CRCC,

The CRCC response dated July 29, 2026, which prompted this response, is reproduced below and has been added to the full email chain for consistency and preservation of the record.  

You are baiting and gaslighting me, using this opportunity to create a false internal record that makes the CRCC look good — and then threatening to punish the victim for clarifying your mischaracterizations.

"Please note that the CRCC is not indicating that the matters you have raised are frivolous."

That statement is irreconcilable with the CRCC's decision regarding Commissioners Mike Duheme and Dennis Daley. The CRCC has stated that it was reasonable to refuse allegations involving sexual assault, national security and election interference because an email was sent to too many recipients. The CRCC has not explained how the number of recipients makes the underlying allegations frivolous, vexatious or otherwise unsuitable for investigation.

"The CRCC does not accept additional information from complainants once their complaint has been sent to the RCMP."

This confirms the precise concern I raised regarding Paul's handling of the complaint and the CRCC's failure to clarify the officers' names before sending the matter to the RCMP. The CRCC and Paul knew that once the complaint was referred, additional information would not be accepted through the ordinary intake process.

Had the CRCC clarified the names of Cst. Christa Pye, Cst. Kerri Chartrand and Cst. Zachary LeShane before referral, it would also have had to address why no corresponding cases were located at the Sheet Harbour detachment for these officers, and why the CRCC took more than 261 days to provide a substantive response — while the evidence shows a consistent pattern of behaviour at that detachment by officers who reported to Jessica Welke. Instead, the failure to clarify the names created plausible deniability for the CRCC, and the CRCC then retaliated against the victim for trying to correct the record.

"The CRCC acknowledges that you feel you are receiving conflicting information from the CRCC and the Public Complaint Investigator."

This is not a matter of how I "feel." Cpl. Joseph Fraser expressly instructed me:

"You would have to contact the CRCC directly through the e-mail that you have. You would quote your current intake number that was provided."

The CRCC has Fraser's email, and I supplied the direct quotation. Fraser directed me to the CRCC. The CRCC then directed me back to Fraser. Characterizing that documented contradiction as my personal feeling is misleading and constitutes gaslighting.

"That being said, it must be acknowledged that, when it comes to the allegations made against Commissioners Mike Duheme and Dennis Daley, the CRCC made the decision to remove these members and refuse them per sec. 45.53(2)(b) of the RCMP Act."

That position is also internally inconsistent with the RCMP's own record. RCMP officers attended my residence because of emails, as Cory Bushell and Trevor Allen expressly acknowledged in their submission to the CRCC. Emails are therefore treated as significant when they justify police attendance or support the RCMP's account, but as a basis for dismissing serious allegations when the number of recipients is inconvenient. Why are emails considered valid and important in some circumstances, but used to discredit or refuse allegations in others — specifically where that distinction conveniently benefits the CRCC and the RCMP?

Any officer can now point to the CRCC's decision and argue that an allegation did not require serious consideration because it was distributed to too many people in an email thread by a victim trying to protect themselves. That is especially alarming where the allegations include sexual assault, election interference, national-security concerns involving CSIS case reference Attachment5566, rape calls, the planting of GPS evidence, RCMP stalking and RCMP threats captured on audio recordings — to name only a few.

Let's be perfectly clear here. The CRCC is not the victim because it received detailed, chronologically organized and extensively referenced evidence during an ongoing national-security review. You are a bully trying to justify your abuse, inaction and retaliation against an actual victim who is defending themselves against the unreasonable behaviour of the CRCC. I think the public, the media and the legal system will see right through your abuse.

To other complainants and victims: I am deeply sorry that you have had to deal with similar treatment from the CRCC. I promise you, I will use what the CRCC did here to make this system work for everyone.

Daniel Rogers / NSIRA: The record now also raises the concern that the CRCC may be intentionally obstructing or interfering with an RCMP investigation involving national-security allegations that reasonably affect the work of CSIS and NSIRA. I will be arranging meetings to present and discuss my findings.

Parliament: I am calling for a full parliamentary inquiry into the CRCC's complaint-handling practices.

Cpl. Joseph Fraser: The CRCC has now confirmed in writing that you can add the removed officers back — "the Public Complaint Investigator can consider adding them back based on further information provided by you." I am asking you to do so, and I will provide whatever further information you require regarding Cst. Christa Pye, Cst. Kerri Chartrand and Cst. Zachary LeShane. The CRCC has also stated it will contact the RCMP to explain that you are to discuss these matters with me.

The CRCC has separately provided you, and potentially every other subject member, with a ready-made basis for dismissing serious allegations: that an email had too many recipients. Imagine that explanation being given to a member of your family, a friend or someone in your community who reported sexual assault or a national-security concern — especially with this much evidence. It is horrifying.

I do not expect a response from the CRCC and will not respond to the CRCC unless it continues to intentionally mischaracterize me in its records.

Thank you,
Scott Jewers
902-220-9106