I was ecstatic when Hon. Peter Bevan Baker stood in the Legislative Assembly on June 25, 2020 to introduce “Motion 86”.

Motion 86 was written to establish a Special Committee to take the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s investigation into Brad Mix’s deleted emails – which was made public in an Order released a couple of weeks earlier – to the next level, in a bid to find out who deleted those 2 years of Brad Mix’s emails.

That Commissioner’s Order on the Brad Mix file was the culmination of 5 separate reviews that Ms. Rose had bundled together and had been working on for roughly a year and a half. All of those 5 request were FOIPP requests for Brad Mix records during that same 2-year period which had all resulted in “no records found” responses from the Department of Economic Growth, Tourism and Culture (EGTC).

The wording of the Motion began with a key “Whereas” clause referencing both the Order and the priority focus on improperly deleted records:

“WHEREAS a June 9, 2020, order of the Office of the Information and Privacy
Commissioner (Order No FI-20-007) raised serious questions about the possibility of government records being improperly deleted;

After resolving to establish the Special Standing Committee at the end of a bunch of other Whereas clauses such as, “whereas these records are important and shouldn’t be destroyed, etc.,” the mandate was clarified as follows:

“AND THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the committee study the missing records referred to in the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s order and the current practices related to electronic records and security;”

The focus on “current practices…” was supposed to be a secondary consideration. That’s not how things turned out.

You’d would never know that the Special Committee had a mandate or any interest in discovering anything about deleted records, let alone who did the deleting, after reading the final Report.

There is nothing in that document saying anything about what the Committee members heard from ITSS about Brad Mix being the person responsible for the emails either being deleted or removed.

The impetus for the Special Committee on Records came entirely from the Brad Mix Order from the Commissioner. The Commissioner was somewhat hamstrung by the much-narrower scope of her mandate on the file [a “bar” that was higher and more difficult to prove], which was defined in the provisions of the FOIPP Act.  It was Peter Bevan-Baker’s intention to pick up the investigation where Ms. Rose had left off and bring it to its logical conclusion, something possible with a Special Legislative Committee with additional powers and limits on the scope available to the Committee to investigate who deleted the Brad Mix records.

It’s key to understand that the Commissioner was able to discover that Brad Mix’s emails had been deleted deliberately, which is something that seems to have escaped notice by the Committee members.  

Ms. Rose was, however, unable to determine who actually deleted the records. The very first paragraph of the Executive Summary of the Final Report tabled in the House on November 27, 2020 makes it clear that the primary focus of the Committee was supposed to be on the missing Brad Mix emails:

The Report then proceeded to say nothing of real importance on “the missing records referenced in an Order of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (Order No. FL-20-007, dated June 9, 2020)“. And I mean NOTHING!


1.  June 25, 2020: Motion 86 is Introduced in the House

Peter Bevan-Baker was aware of my research into Brad Mix’s records, and likely knew that I was Applicant #1 in the Order issued by the Commissioner. He also knew I’d be ecstatic with his Motion 86, so he thoughtfully sent me a text message giving me a “heads-up” about a half hour before the 2 pm session of the House began.

Watching Peter’s poetic and passionate presentation of so many great ideas and stated principles and beliefs that I hold to and admire, like transparency, honesty, justice….was very exciting!

Sure, you hear those words and phrases a lot in the Legislative Assembly, but not when they might actually count for something significant – the launch of a process to potentially oust the rats from the nests that have remained undisturbed for so long in the cozy corners of the secret, dark, and very dank backrooms.

Peter seemed entirely sincere in his bid to finally track down and expose the culprits behind the destruction of sensitive government records. No one was forcing him to put forward Motion 86 on the table, which added a measure of credibility to the whole exercise.

Watching Peter’s performance that June afternoon made me wonder if perhaps we might be witnessing something truly historic, a new power being unleashed within government, with our elected officials now capable of ripping the shroud from those backrooms to shed light on patient “zero” in the pandemic of corruption that’s infected PEI politics since at least the paleolithic period.

Peter was not simply speaking as the leader of the Green Party and Official Opposition on June 25, 2020; he was speaking for us all when he put it on the record that Islanders have a right to know who deleted Brad Mix’s emails and his Green Party were going to darn well do their best to find out for us!

“Might Peter be a secret agent after all,” I mused. “Maybe he’s working covertly to thwart the villainous schemes of the secret back-roomers, in a bid to regain control of our government and score a victory for democracy and justice?  A Motion 86 to regain Control?  Now that’ s really getting smart,” I thought!

Motion 86 to regain control…..Agent 86 working for Control?  Corny or not, I couldn’t resist, so I wrote an article reporting on Motion 86 with the Get Smart theme hovering in the background.

Here’s some of the Preamble from that June 26th article, “Motion 86 – Green Party Decides it’s Time to Get Smart.

Get Smart“Back in the 1960’s – specifically between 1965 and 1970 – I remember rushing in from the school bus every day after school hoping that I didn’t miss the beginning of  “Get Smart,” a show every kid watched and talked about in school the next day. There was a recent movie remake of that tv show starring Steve Carroll.

Maxwell Smart was a bumbling secret agent working for a spy agency called “Control” fighting evil agents in a criminal organization called “Chaos”. Through a series of serendipitous and humorous accidental events, Smart would always end up winning the day and foiling the schemes of Chaos agents.

Control agents worked in pairs and were each assigned numbers. Maxwell Smart was Control Agent “86”.

I thought of Agent 86 as Motion 86 was read in the House yesterday…hoping that just like Get Smart -and despite all the bizarre twists and turns that have happened over the years on this issue – Motion 86 would finally overcome the chaos and re-establish control. I guess we’ll see.”

Agent 86 would seem to always (eventually) win the war against evil villains, but he’d lose a good few battles along the way, usually because Agent 86 would forget his orders, or mix-up his instructions and plans given to him by the Chief (the other guy in the feature graphic) who of course was his boss.

If Max’s screwups ended up causing the episode to end badly for Control, and not bad at all for the Chaos agents and organization, somewhere near the end of the 1/2 hour episode Max would be alone with the Chief reflecting on how things could have went so horribly wrong.

Exasperated, the Chief would usually point out the obvious – that Agent 86 had either forgotten to do what he was told, or for some reason failed to do what he had been ordered to do.  Agent 86 would then utter his patented catch-phrase “Ah yes, I remember now….Missed it by that much!” ending the show.

I was so hoping not to have to employ that catch-phrase in a follow-up article to that first one. I would have been content to stick with the successful, “good agent always winning” motif in my analogous comparison of Peter Bevan-Baker as Agent 86, but alas, here we are!

Let’s start at the beginning and provide some contextual background so we can then see and hear the story first-hand with a few short video clips so there will be no confusion or ambiguity over what happened.

Here’s a bit of what Peter said on June 25th when he introduced the Motion. The clip in the original article is about 5 times longer than this one – which was taken from that same clip, near the end. This is the part where Peter makes it clear that he’s riding a white horse for Islanders and our democracy to oust corruption in government.  He’s clearly on a mission to do what no previous government or Opposition Leader has been willing or able to do – go looking for the backroom, in this instance, to find out who deleted Brad Mix’s emails….here! here!

I ended that June 26, 2020 article with the following statement, which probably made at least some of my readers wonder whether I’d signed up as a Green Party member:

“Peter Bevan-Baker and the Green Party have set themselves apart from both the Liberals and PCs by taking a stand on this issue at this time. It may have been the smartest decision of Bevan-Baker’s career.”

I figured he deserved the praise. He just announced that he was going to try to track down who committed a pretty serious crime, and I wasn’t hearing any other politicians saying that. The entire PC Caucus voted AGAINST the Motion to establish the Special Committee… and the Liberals? (nothing needs saying).

Peter was promising (no one was forcing him) to try to finally answer the key question Islanders really wanted answered about the entire mess: WHO DELETED THOSE RECORDS!  Answer that and we might actually see someone in government held to account, which, if the historical record can be trusted, hasn’t happened since at least the paleolithic period.

Yeah!  Three cheers. Finally!

Like Get Smart, Peter perhaps didn’t ALWAYS get it right, but Maxwell usually did, because he was one of the good guys. Would Peter be as well? I mean, would he turn out to be one of the good guys? I was hopeful, but unfortunately it became abundantly clear to me after Brad Mix appeared at the Committee that Bevan-Baker’s passion had petered out. But I’m getting ahead of myself.

Sadly, I must now introduce you to that famous catch phrase used by Agent 86, Maxwell Smart, whenever his bumbling and stumbling was just too much to recover from and he’d screw up big time: “Oh yeah, I remember it now. Missed it by that much!”

The rest of this article – mostly using short video clips to provide an unequivocal, accurate, chronological and indisputable historical record of evidence justifying the very strong title I used for this article –  tells the sorry story of how Peter “missed it by that much” and by “that much” I mean a whole lot.

1.  Some Important Background Information

I’ve written a good number of articles on my multi-year attempt to get egaming records from Brad Mix, which I’ve provided as Appendix “A” at the end of this article for those wanting more background material.  I have also included a chart with links to the transcripts of the 12 meetings the Committee held that weren’t in camera, as Appendix “B”.

I’m giving just a bit of background information here to establish the context for readers who may not have been following this story.

The Brad Mix missing records story started in earnest when I filed an Access to Information Request on October 28, 2018. I knew from Court submissions made by Capital Markets Technology (CMT) that there should have been records filed in Court by Brad Mix (one of the named Defendants in the CMT civil litigation). There were none.

Furthermore, Mix was denying all claims against him that were being made by CMT, saying he had no knowledge and involvement whatsoever. Those two things: a blanket Sgt. Shultz defence, and no documents produced in Court, were huge red flags for me, so I went looking for records. That was the catalyst that got the Brad Mix case rolling.

The Special Committee came about from “Motion 86” put forward by Hon. Peter Bevan-Baker in the Spring sitting of the legislature as a result of the Order that the former Information and Privacy Commissioner, Karen Rose, issued on June 2, 2019, which was the culmination of the review that I had launched in January, 2019, from the FOIP request submitted in October, 2018 that came back saying “no records found”.

A couple of months after my Brad Mix review began with the Commissioner, Ms. Rose joined 4 other FOI similar requests to the Department of EGTC for Brad Mix records that she had received from Paul Maines, so that one Order issued June 2nd covered all 5 reviews. I’m referred to the Order as Applicant 1, Maines as Applicant 2.

The Commissioner’s Order concluded that 2 years of Brad Mix’s records had been deliberately deleted; however, she was unable to identify “who” did the deliberate deleting.

Suspiciously, that 2-year period corresponded exactly with the same 2-year period when Brad Mix was involved with FMT/CMT and the egaming/financial transaction platform projects, an involvement that Mix lied about under oath during his cross-examination, saying that he didn’t even know what the initials F M T stood for, thanking CMT’s lawyer, John MacDonald, for telling him. Unbelievable!

Some readers may recall that I obtained a key document – a “chart” – in another FOIP request proving not only that Brad Mix knew about FMT, but that he was chairing the FMT Project within Innovation PEI!

Ms. Rose offered a scathing assessment of the deceit dished out by two successive Deputy Ministers of EGTC to me and Paul Maines in our respective dealings with the department trying to obtain records in accordance with our rights and the PEI FOIPP law: (David Keedwell under Premier MacLauchlan, and Erin McGrath-Gaudet under Premier King).

The Commissioner’s Order confirmed that they broke two different legal statutes; the FOIPP Act, and the Records and Archives Act, something noted in a CBC article by CBC reporter Kerry Campbell:

“It was as a result of freedom of information requests that the committee came into being. P.E.I.’s former privacy commissioner Karen Rose issued a scathing report in June, after learning that almost two years worth of emails belonging to Brad Mix, a senior bureaucrat with Innovation PEI, had gone missing. The emails had been subject to multiple freedom of information requests. The province didn’t tell those requesting the emails — and initially did not tell the privacy commissioner — that the records no longer existed. Failing to disclose that, the commissioner concluded, put government in breach of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. She said failure to properly archive the emails was a breach of the Archives and Records Act.” [See: “Committee calls for legal requirement for public servants to preserve records,” December 4, 2020].

The Special Committee meetings of real significance were: (1) the meeting on September 16, 2020 with Ed Malone and John Brennan from Information Technology Shared Services (ITSS) appearing as witnesses; and (2) the meeting on October 28, 2020, with Brad Mix appearing as a witness.

2.  September 16, 2020:  Secret Agent PBB Gets His Answer!

John Brennan explained how it was only Brad Mix – or someone he gave “proxy” access to get into his email account – who could have logged on to the system to gain access to the processes needing to be followed to delete records. It was necessary to go through a series of methodical steps (indicating that they were deleted with intent and not accidentally) to effect the deletion of the email records. Brenna explained that only ITSS and Brad Mix could get that access, adding, emphatically, that ITSS did not delete them.  You would think members of the Special Committee could have done the math on that one!

Sidney MacEwan, a PC member of the committee, certainly understood the implications of that testimony when he put it to Brennan to state again exactly what he was saying:

Now listen carefully to the clip from the committee meeting that Kerry Campbell used in the following Compass story, where John Brennan REITERATES AND CLARIFIES for Peter Bevan-Baker that ONLY Brad Mix [or someone he gave access to] could have deleted the emails.

Louise and Kerry got it – I figured the Committee members studying the matter did as well: a couple of weeks later, when Brad Mix appeared before the Committee, and Peter Bevan-Baker did a CBC interview after the Committee meeting, it suddenly dawned on me that it was all just an act….there was no intention to go any further with the search for who deleted the emails.

3.  October 28, 2020: Let’s See what Brad Had to Say

If the Committee members were serious about finding out who deleted Brad Mix’s emails, I expected they would have reached out to one of the two applicants pursing the matter and generating piles of letters and correspondence back-and -forth between the Commissioner and the Public Body.

Neither Maines nor I were ever contacted; however, as you can see from the list of articles I have written over the past two years on this file, which are available to the public on my website, I figured Committee members would have briefed themselves from the wealth of information and source material I provide in those documents.

I’m now thinking they never read a single word I’ve written on the subject. If they had read even a little, they would have immediately known that both Deputy Minister Erin McGrath-Gaudet and Brad Mix were spewing one falsehood after another, something the evidence and source material in my articles would have easily exposed. None of those false statements from  either of those two people were challenged by the Committee!

It’s an interesting video to watch, but I’m not going to belabour the point here…the point being that Mix completely hoodwinked the Committee members and swore his innocence, despite all the hard evidence saying he is responsible for the deletion of his 2 years of emails.

He presented no evidence to counter what Brennan told the Committee. He had nothing to offer but his word.  As it turned out,  that was good enough for Peter Bevan-Baker!  He opted to go with Mix’s “word” over Brennan’s  “expertise, logical arguments, and evidence”. Go figure.

What’s left to say about the October 28th Committee Mtg with Brad Mix? Not much really.

The entire appearance by Brad Mix is worth watching though, just to see how a completely false narrative can  easily be sold to people who don’t do their homework – like people who say they watched a show that they didn’t actually watch, but then won’t admit it, and nod in agreement as a completely fictitious rendering of what happened in the movie is recounted, usually as a “test” to see if the person really was “at the theatre” as claimed. Sad.

So if you want to see expert fibbing streaming in real time and being recorded for the official record, be sure to read a few of the articles in Appendix “A” first so you’ll be able to detect it.

4. November 27, 2020:  “Agent Peter” [For]Gets His Instructions

I can’t say I was very hopeful there would be more in the final Report than what the Committee had learned from Brennan on September 16th.  No matter. That was a lot. Peter may have bizarrely stated that he believed Brad Mix, but I was still confident that some of the other members of the Committee would realize that trying to convince people that 2 + 2 adds up to something other than 4 could ruin a political career!

At any rate, despite what Bevan-Baker had said on CBC Compass about taking Mix at his word, the Committee had already accomplished what it had set out to do. I figured it would have to report that bombshell revelation to the House now that it was on the official record, whether they wanted to or not: namely,  that the person responsible for the 2 years of deleted emails belonging to Brad Mix was none other than….(drumroll) BRAD MIX. Man was I wrong!

It troubled me that no other Committee member had stood up to say that they were opting to believe John Brennan over Brad Mix at the time, or any time after, so I didn’t expect much more, or anything more form the Committee, but I did not expect a coverup!

There was also the troubling fact that Brad Mix’s appearance on October 28, 2020 signalled the end of the Committee’s apparent interest in bringing in people who actually had knowledge of deleted government records.

The people whose records were deleted were invited as witnessed to put it on the record that they were “gone by the time their emails and files were deleted,” Melissa James [formerly, MacEachern] and Chris LeClair [Robert Ghiz’s former Chief of Staff];


Robert Ghiz [who deleted Chris LeClair’s electronic emails, documents AND paper records] and Neil Stewart [who deleted Melissa MacEachern’s (James’) records]; or any of the FIVE government employees they learned also had gaps in their email archives.

Let that sink in for a minute: NONE of the key people responsible for ordering the  deletion of government records that were known to the Committee members [Robert Ghiz and Neil Stewart, and at least 5 other people, the names of which do not appear in the Final Report] were called to appear before the Committee [despite having those subpoena powers able to compel appearances].

One other person who may have had something to say about Brad Mix’s missing records was the only other person Brad Mix said had access to his email account – his Administrative Assistant. He chuckled when he mentioned her name, saying that she was entirely trustworthy, then added that she would not have deleted the records.

That was apparently good enough for the Committee. They never invited his Admin Assistant to share what – if anything – she may have known about the deleted records. Keep in mind that she was the principle person who undertook the access request searches for both me and Paul Maines on those Brad Mix FOIPPs.  She also colluded in the deception by keeping silent about it while assisting Mix, which doesn’t score big points on the “trustworthy” scale by my calculation, since I was the recipient of that deceit which has cost me dearly.

More telling than anything was how the WOW! revelation that came from John Brennan on September 16, 2020 that ITSS had – in the course of searching for Brad Mix’s records – had discovered that at least 5 other government employees and/or MLAs had “gaps” in their email records, and then was subsequently ignored by the Committee.

The Committee seemed keenly interested when that information was first shared – but then again, the cameras were rolling. They pressed Brennan for more information at the time, such as the names of the 5 individuals who had gaps in their email archives. Not wanting to possibly err with those names (relying only on memory), Mr. Brennan declined to provide them at the time, but agreed to provide those names and details on the time periods for those gaps in writing by the end of the week. 

That was the last heard about it from the Committee. It was noted in the report that Brennan had provided that information, but the names were not provided, nor precise follow-up recommended, since the Committee decided to do nothing with the information, as CBC reporter Kerry Campbell noted in his December 4th story [link above]:

“Members of the committee, when they were advised of the email gaps, decided to take no further action on the matter.


Oh well, Peter at least got the Holy Grail that he was looking for, the answer to his infamous question: “Who deleted the emails?” That really was all I cared about seeing  written into the final report once I realized the dream had died at the Committee.

When I read the Report I was absolutely Gobsmacked (and I’m not even British).  Nothing at all of what the Committee had learned from John Brennan was in the report: no bombs, not even a firecracker. They had rolled it back like the price on a cheap china-made toy at Walmart after Christmas…”disappeared it” completely!

There wasn’t a single reference to any of the key revelations from ITSS. No mention of the testimony from Brennan that Brad Mix was the only person with primary access to his email account, and therefore the only person  responsible for their deletion, either directly [if he deleted his emails], or indirectly [if he provided access to someone else who deleted them]. In my books, that’s a coverup.

I’m going to reproduce the entire section of that pathetic report that covers the most important two meetings – John Brennan and Ed Malone from ITSS on September 16th;  and Brad Mix on October 28th.

“On September 16, 2020, the Special Committee reconvened to receive a briefing from John Brennan, Director, Business Infrastructure Services; and Scott Cudmore, Director Enterprise Architecture, from the Information Technology Shared Services (ITSS) section of the Department of Finance. The Special Committee learned that government’s data has grown significantly in recent years. Departments are becoming more digital in their workflows, and
the legislative changes made to the Archives and Records Act in 2017 triggered a large influx of data into ITSS enterprise level storage and backup environments. Because electronic records provide documentation of essential government functions and information necessary to protect the interest of citizens, their proper management is essential.

The Special Committee was told that improvements to records management are ongoing: in 2016, the RIM (Recorded Information Strategy) was developed. Employee change forms requiring records management authorization were implemented the following year. In 2018, a small scale preliminary study for electronic records management was undertaken, and this year, a Request for Proposal (RFP) for an electronic records management system will be released. The Special Committee was interested to learn of the technical process of email deletion, in light of the findings of both the Auditor General in 2016 and the Information and Privacy Commissioner in 2020, both of which referenced missing emails.

October 28, 2020. Brad Mix, Senior Director of Business Attraction with Innovation PEI; and Bobbi-Jo Dow Baker, Solicitor, Access and Privacy Service Office of the Department of Justice and Public Safety made statements and answered questions. Mr. Mix provided detailed information of the circumstances surrounding his discovery of a missing block of his emails
covering the time frame of June 2010 to April 2012. Ms. Dow-Baker gave a presentation about government=s Access and Privacy Services Office (APSO), a centralized service falling under the Department of Justice and Public Safety.”

The word “delete” is almost completely absent from the Report. The Report also falsely states that the Commissioner found insufficient evidence to make a finding that someone deleted the emails “intentionally”:

The applicants also raised the possibility that someone had intentionally deleted the missing emails to avoid public access. The Commissioner concluded that there was insufficient evidence to make such a finding, but found that the EGTC failed to comply with rules relating to the destruction of records, in violation of the Archives and Records Act” [Page 12-13].

The statement is not accurate: the Commissioner did indeed find that records had been deliberately deleted, in violation of the Archives and Records Act; she just couldn’t prove that the specific “intention” behind or underneath that deliberate act of deletion was the only one she could consider, e.g., the one spelled out in section 75 (1)(e) of the FOIPP Act:

The records were found to have been deleted deliberately, but the Commissioner couldn’t discover 2 things: (1) who deleted the emails, and (2) whether they were deliberately deleted with the SPECIFIC intent “… to evade a request for access to the records, pursuant to clause 75(1)(e) of the FOIPP Act,”  the exact wording she uses in her Order.

That Brad Mix’s emails were deliberately deleted – or otherwise removed from the server and archived secretly and privately – was clearly established by the Commissioner. She learned that from her communications and meeting with ITSS staff, who explained to her how other suggested reasons for the missing emails such as phone upgrades, data corruption, etc., could not explain what happened, and how deletion required deliberate steps to be taken, all of which she outlined in her Order.

What did the Report say about Brad Mix’s appearance at the Committee:

“Mr. Mix provided detailed information of the circumstances surrounding his discovery of a missing block of his emails covering the time frame of June 2010 to April 2012.”

That’s it!

When the Report was tabled in the House by the Chair, Michele Beaton, she spoke briefly and thanked a few people.  I know that if I had been Peter and had just had a report tabled from a Motion I had brought forth that exposed the Committee’s cover-up, I would have kept my rear-end planted.

Peter couldn’t resist the Speaker’s invitation to speak to the Report, and he did so at great length.  Keep all of what you’ve just just read, seen and heard in mind, get some popcorn, then brace yourself for this Academy-Award calibre performance:

No words.


So is this it?  Is this the final chapter in the Brad Mix story after more than 2 years of trying to obtain those critically-important records?  Let’s assess the  the situation.

At least I eventually got a $5 bill in an envelop in the mail from the APSO people (the application fee for my original FOIP seeking those Brad Mix records that the Information Commissioner ordered them to return). That was something.  Let me think….what else?

What about any consequences for Brad Mix? Any of those? Nope. He remains at his post as the Director of Recruiting for PEI like always.

What exactly happened behind closed doors that made Peter Bevan-Baker decide that doing something with the information that Brad Mix was responsible for deleting his emails was not important? Whatever it was, it turned a diamond into a pile of dust.

The Committee heard from ITSS – as reported in the CBC Compass story – that it is possible to “reconstruct” Brad Mix’s inbox with a diligent search of those other key government employees’ email archives. So why didn’t the Committee include a recommendation in their final Report that the House instruct ITSS to do exactly that, and provide both Paul Maines and I with the records we have a legal right to obtain, and have been so far denied?

As disappointed as I am with Peter Bevan-Baker and the entire Special Committee, I’m nonetheless very excited about the upcoming Motions with CMT’s lawsuit, and Contempt Motion, where Brad Mix will once again testify under oath. Given the available evidence proving so many lies, perjury is most definitely still on the table.

As they say in PEI, you can run but you can’t hide – the truth will come out in time, in Court.  Still, it’s really unfortunate that the truth couldn’t have come out as a result of work by our elected representatives on a Special Committee who promised to diligently seek the truth, then covered it up and did nothing when they found a good chunk of it.

It won’t be long until some real answers start coming: CMT Court Motions are being scheduled for March and April, 2021. The egaming story has not ended; in fact, it’s picking up speed.



Appendix “A”

Links to Brad Mix-related Articles

Brad Mix Case Articles


Breaking: MacLauchlan Government Refuses to Produce Records in Access Request January 7, 2019
The Incredible Egaming Disappearing Act February 22, 2019
The Brad Mix-up with Egaming Records: An Update March 9, 2019
Kudos to Deputy Minister Erin McGrath-Gaudet! July 17, 2019
Why Did Brad Mix Go to Osaka, Japan? November 16, 2019
Covering up the Breach of the MOU (Part III) December 16, 2019
Why Did Brad Mix Go to Osaka, Japan (Part II) December 31, 2019
King Government Continues Breaking FOIP Law with 6th “Deemed Refusal” January 21, 2020
New Deemed Refusal FOIPP Document Exposes PEI Government “FMT Project” Coverup February 9, 2020
The “Keys” that Unlock the Egaming Coverup Strategy March 13, 2020
New FOIPP Documents Reveal Brad Mix Committed Perjury April 30, 2020
It’s Time to Take a BackBench Seat Bloyce! May 29, 2020
Information Commissioner Confirms Brad Mix’s Egaming Records Were Destroyed June 14, 2020
We Don’t Need Another “Record Management System Overview” – We need a Criminal Investigation; and Several Senior Bureaucrats Fired! June 17, 2020
Motion “86” – Green Party Decides it’s Time to Get Smart June 26, 2020
Destroyed Email Investigation [Economic Growth (EGTC) Has to Sit This One Out June 29, 2020
Will Motion 86 & New Court Motions Knock the Backroom Broncos off the Track? July 6, 2020
Maybe Pigs Can Fly August 2, 2020
Moment of Truth Arrives For Special Committee on Records August 27, 2020
Did This Man Just Bring Down Stewart McKelvey Law Firm? October 14, 2020
Lies, Lies, and More Lies: Did All Committee Members buy them? November 1, 2020
Why is the Records Committee Afraid to Ask Ghiz and Stewart to Appear? November 19, 2020
It Takes a Village November 24, 2020

Appendix “B”

Special Committee on Records Transcripts

There were 14 meetings, 2 of which were “in-camera”.  There are, therefore, transcripts of 12 meetings of the Committee as follows.

Subject before the committee Committee Name Date
Briefing on federal government records management and best practices

Special Committee on Government Records Retention

November 24, 2020

Electronic records security and ransomware attack on Government

Special Committee on Government Records Retention

November 20, 2020

Records retention matters identified in 2016 Auditor General’s special report

Special Committee on Government Records Retention

November 6, 2020

Records management matters identified in Information and Privacy Order No. FI-20-007

Special Committee on Government Records Retention

November 6, 2020

Briefings related to Information and Privacy Commissioner Order No. FI-20-007

Special Committee on Government Records Retention

October 28, 2020

Briefing on best practices in records management

Special Committee on Government Records Retention

October 23, 2020

Briefing on records retention matters identified in Auditor General’s special report

Special Committee on Government Records Retention

October 14, 2020

Briefing on current practices on records management in government

Special Committee on Government Records Retention

September 25, 2020

Briefing on technical process of email deletion

Special Committee on Government Records Retention

September 16, 2020

Briefing by current and former Information and Privacy Commissioners

Special Committee on Government Records Retention

August 27, 2020

Briefing by former and current Auditors General

Special Committee on Government Records Retention

August 26, 2020

Election of Chair and consideration of work plan

Special Committee on Government Records etention

August 11, 2020PEI – Video[4]