Countdown with Keith Olbermann, A Retrospective he is missd!!! 2020.

msdogfood@hotmail.com

New International Commercial Court Netherlands Aug. 11, 2017) On July 18, 2017,

 New International Commercial Court Netherlands

(Aug. 11, 2017) On July 18, 2017, Stef Blok, Minister of Security and Justice of the Netherlands, submitted draft legislation to the Dutch House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer) on the establishment of a new commercial court that would have the authority to render judgments in English on complex international trade disputes involving the Netherlands. (Legislative Proposal on Netherlands Commercial Court Submitted to Dutch House of Representatives, Ministry of Security and Justice website (July 18, 2017).)

According to the Ministry of Security and Justice, “[t]here is an increasing need in the Netherlands for dispute resolution in English,” given the wide use of English “in international trade and drawing up contracts, as well as in correspondence between legal, fiscal and commercial advisers and their internationally operating clients.” (Id.) The new commercial court is important not only to meet this need, the Ministry indicated, but also, by conducting international trade case hearings in English, to ensure the role of the Netherlands in international trade. (Id.) There also appears to be a world-wide trend to establish international commercial courts, such as those recently set up in Singapore and Dubai. (Annette Scholten, An International Netherlands Commercial Court?,TRANSNATIONAL NOTES (Feb. 28, 2017).)

Features of the Draft Legislation

The draft law provides for the amendment of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure and the Act on Court Fees in Civil Proceedings to make it possible for English-language cases to be handled by an international commercial chamber of the Court of Amsterdam – the Netherlands Commercial Court (NCC) – and by the international commercial chamber of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal – the Netherlands Commercial Court of Appeal (NCCA). (Legislative Proposal on Netherlands Commercial Court Submitted to Dutch House of Representatives, supra; TK Wetsvoorstel inzake Netherlands Commercial Court [TK Bill on Netherlands Commercial Court], Government of the Netherlands website (July 18, 2017) (click on pdf icon or hyperlink to download text); Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering [Code of Civil Procedure] (as last amended Apr. 1, 2017), OVERHEID.NL; Wet van 30 september 2010 tot invoering van een nieuw griffierechtenstelsel in burgerlijke zaken (Wet griffierechten burgerlijke zaken) [Act of 30 September 2010 on the Introduction of a New Court Fee System in Civil Proceedings] (Act on Court Fees in Civil Proceedings) (Sept. 30, 2010, as last amended effective Mar. 1, 2017) OVERHEID.NL.)

Among other measures, the draft legislation inserts a new article 30r in the Code of Civil Procedure, stating that if the NCC or the NCCA has jurisdiction to hear a dispute that has arisen or that will arise in connection with a particular legal relationship freely determined by the parties and that concerns an international dispute, and the parties explicitly agree to it, the parties may prosecute the case in the English language in the NCC or the NCCA. This does not apply to matters that fall under the jurisdiction of the district court. The agreement to have the case heard in English is to be evidenced in writing; a document containing a clause on the agreement, or referring to such a clause in general terms, is sufficient for that purpose, provided that the specific clause has been expressly accepted by or on behalf of the other party. (Id. art. IA, inserting art. 30r(1).)

If parties have agreed to adjudication by the NCC or the NCCA, the presiding judge will be responsible for handling the case in English. (Id. art. IA, inserting art. 30r(3).) The court will also pronounce sentence in English, unless the proceedings have been conducted in Dutch at the request of the parties. However, if a party lodges a defense that the case must not be dealt with by the international commercial division of the NCC or the NCCA, but by another court, the proceedings may be conducted in Dutch and the judge will render verdict in Dutch. (Id. art. IA, inserting art. 30r(4).) If a decision rendered in English must be registered in a Dutch public register in accordance with a legal requirement, the parts of the decision necessary for that registration will also be set down in Dutch. (Id. art. IA, inserting art. 30r(5).)

Proposed changes to the Act on Court Fees in Civil Proceedings have to do with the payment of court fees for handling of the case by the international commercial division of the NCC or NCCA. (Id. art. IIA, inserting a new art. 9a in the Act.)

Other Aspects of the New Court

Three judges specialized in dealing with international trade disputes will hear each case that comes before the new court. The judges will be selected on the basis of such qualifications as their knowledge of private law, their knowledge of legal English and of American and English procedural law, and their experience in handling large and complex international trade disputes. (Jurisdiction of the Netherlands Commercial Court, Netherlands Commercial Court website (last visited Aug. 1, 2017).)

The legislation on the court, the Netherlands Commercial Court Act (Wet Netherlands Commercial Court), is scheduled to come into force on January 1, 2018. (The Netherlands Commercial Court, Netherlands Commercial Court website (last visited Aug. 1, 2017).)

msdogfood@hotmail.com

Dutch Schools Set to Reopen With Safety Dividers | NowThis

msdogfood@hotmail.com

July 7, 2017) On March 1, 2017 Netherlands: Two New Laws and Decree on Right of Access to a Lawyer

Netherlands: Two New Laws and Decree on Right of Access to a Lawyer
(July 7, 2017) On March 1, 2017, two new laws and a decree, all related to the right of access to a lawyer before and during police questioning of a suspect, entered into force in the Netherlands. (Legislation Access Lawyer During Police Questioning in Force, Ministry of Security and Justice website (Feb. 27, 2017).)


A law adopted on November 17, 2016, transposes into Dutch law the corresponding European Union directive on the right of access to a lawyer. According to the Dutch Ministry of Security and Justice, the new pieces of legislation balance the interests of the suspect and those of the investigation. (Id.; Act of 17 November 2016 Implementing Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the Right of Access to a Lawyer in Criminal Proceedings and in European Arrest Warrant Proceedings, and on the Right to Have a Third Party Informed upon Deprivation of Liberty and to Communicate with Third Persons and with Consular Authorities While Deprived of Liberty, STAATSBLAD VAN HET KONINKRIJK DER NEDERLANDEN [GOVERNMENT GAZETTE OF THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS, Stb.] 2016 Nr. 475 (Dec. 8, 2016, in force on Mar. 1, 2017), available at OVERHEID.NL (in Dutch); Directive 2013/48/EU…, 2013 OJ (L. 294) 1, EUR-LEX.)


The second law, also adopted on November 17, 2016, amends the Code of Criminal Procedure and some other legislation by adding new provisions on the accused, counsel, and some coercive measures. (Act of 17 November 2016, Amending the Code of Criminal Procedure and Some Other Laws Relating to the Addition of Provisions on the Accused, Counsel, and Some Coercive Measures, Stb. 2016 Nr. 476 (Dec. 8, 2016), available at OVERHEID.NL (in Dutch).) The law has supplementary measures pertaining to the initial phase of a criminal investigation, e.g., it extends the period of time that a suspect may be held for questioning from six hours to nine, to further enable access to legal counsel during questioning. (Legislation Access Lawyer During Police Questioning in Force, supra.)


Finally, the Decree of January 26, 2017, provides rules to implement the participation of counsel during investigative questioning. (Besluit van 26 januari 2017, houdende regels voor de inrichting van en de orde tijdens het politieverhoor waaraan de raadsman deelneemt (Besluit inrichting en orde politieverhoor), Stb. 2017 Nr. 29 (Feb. 9, 2017), available at OVERHEID.NL.) The legislation corresponds to a policy letter, applied by the Public Prosecution Service since March 1, 2016, that laid down rules of practice for the right to legal counsel prior to and during police questioning; it is also in line with EU regulations, decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, and case law of the Dutch Supreme Court. (Legislation Access Lawyer During Police Questioning in Force, supra.)


According to the Decree, counsel may make comments and ask questions “directly after the start and directly before the end of the questioning,” with the investigating officer in charge responsible for providing this opportunity to counsel. (Id.) During the questioning, lawyers are authorized to point out to the interrogating officer that, for example, the suspect did not understand the question asked or that the suspect’s physical or psychological state is impeding reliable continuation of the interrogation, and also to respond to the officer themselves if the suspect cannot freely make a statement, which constitutes, according to the Ministry of Security and Justice, a ban on coercive interrogations. (Id.)


The Decree also provides that the lawyer or the suspect him/herself “may ask for an interruption of the questioning, for mutual consultations” but the lawyer may “not answer any questions on behalf of the suspect, unless with the consent of the officer conducting the interrogation and of the suspect.” (Id.) The Decree indicates that the interrogating officer may, if he “considers it effective and reasonable,” permit the lawyer to play more of a role during questioning. (Id.) In addition, lawyers are to be given the opportunity to make remarks on how the questioning is represented when drawn up in the official report on the interrogation. (Id.)


Author: Wendy Zeldin


Topic: Criminal procedure, Detention


Jurisdiction: Netherlands


Date: July 7, 2017

msdogfood@hotmail.com

Care Not Profits

msdogfood@hotmail.com

Netherlands: Court Prohibits Government’s Use of AI Software to Detect Welfare Fraud (Mar. 13, 2020) On February 5, 2020

Netherlands: Court Prohibits Government’s Use of AI Software to Detect Welfare Fraud
(Mar. 13, 2020) On February 5, 2020, the District Court of The Hague (Rechtbank Den Haag) held that the System Risk Indication (SyRI) algorithm system, a legal instrument that the Dutch government uses to detect fraud in areas such as benefits, allowances, and taxes, violates article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (right to respect for private and family life).

Facts of the Case

The case was brought by several civil rights organizations, including the Netherlands Committee of Jurists for Human Rights (Nederlands Juristen Comité voor de Mensenrechten, NJCM), and two natural persons against the Dutch government. The Federation of Trade Unions in the Netherlands (Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging, FNV) intervened on behalf of the plaintiffs. The NJCM works to protect and strengthen fundamental human rights and freedoms. The FNV is a trade union that acts in the interests of its members and “is guided in part by the fundamental values of equality of all people, of freedom, justice and solidarity.” (District Court, paras. 2.2, 2.4 & 2.5.) The UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston, submitted an amicus brief.


Decision

The Court first stated that social security is one of the pillars of Dutch society and contributes significantly to prosperity in the Netherlands. The fight against fraud, which is the stated aim of the SyRI legislation, is therefore crucial. It agreed with the government that new technologies such as the SyRI, which offer more possibilities to prevent and combat fraud, should be utilized and generally serve a legitimate purpose. However, the Court pointed out that the development of new technologies means that the right to respect for private life, which includes the right to the protection of personal data, is increasingly important and that the absence of sufficient and transparent protection of it might have a “chilling effect” among the population. (Paras. 6.3–6.5.)

The Court reiterated that the Netherlands has an obligation under article 8 of the ECHR to strike a fair balance between the interference with the right to respect for private life and the benefits of the use of new technologies to prevent and combat fraud. It held that the SyRI legislation fails to comply with that requirement because it is “insufficiently clear and verifiable.” It therefore declared article 65 of the SUWI Act and chapter 5a of the SUWI Decree incompatible with article 8, paragraph 2 of the ECHR. (Paras. 6.6 & 6.7.)

The Court focused its remarks on article 8 of the ECHR, but took  the general principles of data protection codified in the EU Charter and the GDPR into account, because they offer the same level of protection. (Para. 6.41; EU Charter art. 52, para. 3.) According to the Court, it is undisputed that the SyRI legislation interferes with the right to respect for private life and that the Court must decide whether it is justified. The Court held that it cannot determine what exactly the SyRI is because the government has neither publicized the risk model and the indicators that make up the risk model nor submitted them to the Court. (District Court para. 6.49.) It ruled that the implementation of the SyRI legislation currently does not involve deep learning, data mining, and risk profile development but that it might in the future. (Para. 6.63.) Even though there is no random data collection, a large amount of data is collected, in the opinion of the Court. (Para. 6.50.) Finally, the Court stated that people whose data is collected and included in a risk report are not automatically informed. There is only a legal requirement to announce the start of a SyRI project. (Paras. 6.54 & 6.65.)

The Court reiterated the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights that states that any interference with the right to respect for private life must be provided for by law. It explained that it does not have to be a law in the formal sense, but that “some basis in domestic law” is sufficient. The legal basis must be sufficiently accessible and foreseeable, meaning it must be so clear that it is possible for an individual to adjust his or her behavior accordingly. In the case at issue, the Court left open the question whether the SyRI legislation is sufficiently accessible and foreseeable and concentrated on whether it was necessary in a democratic society. (Paras. 6.66–6.72.)




msdogfood@hotmail.com

The Snowbirds, officially known as 431 Air Demonstration Squadron (French: 431e escadron de démonstration aérienne), are the military aerobatics or air show flight demonstration team of the Royal Canadian Air Force.

msdogfood@hotmail.com 

The Snowbirds, officially known as 431 Air Demonstration Squadron (French: 431e escadron de démonstration aérienne), are the military aerobatics or air show flight demonstration team of the Royal Canadian Air Force. The team is based at 15 Wing Moose Jaw near Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan. The Snowbirds' official purpose is to "demonstrate the skill, professionalism, and teamwork of Canadian Forces personnel".[2] The Snowbirds are the first Canadian air demonstration team to be designated as a squadron.[3]

Since the Snowbirds' first show in July 1971, there have been several incidents involving damage to airplanes, loss of airplanes, and loss of life. Below is a list of notable incidents only. There are other incidents, some involving loss of aircraft, that are not listed below.
DateLocationReasonCasualtiesDamage
10 June 1972 CFB Trenton, Ontario wingtip collision 1 fatality plane crashed
14 July 1973 Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan bird strike caused engine stall back injuries plane crashed
16 July 1977 Paine Field, Washington collision during formation change none 2 planes crashed
3 May 1978 Grande Prairie, Alberta horizontal stabilizer failed 1 fatality plane crashed
17 June 1986 Carmichael, Saskatchewan mid-air collision minor injuries plane crashed
3 September 1989 Toronto, Ontario midair collision 1 fatality 2 planes crashed
26 February 1991 Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan crashed during flight no serious injuries plane crashed
14 August 1992 Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan failed engine bearing none plane crashed
22 October 1992 Bagotville, Quebec midair collision none 2 planes crashed
21 March 1994 Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan engine failure minor injuries plane crash
24 September 1995 Point Mugu, California 3 planes collision with birds none planes damaged
7 June 1997 Glens Falls, New York touched wings none planes damaged
10 December 1998 Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan mid-air collision 1 fatality plane crashed
27 February 1999 Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan nose gear collapsed on landing none plane damage
4 September 2000 Toronto, Ontario planes touched none plane damage
10 April 2001 Comox, British Columbia nose & wing landing gear failed none plane damage
21 June 2001 near London, Ontario mid-air collision serious injuries [23] plane crashed
10 December 2004 Mossbank, Saskatchewan mid-air collision 1 fatality 2 planes crashed
24 August 2005 near Thunder Bay, Ontario engine failure minor injuries plane crashed
18 May 2007 near Great Falls, Montana restraining strap malfunction 1 fatality plane crashed
9 October 2008 near Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan pilot error 2 fatalities plane crashed
1 March 2011 Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan landed with gear up none plane damage
13 October 2019 Brooks, Georgia not yet known[24][25] minor injuries plane crashed
17 May 2020 Kamloops, British Columbia not yet known 1 fatality, 1 injured[26] plane crashed

FatalitiesEdit

Snowbird aircraft have been involved in several accidents, resulting in the deaths of seven pilots and two passengers and the loss of several aircraft. One pilot, Captain Wes Mackay, was killed in a automobile accident after a performance in Latrobe, Pennsylvania, in 1988.[27] The RCAF commented: "... there is risk associated with formation flying. Flying by its very nature has an inherent element of risk. Eight Snowbird pilots have lost their lives in the performance of their duty. We remember them."[28]
10 June 1972: Solo Captain Lloyd Waterer died after a wingtip collision with the other solo aircraft while performing an opposing solo manoeuvre at the Trenton Air Show at CFB Trenton, Ontario.[29]
3 May 1978: Captain Gordon de Jong died at an air show in Grande Prairie, Alberta. The horizontal stabilizer failed, rendering the aircraft uncontrollable. Although pilot ejection was initiated, it was not successful.[30]
3 September 1989: Captain Shane Antaya died after a midair collision during a demonstration at the Canadian International Air Show during the CNE in Toronto, Ontario, when his Tutor crashed into Lake Ontario. During the same accident, team commander Major Dan Dempsey safely ejected from his aircraft.[31]
10 December 1998: Captain Michael VandenBos died in a midair collision during training near Moose Jaw.[32]
10 December 2004: Captain Miles Selby died in a midair collision during training near Mossbank, Saskatchewan, while practising the co-loop manoeuvre. The other pilot, Captain Chuck Mallett, was thrown from his destroyed aircraft while still strapped into his seat. While tumbling towards the ground, he was able to unstrap, deploy his parachute and land with only minor injuries.[33]
18 May 2007: Snowbird 2, Captain Shawn McCaughey fatally crashed during practice at Malmstrom Air Force Base near Great Falls, Montana, due to a restraining strap malfunction.[34]
9 October 2008: A Snowbird Tutor piloted by newly recruited team member Captain Bryan Mitchell with military photographer Sergeant Charles Senecal crashed, killing both, near the Snowbirds' home base of 15 Wing Moose Jaw while on a non-exhibition flight.[35][36]
17 May 2020: A Snowbird Tutor crashed in Kamloops, British Columbia, during a cross-country tour called "Operation Inspiration", intended to "salute Canadians doing their part to fight the spread of COVID-19."[37][38] Unit public affairs officer, Captain Jennifer Casey, died. The pilot, Captain Richard MacDougall, sustained serious injuries.[39][26]
Aircraft replacementEdit

Due to the age of the Tutors (developed in the 1950s, first flown in 1960, and accepted by the RCAF in 1963[40][41]), a 2003 Department of National Defence study recommended that the procurement process to replace the aircraft should begin immediately so the aircraft could be retired by 2010 because of obsolescence issues that would affect the aircraft’s viability.[42] Some concerns include outdated ejection seats and antiquated avionics.[43][44] There has also been criticism about the aircraft not being representative of a modern air force.[44] A 2008 review recommended that the Tutors' life could be extended to 2020 because of cost concerns related to purchasing new aircraft.[45] A 2015 report called "CT-114 Life Extension Beyond 2020", outlined planned upgrades to extend the life of the Tutor beyond 2020. These planned upgrades included replacing the ejection seats and wing components, and updating the brakes.[46] A further initiative to extend the life of the aircraft from 2020 to 2030 has been implemented by the RCAF. An April 2018 RCAF document mentioned that until a decision is made on replacement, the Snowbird Tutors will receive modernized avionics to comply with regulations. The new avionics will permit the team to continue flying in North America and allow the Tutors to fly until 2030. Upgrading work will begin in 2022.[45]

Notwithstanding any upgrades, the Government of Canada plans to replace the Tutors with new aircraft between 2026 and 2035, with a preliminary estimated cost of $500 million to $1.5 billion. Official sources were quoted: "The chosen platform must be configurable to the 431 (AD) Squadron standard, including a smoke system, luggage capability and a unique paint scheme. The platform must also be interchangeable with the training fleet to ensure the hard demands of show performances can be distributed throughout the aircraft fleet." [47] The objective of the Snowbird Aircraft Replacement Project is "to satisfy the operational requirement to provide the mandated Government of Canada aerobatic air demonstration capability to Canadian and North American audiences."[47]
ReferencesEdit
NotesEdit

^ Government of Canada, National Defence, Royal Canadian Air Force. "Members – Snowbirds – Demo Teams". www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca. Retrieved 23 March 2018.
^ a b c Dempsey 2002, p. 567.
^ Dempsey 2002, p. 718.
^ Canadian Armed Forces (29 July 2019). "CT-114 Tutor". www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca. Archived from the original on 24 May 2020. Retrieved 24 May 2020.
^ Canadian Armed Forces (13 October 2019). "CT1140071 Tutor - From the investigator". rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca. Archived from the original on 24 May 2020. Retrieved 24 May 2020.
^ Canadian Armed Forces (17 May 2020). "One Canadian Military Member Killed One Injured in CF Snowbirds Accident". rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca. Archived from the original on 24 May 2020. Retrieved 24 May 2020.
^ Dempsey 2002, p. 659.
^ "Air of Authority – A History of RAF Organisation." Archived 2009-08-23 at the Wayback Machine rafweb.org. Retrieved: 20 May 2011.
^ Dempsey 2002, p. 95.
^ "Snowbirds – Full History." Archived 2013-05-22 at the Wayback Machine RCAF. Retrieved: 15 March 2013.
^ "Snowbirds safety incident a factor behind air show cancellations". The Star, 18 May 2017 Retrieved: August 28, 2017
^ "FAQ: Snowbirds." Government of Canada, Royal Canadian Air Force, Retrieved: 4 September 2017
^ Dempsey 2002, p. 643.
^ "FAQ: Snowbirds." Government of Canada, Royal Canadian Air Force, 20 July 2015. Retrieved: 12 August 2015.
^ Dempsey 2002, p. 540.
^ Dempsey 2002, p. 538
^ Dempsey 2002, p. 545.
^ Dempsey 2002, p. 552.
^ Dempsey 2002, p. 597.
^ Dempsey 2002, pp. 605, 606.
^ Dempsey 2002, p. 615.
^ Ewing-Weisz (2012).
^ [1] CBC News, 26 June 2001. Retrieved: 17 may 2020.
^ "Global News Story." Global News, 27 November 2019. Retrieved: 17 May 2020.
^ "Global News Story." Global News, 5 December 2019. Retrieved: 17 May 2020.
^ a b Ross, Andrea (16 May 2020). "Canadian Forces Snowbirds jet crashes in Kamloops, B.C., killing 1, injuring another". CBC News. Archived from the original on 18 May 2020. Retrieved 18 May 2020.
^ "Car Crash Kills Canadian Pilot, Injures Two Others" (Press release). AP News. 25 October 1988. Retrieved 17 May 2020.
^ "Snowbirds – Tributes." Royal Canadian Air Force, Government of Canada, 9 February 2015. Retrieved: 12 August 2015.
^ Dempsey 2002, p. 546.
^ Dempsey 2002, p. 569.
^ Dempsey 2002, p. 602.
^ "Snowbird crash, December 10, 1998 – investigation update." Archived June 9, 2011, at the Wayback Machine airforce.forces.gc.ca, 7 June 2010. Retrieved: 16 June 2010.
^ "Canadian Forces Flight Safety Report: CT114173 / CT114064 Tutor". airforce.forces.gc.ca. 10 December 2004. Archived from the original on 10 August 2018. Retrieved 7 January 2017.
^ "Canadian Forces Flight Safety Report: CT114159 Tutor." airforce.forces.gc.ca, 18 May 2007. Retrieved: 17 March 2014.
^ "CBC News Story." CBC, 10 October 2008. Retrieved: 13 October 2008.
^ "Canadian Forces Flight Safety Report." airforce.forces.gc.ca. Retrieved: 7 January 2017.
^ Kelly, Alanna (17 May 2020). "Snowbirds plane crashes near Kamloops, B.C." CTV News. Retrieved 17 May 2020.
^ "Canadian Forces Snowbirds launch cross-Canada tour" (Press release). Royal Canadian Air Force. 29 April 2020. Retrieved 17 May 2020.
^ Petruk, Tim (17 May 2020). "With video: Snowbird jet crashes into Kamloops house". Kamloops This Week. Retrieved 17 May 2020.
^ Canadair CT-114 Tutor Retrieved 29 May 2020
^ Milberry 1984, p. 346.
^ Replace Snowbird Jets ‘Immediately,’ DND Told in 2003. The Globe and Mail. April 25, 2018. Retrieved 20 May 2020
^ Snowbirds were waiting for new ejection seats before deadly crash. Now DND won’t say if gear was replaced. The Star. May 29, 2020. Retrieved 30 May 2020.
^ a b Dempsey 2002, p. 694
^ a b Aircraft used by Snowbirds aerobatic team, on the go since 1963, will be kept flying until 2030. Saskatoon StarPhoenix. May 13, 2018. Retrieved 14 May 2018
^ CT-114 Life Extension Beyond 2020 (archived). National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces. Retrieved 30 May 2020
^ a b "Snowbird Aircraft Replacement Project." Government of Canada, 12 August 2015. Retrieved: 12 March 2015.
BibliographyEdit

Dempsey, Daniel V. A Tradition of Excellence: Canada's Airshow Team Heritage. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada: High Flight Enterprises, 2002. ISBN 0-9687817-0-5.
Ewing-Weisz, Chris. "Lois Boyle was the ‘Mother of the Snowbirds’." The Globe and Mail, 17 January 2012, p. S8. Published online: 16 January 2012. Retrieved: 23 January 2012.
Fast, Beverley G. Snowbirds: Flying High, Canada's Snowbirds Celebrate 25 Years. Saskatoon, SK: Lapel Marketing & Associates Inc., 1995. ISBN 0969932707.
Milberry, Larry. Canada's Air Force At War And Peace, Volume 3. Toronto, ON: CANAV Books, 2000. ISBN 0-921022-12-3.
Milberry, Larry, ed. Sixty Years—The RCAF and CF Air Command 1924–1984. Toronto: Canav Books, 1984. ISBN 0-9690703-4-9.
Mummery, Robert. Snowbirds: Canada's Ambassadors of the Sky. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: Reidmore Books, 1984. ISBN 0-919091-37-7.
Rycquart, Barbara. The Snowbirds Story. London, Ontario, Canada: Third Eye, 1987. ISBN 0-919581-41-2.
Sroka, Mike. Snowbirds: Behind The Scenes With Canada's Air Demonstration Team. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Fifth House Publishers, 2006. ISBN 1-894856-86-4.
External linksEdit
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Snowbirds.

Canadian Forces Snowbirds (official site)
431 Squadron (Department of Defence – History and heritage)
Squadron history at Canadian Wings
Watch a 1980 NFB vignette on the Snowbirds