Jim Abbott

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 2nd, 1999]

I might clarify for the benefit of the member and the House that this lawsuit has been set aside temporarily until the treaty comes into effect. I am simply reciting the points of the lawsuit that are being put forward by the B.C. Liberal Party. It is the plaintiff in this case.

What I have basically done, and I have just started to scratch the surface, is bring to the table, to this debate, to Hansard and to the record of this debate, the arguments being put forward by the B.C. Liberal members of parliament, people in responsible positions, people who are the aboriginal affairs critic and people who are the critics for the attorney general of the province of B.C., the B.C. Liberal members who form the opposition in British Columbia. They were excluded from representing themselves and getting their points of view on to the record in the committee process. I think more is the shame for this Liberal government.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the member thinks consultation means, but consultation does not mean taking the industrial parties which were involved in chasing the treaty negotiators out of the picture in the last two weeks of the negotiations so that the treaty could be completed without their input. That is the kind of consultation Liberals believe in.

The other part of consultation they do not believe in is the committee process of the House. We ended up last week, a week ago tomorrow, having to go to Vancouver to permit people who have qualified opinions on this topic to put their thoughts on the record.

Because the government chose to exclude some very important people in British Columbia who had valid opinions from the committee process, I will put on the record some of the comments these people made at the hearing which we conducted last week. I will be quoting two people.

The first person is Mr. deJong. Mr. deJong is the aboriginal affairs critic for the Liberal Party in the province of British Columbia. The second person whom I will be quoting is Mr. Geoff Plant, who is the attorney general critic for the Liberals in British Columbia.

It is unusual that persons belonging to the party of that name in this place have so little in common with the Liberals of British Columbia.

Mr. deJong said:

I guess the first thing that needs to be said is it is unfortunate in my view that this hearing was necessary. But it is, because of what has transpired, not just over the past couple of weeks, but what has transpired over the past couple of months, a process that has been designed from the outset, Mr. Chairman, to cut people off from these negotiations. And you didn't need to look much further than the hearings that several of you were involved with, just last week, the federal standing committee that travelled to this province, largely because I think of the efforts of several of your caucus members.

But when you are a British Columbian and hear the kind of comments that we heard from certain members of that committee, representing the federal government, it was difficult not to get angry. When members of the federal government are quoted as saying that this is a dog and pony show that will have no impact and is a waste of time and money, you really begin to wonder about whether or not people in Ottawa care about the views of British Columbians about a topic that is going to profoundly impact the way we live and are governed in this province.

This is a process that, beginning back in the 1980s, has been designed to cut people off, to restrict their access, to restrict their input. Previous governments, and I think you heard from a former premier earlier today, set in motion a process, a closed process. That was designed, I think, from the outset to guarantee failure, and it has.

I remind the House that this is the Liberal aboriginal affairs critic of the province of British Columbia speaking:

So here's what we would like to do today, Mr. Chairman. We would like to comment on that process. We would like to outline for you quickly what our main concerns with this document, this Nisga'a treaty is, and Mr. Plant will provide you with a brief summary of the court case that has been commenced by Gordon Campbell, Geoff Plant and myself in the Supreme Court of British Columbia questioning the constitutionality of the deal, and then we have some thoughts about how this process can be made better because, make no mistake about it, we do have to settle this issue. We do have to settle these negotiations.

But you don't do it by employing the kinds of tactics that we have seen by the government of British Columbia and the government of Canada. The invoking of closure, time allocation by both governments cutting off the ability of elected representatives, Mr. Chair, to scrutinize this all-important document, is the single most pathetic excuse for the democratic process I have seen in the time that I have been involved in elected life.

We were told, all of us as British Columbians, that we would have an opportunity to question, critique, profess support or non-support for each and every clause of this agreement. The government of British Columbia, the NDP government, broke that promise. Mr. Chair, I was in Ottawa when the federal government prevented more than half of the members of parliament from this province from even speaking to this document, from even indicating what areas, what clauses, what principles, they believed this treaty should reflect and doesn't reflect. How can British Columbians have any confidence in any exercise that muzzles their elected officials, and it did just that, Mr. Chair.

So when we get to discuss the substantive provisions of this agreement and we are met by a wall of silence from the two levels of government, you are compelled to ask yourselves this question, Mr. Chairman, what is it that the federal and provincial government is afraid of in allowing this debate to go forward? They either don't have the answers to the fundamental questions that people are asking, or they do and they don't want people to know what those answers are. In either case, it is in my view a recipe for disaster.

We have commenced a court action. We have concerns about what is in this treaty, we have concerns about the self-government provisions, we have concerns about a treaty that would purport to limit your ability to vote for a government that has a responsibility over you and limit that right to vote on the basis of your ethnicity. We think that's wrong. We think a fishery, a commercial fishery, based on an allocation that is tied to ethnicity is wrong, and we think there are alternatives. And we have, as you know, Mr. Chair, members of your panel, taken the matter to the Supreme Court, so if I can defer to my colleague, Mr. Plant, he will provide you with a summary of the basis for those submissions and that argument to the court.

We then hear from Mr. Plant who is the Liberal attorney general critic in the province of British Columbia.

Thank you very much, and thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to speak to you and the other members this morning. The lawsuit is an action commenced in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. It's commenced in the name of three members of the official opposition, who are Mr. Campbell, Mr. deJong and myself, as representatives of the official opposition. The lawsuit is what lawyers will call a declaratory action. We're asking the court to declare that the Nisga'a final agreement is unconstitutional. There are three basic pillars of the argument. The first is an argument that is not open to the federal and provincial governments within the existing constitution of Canada to create a new freestanding third order of government.

The second argument is that it is not open to the federal and provincial governments by negotiation with the Nisga'a or in any other way, short of constitutional amendment, to confer upon a new order of government paramount legislative power. And as I'm sure you are aware, the Nisga'a final agreement does expressly purport to confer upon Nisga'a government legislative power in 14 separate areas of lawmaking that is paramount to federal and provincial legislative power.

The third argument is that the Nisga'a final agreement violates the charter because it denies non-Nisga'a the right to vote for a government which will have the power to make decisions that affect their lives and as you know, the charter guarantees everyone, every citizen of Canada, the right to vote. Those are the three arguments that are the basis of the lawsuit. We are asking the court to rule, as I said, that the treaty, the Nisga'a final agreement, is unconstitutional on each of those grounds. So the question is what is the significance of that. If we're right on any of those points, then what has happened is that the governments have tried to negotiate a document which is outside their constitutional authority to do so.

In effect, they will have tried to amend the constitution of Canada by the back door, and in British Columbia, and I think it's important that people in other parts of Canada understand this: we have in British Columbia a made in B.C. process for ensuring that if you want to amend the Constitution of Canada—

[Points Of Order, December 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising from question period. I believe you would find that the parliamentary secretary, in answering my question, accused the Reform Party of misleading Canadians. I believe that word is unparliamentary. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to have him withdraw it.

[Csis, December 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Corporal Read went to CSIS twice. First, when he discovered the evidence of the loss of control in Hong Kong, and second, when he concluded that a cover-up had been put in place above him in the RCMP.

His allegations of cover-up and obstruction of justice pointed to specific superiors to him in his chain of command.

How can Corporal Read, how can Canadians, how can anyone have confidence that this will be uncovered without the appointment of a special prosecutor?

[Csis, December 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the solicitor general told Canadians that CSIS always investigates any people who enter this country.

When Corporal Read took his Hong Kong visa scam investigation to a CSIS China specialist in early 1997, his allegations were not of any interest to CSIS. Does the House know why? It was because CSIS was already aware that Canada had lost control of its foreign missions around the world. It was old news and it was not prepared to investigate.

Can the solicitor general understand that we need a special investigator on this case?

[Rcmp, December 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I see. So the RCMP investigates itself in spite of the fact that there is this serious allegation by one of its own members.

This issue goes to the heart of Canada's security. We are talking about allegations of a visa scam that has allowed triad gang members to freely enter Canada. They got free entry by compromising Canada's computer security system in Hong Kong. These are serious allegations.

Why will the minister not take them seriously and appoint a special prosecutor?

[Rcmp, December 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in 1997 Corporal Robert Read discovered evidence of a cover-up by RCMP officers in a visa scam investigation in Canada's Hong Kong office. He made serious allegations of criminal misconduct but he could not get the RCMP to review his allegations. Read has been told he is being suspended for repeating his allegations in the province this summer, yet the RCMP still has not investigated the cover-up.

Will the solicitor general appoint a special prosecutor to investigate these serious charges?

[Supply, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it sends a very bad signal because in the case of the particular corporal, if we can believe it, he has been restricted to staying within 100 kilometres of the city of Ottawa. There is no future idea of when that restriction will be lifted.

He is being punished for coming forward and being straight and trying to bring these allegations to the attention of his superiors. The only way he has been able to do that is to go public. More is the shame on the government.

[Supply, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, if Madam Gauthier was aware of the theft of the briefcase after the Toronto Maple Leafs hockey game, how did she become aware of it? The solicitor general was informed by the director of CSIS that the briefcase had gone missing. The solicitor general did not inform SIRC. SIRC is the body. They are the people who are responsible to us as Canadians.

These are people of name who we can trust. We can trust Ray Speaker. We can trust Bob Rae. We can trust Frank McKenna. We can trust people who have a long history of public service. These are people who are put into the trusted position of overseeing CSIS because of the kind of inept things that have been going on over there.

The solicitor general sat on that information. It took a report in the Globe and Mail to make the chair of SIRC aware that the briefcase had been stolen in the first place.

The piety that has been coming forward from the solicitor general's parliamentary secretary is a bit misplaced. If the Reform Party were the Government of Canada, we would take responsibility for the fact that we have not taken any action on organized crime. The Liberals are the Government of Canada and it is the Liberals that have not taken any action on organized crime. It is the Liberals who are deficient in protecting Canadians.

[Supply, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise on debate in the House. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to tell the people of Canada about the strength of the opposition in the House, because if it were not for the Bloc Quebecois—and I give them full marks—if it were not for the pressure of the Conservatives and also of the Reform Party, this kind of motion would never have come to the House. This kind of action would never take place under the Liberal government.

It absolutely astounds me, with the encroachment of organized crime into every part of Canadian life, that the government just basically sits on its hands.

I look at the fact that the speaker just immediately prior to me, in answer to a question from a Bloc member, said that under the auspices of the chair of the committee on justice that everything will go well. I remind the House that the chair who is presently in that seat is the former solicitor general. It was under that solicitor general that many of these pieces of inaction in fact continued to fester.

I draw the attention of the House to a specific case. Let us take a look at some specifics. As a result of coverage in the news media, I and members of the House have learned that in 1997 RCMP Corporal Robert Read reported a cover-up of incompetence, negligence and corruption within DFAIT and immigration and complained of criminal misconduct by his superiors. This related to activities that had happened in the very late eighties and early nineties in Canada's office in Hong Kong.

The RCMP did not acknowledge that complaint much less investigate it. In January 1998, Corporal Read took his documented complaint to the RCMP Public Complaints Commission. He was told it was the wrong venue, and indeed it was the wrong venue. The reality is that within the purview of the government, within the bureaucracy of the RCMP, there is no correct place for that complaint if the RCMP hierarchy will not act on allegations of this nature.

In January 1999, he took the same complaint and documentation to the auditor general. None of these investigative bodies are investigating this complaint, and Corporal Read is a veteran insider. None of them are investigating the complaint that a major cover-up is continuing today within the government's bureaucracy.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize, I have to parenthesize. I failed to mention that I am sharing my time with the member for Surrey Central.

I have personally questioned Corporal Read. He has confirmed and detailed his allegations to me. As a matter of fact, I have seen pages and pages and pages of documented evidence that clearly substantiates that there must be an investigation into his allegations of cover-up on the part of the RCMP.

The purpose of this cover-up is to protect the government from the public humiliation of being systematically deceived by its own employees. The effect has been damage to Canada's national security.

It is all very well and good for the government to say that a wonderful measure has been put forward by the opposition. It thinks the Bloc motion is a good one and that it should be proceeding with it. I want to know from the government in this debate today why the allegations about which I have just informed the House have not been acted on by the government. Why has the government been sitting on its hands in the face of this stonewalling?

It started in 1997. After two years of bureaucratic stonewalling Corporal Read made his complaint public. What happened? He was suspended. Rather than the RCMP actually doing anything he was suspended. To the best of my knowledge there has never been any further action taken to investigate the allegations about Corporal Read to this date. Corporal Read's findings of negligence, incompetence and corruption have not been challenged. It appears no one will investigate even though the complaint is substantial and has been documented.

This is a first step. Thanks to the opposition, issues of this type will come before the standing committee. I can tell the House what I fully anticipate in committee. There will be further stonewalling by the majority representing the government in that committee. Furthermore, as I pointed out, the chair of the committee is a former solicitor general who in 1997, when these events were taking place, was the solicitor general.

Will the current solicitor general appoint an independent prosecutor to examine the evidence of Corporal Read? Not only the evidence of Corporal Read. A lot of the evidence is substantiated by pages and binders full of information, graphs and flowcharts on information compiled by Brian McAdam, a former immigration official in the Hong Kong office at the time of the alleged incidents.

I do not understand how we can end up in Canada with a professional bureaucracy that would allow this kind of situation to continue to fester. Why has this never been properly investigated? If the solicitor general will not act, will the Speaker of the House order the auditor general to report directly to the House?

These are serious allegations. I am fully aware of the seriousness of the allegations I am relating to the House. I am taking responsibility for that as a member of parliament. I will repeat. These allegations have been brought to the RCMP. These allegations are part of what led to the start-up of the investigation called sidewinder. We all know what happened with sidewinder.

Sidewinder was a two year investigation by a combined force of CSIS and the RCMP. They compiled information for a full two year period. They look into the kind of allegations that Brian McAdam brought forward. What did they do? At the end of two years someone at CSIS decided to terminate the sidewinder investigation.

That was not good enough. Instead of just terminating the investigation they terminated all the e-mails and all the written documentation. They made sure to the best of their ability that all information on electronic files was also terminated.

This was absolutely scandalous because it was going on at exactly the same time as the government was not appointing people to the Security Intelligence Review Committee. SIRC was set up under the legislation which established CSIS in the first place. Its purpose was to have civilian oversight of a top secret organization.

The government neglected, and I use that word in its strongest, most pejorative sense, to put people into positions of trust and responsibility in SIRC so that SIRC could continue to oversee CSIS.

As a result of the government leaving the SIRC position open, CSIS basically ran rampant. When it came upon some results, which it presumably did not like, it decided not only to terminate it but to destroy the whole thing. Guess what? SIRC found out about the destruction of sidewinder as a result of reading about it in the newspaper.

The government is completely out of control. It has no idea what we are looking at in the area of organized crime. The very least I can say is that I am thankful the government will support the motion put forward today by Canada's opposition which has embarrassed it into action.