Jim Abbott

[Points Of Order, September 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the course of Oral Question Period, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General referred to a report that he had in hand that was refuting my comments. It was the report given to the Solicitor General by the Security Intelligence Review Committee.

I recognize that the rules of the House would call for him to have quoted specifically from that report in order for us to order that report tabled. However I wonder if, in the goodwill extended by the parliamentary secretary to myself in his response, he would see fit to table that report immediately so that we can have a look at it ourselves.

[Organized Crime, September 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, as the House will know, we have been after this information for an extended period of time. What seemed to us to be totally incredible is that this report, with all of the findings that it had, even if we were to discount them to 50%, are still very threatening and of concern to Canadians. It raises the question of would the RCMP have actually said “This report is terrible. Look at all the evidence we are uncovering. We had better stop investigating”. What does the member mean there was not any influence on this process?

[Organized Crime, September 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, sidewinder was a joint RCMP and CSIS operation that looked into the influence of organized crime and foreign companies on Canadian companies and our security. I have had an opportunity to read the report and it raises very serious concerns about Canadians' personal safety, national security and foreign influence in Canada. Why did the government shut down the report?

[Organized Crime, September 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in today's London Free Press and Sun Media there is an accurate description of the contents of a joint project between the RCMP and CSIS called sidewinder.

The contents of the report should raise very deep concerns with all Canadians. I have been contacted by a Toronto police officer who worked in the Asian crime unit for three years who said “The Canadian public have absolutely no idea what is taking place in our society insofar as the criminal activities of organized groups is concerned”.

Having read the report, it shows a seamless connection between the issue of organized crime and national security, with bridges built to significant Canadian companies and political parties. The Liberal government's inaction on these issues is deplorable. It must immediately undertake a rationalization of information sharing and jurisdiction between the armed forces, foreign affairs, immigration, CSIS and the RCMP.

The threat to Canadians' personal and national security, as illustrated by the contents of sidewinder, are far too profound to Canada to continue to be ignored by the government.

[Organized Crime, September 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, last night the House sat until after midnight debating the issue of organized crime in Canada. This insidious force that is a cancer in Canadian society has grown in our lives in the last seven years under the Liberal government.

In their speeches last night it was evident that the justice minister and solicitor general have no concept of the complexity of this problem. They do not understand that organized crime presents a threat not only to the personal security of Canadians but also to Canada's national security as terrorists link arms with organized crime. Dangerous forces attempt to undermine the freedom of speech and association of Canadians as they threaten, coerce and attempt to bribe people in public life.

When will the government finally get serious and recognize the solid link between organized crime and national security? It is time the government came forward with a strategy that will encompass foreign affairs, immigration, armed forces, CSIS and our national police forces. A united solid front is the only wall between Canadians and the forces of destruction.

[Species At Risk Act, September 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand today to speak to this issue, particularly in light of the concerns the people in my constituency of Kootenay—Columbia have. My constituency has some of the finest, if not the finest, big game hunting, if not in North America, certainly in all the world.

This is an issue that I, quite frankly, despair over in that there seems to be so much misunderstanding on the part of people who do not live in a constituency such as mine. To suggest that people who are concerned about this issue and who are speaking against some of the provisions of this issue are therefore not concerned about the environment is really desperately unfortunate.

I and my family have had the privilege, and I count it as a privilege, of having lived on the shores of a lake in the Rocky Mountains since 1974. When we wake up in the morning the sun is rising over the Rocky Mountains. There are loons, osprey, muskrat, beaver and all sorts of wildlife in the area. I love and respect that part of the country and I really respect the fact that I have had the privilege of bringing up my family in such an idyllic location. I therefore speak with a tremendous amount of passion about this issue.

The people in the cities who take a look at certain television programs or read certain documentation can come to a particular perspective. Sometimes that perspective is accurate but more often than not it is inaccurate. I think for example of the situation where we have had the various extreme ecogroups who have been involved in the so-called B.C. great bear rain forest.

There is no such thing as the B.C. great bear rain forest. It has never ever appeared on a map. It is a pure fabrication and creation for marketing to get more money into the coffers of some of these organizations. Unfortunately, what has happened is that companies which purchase wood products, softwood lumber and items of that type from that area have ended up succumbing to this marketing program. What we are looking at now in the interior of British Columbia is that the American extreme environmental groups are now silently working and coming toward the interior of British Columbia.

I will cite a specific example. I will read from notes I took in two days of meetings last Saturday and Sunday in the town of Revelstoke, part of my constituency. This city has been in existence for 100 years. It has spawned many great citizens, not the least of whom is the member for York South—Weston who was born and raised in Revelstoke. We make note of that very profound event.

All kidding aside, we have 8,500 people living in this city that is completely and totally surrounded. There are basically three valleys which converge at that particular point. We have a static population of 8,500. They traditionally have treated the environment with a tremendous amount of respect because it is the environment from which they sustain their living.

With the changes that there have been, and some very good changes I must say, in the forestry practices that have been brought forward by various levels and various brands of provincial government, we have seen a rollback in the amount of responsible resource extraction in the way of harvesting timber and wood products in the area.

As a consequence, there have been moves to more value added products with less actual fibre being taken out of the bush. However, there is a limit to how many guitar faces or how many violin skins can actually be created and still have an employed work base in the area. However, I should say that on balance it strikes me that there has been a balance between the environmental concerns and responsible harvesting practices.

Because there has been a downturn and because the area is so absolutely spectacular, they have now moved to what we might call ecotourism. We are talking about snowmobile facilities and heli-skiing up on many of the magnificent glaciers in the area. Suddenly, as a result of the federal Department of the Environment red listing the caribou in the area, out of the clear blue sky the ministry of environment lands and parks, MELP, has decided that it is going to effect a closure for the snowmobilers in the area. This is understandable and would be particularly understandable if there was good scientific data and a good base to make these judgments. Indeed, from the notes I read, we have to take a look at the caribou in that area under the issue of habitat impact, disturbance and wildlife.

We keep hearing that the grizzlies are an endangered species, and indeed they are in certain areas of Canada, but in that part of my constituency, as in the far southeast corner of my constituency, the grizzlies are not an endangered species by any stretch of the imagination. They are predators that prey on deer and once they run out of deer they go after the caribou and the elk. What kind of pressure have the wolves as predators brought to the caribou herds? These are questions that MELP does not seem able to answer. However, this came about as a result of a listing by the Canadian Department of Environment.

Did MELP include, for example, the fact that we have Mount Revelstoke National Park and Glacier National Park adjacent to and between Revelstoke and Golden which obviously offer a tremendously undisturbed area for the caribou to go to? Did MELP include in its survey the fact that there was this totally undisturbed area? When we asked that question in the meeting the answer came back “In certain instances, yes, and in certain instances, no”.

What the people of Revelstoke, Kootenay—Columbia and all Canadians who understand these issues want to know is how are we making these judgments, on what basis are we making these judgments and have we taken into account all the impacts.

I also want to speak very forcefully in support of the responsible use of the environment and the species by hunters. I will read something into the record. It says:

If you were to believe the rhetoric of many of the so-called modern environmentalists, hunters are an anachronism.

We are told that wildlife populations are declining while the callous, uncaring hunter goes afield intent only on the kill, giving no thought to the future of the resource.

A newly released survey from Wildlife Habitat Canada puts the lie to this carefully nurtured image.

The survey reveals that over a 15-year period hunters have directly contributed more than $335 million to habitat conservation projects in Canada. While that figure is impressive by itself, the study notes that this does not include the hunter support given to national groups such as Ducks Unlimited Canada and the Nature Conservancy of Canada. It does not include the $600 million in license fees collected from hunters over the same period, nor does it include the $600 million that hunters invest in the Canadian economy each year on equipment, travel, lodging and other related expenses. It is also important to note that these figures do not include the equally significant contributions that anglers have made to the resource.

In British Columbia alone, hunters have, over that 15-year period, invested over $106 million dollars and almost 2.5 million hours of volunteer work toward wildlife habitat conservation.

An impressive record for a group of citizens who are often portrayed by the popular media as a group of uncouth rednecks, blazing away at anything that moves and generally desecrating the environment.

I must speak up on behalf of the people in my constituency, not just the hunters but the people who, like myself, choose to live in the area because we have such a tremendous amount of respect for the environment, the ecology and the species. We must be heard and be part of the process.

When we come forward with this species at risk act, if indeed it is the will of the House for us to come forward with this act, we must take into account all the issues I have brought forward today, and the many more to come, to see that we create a proper balance and that we have an understanding of what that balance should be.

I and many of my colleagues who represent people like the citizens in my constituency will be standing up for them.

[Organized Crime, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in listening to my colleague from Okanagan—Shuswap I know he comes to this debate with a tremendous amount of passion.

Perhaps he could help us understand his understanding of the issue of this being all part of a larger picture. We are talking about organized crime. We are talking about some terrible event that happened to the reporter Mr. Auger. The allegations that it had something to do with bikers seem to be well founded.

However, that kind of violent activity, that kind of manifestation of organized crime, is just one of the very tiny manifestations of organized crime. It is part of an overall picture that has the power to immobilize us to neutralize our police forces. Also many of these gangs end up funding national and international terrorist activities. There is no line now between security issues and criminal issues, between organized crime and national terrorism.

I wonder if my colleague would like to expand on that.

[Organized Crime, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, for sake of time I would like to deal with just one aspect of my colleague's comments and that is to do with the ports police.

The shutting down of the ports police was against every possible piece of advice that the government received. Absolutely everything went against it because we had a gathering of information and a gathering of intelligence. In particular, we had a gathering of experienced officers. There was a wealth of information. On the day the ports police were disbanded around Canada was the day that information fundamentally evaporated. Many of the files physically evaporated when that took place.

This is part of the co-ordination that we have been talking about. My colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, myself and others have been talking about having a co-ordinated effort. This information must go into a pool. We must develop a way to enhance the pool of intelligence and the pool of experience of our police and enforcement forces. In that regard I absolutely agree with my colleague from Pictou as well.

[Organized Crime, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this is a scary night because I agree with the member opposite. This really is a very scary night.

In all seriousness, I agree with him totally. The notwithstanding clause was put into the constitution for a specific purpose which was to cover an eventuality that could not be foreseen at the time. If we are ever going to use it, it must be used as an absolute last resort. I believe at some point it may be appropriate to use it.

In examining the entire issue of organized crime, it forms part of a whole national security issue. It is not just crime. It is a whole national security issue as well as a personal security issue. We must examine this in its totality to see what other solutions there are. Indeed there are many solutions totally apart from anything legislatively. I agree with the member completely.

[Organized Crime, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Okanagan—Shuswap.

The debate has had some low points but it has had some high points tonight. As far as I am concerned, we are talking about putting personal freedoms up against our personal safety as it were. The issue of the freedoms we have in Canada is sacrosanct. Those freedoms have been fought for in two wars and other skirmishes. People have fought and died for the freedoms we have here. Before we talk about using the notwithstanding clause to do away with our own personal freedoms, we have to take a very long, hard, analytical look at the issue. We need to look at what has precipitated this focus.

First, we are talking about an allegation that a biker gang shot a reporter. That is what we are dealing with. We have to understand that there are totally different actions taken by different types of gangs. The bikers are noted for taking a very blunt instrument approach to problems as they come across them. There are aboriginal gangs, the mafia, other ethnic organizations. There are gangs of common interest, for example, the Colombian gangs around the importation and distribution of heroin.

To say that bikers represent organized crime is both unfortunate and inaccurate. It has been helpful in this terrible situation. As has already been stated, our hearts go out to Mr. Auger and the people around him. It is difficult to realize that that shooting, if indeed it is proven to be an action of a biker gang, is just one of probably thousands of potential manifestations of organized crime.

We have to realize that trying to cure the plague of organized crime with a broad action such as using the notwithstanding clause would be like using a malaria treatment for a typhoid infection. When we break our leg, we do not put our arm in a cast. We need to define the problem. We have to understand that in the House we must always stand for personal freedom of association because it equates to the issue of our personal safety in a very real way.

My final analogy would be that we could cure the common cold or a more serious flu by taking a lethal dose of arsenic. We would not have the cold or the flu anymore. We would not have to worry about having the cold or the flu. The cure may be successful, but the patient could die.

How does organized crime affect us and what do we have to do to get organized crime under control? We are aware of different situations in our society. For example, there are environmental dumps and organized crime involved in intentionally and aggressively polluting our society and our environment. We are aware of the situation with the snake heads. We are also aware of the situation of the weakening and compromising of our police forces, not through anything that our police forces are doing, but by the actions of organized crime toward them.

I will not be intimidated by the member for Waterloo—Wellington when he uses the club of political correctness so that supposedly we cannot talk about the fact that there are ethnic gangs. There are. The people most disadvantaged by those ethnic gangs are of the same ethnic group. They came to Canada to get away from that.

The best example I can think of off the top of my head is the Tamil tigers. In Canada we have an excellent outstanding community of Tamil people who came to Canada to get away from the suppression, murder and mayhem, to build a better life for themselves and their families. Unfortunately they were followed by people of the Tamil tigers who represent a national security threat to Canada, an international security threat to people around the world and who also represent organized crime in its very worst form.

Also, in terms of ethnicity or being able to identify people on the basis of a particular group, I think of the Russian gangs. We know, and this has been in the public domain, that there was an attempt to compromise politicians in this Chamber. Political contributions were made to high ranking politicians in this Chamber. To the honour and credit of those politicians, the second they found out that political contributions had been made to them, they immediately transferred the funds out of their accounts and into trust accounts. The only way this became public knowledge was that the wife of the Russian mobster tried to get the money and so it became a story.

Would other people in public life, if not in this Chamber, have fallen to the threat? Would they have fallen to the threat of compromise or embarrassment? What about financial coercion that can happen to people like ourselves in this Chamber who are charged with the responsibility of making laws to protect all Canadians? What about the threat of death to the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and to his family, and the fact that within this parliament he has had to have a bodyguard for himself and his family? This is a very serious threat.

Canadians have to realize that although the debate we are having tonight unfortunately has had some low points, it is nonetheless absolutely vital. All Canadians, and not just this Chamber, must collectively work to protect the liberties that we have as citizens.

Do the law enforcers have sufficient resources to get the job done? Our answer is an unequivocal no. As a result of dollar cuts we have seen the disbanding of the ports police. A critical example in the issue of the ports police occurred at the time they were being wound down. The ports police were asking the Vancouver port authority about an individual it had hired who was a Chinese national based in Beijing. They wanted to know whether a security check had been done on the individual. It had not.

At about that time the Vancouver ports police were disbanded. That individual within the next couple of months brought three so-called students from the port of Dalian into the port of Vancouver. Those three so-called students had access to the port of Vancouver, to all the security, all the intelligence within the Vancouver port. And we wonder why the Vancouver port is a leaky sieve for every drug we could possibly imagine.

At exactly the same time this was going on an agreement was made with an international shipping company that Vancouver would be the first port of call. Containers would go from the port of Vancouver directly to Chicago. Do not stop, do not collect $200, do not pass go. The drugs all of a sudden went from the golden triangle to Chicago just like that as a result of the shutdown of the Vancouver ports police.

In CSIS and the RCMP, not only at the personnel level, there is a real competition as a result of the legislation that covers the evidence gathering of the police and the way in which CSIS ends up getting its information.

I suggest there are two things we need to look at long before we would ever look at the potential of shutting down our own personal rights and freedoms.

First, legislatively, we must examine and rationalize existing laws and change those laws where those laws conflict. Second, under resources, we must co-ordinate law enforcement agencies and other enforcement agencies. We must end the competition between the agencies. We must expand training and sharing of information. We must be in a position to be able to purchase contemporary equipment.

We must recognize that our response must be one of dealing with the larger issue, the broad picture. We can craft a response to enhance our personal safety and national security, but we must craft that response in a way that will stand for individual personal freedoms. We must not kill the patient with the cure.