"Whistle-Blowing", The Law, And Government Wrong-Doing

Presently, in relation to both corporations and governments, a protective screen has gone up to create a two-tier legal system. If wrong-doing happens outside those areas, the Criminal Code applies and the definition of violation is pretty clear. If wrong-doing happens in corporations and governments or among their servants, the Criminal Code is often very hard to apply, actions are pushed towards endless “civil” litigation (the law of wrongs done between private parties), and the definition of violation is vague or non-existent. Two problems exist with the phrases presently used. They are becoming “media frozen”, focussing on the “crime-spotter” who is portrayed (quietly) as a trouble maker. Secondly, some others who are involved in precisely the same activity are ignored or placed in another category – further isolating people presently called “whistle blowers”. For instance, Sheila Copps – forced out of her position as candidate in her riding and so out of Parliament - is a “crime-spotter”. She has registered serious complaints of electoral wrong-doing with Elections Canada; she has blown a whistle. Elections Canada may do everything in its power to frustrate a serious investigation, which will place Copps in the same position as others in the society recognized as crime-spotters. They call attention to activity which is plainly wrong, and they are penalized in a dozen ways for having done so. Not the least of the punishments is the obtuse failure of “regulators” to regulate – whether cabinet ministers, Elections Canada, the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, or whatever. The public, which often has no idea of the stress, persecution, ostracism, and punishment crime spotters undergo, would grasp the situation more fairly if the phrase “crime-spotter” was used to characterize people who refuse to live in environments of calculated wrong-doing. The phrase would have more power, too, on another important level. As private (frequently immoral) corporations gain more and more government power in so-called democratic societies, they seduce, corrupt, taint, pervert, deform, demoralize, and/or deprave elected representatives and public servants – what we think of loosely as government and its agents. That fact should be underscored. For - as a part of “globalization”, “privatization”, and the neo-liberal agenda – the free power of legislators and justice-enforcement agencies (police and courts) is actively and concertedly being undermined. As private corporate figures move into “government”, the situation grows even worse. (Paul Martin, former CEO, almost runs away from questioners who want to know about “corporate” actions of the Martin family-owned Canada Steamship Lines. Especially that is so in CSL’s relation to government and ideas of ethics. And perhaps because misery loves company, Martin manipulated corporate tycoon, David Emerson, (former CEO of Canfor) into government and the cabinet position of Minister of Industry. It cannot and will not come to good. The legislation to protect crime-spotters died with the last days of government before the Martin election. That was fortunate because the legislation was introduced falsely under the pretence of reform. In fact – true to the growing power of corporations and “corporate behaviour” in government – it would have crippled people asking for attention to wrong-doing and it would have prevented them from acting in law against their persecutors. The federal cabinet is not going to be held to account by anyone if it can prevent that from happening. In November of 2003, the federal government passed a law called the Public Service Modernization Act. At section 236, the Act states that public servants have no right to bring an action in Canadian courts for any employment matter. The possibility exists, of course, that some enlightened judge may strike down the clause as repressive and unconstitutional. But, even so, some poor crime-spotter may have to go into bankruptcy getting that far – before even beginning action on the substance of a grievance. Generally, in Canada, procedures to assure the integrity and responsibility of empowered public servants are less and less effective. RCMP powers – just for instance – are on the verge of being out of control. The only oversight body, The Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, is a less than useless, obstructive organization. But the RCMP is not alone. The Neil Stonechild case leaps out as a high-profile case among a numberless string of incidents involving improprieties connected to police. Since 1990, Saskatoon police have been blocking a full and clear examination of the police-involved death of 17 year old Neil Stonechild, taken, allegedly, to the edge of the City by police and left there in freezing weather to die. On October 2004, fourteen years later, an inquiry “has concluded … Saskatoon police took [Stonechild] into custody and attempted a cover-up when he was later found dead….” (Globe and Mail, Oct 27 04 A1) Outrageously, “the province says there isn’t enough evidence to lay criminal charges against the officers”. But what about the people who blocked full investigation? Why are they permitted to continue as police officers? The hero of the Stonechild scandal is an unemployed native who insisted – as a witness – on the police involvement despite being verbally attacked on the street by at least one police officer. Sadly, Jason Roy will not be thanked, will not be assured employment by the City of Saskatoon as a minor way to recognize his integrity. We do not thank people like Jason Roy. We punish them. At least as monstrous as the Stonechild case is the Kelowna, Mindy Tran (unsolved?) murder case (1994) in which David Ambrose claims to have significant evidence about the murderer WHICH THE RCMP REFUSES TO ACCEPT OR ACT UPON. (See www.transfixed.net) The RCMP refuses to release Ambrose’s own statements to him, and has done everything it can to frustrate investigation. Ambrose suffered a house invasion by masked men, during which Ambrose and his brother were beaten and threatened. The home invasion turned out to be a sham police drug raid. Ambrose identifies the murder suspect openly and says in one summary: “I knew this man and his handler [RCMP] Sgt. Tidsbury from the past in association with the disappearance of a missing girl from 1981”. In this case, the murder suspect has had close relations with RCMP officers over years, and there are suggestions in the overall material of other, serious, unsolved, related crimes. David Ambrose has blown a whistle and is perhaps the most overtly evident as a crime-spotter who has suffered every kind of indignity that a decent, law-abiding citizen could undergo. Only a part of that indignity is the ridiculous, almost comic-opera uselessness of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP. Not only do the Commission’s actions give reasonable and prudent Canadians reason to believe it is actively and purposefully covering RCMP crimes, but its very structure as set up by law makes it a systemically obstructionist force. Receiving compelling information of, perhaps, heinous wrong-doing by officers of the RCMP from David Ambrose, the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP undertook an investigation which is now spreading into years without the slightest hint of meaningful action. Joanna Gualtieri was “dealt with” by reprisals taken against her in the Department of Foreign Affairs when she called for attention to wrong actions there. She has fought for years for some degree of satisfaction. She is the founder of an organization to help such people in the national government. FAIR (Federal Accountability Initiative for Reform) provides support, advice, and assistance to crime spotters in the federal system. But she, herself, has been blocked at every turn and has spent tens of thousands of dollars to conduct a case which should have been fully undertaken by government itself. In fact, the federal government should have acted upon her information speedily and without any need to think about court action. And it should have prevented her from being victimized as someone who pointed to wrong-doing. Ironically, the “responsible” Minister of Foreign Affairs during a substantial part of the time involved in her case was Lloyd Axworthy who somehow managed – using sophisticated private lawyers – to slip away from any “responsibility” alleged in court documents. (His work to abolish land mines seems to have taught him how to dodge them effectively.) The names of federally-involved crime spotters that are becoming known in Canada identify people who should have been given the Order of Canada (they haven’t been). They should all have been thanked by Parliament and assured of complete investigations of wrongs they have identified. That hasn’t happened. The opposite has happened. They are placed under institutional persecution of one kind or another. They are consigned to inferior employment or none, or they are fired. They are loaded with the stress and expense of attempting (on behalf of the Canadian people) to have wrongs identified, examined, and corrected. Just think about some of them and how they have served integrity and the people of Canada. At Health Canada, Dr. Michele Brill-Edwards exposed the arbitrary drug approval process, and is known for playing a significant role in bringing about investigations that brought the “tainted blood” situation to an end, without question saving many, many lives. Long term employees of Health Canada, Shiv Chopra, Margaret Hayden, and Gerard Lambert refused to be prevented from publicly signalling dangers connected to the bovine growth hormone. As well, they spoke up about dangerous procedures in Health Canada. Brian McAdam, a career diplomat of long service, and the RCMP officer Robert Read, discovered serious corruption in Canada’s Hong Kong consulate involving the admission of criminals to Canada. And they would not shut up. Colonel Michael Drapeau insisted upon revealing corruption among senior military officers involved with the Somalia scandal and Inquiry. Dr. Nancy Olivieri, at Toronto’s Sick Children’s Hospital, became a household name when she refused to bend to Corporate wishes in relation to research findings. Ten years have passed. No public body is financing her and she is still involved in costly litigation BECAUSE SHE DID THE RIGHT THING. Of the people named above, all were fired except two. Brian McAdam suffered in his health (no surprise), and retired. Dr. Brill-Edwards resigned out of conscience. The story grows more bizarre. A few years after Robert Read was fired for insisting Canadians know about the Hong Kong consulate corruption (for which no one was brought to trial), an external RCMP review committee declared Read had acted commendably and should be reinstated by the RCMP. The RCMP refused, and Robert Read has filed a grievance to be heard by the Federal Court of Canada! The story grows more bizarre. Eight years after Brian McAdam and Robert Read were “punished” for discovering corruption in the Hong Kong consulate, the Canadian embassy (in September 2004) in Beijing exploded with an alleged visa racket. Believed to be a Second Secretary, the person involved is alleged to have “bolted” with more than a million dollars in bribes. “Ottawa has refused to acknowledge … investigations into the passport thefts and the probe involving the missing Dept of Foreign Affairs and Trade employee in China.” (Asian Pacific Post, Set. 23 04 1) Why? Why has the Canadian public heard no more? Who was the employee? What is the secrecy about? The story grows more bizarre. Prime Minister Paul Martin backed Health Canada in the firing of the three scientists despite the fact that the matter is before the courts. Martin says their firing “had ‘nothing to do’ with their history of speaking out against the drug approval process and other issues such as mad cow disease”. (Ottawa Citizen, Sept. 11 04 A7) To close, let me remind you that I placed a formal request for investigation of RCMP procedures and methods in gathering evidence against Glen Clark, B.C. premier forced to resign because of dubious (I believe fraudulent) allegations of wrong-doing against him. Glen Clark was premier of British Columbia, a man of spotless integrity. He was dragged into the mud, ruined politically, and slandered beyond repair by a set of allegations that I am convinced are a disgrace to politicians, police, and the B.C. courts. Asked to investigate a small corner of that mountain of misdoing, the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP failed in every way that can be imagined. My complaint took four years to complete, if the word “complete” may be used except in derisory terms. The Report I received on May 18, 2004, declared that two experienced RCMP officers, E.H. Malone, officer in charge of the Vancouver Commercial Crime Section, and Sergeant R.C. Cardy, Internal Affairs Unit, “E” Division, were in conflict of interest in terminating the investigation I requested four years before. The Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP didn’t demand the investigation be re-opened immediately as well as an investigation of the actions of the two officers. No. Rather, Brooke McNabb, vice-chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, left up to the discretion of the RCMP whether or not the RCMP will re-open the RCMP investigation of the RCMP to see if the RCMP (of which the investigators would be members, of course) engaged in wrong-doing when the RCMP was investigating Glen Clark in a process of highly suspicious RCMP operation. Whatever the RCMP chooses to do, Brooke McNabb is obviously certain that it will not act out of bias or prejudice or self-interest or a desire to cover up wrong-doing. Canadians are going to have to demand dramatic change in the treatment of people who reveal or point to possible corrupt activities in government and associated agencies. If they don’t, they will find, before long, Canadian society run by criminals to serve criminal ends. What I have described in this column already begins to look like a chapter out of George Orwell’s 1984.