It is/was, your government respective representatives, to bring your concerns before the appropriate government agencies. Any passing the buck on their part is pure negligence and opens them up for civil action as well as questioning their careers. Under the link below, there can be found many questionable non actions, that should have been taken by your representative. All letters we have all sent are documentation of the efforts made to protect ourselves, and in turn, should have at least seen consultation from the Secretariat, if the proper procedure was taken by the gov reps.

Negligence can be demonstrated clearly here, imo, that is grounds for civil, class action and perhaps even criminal litigation, if presented properly.

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rtrap-parfa/cdrm-dcgr/cdrm-dcgr01-eng.asp#cha1

The public security is jeopardized when non enforcement occurs by any regulatory body incorporated to uphold such legislation, especially when the BCSC is a public servant and the TSX owners consist of governments interests incurred through AIMCo and The Canadian Pension Plan.

I like this;

(B) Identifying and assessing public policy issues

21. Departments and agencies are responsible for assessing public policy issues, including potential risks, and demonstrating through the best available evidence and knowledge that government intervention is needed.

22. When assessing and documenting public policy issues, departments and agencies are to:

1. Analyze the public policy issue, its causes, and its context, including its urgency and immediate and long-term impacts;
2. Review, wherever possible, relevant evidence-based assessments, analyses, standards, peer-reviewed publications, and the classification systems of provincial and territorial governments, other countries or jurisdictions, or international organizations;
3. Explain fully to decision makers and Canadians the nature of the issue, how its impacts have changed over time, and why government intervention is needed; and
4. Describe the scientific and empirical evidence, uncertainties, ethical considerations, and public views of the public policy issue.

23. When there is a risk of serious or irreversible harm, the government recognizes that the absence of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing decisions to protect the health and safety of Canadians, the environment, or the conservation of natural resources. For guidance on the application of precaution, departments and agencies should consultA Framework for the Application of Precaution in Science based Decision Making about Risk.