and adding new Criminal Code offences for foreign interference.[6]
- Received the Hogue Commission Final Report (January 2025), which documented foreign interference activities targeting Canadian democratic institutions.[7]
The Government of Canada acknowledges that foreign interference is real, that it targets Canadian institutions, and that it is serious enough to warrant a public inquiry, new legislation, and expanded intelligence powers. And yet the same government has spent six years prosecuting someone who reported foreign interference inside the military.
The contradiction is not subtle. Either foreign interference is a serious threat that warrants protection for those who report it, or it is not. Canada cannot maintain both positions simultaneously.
04 — BILL C-70The Countering Foreign Interference Act
Bill C-70 received Royal Assent on June 20, 2024.[6] Key provisions:
| Provision | What It Does | What It Does NOT Do |
|---|---|---|
| Foreign Influence Transparency Registry | Requires persons acting on behalf of foreign principals to register publicly | Does not protect individuals who report unregistered foreign agents operating within Canadian institutions |
| Expanded CSIS Powers | New preservation orders, production orders, and warrants for intelligence gathering | Does not create any obligation to investigate reports of foreign interference from military personnel |
| New Criminal Code Offences | Makes it a crime to conduct foreign interference activities | Does not make it a crime to retaliate against someone who reports foreign interference |
| Whistleblower Protection | DOES NOT EXIST IN BILL C-70. The legislation creates new tools to investigate foreign interference but provides zero protection for the people who report it. | |
05 — WHAT MUST CHANGELegislative Reforms Canada Needs
Structural Accountability Reforms
- Criminal Penalties for Ethics Violations — The Conflict of Interest Act currently has NO enforcement mechanism. PM Trudeau was found in contravention of the Act twice, Ministers Morneau, LeBlanc, Ng, and Speaker Fergus were all found in contravention — none faced any penalty. Breach of trust by public officers (Criminal Code s.122) must be actively prosecuted.
- Foreign Lobbying Transparency — Require organizations with 100+ annual lobbying communications to disclose funding sources, foreign government connections, and trip sponsorships. The January 2026 Lobbying Act reform created an 8-hour registration threshold — enforce it. Bill C-70's foreign agent registry must cover ALL foreign influence organizations.
- 10-Year Revolving Door Ban — Former Ministers, Deputy Ministers, and ADMs should face a 10-year cooling period before registering as lobbyists for entities they regulated. The current 1-2 year period is a revolving door in name only. Criminal penalty for violation.
- Full PM Divestiture Requirement — Require sitting PMs to fully divest (not blind trust) all holdings exceeding $1M in any entity that lobbies the federal government. Ethics screens must cover 100% of portfolio — not the current 5%.
- Military Oversight Independence — Remove CFNIS from the military chain of command. Give the Military Police Complaints Commission binding investigative power with Federal Court enforcement. The self-investigating chain of command must end permanently.
Whistleblower Reforms
- Military Whistleblower Protection Act — Dedicated legislation covering Canadian Forces members who report wrongdoing, modelled on the U.S. Military Whistleblower Protection Act (10 U.S.C. §1034).
- Reverse Burden of Proof — When a whistleblower faces adverse action after reporting, the employer must prove the action was not retaliatory. This is standard in the EU and UK.
- Independent Investigation Mandate — Reports of foreign interference by military personnel must be investigated by an authority independent of the military chain of command. CFNIS investigating its own is a conflict of interest.
- Mandatory PSDPA Review — The government has been in violation of its own statute since 2012 by failing to conduct the required 5-year review. Enforce the law.
- Whistleblower Protection in C-70 — Amend the Countering Foreign Interference Act to include explicit protections for persons who report foreign interference activities.
06 — THE MAGNITSKY ACTFreeze Their Assets
Canada's Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Magnitsky Act) targets foreign nationals involved in human rights violations or corruption. For domestic officials, the legal tools are different — and in some ways more powerful.
The Magnitsky Act applies to foreign nationals only — it cannot freeze Canadian officials' assets. For domestic accountability, use: Criminal Code s.122 (breach of trust — up to 5 years), s.504 (private prosecution — any citizen can lay charges), s.121 (frauds on government), the Conflict of Interest Act, and the reformed Lobbying Act (January 2026).
Domestic Accountability Tools
- Criminal Code s.122 — Breach of Trust by Public Officer: Up to 5 years imprisonment. Applies when a public officer commits a "serious and marked departure from expected standards" for a "dishonest, partial, corrupt purpose." Precedent: public officials have been convicted under this section. Read the statute.
- Criminal Code s.504 — Private Prosecution: Any citizen who has reasonable grounds to believe an indictable offence was committed can lay an information under oath before a justice. Called "a valuable constitutional safeguard against inertia or partiality on the part of authority." Even if the AG stays the prosecution, it creates permanent public record. Read the statute.
- Criminal Code s.121 — Frauds on the Government: Covers bribery, fraud, and corruption involving government contracts. Applies to: ArriveCAN contractors, SDTC board members, non-competitive McKinsey contracts.
- Conflict of Interest Act: Post-employment cooling period (currently 1-2 years — needs reform to 10 years). Fines and public reports. Applies to: Carney Brookfield conflict, Pratt revolving door. Read the Act.
- Lobbying Act (reformed January 2026): New 8-hour threshold triggers registration requirement. 5-year lobbying ban for former Designated Public Office Holders. Read about the reform.
- Bill C-70 — Foreign Agent Registry: Requires registration of foreign influence activities. Regulations published January 2026. Applies to organizations conducting foreign influence — enforcement is the key.
What the Magnitsky Act Can Do
- Freeze assets of individuals involved in gross human rights violations or significant corruption.
- Impose travel bans preventing designated individuals from entering Canada.
- Restrict business — no Canadian can conduct transactions with designated persons.
- International coordination — 35+ countries have Magnitsky-style laws. Designations can cascade.
How to Request a Designation
- Step 1: Document the violation — this site contains 7M+ government records documenting patterns of corruption, obstruction, and institutional abuse.
- Step 2: File a formal complaint with Global Affairs Canada requesting sanctions designation.
- Step 3: Contact your MP — the Governor in Council can designate individuals under the Act. Find your MP.
- Step 4: If domestic channels fail, submit a communication to the ICC Office of the Prosecutor under Rome Statute Article 15. Any individual can submit information about potential crimes within ICC jurisdiction.
- Step 5: Coordinate internationally — the Magnitsky Act exists in 35+ countries. One designation triggers scrutiny in all of them.
What This Site Has Already Documented
- Obstruction of civilian oversight — MPCC accused the Provost Marshal of blocking investigations and redacting evidence (CFNIS page)
- Arms exports after public pause — $229M+ flowing to Israel while government claims exports stopped (Arms Pipeline)
- Procurement corruption — $140B+ in documented waste across 18 major failures (Procurement Analysis)
- Charity fraud — 12 CRA revocations for funneling $276M to Israeli settlements and military (Charity Pipeline)
- Whistleblower suppression — documented retaliation patterns across CFNIS and military chain of command
Read the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act yourself. It is 12 pages long. It gives the government the power to freeze assets of foreign nationals involved in corruption or human rights violations. The evidence on this site may support further investigation into patterns that warrant scrutiny under this and other accountability mechanisms.
07 — TAKE ACTIONDemand Reform
Contact Your MP
Ask why Canada still has no military whistleblower protection act. Ask why the PSDPA review has never been conducted. Find your MP.
Standing Committee on Government Operations
OGGO has studied whistleblower protection and recommended reforms. None were implemented. Ask why. OGGO Committee
Whistleblowing Canada Research Society
Independent research on Canada's whistleblower protection gaps. whistleblowingcanada.com
Share This Page
tenet-5.github.io/legal — Every fact on this page comes from federal legislation, Parliamentary reports, or official government sources.
SOURCESOfficial References
- Government of Canada. Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (S.C. 2005, c. 46). laws-lois.justice.gc.ca
- The Conversation. A former whistleblower explains the dangers of Canada's feeble whistleblowing laws. 2022. theconversation.com
- House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations (OGGO). Strengthening the Protection of the Public Interest Within the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. 9th Report, 42nd Parliament. ourcommons.ca
- Foreign Interference Commission. Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions. foreigninterferencecommission.ca
- CBC News. Some MPs helping foreign actors like China and India meddle in Canadian politics: report. June 2024. cbc.ca
- Government of Canada. Legislation to counter foreign interference receives Royal Assent. June 20, 2024. canada.ca
- Foreign Interference Commission. Final Report, Volume 1. January 28, 2025. foreigninterferencecommission.ca
- Government of Canada. Complaint Mechanisms: Disclosure of Wrongdoing (PSDPA). DND/CF Ombudsman. canada.ca
- Whistleblowing Canada Research Society. Weak Legislation. whistleblowingcanada.com
- Government of Canada. Charter Statement — Bill C-70: An Act respecting countering foreign interference. justice.gc.ca