Will Canada's Chief Justice Be Prosecuted for Fraud?
Beverley McLachlin - Linked to Water War Crimes Insider Allan Gregg
On Jan 7, 2000 - Beverley McLachlin was sworn in as the first female Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada having been selected for the position by Prime Minister Jean Chretien.
One month later on February 5, 2000, Chief Justice McLachlin faced the first serious challenge in her new position long term Liberal Party of Canada supporter, friend of Prime Minister Chretien and recently appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Bryan Williams, suddenly and unexpectedly resigned after serving five years of a fifteen year appointment.
What the public did not know was that commencing in July 1999, a series of complaints about and at least one investigation into the conduct of Mr. Williams had been carried out as a result of his alleged interfering in the judicial process in order to obstruct the administration of justice in legal proceedings brought by Sun Belt Water Inc. in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
Finally, in late December 1999, the complainant, having received information that Prime Minister Chretien and several other prominent politicians in the Liberal Party had been investors in W.C.W. Western Canada Water Enterprises Ltd., concluded that Williams must have acted as he did to benefit and protect Prime Minister Jean Chretien and other Liberal Party members. The complainant put this information in a complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council and sent copies to a wide spread number of other legal and police authorities. Williams resigned on February 5, 2000.
Immediately after the Williams resignation, the Canadian Judicial Council and British Columbia Chief Justice Allan McEachern did the wrong thing. They lied. They covered up. They denied any complaints had been received about Williams or that any investigations had taken place, These denials were false. They were fraudulent.
Private correspondence was sent to Ms. McLachlin in her capacity as Chairperson of the Canadian Judicial Council requesting that she intervene and correct the fraud that the Canadian Judicial Council and Chief Justice Allan McEachern were engaged in.
Ms. McLachlin, the Chief Justice of Canada, the woman in charge of the Canadian Judicial Council, had a clear and present duty speak the truth but she close to allow the Canadian Judicial Council to engage in a dastardly, despicable, fraud against the people of Canada who then had to suffer through nine more years of deception and deceit until this web site was established in 2009.
One month later on February 5, 2000, Chief Justice McLachlin faced the first serious challenge in her new position long term Liberal Party of Canada supporter, friend of Prime Minister Chretien and recently appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Bryan Williams, suddenly and unexpectedly resigned after serving five years of a fifteen year appointment.
What the public did not know was that commencing in July 1999, a series of complaints about and at least one investigation into the conduct of Mr. Williams had been carried out as a result of his alleged interfering in the judicial process in order to obstruct the administration of justice in legal proceedings brought by Sun Belt Water Inc. in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
Finally, in late December 1999, the complainant, having received information that Prime Minister Chretien and several other prominent politicians in the Liberal Party had been investors in W.C.W. Western Canada Water Enterprises Ltd., concluded that Williams must have acted as he did to benefit and protect Prime Minister Jean Chretien and other Liberal Party members. The complainant put this information in a complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council and sent copies to a wide spread number of other legal and police authorities. Williams resigned on February 5, 2000.
Immediately after the Williams resignation, the Canadian Judicial Council and British Columbia Chief Justice Allan McEachern did the wrong thing. They lied. They covered up. They denied any complaints had been received about Williams or that any investigations had taken place, These denials were false. They were fraudulent.
Private correspondence was sent to Ms. McLachlin in her capacity as Chairperson of the Canadian Judicial Council requesting that she intervene and correct the fraud that the Canadian Judicial Council and Chief Justice Allan McEachern were engaged in.
Ms. McLachlin, the Chief Justice of Canada, the woman in charge of the Canadian Judicial Council, had a clear and present duty speak the truth but she close to allow the Canadian Judicial Council to engage in a dastardly, despicable, fraud against the people of Canada who then had to suffer through nine more years of deception and deceit until this web site was established in 2009.
The Links Between Chief Justice McLachlin and Water War Crimes Insider
Allan Gregg
Astonishing new information from the Globe and Mail, Canada's leading newspaper, links Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin to alleged Water War Crimes criminal, Allan Gregg.
"Beverley McLachlin, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada and a media-savvy diplomat seen as a genuine leader by the bench, brought the issue into focus. Shortly after being appointed Canada’s top judge in 2000, she swept unannounced into a meeting of the Canadian Judicial Council and urged its startled members to draft a game plan. They hired a consultant, The Strategic Counsel, to conduct a survey of the cream of the legal establishment in order to gauge its awareness of the judiciary and court structures".
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/top-judges-giving-up-silence-to-embrace-the-peoples-court/article1830687/
This startling revelation, by the Globe and Mail, now explains the massive corruption in Canada's Court system related to the Water War Crimes because the owner of The Strategic Counsel, at the time, in 2000, was Allan Gregg who had been a director in W.C.W. Western Canada Water Enterprises Ltd. the company that attempted to acquire a bulk water export monopoly from Canada to the United States in contravention of the Canada US Free Trade Agreement, Canadian domestic laws and American anti-monopoly laws.
As a director of W.C.W.Western Canada Water Enterprises Ltd., Allan Gregg is presumed, at law, to have been one of the guiding minds of the corporate wrong-doing.
When Beverly McLachlin, Chairperson of the Canadian Judicial Council, refused to retract a clearly fraudulent statement by the Council's executive director, Jeannie Thomas, made in February, 2000, and when she refused to correct on the record the fraudulent statement by British Columbia Chief Justice, Allan McEacheen, made at the same time, both of which statements were reported in the Globe and Mail, Beverly McLachlin became complicit in fraud.
It was difficult, February 2000, to understand why Beverley McLachlin would engage in fraud but the emerging relationship between Beverely McLachlin, and suspected Water War Crimes criminal, Allan Gregg, the then owner of The Strategic Counsel, goes a long way towards explaining her corrupt conduct so early in her career as Chief Justice of Canada.
"Beverley McLachlin, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada and a media-savvy diplomat seen as a genuine leader by the bench, brought the issue into focus. Shortly after being appointed Canada’s top judge in 2000, she swept unannounced into a meeting of the Canadian Judicial Council and urged its startled members to draft a game plan. They hired a consultant, The Strategic Counsel, to conduct a survey of the cream of the legal establishment in order to gauge its awareness of the judiciary and court structures".
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/top-judges-giving-up-silence-to-embrace-the-peoples-court/article1830687/
This startling revelation, by the Globe and Mail, now explains the massive corruption in Canada's Court system related to the Water War Crimes because the owner of The Strategic Counsel, at the time, in 2000, was Allan Gregg who had been a director in W.C.W. Western Canada Water Enterprises Ltd. the company that attempted to acquire a bulk water export monopoly from Canada to the United States in contravention of the Canada US Free Trade Agreement, Canadian domestic laws and American anti-monopoly laws.
As a director of W.C.W.Western Canada Water Enterprises Ltd., Allan Gregg is presumed, at law, to have been one of the guiding minds of the corporate wrong-doing.
When Beverly McLachlin, Chairperson of the Canadian Judicial Council, refused to retract a clearly fraudulent statement by the Council's executive director, Jeannie Thomas, made in February, 2000, and when she refused to correct on the record the fraudulent statement by British Columbia Chief Justice, Allan McEacheen, made at the same time, both of which statements were reported in the Globe and Mail, Beverly McLachlin became complicit in fraud.
It was difficult, February 2000, to understand why Beverley McLachlin would engage in fraud but the emerging relationship between Beverely McLachlin, and suspected Water War Crimes criminal, Allan Gregg, the then owner of The Strategic Counsel, goes a long way towards explaining her corrupt conduct so early in her career as Chief Justice of Canada.
Beverley McLachlin and the bizarre case of
R. v. Martin Chambers
It has been said of Beverly McLachlin that "She moved through the judicial system faster than most cases" as her career took her from the position of a lowly Vancouver county court judge to the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia and finally to the Supreme Court of Canada where she was installed by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in 1989.
Ms. McLachlin was, bright, articulate and photogenic. She was the kind of person the judicial mafia needed when women lawyers, then a small but noisy group, were demanding to play a role in Canada's judiciary.
Justice McLachlin's judicial conduct first came to the attention of astute observers of Canada's legal and judicial mafia, in 1990, when she was on the panel of Supreme Court of Canada judges that overturned the conviction of Vancouver lawyer and drug trafficker, Martin Chambers, in a decision that is widely viewed as crooked. According to the RCMP, Mr. Chambers went on to become a leading figure of organized white collar crime in Western Canada. One has to wonder what role Mr. Chambers played in the heinous murders that took place at Picton's Pig Farm in Coquitlam in the 1990's after his acquittal when, according to a prominent writer in the Vancouver Sun Mr. Chambers used to brag that a nice way to kill some one was to put him into a container with a starving pig which is exactly what appears to have taken place during the murders at the Pig Farm in Coquitlam.
The defence of Chambers was ludicrous. Chambers argued he had "no criminal intent" because, although he participated in the drug importing scheme, he did so to win back the affections of his girlfriend and not with the intent to commit a crime. The court ruled this was a valid defence as follows:
"It would be inappropriate for this Court to reconsider its decision in O'Brien here with a view to overturning the doctrine of "double intent". The Crown was aware that the defence would rely upon the principle of double intent and yet did not indicate at any time prior to or at the trial or on appeal, that it might eventually challenge the correctness of the decision. A challenge to the O'Brien decision at this late date would be unfair to the appellant".
The decision in R v. Chambers 1990 2 S.C.R. 1293 can be viewed online at:
http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/672/index.do?r=AAAAAQAIY2hhbWJlcnMAAAAAAQ
Every judge on the panel at the Supreme Court of Canada except Justice Claire L'Hereux Dube, bought into this legal nonsense suggesting that Mr. Chambers had some friends in high places. The court stated it was legally bound to follow the precedent in R v. O'Brien, 1954 S.C.R., a case that emerges from a completely different set of facts where the criminal scheme was a kidnapping and O'Brien and a police informant Tulley made an agreement to participate in a kidnapping, but took no active steps to kidnap anyone. Tulley went to the police, ratted on O'Brien and O'Brien was charged with conspiracy to commit kidnapping. O'Brien was acquitted because Tulley admitted he never had a genuine intent to carry out the conspiracy and so there was no meeting on the minds on an agreement to commit a conspiracy.
Any first year law student who reads the two cases, R. v. O'Brien and R. v. Chambers will immediately see the distinction and realize the Supreme Court of Canada was wrong to rely upon R. v. O'Brien as a decision that had any application whatsoever to the Chambers case because Chambers intent was a matter for the jury to decide from the facts such as his travelling to south America and loving his girlfriend so much he suggested she have sex with the AG of Panama as part of an attempted bribe.
The question then becomes is why did the Supreme Court of Canada so blithely and willingly accept that there was a legal principle in the O'Brien that had any application to a case where Mr. Chambers intent could be deduced from his actions. The law was twisted and perverted to acquit Mr. Chambers, a lawyer with connections to insiders in Vancouver. Was it because Mr. Chambers paid a bribe? Was it because he was a member of the legal and judicial mafia? The decision was bizarre and calls into question the integrity of every judge on that panel, except Ms. L'Hereux Dube who was also appointed by Brian Mulroney.
The decision of R. v. O'Brien can be viewed online at. The astute observer will notice that there is no reference to the so-called "doctrine of double intent" in the O'Brien case. Did the Supreme Court of Canada invent this a this new legal doctrine of double intent to permit Mr. Chambers to escape conviction?
http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1954/1954scr0-666/1954scr0-666.html
Ms. McLachlin was, bright, articulate and photogenic. She was the kind of person the judicial mafia needed when women lawyers, then a small but noisy group, were demanding to play a role in Canada's judiciary.
Justice McLachlin's judicial conduct first came to the attention of astute observers of Canada's legal and judicial mafia, in 1990, when she was on the panel of Supreme Court of Canada judges that overturned the conviction of Vancouver lawyer and drug trafficker, Martin Chambers, in a decision that is widely viewed as crooked. According to the RCMP, Mr. Chambers went on to become a leading figure of organized white collar crime in Western Canada. One has to wonder what role Mr. Chambers played in the heinous murders that took place at Picton's Pig Farm in Coquitlam in the 1990's after his acquittal when, according to a prominent writer in the Vancouver Sun Mr. Chambers used to brag that a nice way to kill some one was to put him into a container with a starving pig which is exactly what appears to have taken place during the murders at the Pig Farm in Coquitlam.
The defence of Chambers was ludicrous. Chambers argued he had "no criminal intent" because, although he participated in the drug importing scheme, he did so to win back the affections of his girlfriend and not with the intent to commit a crime. The court ruled this was a valid defence as follows:
"It would be inappropriate for this Court to reconsider its decision in O'Brien here with a view to overturning the doctrine of "double intent". The Crown was aware that the defence would rely upon the principle of double intent and yet did not indicate at any time prior to or at the trial or on appeal, that it might eventually challenge the correctness of the decision. A challenge to the O'Brien decision at this late date would be unfair to the appellant".
The decision in R v. Chambers 1990 2 S.C.R. 1293 can be viewed online at:
http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/672/index.do?r=AAAAAQAIY2hhbWJlcnMAAAAAAQ
Every judge on the panel at the Supreme Court of Canada except Justice Claire L'Hereux Dube, bought into this legal nonsense suggesting that Mr. Chambers had some friends in high places. The court stated it was legally bound to follow the precedent in R v. O'Brien, 1954 S.C.R., a case that emerges from a completely different set of facts where the criminal scheme was a kidnapping and O'Brien and a police informant Tulley made an agreement to participate in a kidnapping, but took no active steps to kidnap anyone. Tulley went to the police, ratted on O'Brien and O'Brien was charged with conspiracy to commit kidnapping. O'Brien was acquitted because Tulley admitted he never had a genuine intent to carry out the conspiracy and so there was no meeting on the minds on an agreement to commit a conspiracy.
Any first year law student who reads the two cases, R. v. O'Brien and R. v. Chambers will immediately see the distinction and realize the Supreme Court of Canada was wrong to rely upon R. v. O'Brien as a decision that had any application whatsoever to the Chambers case because Chambers intent was a matter for the jury to decide from the facts such as his travelling to south America and loving his girlfriend so much he suggested she have sex with the AG of Panama as part of an attempted bribe.
The question then becomes is why did the Supreme Court of Canada so blithely and willingly accept that there was a legal principle in the O'Brien that had any application to a case where Mr. Chambers intent could be deduced from his actions. The law was twisted and perverted to acquit Mr. Chambers, a lawyer with connections to insiders in Vancouver. Was it because Mr. Chambers paid a bribe? Was it because he was a member of the legal and judicial mafia? The decision was bizarre and calls into question the integrity of every judge on that panel, except Ms. L'Hereux Dube who was also appointed by Brian Mulroney.
The decision of R. v. O'Brien can be viewed online at. The astute observer will notice that there is no reference to the so-called "doctrine of double intent" in the O'Brien case. Did the Supreme Court of Canada invent this a this new legal doctrine of double intent to permit Mr. Chambers to escape conviction?
http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1954/1954scr0-666/1954scr0-666.html
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and the Canadian Judicial Council
The Chief Justice of Canada is automatically the Chairperson of the Canadian Judicial Council.
This means that, effectively, she is the boss. While much of the work is delegated to others, it is the Chairperson who is ultimately responsible for the "corporate culture" in the operations of any organization. This is how organizations operate on a psychological level. The leader sets the tone.
Under the leadership of Beverly McLachlin, the Canadian Judicial Council has consistently refused to investigate complaints against judges that involve allegations of corruption, especially when those allegations are made about members of the judicial mafia operating in Vancouver the group that promoted Beverly McLachlin to the top.
Two recent cases in point are the complaints filed by Dr. David Kuntz who was the victim of a massive and hugely scandalous legal and judicial medical insurance fraud carried out by members of the Vancouver based legal / judicial mafia that supported Premier's Campbell's rise to high office and the complaints filed Abraham Howeling, the owner of a nursery in Langley, British Columbia, whose nursery operation was placed into bankruptcy by a fraudulent bankruptcy petition filed by members of the legal mafia operating in Vancouver. These are in addition to the complaints filed in relation to the WaterWarCrimes and many other complaints that have gone un-investigated while Ms. Mclachlin has been Chairperson of the Canadian Judicial Council.
The Canadian Judiciary are quick to boast that they are "the best judicairy in the world" because so few judges have ever been found to have been guilty of corruption. This boast does not stands up to scrutiny if one analyzes the pathetically feeble investigatory history of the Canadian Judicial Council.
Routinely, complaints are closed down without ever asking the judge for a statement explaining his or her action. As a practice, no investigation is carried out after the judge resigns, such as in the case of Bryan Williams who suddenly resigned on February 5, 2000.
This means that, effectively, she is the boss. While much of the work is delegated to others, it is the Chairperson who is ultimately responsible for the "corporate culture" in the operations of any organization. This is how organizations operate on a psychological level. The leader sets the tone.
Under the leadership of Beverly McLachlin, the Canadian Judicial Council has consistently refused to investigate complaints against judges that involve allegations of corruption, especially when those allegations are made about members of the judicial mafia operating in Vancouver the group that promoted Beverly McLachlin to the top.
Two recent cases in point are the complaints filed by Dr. David Kuntz who was the victim of a massive and hugely scandalous legal and judicial medical insurance fraud carried out by members of the Vancouver based legal / judicial mafia that supported Premier's Campbell's rise to high office and the complaints filed Abraham Howeling, the owner of a nursery in Langley, British Columbia, whose nursery operation was placed into bankruptcy by a fraudulent bankruptcy petition filed by members of the legal mafia operating in Vancouver. These are in addition to the complaints filed in relation to the WaterWarCrimes and many other complaints that have gone un-investigated while Ms. Mclachlin has been Chairperson of the Canadian Judicial Council.
The Canadian Judiciary are quick to boast that they are "the best judicairy in the world" because so few judges have ever been found to have been guilty of corruption. This boast does not stands up to scrutiny if one analyzes the pathetically feeble investigatory history of the Canadian Judicial Council.
Routinely, complaints are closed down without ever asking the judge for a statement explaining his or her action. As a practice, no investigation is carried out after the judge resigns, such as in the case of Bryan Williams who suddenly resigned on February 5, 2000.
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and the Privy Council of Canada - Conflict of Interest
Wayne Wouters
The Privy Council of Canada is the most powerful group in Canada's Federal Government. Cabinets come and go. Prime Ministers come and go. The civil service remains and the highest ranking civil servant in Canada, its Chief Executive Officer, the CEO, is the head of the Privy Council, formally known as the Clerk of the Privy Council.
Members of Canada's House of Commons have often complained in public about the secretive, all powerful, Privy Council.
The Privy Council, has the power to control the outcome of many court decisions through its linkages to the Chief Justice of Canada who is a member of the Privy Council.
Should anyone tell you that relationship between the Chief Justice of Canada and the Privy Council is purely ceremonial - that is bunk.
When the Governor General is absent or refuses to sign an Order in Council or assent to some particularly odious legislation, the Clerk of the Privy Council or one of his or her subordinates contacts the Chief Justice of Canada who steps in to do what the Governor General will not do. This has happened many times in Canadian history. A good example is the fact that it was Beverley McLachlin who gave "Royal Assent" to the legislation allowing homosexual marriages and, not, the then Governor General - Queen's Representative - Adrien Clarkson who is, like the Queen, is, ostensibly, a devout Christian.
When the insiders in Canada's Federal Government need a particular result in a particular court case, the Privy Council contacts the Chief Justice of Canada who then contacts the Chief Justice, in a particular province, who then places one of the crooked judges on the case in question. It is as simple as that. The only impediment may be a Chief Justice who does not go along with the process which is why Chief Justices are closely scrutinized so that they can be controlled and this is why some of the Chief Judges and Chief Justices are alleged to have been pedophiles.
When former Calgary Member of Parliament, Dr. Grant Hill, was advised that the Chief Justice of Canada was also a member of the Privy Council, a matter he had never turned his mind to before, he immediately saw that the Chief Justice has a conflict of interest because sometimes he or she must decide between what is right and just and what is in the interests of the Government of Canada as those interests are explained to her at a Privy Council meeting. How will she decide?
The present Clerk of the Privy Council is Wayne Wouters. According to his biography, set out below, Mr. Wouters left the Privy Council office in 1997 and returned in January 2009, which means he was present when in the Privy Council when some of the judicial manipulation in relation to the Water War Crimes was taking place in Canada.
In 1975, Mr. Wouters started his career as a Lecturer in Economics at the University of Saskatchewan. He began his public sector career in 1977 with the Government of Saskatchewan where he held several positions between 1977 and 1982, culminating in the position of Director, Energy Policy Branch, Department of Mineral Resources (Saskatchewan).
In 1982, Mr. Wouters joined the federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources as the Director of Industry Analysis. In 1986, he became Deputy Director General, Project and Fiscal Analysis and in 1989, he was appointed Director General, Financial and Market Analysis.
In 1990, Mr. Wouters accepted a position as Director, Economic Development Policy Branch with the Department of Finance, becoming General Director in 1993.
In 1994, Mr. Wouters joined the Privy Council Office (PCO). From March until September of that year, Mr. Wouters was the head of the federal Task Force on the Newfoundland Economy. Upon completion of those duties in September 1994, he became the Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet (Program Review), where he oversaw preparation of the expenditure reduction plan that was part of the 1995 federal Budget. In December 1994, Mr. Wouters was appointed Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet (Plans and Consultation).
Mr. Wouters remained with the Privy Council Office until September 1997 when he was appointed Deputy Minister of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Canada).
Mr. Wayne G. Wouters was appointed Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet by the Prime Minister on July 1st, 2009.
From December 2004 to June 30, 2009, Mr. Wouters was Secretary of the Treasury Board.
Members of Canada's House of Commons have often complained in public about the secretive, all powerful, Privy Council.
The Privy Council, has the power to control the outcome of many court decisions through its linkages to the Chief Justice of Canada who is a member of the Privy Council.
Should anyone tell you that relationship between the Chief Justice of Canada and the Privy Council is purely ceremonial - that is bunk.
When the Governor General is absent or refuses to sign an Order in Council or assent to some particularly odious legislation, the Clerk of the Privy Council or one of his or her subordinates contacts the Chief Justice of Canada who steps in to do what the Governor General will not do. This has happened many times in Canadian history. A good example is the fact that it was Beverley McLachlin who gave "Royal Assent" to the legislation allowing homosexual marriages and, not, the then Governor General - Queen's Representative - Adrien Clarkson who is, like the Queen, is, ostensibly, a devout Christian.
When the insiders in Canada's Federal Government need a particular result in a particular court case, the Privy Council contacts the Chief Justice of Canada who then contacts the Chief Justice, in a particular province, who then places one of the crooked judges on the case in question. It is as simple as that. The only impediment may be a Chief Justice who does not go along with the process which is why Chief Justices are closely scrutinized so that they can be controlled and this is why some of the Chief Judges and Chief Justices are alleged to have been pedophiles.
When former Calgary Member of Parliament, Dr. Grant Hill, was advised that the Chief Justice of Canada was also a member of the Privy Council, a matter he had never turned his mind to before, he immediately saw that the Chief Justice has a conflict of interest because sometimes he or she must decide between what is right and just and what is in the interests of the Government of Canada as those interests are explained to her at a Privy Council meeting. How will she decide?
The present Clerk of the Privy Council is Wayne Wouters. According to his biography, set out below, Mr. Wouters left the Privy Council office in 1997 and returned in January 2009, which means he was present when in the Privy Council when some of the judicial manipulation in relation to the Water War Crimes was taking place in Canada.
In 1975, Mr. Wouters started his career as a Lecturer in Economics at the University of Saskatchewan. He began his public sector career in 1977 with the Government of Saskatchewan where he held several positions between 1977 and 1982, culminating in the position of Director, Energy Policy Branch, Department of Mineral Resources (Saskatchewan).
In 1982, Mr. Wouters joined the federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources as the Director of Industry Analysis. In 1986, he became Deputy Director General, Project and Fiscal Analysis and in 1989, he was appointed Director General, Financial and Market Analysis.
In 1990, Mr. Wouters accepted a position as Director, Economic Development Policy Branch with the Department of Finance, becoming General Director in 1993.
In 1994, Mr. Wouters joined the Privy Council Office (PCO). From March until September of that year, Mr. Wouters was the head of the federal Task Force on the Newfoundland Economy. Upon completion of those duties in September 1994, he became the Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet (Program Review), where he oversaw preparation of the expenditure reduction plan that was part of the 1995 federal Budget. In December 1994, Mr. Wouters was appointed Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet (Plans and Consultation).
Mr. Wouters remained with the Privy Council Office until September 1997 when he was appointed Deputy Minister of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Canada).
Mr. Wayne G. Wouters was appointed Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet by the Prime Minister on July 1st, 2009.
From December 2004 to June 30, 2009, Mr. Wouters was Secretary of the Treasury Board.
