Robert Read ex-RCMP: "Triads had infested Canada's immigration system" -- "a political silver bullet" -- NATIONAL SECURITY

Update and Continuation: Earlier today, there was a post on some of the report, but not this section.


Two Key Quotations:

1. In 1986 an intelligence report prepared by the immigration department said there were no triads in Canada. Quite soon afterwards the Commissioner of the RCMP also said there were no triads in Canada. However, from 1991 to 1993 I reported, in a series of more than 30 extensively detailed reports, that triads had infested Canada's immigration system. Leaders of the largest organized crime groups in the world had established themselves as entrepreneurs in Canada. This really wasn't anything new, but the bureaucrats panicked. -- Robert Read, ex-Corporal, RCMP


2. Mr. Pierre Poilievre: So as this scandal was brewing behind the scenes, there was an active campaign to batter down anyone who could have stepped forward and revealed what had actually been going on.

[. . . . ] As I understand all of your testimony, what you've told us today is that if this bill had been in effect when your cases were ongoing, when your challenges and problems were before you, it would not have helped you. Is that an accurate understanding of your testimony?

Mr. Allan Cutler: Yes, you have it right.



The Report:

38th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION -- Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates -- EVIDENCE: ex-RCMP Corporal Robert Read, ex-foreign service officer, the blunt ex-foreign service officer Brian Adams, Joanna Gualtieri, Canada's expert on whistle-blowing, civil servant Allan Cutler, et cetera, February 3, 2005 -- you may download it.

The Chinese triads are inextricably woven into the fabric of Chinese society. For the last two centuries, wherever the Chinese have emigrated, they have taken with them their secret groups. Triads are the world's largest criminal fraternity, and Hong Kong, with four major triad societies and numerous smaller ones, 55 in total, is the home to more ethnic Chinese gangsters than anywhere else on Earth. Today the triads operate an unrivalled criminal empire. Extortion, gambling, international prostitution, illegal immigration, smuggling, money laundering, fraud, corruption, arms, and narcotics dealing all fall within their remit.

[This is one paragraph that bears re-reading in view of what the present government is planning, facilitating, encouraging . . . NJC]

Triads have been coming to Canada since 1863. There have been two royal commissions probing Chinese illegal immigration and opium smuggling, the first one in 1885, the second in 1911. From 1923 to 1959 triads plied what would become the biggest fraud of the post-war era. Half the Chinese immigrants in Canada had entered illegally as impostors. A massive RCMP investigation, concluded in 1962, revealed the extensive control the triad societies had over the Chinese community in Canada.

Hong Kong was the world centre for heroin trafficking. Only a few minor players were ever prosecuted, and everything else was quickly covered over again. At that time, one in six people in Hong Kong was a triad member. The Canadian mission was warned in the early sixties and seventies that many in the Royal Hong Kong Police were triad members. Those warnings were ignored, and Canada accepted many Hong Kong police, some joining the RCMP. However, in 1977 a scandal dubbed The Quiet Dragons was aired on the CBC. It revealed that at least 40 corrupt policemen who were also triad members were living comfortably in Canada, with tens of millions of dollars gained from bribery and drug trafficking. Requests for a royal commission were dismissed. [Ed's emphasis throughout]

In 1986 an intelligence report prepared by the immigration department said there were no triads in Canada. Quite soon afterwards the Commissioner of the RCMP also said there were no triads in Canada. However, from 1991 to 1993 I reported, in a series of more than 30 extensively detailed reports, that triads had infested Canada's immigration system. Leaders of the largest organized crime groups in the world had established themselves as entrepreneurs in Canada. This really wasn't anything new, but the bureaucrats panicked.

So for over a century Canadian government officials have for the most part denied that Chinese criminals, known as triads, were in Canada and posed a threat to the country. The big question is, why did they act as they did?

An Asian organized crime expert wrote that “Canada is rapidly becoming one of the world centres for Chinese organized crime and espionage”. So the problem of Chinese triads, heroin and people smuggling, and corruption that has been going on for over a hundred years has never been resolved. It has only grown larger, causing far greater damage to the country. The typical attitude of bureaucracies to bad news is that we do shoot the messenger: if it happened in my ministry or division, then it's a negative reflection on me, and no news is good news. A disclosure protection act should counter the above mindset.

The problem of corruption at Canadian missions abroad is systemic. Canada's foreign affairs department learned there were 197 cases of corruption by locally engaged staff from 1996 to 1999 at its missions abroad, and many more were discovered later. The Canadian government itself admits that 1.5% of its immigration employees are corrupt, or thieves, or taking bribes, or have other illegal problems.

(1555)

The Auditor General highlighted in the 2001 report that, “A weak immigration service is putting Canada in danger because it isn't weeding out applicants presenting criminal, security, or health risks”. Last year, a high-ranking Canadian diplomat based in China left his post suddenly after he was suspected of accepting bribes to help Chinese nationals enter Canada illegally. He is thought to have made well over $1 million before he bolted a few days before his posting expired. [Search: "bolted" -- on this site]

The government continues to play down the problems and serious security implications. It destroys and sees as a threat anyone who tells the truth. Both RCMP Corporal Read and I have experienced this. So too have two CSIS officers whose careers were also destroyed working on the Sidewinder project, which examined Chinese espionage activities in Canada in alliance with the triads; I instigated that.

[. . . . ] Joanna Gualtieri, Canada's expert on whistle-blowing, wrote:

So flawed is the Bill that Louis Clark, founding member and President of the Government Accountability Project in Washington, D.C.--the world's leading authority on whistleblower protection and legislation--said:

The government has said that the goal of the legislation is to “protect employees and encourage them to come forward if they have reason to believe that wrongdoing has taken place.” I do not see how the proposed legislation could encourage any but the most uninformed to step forward. In fact, from my limited understanding of Canadian civil service law, I think some whistle blowers might well be better off with no new statutory protections.

Mr. Pat Martin, MP, said it was an act to protect ministers from whistle-blowers, not an act to protect whistle-blowers. I completely agree with him.

Bill C-11 should be tossed out in its entirety and replaced with a bill closer to Bill C-205, a private member's bill put forward by Gurmant Grewal, MP for North Delta, that has much more positive potential.

[. . . . ] First of all, reprisals: the core problem with being ethical is the reprisals that often follow. Bill C-11 only conceives of a few reprisals, like demotions or loss of promotions, but there are endless ways in which bureaucracies will cover up mistakes and destroy its black sheep. A whistle-blower can experience a vast range of retaliations. These may include verbal threats; verbal attacks; one is silenced; ostracization; isolation; hurtful gossip; stigmatization; they are given dangerous work tasks; others threaten or attack them physically; or they are sexually harassed in an active way, etc.

[. . . . ] According to the professor, mobbing means harassing, ganging up on someone, or psychologically terrorizing others at work.

[. . . . ] “corporate psychopaths” [. . . . ]

The exclusion of the RCMP and over 100 divisions and branches is most curious. One has to wonder why this bill excludes RCMP, CSIS, CSE, the military, etc., and, under clause 6, a total of about 63 divisions or branches of government and 49 corporations.

[. . . . ] This bill does not encourage whistle-blowers in any way, and neither does it value their contributions. In the U.S., whistle-blowers are rewarded and recognized as it should be. For example, according to statements by the government, my work saved the government $50 million, and in the long term prevented the entry of at least 2,000 organized crime figures. But I've never received any recognition--only scorn and abuse.


[ A digression more information on whistleblowing -- leads to other information Note: There is a link error. Wherever this is found at the end of a link--[ /br within <>]--remove it and the link will be all right. NJC ]


Most whistle-blowers are 40 years of age and over and are forced to retire early. Most will never be able to be employed again. [. . . . ]

(1600)

Legal expenses [. . . . ]

Scott Newark, a highly respected lawyer and friend of mine, has assisted me and other whistle-blowers for more than 10 years. He suggests the following. There must be an office independent of the structure of the bureaucracy to which complainants' information from within the bureaucracy can be provided. Any other model is simply a facade. [. . . . ]

I'd like to conclude by saying that “All that is essential for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”. This was written by a British political writer and statesman in the 1700s.

[. . . . ]Corporal Robert Read . . .

My name is Robert Read. I'm now retired, but I was a corporal in the RCMP. In 1996 I was assigned to Mr. McAdam's case and appointed to meet with him, listen to his complaint, and try to find what was actually happening with his complaint, what were the facts of the matter. Many parts of Mr. McAdam's complaint are detailed, and many were found to be true. I worked on Mr. McAdam's case until 1996, when I was ordered to desist, in September, I guess it was, 1997.

What I discovered was that when Mr. McAdam made his complaint in 1991 and it was investigated by the RCMP in 1992, the RCMP discovered that the computer in Hong Kong was entirely vulnerable, that the safeguards were not put into effect. Anyone and everyone who had access to the system could issue visas in Hong Kong, that is, anyone in the high commission in Hong Kong who had access to the computer, with a little bit of knowledge, could issue visas. It appeared that this had been happening for years, probably from 1986 until 1991. I compare Mr. McAdam to the sheriff in town, because various people in the high commission brought their suspicious pieces of evidence to him, and he gathered them and presented them to the RCMP when the RCMP arrived in 1992.

So after listening to various pieces of the story, I went to the RCMP central file room, got the 1992 files, and sat down and started to read them. After I had been reading them for several weeks, I came across a report called the Balser report, which, in obtuse language, said the computer is vulnerable and showed how it was possible to misuse it.

The thing to understand is that Mr. McAdam in 1992 was on station in Hong Kong. Mr. McAdam is a very frank person. He was kept out of the informed circle. The RCMP and his superiors told him everything was under control and in good hands. It was in their hands, but what they were in fact doing was covering up the facts from Mr. McAdam, because he had been in the service for 29 years and was not one to mince words. So through bureaucratic manoeuvring, they got Mr. McAdam back to Ottawa and isolated him. Finally, he took his retirement, because he was so entirely frustrated by his superiors' apparent lack of interest in the details of his findings.

The thing was that they knew before he did; they knew that the RCMP had found this. Their own technician, Mr. Balser, had found this and had told them they had a disaster here. It was a disaster beyond bureaucratic scope. It was actually a political silver bullet, which it would have been a disaster to report honestly. So they kept this from Mr. McAdam, because he was not someone who could be told to keep it under his hat.

(1605)

It was just the fact that he came back to Ottawa and periodically came to the RCMP and demanded answers and demanded inquiry. My boss, of course, did not know of this cover-up that had been perpetrated in 1992—we were now in 1996—so he assigned me to delve into the case and I looked into it. It was only by an examination of these files from 1992 that I discovered the cover-up.

I also was not one to mince my words. I said to my boss, “This is what's happened”. My boss is a very nice gentleman, but he just wasn't responding to what I was telling him. As the months went on, it occurred to me that the RCMP were going to continue this cover-up, which I believed at that time was perpetrated by Immigration and Foreign Affairs.

Finally, I made a complaint against my boss for obstruction of justice. That was in 1997. I then went on sick leave when I perceived that, yes, this was really going ahead and the cover-up would continue no matter what I did. So I was off on stress leave, sick leave, for six months, during which time I reformulated my complaint, now against four superior officers who had direct knowledge, who I had evidence were part of the cover-up.

A few months later I went back to work. The RCMP gave me a job essentially shuffling paper—making photocopies, you might say—for a while. Finally, six months later they sent me to the personnel office to work as a personnel clerk.

What happened after that was that they cornered me in a bureaucratic way. It appeared that I was going to be stabbed in the back, so what I did was go public. This was now in September 1999, and I went public in a newspaper. I didn't really understand this at the time, but I believe now that this was in fact done expressly, that my bosses in fact had made a decision and put this pinch on me and made me go public.

[Re-read that; then ]

I did go public and made allegations in 1999 that there was a cover-up, that there was loss of control of the computer. I was subsequently suspended with pay, was charged with divulging confidential information, was put on trial, and was convicted of doing that, in fact, in 1992. It was at my trial in 1992, through listening to the testimony of various people who were called to my trial, that I realized the RCMP had to have been in the know from 1992, from the original investigation. I had suspected the original investigator from the RCMP was in fact on the take or corrupt or something else. From my trial, however, I can see that he was following orders when he covered up the whole affair in his files.

(1610)

The reason the RCMP would do this, I think, was for fear of national security. This problem was big enough that it could be a real arrow through the heart of the government. To admit that our way of life is now so complex that we cannot control our own computers in the federal government is a very serious matter. It's a political problem as well as a bureaucratic problem. So this is my opinion of why it happened. It was a question of national security taking precedence over a criminal investigation. I believe this is why Mr. McAdam was frustrated for so long and that, in fact, the national security question was being addressed.

[. . . . ] Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): [. . . . ] Allan Cutler, . . . are you telling us that after the Auditor General revealed to the public the sponsorship scandal and both the Prime Minister and the Auditor General went public, calling on anyone in the government who had any knowledge to come and speak out, you were then told to be quiet?

(1615)

[. . . . ] Mr. Pierre Poilievre: So as this scandal was brewing behind the scenes, there was an active campaign to batter down anyone who could have stepped forward and revealed what had actually been going on.

[. . . . ] As I understand all of your testimony, what you've told us today is that if this bill had been in effect when your cases were ongoing, when your challenges and problems were before you, it would not have helped you. Is that an accurate understanding of your testimony?

Mr. Allan Cutler: Yes, you have it right.

[. . . . ] Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You don't want this job to be taken on by the Public Service Commission, but rather by an independent agency.

My question is for all of you. Let's say we propose an amendment to the bill whereby an independent agency with a staff of 10, 12 or 15 employees be created. If you could directly file a complaint with this agency, do you feel it would have more credibility than if you had complained to your supervisor, to the supervisor of your supervisor, and so on? Or would you prefer to have an agency affiliated to the Office of the Auditor General, as is the case of the Office of the Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Development? What I'm talking about is an autonomous agency affiliated with the Office of the Auditor General which has a lot of credibility and which is well known.

I'm wondering whether you would prefer to have a completely independent agency or one which is affiliated to an office which has a great deal of credibility and which is very well known. Back when you had to deal with all those problems, what type of agency would you have rather turned to?

[English]

Mr. Allan Cutler: I will answer first. It should be totally independent, in my view.

Mr. Brian McAdam: I agree completely. It has to be totally independent.
[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: There are two other examples. First, the Official Languages Commissioner, who is completely independent but rather isolated. For her part, Ms. Gélinas, who is the Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Development, is also completely independent, since she tables her reports before Parliament. However, she is affiliated with the Office of the Auditor General, which increases her profile.

In short, I would like to know whether you prefer an agency modelled on the Office of the Official Languages Commissioner or on the Office of the Environment Commissioner, or whether it does not matter as long as it is an independent entity.

[English]


Mr. Allan Cutler: It should be completely independent, on its own.

[Translation]


Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Fine. That's clear.

Mr. Read, under sections 52 and 53 of Bill C-11, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is not covered by the bill. I would like to know what you think about that, although I can guess what your answer will be. Do you think the RCMP should be included in an improved version of Bill C-11?

Cpl Robert Reid: Yes and no. In my opinion, the bill as it now stands does not make any sense. It's just not serious.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: But if an independent agency was created and this whole issue were taken seriously, would you want the RCMP to be covered by the bill?

Cpl Robert Reid: It's difficult to answer that question. In the case I mentioned, there are two aspects, namely the criminal aspect and the national security aspect. That's why there was such a battle within the RCMP.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: It's difficult.

Cpl Robert Reid: I represent the criminal investigation, and the principles which guide me don't include the national interest. If criminals are involved, it is my responsibility to go after them. I was never told anything, but I see what is going on. I concluded that people acted the way they did because of the national interest and because it would have been extremely damaging for the federal government.

Therefore, the RCMP should be covered by the bill as regards criminal activities, but not as regards national security.

[. . . . ] Cpl Robert Reid: I agree with Mr. McAdam. It's half-political, half-bureaucratic. The national interest was deemed more important for political reasons. In my view, Canada's political system is in a crisis. The political system will have to be changed radically because technology is evolving so quickly. Major changes have to be brought about.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: [. . . . ] I would like to ask Mr. McAdam to clarify something. I want to make sure I understood correctly. You said that there was corruption in every Canadian mission abroad. Is that correct?
[English]


Mr. Brian McAdam: In one form or another--not necessarily every mission abroad, but a great many of them.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Are you saying that there is corruption in many Canadian missions abroad?

[English]

Mr. Brian McAdam: Yes, and there have been all kinds of public reports on that topic.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Is it especially prevalent in the area of immigration?

[English]

Mr. Brian McAdam: Not necessarily. The last time I saw something like this was an accountant in Venezuela who may have extorted a couple of million dollars. Generally, the Department of Foreign Affairs never wants to sully its reputation, so they will go out of their way to keep things quiet and arrange things. So there should be prosecutions, but there are not. [. . . . ]

[ There is more. NJC ]