1974-11-12

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. McKenzie:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege relating to some recent answers I received from the Prime Minister to questions about the construction of a new Air Canada facility and maintenance base for Winnipeg and the construction of the new $15 million hangar. On November 4, last, in answer to my question the Prime Minister stated:
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport answered a similar question a very short while ago and I think he indicated that no specific date had been set when the thing was being proceeded with.
On Wednesday, November 6, in answer to a similar question the Prime Minister stated:
Mr. Speaker, I attempted to answer this a few days ago and the Minister of Transport also replied to the question previously.
On checking the Hansard index, Mr. Speaker, I could find no printed record of the Minister of Transport making a statement on when the $15 million Air Canada hangar would be built. Could the Prime Minister inform the House when and where the Minister of Transport made his statements and what they were?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the right hon. the Prime Minister wanted to enter the discussion on the alleged question of privilege, of course I would hear him. The hon. member knows, however, that a complaint about the quality of answers received in the question period does not constitute a question of privilege. There is in fact no obligation upon any of the ministers to make replies to questions, and when they do reply, certainly a complaint about the quality of the reply is not a valid question of privilege. In addition, of course, although the hon. member gave the Chair notice of his intention to raise a question of privilege, he has not followed it with any motion seeking action from the Chair so there is no action the Chair could take on this particular question.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with an urgent and important matter, namely the rise in the unemployment rate.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That this House study as soon as possible the serious problem now facing the lumber industry which is leading to numerous lay-offs, with a view to implementing measures to remedy the situation.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under Standing Order 43, the motion requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent the motion cannot be put.



REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the Order-Motions
November 7, 1974-Mr. McCleave (Joint Chairman of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments): That the Third Report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, presented to the House on Thursday, November 7, 1974, be concurred in.
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, could this matter stand until Friday. There has to be some technical correction in the French version of the report which was presented to the House last week.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

November 12, 1974
Oral Questions INDUSTRY



UNITED AIRCRAFT-PUBLICATION OF DOCUMENTS CONCERNING GRANTS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION

Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. This motion arises out of the unanimous request made by the Manpower and Labour Committee of the Quebec National Assembly last week for the federal government to provide "details of agreements regarding grants given to United Aircraft of Canada Limited".
This request from the Quebec National Assembly arises from an inquiry being conducted by that body into recent activity by the United Aircraft Corporation in that province which has received over $80 million in federal assistance and has nonetheless transferred 40 per cent of this year's planned production back to the United States and plans a further transfer of production next year. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That, following the request by the Quebec National Assembly for the abovementioned information on agreements and the stated willingness of United Aircraft to provide this information, pending federal government approval, this House instructs the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to comply with this request at the earliest possible time.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion which, being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43, cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be debated at this time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

['Orders of the day.']
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I know he is in the lobby and I am wondering if he could be given the opportunity to take his seat, as I know he will want to answer my question.


An hon. Member:: Why is he not here?



John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, may I direct my question to the Prime Minister. As the committee of the Quebec National Assembly

has made the unanimous request for the federal government to provide the details of its contractual arrangements with United Aircraft concerning grants made by the government and obligations undertaken by that company, will the Prime Minister inform the House if the government has reconsidered its decision about making such information public, given the fact that United Aircraft Corporation itself says it does not object to public revelation of this information.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, so far as the government is concerned, I shall want to look into the latter fact. If United Aircraft Company has no reservations, I shall ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to report to me and give his views on whether this material is publishable. I perhaps disagree with the hon. member, or at least have some reservations about his suggestion that the federal government should be obliged to submit material in any form to the legislative assembly of a province. However, the substance of the matter remains the same. If it can be made public, it can be made public in this House and some other forum may find use for it.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. To be clear, may I ask the Prime Minister if it is his view, and therefore that of the government, that, in the case of an agreement entered into on behalf of the public of Canada by the government of Canada on a confidential basis with a corporation, if the corporation does not object to that information being made public because it sees no competitive disadvantage to itself, that being the normal, quite understandable reason for failure to disclose certain information, the government will make this information available to the public. Will the Prime Minister give that assurance to the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that is what I indicated I would be discussing with the minister. I think as a general principle, the point of view of the hon. member seems acceptable to me. Confidentiality is to protect the particular company. If they do not want it, we do not want it. However, there may be particular circumstances of which I am not aware. That is why I indicated to the member I would raise the matter with the minister and ask him to reply to the House.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Prime Minister suggested on Tuesday that the travel arrangements for the minister's visit to Israel were proposed by the inviting government. Will the minister tell the House if the proposal to fly on the Bronfman jet was included in the formal initial invitation of the government of Israel and is he satisfied that Mr. Bronfman or an official of his company did not first suggest that their corporate jet be used?
November 12, 1974


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure the hon. member that all the arrangements for my trip to Israel, which was ail official visit at the invitation of the government of Israel, were made by the Israeli embassy.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In view of the fact it was publicly reported on Thursday by the counsellor of the Israeli embassy that the embassy had not arranged the Distillers Corporation plane trip and that aides in the minister's office have said that Mr. Bronfman had invited the minister to accompany him on a trip to Israel, did the minister ever question why that plane should be used and did he inquire into whether alternative Canadian government or commercial airline transportation was available?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that the aides in my office never made such a statement. A communication was made with the journalist who printed such a piece of news. No such statement was made by my aides. As far as the arrangements for the trip were concerned, I said they were made by the Israeli embassy and I relied on the arrangements made by them.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Has the minister inquired as to whether Seagrams charged the government of Israel for the use of the jet plane used on the visit? If that has not been done, has the minister arranged to pay for his and his wife's passage?


Marc Lalonde: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not inquired about this. It is obviously a matter to be settled between the government of Israel and the owners of the private plane concerned. I might remind the hon. member that the Israeli ambassador also travelled with me on this trip.


USE BY MINISTERS OF PRIVATE AIRCRAFT ON OFFICIAL VISITS-ESTABLISHMENT OF GUIDELINES
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question for clarification. Did I understand the minister to say this was an official visit by the minister in a private aircraft? If that is the case, I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether it is now going to be the practice of the government of Canada to have official trips taken in private aircraft?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: This might not seem important to members opposite, but it is very important to us and the people of this country. If it is going to be the intention to have trips of this kind made by ministers in private aircraft on an official basis, does the Prime Minister intend to issue any kind of guidelines that should be followed by ministers in subsequent situations of this kind.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that is not going to be the government practice. Indeed, I would very firmly want that it be the contrary of government practice. There may be certain exceptions such as the one we have heard about when a trip is arranged by the host government. Even in those circumstances, it might be wise to inform one's self in advance as
Oral Questions
to the means of transportation. As a general principle, however, there are guidelines that ministers travel at the expense of the government of Canada or at the expense of a particular department.


Charles Joseph Clark: How then does the Prime Minister distinguish the trip that has just been made on the Bronfman jet, apparently for official reasons, by the minister whose jurisdiction includes responsibility for implementation of the LeDain Commission with its recommendations regarding alcohol, advertising and this sort of thing, from the general indication he has given that the government will not approve trips of this sort in private aircraft?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I believe I gave an answer to that when I was first asked the question a month ago. I was not aware of the nature of the transportation the minister was taking. From what I understand, he accepted the invitation in good faith. I think the conclusion we should draw as a government is that in future when we accept invitations we shall also ask ourselves how we are being conveyed to the place to which we are invited.


MANPOWER
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, I shall put my question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the many lay-offs in the lumber industry in northwest Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, does the government intend to increase its grants to LIP so that more of these projects may be approved this fall thus permitting us to fight unemployment in that sector?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the government is always pleased to note that the public as well as the opposition approve LIP projects. As for the hon. member's representation, I shall acquaint the minister with it and if he has to make any statement he will do so.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It relates to the on-going World Food Conference in Rome from which the minister has just returned. Bearing in mind the statement by the President of Mexico, Sr. Echeverria, stressing the importance of trade and commodity agreements to the less developed countries, what
1222

November 12, 1974
Oral Questions
attitude does Canada intend to take toward the important discussions now going on in committee No. 3?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: In my statement at the conference I made it clear that Canada took a very positive attitude toward improving the terms of trade as they affect developing countries in terms of agricultural products. That is the general position. We understand there is a great deal of interest at the conference among the developing nations in the whole question of trade and we look forward to the upcoming GATT trade negotiations as an appropriate and effective forum in which these trade matters can be dealt with. At that forum Canada will, of course, continue to show the positive attitude which was indicated in Rome.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Is it Canada's intention, as apparently was indicated at a private meeting yesterday, to block or filibuster the discussions in committee No. 3 during consideration of the trade proposals put forward by Mexico on behalf of the group of 77? Does Canada still propose to encourage other countries to talk out the proposals so that none of these motions will come to a vote in the committee? Is it true that Canada did move to present a filibuster in committee No. 3?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. I was not present at the conference yesterday, but it was not the intention of the Canadian delegation to filibuster or to undertake blocking tactics. We do believe, however, that the proper forum is the GATT and we shall press, through the GATT for these and other benefits to be made available to developing countries.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I do not believe the minister replied to the specific question whether Canada did, in fact, encourage other countries of the developed world yesterday to participate in a filibuster? Is that not true?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, now that the hon. gentleman puts the question in those terms, certainly I can say I have no knowledge of that and I would be tremendously surprised if that did take place. If such did take place, it would be a change in the attitude that we had adopted during the period that I was in Rome. Specifically, I will inquire whether any motion or action was taken that might be remotely interpreted in that light.


WORLD FOOD CONFERENCE IN ROME-REQUEST FOR DETAILS OF CANADA'S COMMITMENTS TO SUPPLY ONE MILLION TONS OF GRAIN PER YEAR
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In terms of Canada's pledge of a million tons of grain per year, I believe it is, can the minister of external affairs tell the House whether Canada is prepared at this time to handle and to move that grain to the destinations, and also to see that this one million tons of grain is properly distributed to those countries so there is no waste whatever? Has Canada given this matter broad and thorough thought? Are we prepared to act on this, and when will we start this kind of program?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member

knows, there was a proposal put before the conference by the secretary general of the conference requesting the world community to commit itself for a three-year period, commencing next year, to a total of 10 million metric tons per year in volume terms. Canada responded to this request by undertaking to commit itself to one million tons per year-certainly more than its proportional share-for each of these three years, commencing with the next fiscal year. This involves, as my hon. friend knows, a very substantial increase in financial outlay over any previous year. This particular flow will, of course, begin within the time span indicated.


Jack Burnett Murta: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I really want to ask the same question I asked originally; the minister seemed to be hedging somewhat. I asked him whether Canada is at the present time physically prepared to handle this grain and to move it out of Canada to other countries. In addition, will we be supervising the distribution of this grain to these other countries, or will the grain be turned over to authorities in the recipient countries who will go ahead and distribute the grain? I should like a little more specific information.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, part of the Canadian commitment at the world food conference was also in response to a recommendation, by the secretary general, namely that we would undertake to provide at least 20 per cent of our food aid through multilateral channels. Therefore, 20 per cent of this grain or food aid will be distributed through multilateral channels. The remainder will be distributed on a bilateral basis, and Canada will do its utmost, in co-operation with the recipient countries, to ensure that none of this precious food is wasted.
I should like to get some more information on one point, and that is with respect to the cost of carrying the grain.


WORLD FOOD CONFERENCE IN ROME-CANADIAN ATTITUDE TOWARDS UNITED STATES PROPOSAL TO FORM GROUPS OF FOOD EXPORTING COUNTRIES
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. What is the position of the government of Canada on the proposal of Secretary of State Kissinger for what, in effect, would be a cartel of food exporting countries? Can we be assured that Canada will not be part of any such cartel, and that less developed countries would be represented on any authority which distributed food? My hesitancy in framing the question is due to the discussions that went on, which make it very difficult to put a question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there is no intention on the part of the Canadian delegation to support an international cartel. I believe the secretary general of FAO did convene a meeting of food exporting countries which had as its purpose really to monitor and examine the world food situation and world needs at the present time. In so far as any monitoring mechanism as to the existence of supplies and the need of recipients is concerned, then of course we would support that aspect of it, but not in the sense the hon. member has mentioned.
November 12, 1974


POSSIBLE CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN DEBATE AT UNITED
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would he advise the House whether Canada intends to take any part in the debate on the Middle East commencing this week at the United Nations?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter I cannot deal with definitively at the moment. I am sure there will be Canadian participation in the debate at some point, but whether it will be this week or later is still open.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, would the minister advise the House what position Canada will take during the debate in respect of the rights of the state of Israel?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I believe that if and when Canada participates in the debate this will give the Canadian spokesman an opportunity to restate Canada's position in respect of the existence of Israel, and its right to exist within secure and recognized boundaries, as the foundation stone of our Canadian policy.


WORLD FOOD CONFERENCE IN ROME-POSSIBLE ESTABLISHMENT OF FOOD STORAGE DEPOTS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to a question asked by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal. In view of the fact that some 25 per cent of all food grown in developing countries or provided to them by countries such as Canada is destroyed by rodents prior to reaching the consuming public, were any steps taken at the conference to assure that adequate storage depots will be set up in countries requiring this food and, if so, what plans were made?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as yet there have been no decisions or formal resolutions adopted because the committees had just begun to operate toward the end of last week. The question of storage, its importance, as well as the question of distribution were raised in a number of statements, but one will have to wait until the actual deliberations of the committees and their results to know whether any internationally agreed program will be developed along these lines.


SUGGESTED NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN QUEBEC AND ONTARIO ON SUPPLY OF ELECTRICAL POWER-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL POWER GRID
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the coal strike in the United States and the trouble Ontario is having at its Pickering nuclear plant and its Nanticoke thermal plant thereby making a very dangerous winter ahead for Ontario in power supply,
Oral Questions
and in view of the fact that Quebec Hydro is negotiating a deal to sell its surplus electric power to the United States, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he would ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to give the same treatment to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec as he has undertaken between the Ontario government and Alberta, bringing these two adjoining provinces together in a mutually acceptable policy on energy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly convey that representation to the minister when he returns.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that all provinces have asked the federal government at the conference of last March 27 to start work on a national power grid, will the Prime Minister adopt this as a number one priority of his government in order to give us some basic national energy policy so that all Canadians will have first chance at all energy forms in all parts of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources commented on this at the time indicating there were very serious technical difficulties which make that grid improbable in the immediate future. The long distances between Manitoba and Ontario particularly are considerations which do not permit us now usefully and economically to set up the kind of grid about which the hon. member talks. This is perhaps something for the future. If I remember correctly the attitude of the minister, this was something that his department was looking at.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of a recent report by Mr. Robert Wicklund and his associates which suggests that oil spills in the Arctic are extremely long-lived in their effects, and in view of his suggestion that conditions in many parts of the Arctic environment are sensitive to "even the slightest bit of pollution", I should like to ask whether the government has undertaken any program to set up ongoing consultations on a permanent basis with the northern residents regarding the effect on their lifestyle and culture of resource development which will have an effect on the fragile northern environment?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are several programs taking place, some involving Indian bands and some where consultants are involved, as well as others directly between the various resource industries themselves and the communities being affected.
28543-9%

November 12, 1974
Oral Questions


Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, in view of the same report and a number of others recently which underline the fragile nature of the northern environment, does the minister intend to review the present offshore drilling tests which are now being set up in the Beaufort Sea?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, this particular matter is under continuing review. As a matter of fact, I was there myself in the last three or four weeks and had meetings with people of Inuvik and nearby communities. This is a subject of ongoing review with the people involved.


FOOD PRICES
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, in his capacity as Acting Minister of Transport, what action if any the government proposes to take on the recommendations contained in the Food Prices Review Board's special study on food prices in Newfoundland?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Acting Minister of Transport):: As the hon. member knows, Mr. Speaker, the report was received only in the latter part of last week. I had the opportunity of being briefed on certain sections of it yesterday but I think it would be premature to make any declaration of intent at this time, other than to say it will receive serious consideration.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago I directed a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning Valen-tyn Moroz. The minister replied that he had spoken to Mr. Gromyko who had assured him that as far as he was concerned, with the knowledge he had, Mr. Moroz was receiving fair treatment and was in the hospital. In the last three or four days, with indomitable spirit, Mr. Sakharov, a world famous physicist, who was in touch with representatives of the Toronto Star, spoke out when he was asked about the condition of Moroz saying he was in solitary confinement, was hemorrhaging to such an extent that his life will be immeasurably shortened, because of bleeding as a result of his being forced fed. In view of Mr. Sakharov's statement, and it takes courage to express the views he has, I should like to ask the minister what the government is going to do concerning this man?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As the right hon. gentleman stated, Mr. Speaker, this matter concerning Mr. Moroz's health was raised by me with the Soviet foreign minister on Septem-

ber 25. I think it is worthwhile repeating the information that was conveyed by Mr. Gromyko, to the effect that Mr. Moroz's health was satisfactory in all respects. Tests had been taken, Mr. Gromyko stated, of his heartbeat, blood and so on, and all were normal. He added that Mr. Moroz was under permanent medical observation, that at present he had no complaint concerning his health. Mr. Gromyko also added that Mr. Moroz took exercise regularly.
Now, may I say to the right hon. gentleman that since that time I have noticed, as he has, reports to the effect that Mr. Moroz's health is deteriorating, and that has caused me considerable concern. I have asked that the matter be raised with the Soviet authorities and that an updating on the reports which had been given by Mr. Gromyko be sought. I intend to pursue that further.


John George Diefenbaker: Time is somewhat of the essence. Since September this man has apparently lost a great deal of weight; he is virtually physically impotent. The offhand way in which the minister answers this question, by saying that they are just going to ask for a further report, is too pusillanimous for a situation such as this. I ask him whether he will inquire if the Canadian embassy in Moscow has the right to see this man, because anything short of that is far removed from the kind of treatment that any person should receive for no offence other than that he had spoken his mind, as the constitution of the U.S.S.R. permits him to do, a right also assured to people in various states by membership of the U.S.S.R. in the United Nations. Surely the time has come to stop pussyfooting and speak out. Will the minister not give that assurance?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I can give the assurance that the Canadian government has taken this matter very seriously.


John George Diefenbaker: I can see that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The health of Mr. Moroz has been raised by the Prime Minister with Mr. Kosygin, by my predecessor with Mr. Gromyko, and by myself just recently. We intend to continue that effort on a humanitarian basis. The right hon. gentleman knows that there is a limit to the influence and effectiveness that one can have on the present situation. It may be that the course of action which the right hon. gentleman recommends, which may catch the headlines, may have a very unfortunate effect in reaching the objective that we both have in mind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: If there is one thing that the minister and other members of this government abhor, it is the headlines. We have seen evidence of that in the last 24 hours. I ask the minister: why is no action taken, why does he not speak up? Why is he so silent? Why will the Prime Minister, with all his courage, not speak up with the authority he has?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 12, 1974


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As the
Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated, I raised this very point with the highest possible authority in the Soviet Union, and I am sure it had more effect than this public enunciation with which the right hon. member is trying to catch the headlines.


John George Diefenbaker: An observation like that deserves a reply. Yesterday the Prime Minister showed what he thought concerning publicity, and it was completely out of keeping with the sacrifice of Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


CONFINEMENT OF VALENTYN MOROZ BY RUSSIANS- RESPONSE TO APPEAL OF MRS. MOROZ
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which I should like to direct to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that Mrs. Valentyn Moroz has directed a personal appeal to the Prime Minister on behalf of her husband, can the Prime Minister say whether he has replied to that appeal?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know to what particular appeal the hon. member is referring; is this recent correspondence?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the Prime Minister not aware of the fact that Mrs. Moroz has made a public appeal to the Prime Minister, to the President of the United States, to the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and to the Chancellor of West Germany, hoping for a response from each of these four world leaders?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, I was not aware of this public appeal. I am generally informed of appeals which are addressed to me in particular. But obviously, as I said in my previous reply, I anticipated this and I had already made the representation.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Public Works.
Last week, following a question which I asked him about the expropriated parties in St. Scholastique, the minister answered that there would be a meeting Friday last. Now, can the minister tell us what are its results and whether he has reached an agreement with the representatives of the expropriated parties? If not, will there be another meeting and when?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, at the meeting last Friday, I promised to ask the advice of our very competent lawyer in Montreal concerning the complaints of the expropriated parties and after-
Oral Questions
wards will be considering holding another meeting at a future date.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
In view of the fact that before the election of July 8, the parties expropriated in St. Scholastique were promised that a conciliation and consultation committee would be established and that it was not done afterwards, does the minister think that such a committee should be formed immediately to examine the cases under dispute?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the hon. member is not well informed. The committee has been established; they had sittings for several weeks and they put forward a report. It is about the implementation of this report that people are now complaining.


FINANCE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: My question is for the Minister of Finance and it concerns his progress in devising a way to protect or reimburse the holders of the 1936 perpetual issue of Canadian savings bonds. As the minister knows, this issue, which was a $50 million issue when the dollar was a dollar in 1936, is now worth approximately one third of its market value and in terms of its purchasing power is only worth $9 of the 1936 dollar value. Could he report to the House and to the country whether he has yet devised a way to reimburse the original holders or somehow protect them in this respect?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: This is a very awkward problem. As the hon. gentleman knows, I have met with several members of the House from all parties. We are still caught with the conundrum of what to do with the registered as opposed to bearer bonds and how to be fair to those who have already cashed them in as opposed to those who have bonds the market price of which would be beneficially affected if we were to do something prior to the redemption.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Would the minister consider either putting a definite term on these bonds or redeeming them from the original holders so that there could be no chance of any undue speculative profits, or would he consider substituting some other issue which would be more appropriate to today's capital market features than the one that is so obviously out of date and is such a blot on this country's financial record?


John Napier Turner: I will certainly consider those as additional options.


POSSIBLE ALTERATION OF EQUALIZATION FORMULA-CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Last week the

November 12, 1974
Oral Questions
minister made a statement in Halifax to the effect that the equalization formula as to revenues between the provinces and the federal government would have to be altered. Has there been any consultation with the provinces as to this alteration and, if not, has any been contemplated or is this going to be something that will be imposed upon the provinces willy nilly and with the usual degree of consultation announced the night before?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the preamble of the hon. gentleman. Obviously, there is some pressure on the equalization formula because of the remarkable increase in revenues from oil and gas to the producing provinces. But I have said to the provinces which are affected by equalization that we want to review this. We will be presenting some options to them in some form in time for them to be thoroughly discussed by the provincial ministers of finance and myself at our meetings on December 9 and 10.


NUTRITIONAL STUDY OF NATIVE PEOPLE-DATE OF PUBLICATION OF REPORT-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO OVERCOME PROTEIN DEFICIENCY
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare and relates to the Nutrition Canada National Survey Report issued a year ago which showed in its preliminary findings a high incidence of nutritional deficiency among native people. Can the minister say when the special nutrition report for Indians and Eskimos promised for last spring, will be released?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member they will be released as soon as possible. I announced last spring that I expected the reports to be completed and available this fall. I understand there has been some problem with translation but it is my hope that the reports will be available before the end of the year or very early next year. I understand it is a matter of production. I would add that they have not been made available to me yet.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that a year has passed since the government has had in its possession information which shows significant protein and vitamin deficiencies among native people, can the minister tell the House if a special program has been implemented to come to grips with this general problem? Secondly, have specific nutritional measures been taken to deal with the emergency situation in the Grassy Narrows and White Dog reserves where protein deficiency was emphasized by both the special task force on mercury pollution and the Nutrition Canada report?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, as far as the first aspect of the question is concerned, I do not think there have been specific measures taken in regard to the Indian and Eskimo population in particular, but proposed regulations

have been put forward and made public a few weeks ago aiming at the enrichment of food generally for Canadians. These would obviously cover Indians and Eskimos.
As far as the second part of the question is concerned, this matter was raised in the House last week and it has been discussed with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the provincial governments who have been carrying the main load in this respect.


RESEARCH
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. A week ago today in answer to a question put by the hon. member for Winnipeg North respecting National Research Council grants, the minister replied that one of the reasons for the decrease in NRC grants was the government policy to encourage research and development in industry. In view of the fact that funds for such programs as IRDIA and PAIT have been decreasing over the last years, could the minister indicate through what programs or agencies this enhanced support for industrial research and development is taking place?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think I should like to correct the misapprehension that NRC grants have been cut in recent years. Indeed, that have been rising year by year but not at a rate which corresponds to other increases in expenditures. Similarly, in the case of the PAIT and IRDIA programs, they have also been increasing in levels of expenditure as distinct from the setting of targets or objectives. The actual expenditures as shown in the public accounts will indicate a continuing rise, I think. An element of this incentives program on which we are currently placing much heavier reliance, however, is the increasing research contracting done by government departments rather than doing the research themselves.


Harvie Andre: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that in terms of real dollars, with the inflation removed, the support of industrial research and development through IRDIA and PAIT have been going down, and in view of the recently released Statistics Canada data that the contracting out program is not fulfilling expectations in that the percentage of research and development for contracting out to industry has not been rising, can the minister indicate what steps he has taken in his new portfolio to ensure that government policy will be implemented sometime in the reasonably near future and if not, is he going to retract the statement that this is government policy?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, at the moment I have no specific changes to suggest. We are still in the process of reviewing what is going slowly, and why.
November 12, 1974


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. I gave him admittedly rather casual notice of this question last week. In view of the fact that the mandate of the CBC is to give balanced programming, could the minister tell the House under what circumstances the CBC was offered the BBC production "KGB" and rejected it in view of the fact it was able to produce and show a program called "The Fifth Estate" which alleges certain things against the National Research Council as a CIA front?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to get information on that for the hon. member.


REASON FOR NOT SHOWING DOCUMENTARY &quot;KHRUSHCHEV REMEMBERS&quot;-POSSIBILITY OF INTERFERENCE WITH PROGRAMMING
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question addressed to the Prime Minister. Was the Prime Minister or any one in his office directly approached by the Ambassador of the U.S.S.R. with a request that the CBC not show the documentary "Khrushchev Remembers" even though it had been advertised to be shown on a weekend? Did the Prime Minister or any one in his office intercede with the CBC to ensure that the documentary was not shown-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In fairness, a supplementary either is or is not a supplementary. The hon. member started with a question to the hon. Secretary of State about a matter concerning a choice between programs of the BBC and another. Having got an answer from the hon. Secretary of State that he would be seeking information about that and report at a later date, it seems a little unfair to allow a supplementary to another minister on a totally unrelated question, although it involves the CBC. This is the only connection between the two.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I am one of those members who has been rather exhilarated by the fact that the question period has not been taken up with points of order and questions or privilege and you have been rather expeditious, with respect. The essence and the gist of the question is not the calibre of a program on one day or the other, but it is the potential influence and interference in CBC programming. This is the issue in my question. I think there is a very logical connection between the two, Your Honour. I completely accept, as obviously I have to, the answer of the Secretary of State but my supplementary is directed on an entirely different matter but still potentially is concerned with CBC interference.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. What I have been
endeavouring to point out to the hon. member is what I have pointed out on earlier occasions, that when a minister is compelled in the circumstances to give the answer that the hon. Secretary of State has given, which is that he
Oral Questions
has to seek information on a question and will bring it back to the House at a later time, I presume in fairness, in order to allow the matter to be properly followed up the hon. member will want to pursue that subject with supplementary questions when the hon. Secretary of State does come back with the information. Under those circumstances, I think that, in fairness, the hon. member ought to hold his supplementaries until his first question is answered by the Secretary of State.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, with respect, a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Listen to the Speaker.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be unduly provoked by any sounds from the front benches. If the sounds made sense then perhaps I could be provoked. Surely, Mr. Speaker, if the thrust of the question has to do with a general topic, the detail of the question is not going to preclude a supplementary. Sometimes the supplementary is the real kicker! In this case, Mr. Speaker, the only reason that the question is raised is that the fifty-seventh anniversary of the founding of the Soviet Union last week actually activates this situation with "Krushchev Remembers"-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps under those circumstances it would have been a good idea for the hon. member to have started with that question in the first place as that was more important. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Is his department giving any consideration to permitting the distribution of the text of the budget speech simultaneously with the beginning of its delivery in the House this year? If that is not contemplated could it be considered in order to assist hon. members on both sides of the House?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will take that under advisement.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Has anyone on behalf of the Ambassador for the Soviet Union made any request to

November 12, 1974
Oral Questions
his office or any other government office that the program "Khrushchev Remembers" not be aired on the CBC?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have received no such representation. I will inquire if any have been made to people in my office and I ask ministers now to let me know if any have been made to them in their capacity as ministers.


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON WORLD FOOTBALL LEAGUE-ACTION TO PROTECT CANADIAN FOOTBALL LEAGUE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As the CFL seems to be turning its back on the minister, who even acted as father protector of the league, by not following up on its expansion program and by suggesting its willingness to consider a merger with the WFL, is the minister prepared to reconsider the stand he took on Bill C-22 in the last parliament, in view of actions the WFL may once again take to play in Canadian cities or, indeed, to merge with the CFL.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, this is a subject on which the House expressed itself last year. The House voted on it, although the bill was not passed finally. Before introducing the same bill, a similar bill or a different bill, I will have to discuss the matter with my colleagues and members of my party.


Otto John Jelinek: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Owing to the continuing deterioration in the quality of CFL teams and the resulting 6 per cent decline in attendance last season, partly as a result of WFL raiding, that league not being allowed to play in Toronto-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto John Jelinek: -will the minister, as a concerned guardian of Canadian football, advise the House of the steps he intends to take to protect the CFL from further deterioration and prevent the possible phasing out of the Canadian Football League.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, obviously, such steps would be announced in due course.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question was to be addressed to the Minister of National Defence. In his absence may I address it to the hon. member for Renfrew North-Nipissing East. As the government demonstrated its interest and concern in the status of women by a recent allocation exceeding $1 million, for

promoting the status of women in Canada, and as, during World War II, women pilots ferried aircraft from Canada to England, will the minister explain why now, in a period of relative peace, at least in Canada, women are denied the right by the Department of National Defence to join the Canadian Armed Forces and take pilot training.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the girls are now going to be allowed to join the cadet corps. However, I will take his original question as notice.


Robert Hylton Brisco: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With all due respect to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, this member does not know about girls taking pilot training. I would ask the minister or the parliamentary secretary when this became policy?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: With all due respect to the hon. member, I think he misunderstood my remarks. I meant that in the bill presently before parliament, girls are to be officially recognized in the cadet corps.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When the Prime Minister put a question to me concerning the letter from Mrs. Valentyn Moroz to which I had referred, I said it was a letter addressed to four world leaders. On checking my notes, I see that it was addressed to only three world leaders, namely, to the President of the United States, the Chancellor of West Germany and the Prime Minister of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I did not say that to put the Prime Minister a notch higher. However, if he did not receive the letter, I will send him the material I have.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe) moved:: That this House, noting that international and interprovincial crime rings are operating out of control in the drug trade in British Columbia, the loan shark business in Ontario and in mafia-type conspiracies in Quebec, urges the government to act immediately-directly and through aid to the provinces-to protect the public and to bring these criminals to justice.
He said: Mr. Speaker, over the weekend, television viewers throughout the country saw on the national network the film "The Godfather" which broke all records of attendance and box office receipts for film producers.
November 12, 1974

That this telecast should have preceded by a few hours the debate we are holding today is a coincidence both happy and disquieting. Happy, because it draws the attention of the people to a truly current problem which has always threatened and still threatens the maintenance of law and order in a democratic society. Disquieting, because the idealized and romanticized screenplay and the performance of the protagonists in this violent and sophisticated game underlined what we already know: One gets used to everything, even the loathsome.
We get used to evil, we get used to the horrors of war and death, we get used to inflation, cataclysms, labour disputes, crime; there comes a time when, far from disturbing us, the remembrance of those calamities does not even stir up a defence reflex a time when we even allow ourselves to be seduced. And so it is with organized crime. That is why, Mr. Speaker, it is urgent that we discuss it, and even more urgent that we act.
This is what I wanted to say and this is why I accepted to sponsor this debate, not that I want to blame the government, no but to wake them up, not that I want to pass judgment on them, no but to urge them to be more vigilant, to better co-ordinate their activities with those of the other levels of government and particularly to suggest that they establish a true national policy bent on fighting organized crime.
I would like this government to be more severe in handling what I would call antibiotics designed to reinforce the lymphatic system of our society which is becoming increasingly powerless to react.
Mr. Speaker, I say these things because, even though this might be a paradox, to pass judgment on organized crime, is tantamount to passing judgment on the kindliness of the good and honest elements of our society.
It is not the existence of a parallel power, a swarming and shifty power operating outside the law, which should surprise and concern us, it is rather the apparent ease with which it can operate and the calmness of our attitude towards these activities the importance of which we refuse to acknowledge. Let me use the following comparison to better describe the situation, Mr. Speaker: organized crime is like inflation.
Both are developing, running wild and playing havoc with everything because of the international context, with the support of unscrupulous go-betweens and swindlers, motivated only by profit, insensitive to the human sufferings they cause, and with the tacit complicity of politicians, who are afraid of taking any drastic action and control arguing that politics is always the art of the possible, but not more. Finally, both inflation and organized crime lead implacably to social disorder which imperil individual aspirations, rights and basic liberties of citizens by hitting the weakest first upsetting the economy of a country to such a point that, sooner or later, chaos results.
Even though this is not a problem which can be blamed upon any one government is particular, it may have political implications, if our leaders are not determined to put a stop to it.
Let us go back to the past a little.
Organized Crime
Periodically, I would say sporadically, society has bursts of goodwill and rebels, but very soon falls back into a reprehensible apathy.
In America, at the end of the 19th century, the people were getting uneasy about the activities of organized crime and some action was taken. All of a sudden this enthousiasm cooled off with the murder of two police officers of New Orleans and New York. Then followed a ten-year period of inaction.
In the twenties, prosecutions by the United States Treasury Department put an end to the prohibition era and resulted in the conviction of a well-known Chicago figure, A1 Capone. Then followed a ten-year period of inaction.
In the thirties, New York prosecutor Thomas Dewey took a series of proceedings to dismantle the well- established organization of the crime syndicate leader Lucky Luciano.
Then there was another ten-year period of inaction.
In the forties, the FBI inquired into underground organizations specializing in blackmail and criminal abetting in the movie industry, and managed to break up organized crime. The sensational arrests made at the time are still in our memories. Then, Mr. Speaker, there was another ten-year period of inaction.
After the war, the people did not show any particular interest in the proliferation of underworld activities until 1950, with the inquiry of the Senate Kefauver Committee, and 1957, when the McClennan inquiry was launched after the Appalachian meeting. We then had to wait until July 23, 1965, when the Katzenbach Committee was set up to report objectively and fully to President Johnson.
At that time, Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me a personal remark, I was minister of justice in Quebec, and at a meeting in Washington with Attorney General Katzenbach and FBI authorities, we exchanged data and information in order to intensify our fight in Quebec against the most varied criminal activities, especially, it will be remembered, in the field of fraudulent bankruptcies and criminal arson, a very popular activity at the time, when our prosecutions turned out to be so timely that several witnesses were silenced, liquidated and buried in quicklime. Ten years later, organized crime is still a topic of discussion in this House.
Meanwhile, we have to admit that commendable efforts have been made. The administration of justice in Quebec was drastically changed as a result of the shrewd and realistic work and recommendations of the Prevost inquiry. That fact is worth mentioning in this House.
I should also like to congratulate Mr. Justice Real Brunet and his fellow commissioners of the Quebec Police Commission, on their courage in conducting the present investigation and their remarkable patience in dealing with the many obstacles that stand in their way. I also wish to mention Mr. Justice Cliche and his colleagues and the inquiry that is going on concerning violence in the construction industry, investigation whose conclusions, at the rhythm that disclosures are being made, will probably tie in with those of the inquiry commission on organized crime.
1230

November 12, 1974
Organized Crime
Mr. Speaker, today we realize that the scourge of organized crime is not a film, but reality, that it is not an invention of a Crown prosecutor or police looking for promotions or publicity, but a real cancer which is daily gnawing at society.
What is this disease and what are its manifestations here and elsewhere? Mr. Speaker, if we in Quebec are different from our neighbours culturally, constitutionally and linguistically, I can assure you that in the criminal activity sector we are not only different from others but we even managed to excel where others have failed and many is the time we have surpassed them. Allow me to recall what the present Quebec minister of justice said in his white paper on police and the security of citizens and I quote:
It can be positively and unquestionably stated that there is more crime committed today in Quebec than there was 10 or 20 years ago. In fact, Quebec can be numbered among the most criminogenic areas in Canada. As it now stands, Quebec is second among the provinces of Canada for the rate of crime-indexes, just behind British Columbia.
However, Mr. Speaker, I must add, that the Quebec Minister of Justice then added the following sentence, and I quote:
Howeven when compared with the United States, Quebec is a relatively quiet place.
That was indeed, Mr. Speaker, a real comfort.
I do not know a better definition of organized crime than the one contained in the Katzenback commission report entitled: Task Force Report: Organized Crime. I quote:
Organized crime is a society that is endeavouring to operate outside the control of citizens and their government. Its action is not improvised but is the result of very complex conspiracies hatched up during a number of years and intended to insure control over a complete field of activities in order to pile up as much profit as possible. Organized crime uses most of its energy to supply unlawful goods and services: games, usurious loans, narcotics and other forms of vice. It is also deeply rooted in lawful businesses and labour unions.
Therefore, applying this definition to the spheres of activities known in Quebec, we can add that organized crime has appeared at home as elsewhere and is still appearing: first, in the area of gambling in all its shapes and forms, second, loan sharking, third, drug trafficking, fourth, prostitution, fifth, criminal infiltration of the business community and, sixth, frauds, fraudulent bankruptcies and arson.
Since we must render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, let me emphasize to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Quebec Minister of Justice has claimed that, as regards fraudulent bankruptcies and arson, thanks to the great many proceedings instituted in the past and the improved means of control now in operation, this type of criminal activity is abating because of the incarceration of a number of the mobsters involved in 1964, 1965 and 1966. When we realize the extent of the ravages caused by organized crime in our country, we must consider deep-rooted solutions. It is not enough to sound the alarm and, in a state of panic, go to other extreme, namely, make use of illegal methods to combat crime and suspend the fundamental liberties of citizens. In my opinion, the end never justifies the means. Therefore, we have to investigate to

find out the causes of the crime spread in our country instead of merely considering the effects, however dramatic they may be. Such a finding, Mr. Speaker, logically leads us to examine the government behaviour towards the essential needs of the citizens and the environment where they must live. The services which are the trading goods of organized crime would not remain the exclusive field of the underworld, if the government could meet the justified expectations of the community.
When we consider, for example, that the loan shark business in Montreal alone brings in $300 million a year and enslaves about 60 per cent of taxi drivers, should we not in all fairness, ask ourselves the following question: If funds were legally available and terms were less burdensome, would the main activity of the underworld not be seriously affected?
The most decisive action against crime, especially organized crime, which is a consequence of its extension and its increase should really be taken at social and national levels.
It would entail, for example, tearing down slums and replacing them with livable dwellings. It is, for instance, to facilitate the access to instruction and education for more and more citizens. It is to create jobs or foster their creation, instead of promoting idleness at the state's expense. It is to shrewdly suppress economic and social inequalities, it is to fight against discrimination in all its guises. It is to dare take the mask off those who are ripping off the people when it comes to rising food prices.
For a government, it is to fully assume its responsibility as regards employment in the building industry instead of resorting to a Machiavellian bargaining to buy peace.
It is making sure, Mr. speaker, that justice is for all, giving everyone the opportunity to develop more freely in a society in which democracy will not be an empty word, it is illusory to think that we can get rid of organized crime, that we can only claim to diminish its influence, if we cannot previously change the context from which that crime derives all its vigour and its impulse.
To speak of control over crime in terms of police, social workers, courts, exemplary sentences, imprisonment, and even death penalty, is to refuse to recognize the extent of the resignation, and I would even say the failure of society in that field.

Mr. Speaker, often, when speaking about organized crime, politicians begin to sound like doctors treating someone with a terminal illness. We begin to speak of our success or failure in treating the symptoms, in making society more comfortable, without coming face to face with the cause and substance of the illness itself.
Let me be frank. One need be neither a magistrate nor a sociologist to know quite clearly that certain socio-economic conditions, certain environments, produce the types of individuals upon whom organized crime thrives, individuals who are prone to become the drones and slaves of the large syndicates, carrying out the extortion, smuggling, intimidation and murder that keep their superiors secure through the use of fear and brute force. We know it is initially among the disadvantaged, the economically
November 12, 1974

deprived and the misguided that organized crime gets its foothold and builds its foundation.
It is in my view, a sad commentary on our society and our concern for order and justice that we consistently seek to pursue organized crime, only through inquiries which seek, often in vain, to establish criminal behaviour and develop a case for the Crown against a person or persons. Surely it is time we moved one step further in order to come a little closer to the causes of organized crime itself and to identify the social problems which spawn generation after generation of organized criminal activity.
While the Crown obviously has a continuing responsibility to ensure that organized criminal activity is placed under relentless pressure from law enforcement agencies at all levels, surely we who legislate and shape the very laws that the Crown must enforce have a continuing responsibility to seek ways and means to reduce the conditions which spawn the criminality against which our laws are supposed to stand. For example, our urban areas are prone to the influence of organized crime because, whether we like it or not, organized crime fills a void created by social neglect, corrupt administration in some cases, and a frequent lack or failure in moral leadership. In many respects, our penal institutions become the junior colleges for organized crime, training those who are first offenders to embrace more extensive and developed commitments to criminal activity.
If crime as it is perpetrated in organized or disorganized fashion is the disease, if society in its frailty and vulnerability is the patient, then government must assume the role not only of the physician administering to the symptoms but of a general practitioner prepared to practice preventive medicine. There are those, I know, who will say that even if all poverty is erased, if you bring prosperity to all, if you grant equality of opportunity to all, there will still be a criminal element eager to make a fast buck through illegal means. But, Mr. Speaker, that is not the point. The point is that if there is less poverty, if there is less disparity within a community between those who have and those who have not, if there is more equity, if there is more social justice, there will be less crime.
Often, in discharging those duties that related to my years on the bench, I was impressed by one of the most basic frustrations plaguing our legal system and its ability to serve both as a source of justice and a deterrent to crime. I became aware, not without some very personal anguish, that principles of justice, concepts of right and wrong, can rarely be explained to someone who has only experienced injustice and who has never known the value of choosing right over wrong. We have to face up to the fact that for too many Canadians our system is an economic prison wherein daily indignities and injustices of a social and personal nature are the only tangible messengers of our way of life.
For many, this prison is made more dreadful by a tide of rising expectations which they can, in reality, have no hope of ever attaining. Rebuffed in their search for work, humiliated at the supermarket, restrained in their efforts for growth and self-realization, the poor and disadvantaged could very well think that our system is in itself an
Organized Crime
organized conspiracy which, as far as they are concerned, perpetrated criminal actions upon them. As a judge, I saw these people in my courtroom daily and I knew that criminal activity may have been their only outlet, their only way of saving some self-respect. Yet I knew, too, that prosecution must continue to be the front line response to all criminal activity. It is, after all, a basic line of defence for social order and balance. But that does not stop me or hundreds of others from asking whether, indeed, we have placed all our commitment in this area of balance and order purely on the enforcement side, and whether the time has not come for an equal and concurrent commitment on the side of social justice and preventive law.
Mr. Speaker, the basic principle of physics, that every reaction originated from an original action of equal intensity and strength, might have some application here, at least to help us understand the human side. We respond to the criminal with imprisonment and penalty. Do we ever ask ourselves what it is the criminal is responding to in committing the crime? Have we really been prepared to ask this question institutionally, in our governments and courts? I submit that in real terms we have not. Frankly, criminals and prison reform have never been the stuff of partisan political gain except when everyone is only too pleased to call for tougher laws or tighter prisons.
The opportunity we have today to deal with the effects of organized crime should not be allowed to exclude a more in-depth analysis of the deeper causes, both social and political, of organized crime. In my view there is a need for renewed federal-provincial interest in organized crime as something beyond the operative level of police co-operation and information-sharing. There is now a clear and present need for a program of political activity aimed at a joint attack on the conditions that cause organized crime. The inquiries into labour racketeering now being carried on in Quebec are only a beginning.
We must be prepared to look at the structure of municipal, provincial and federal government to seek out those areas wherein organized crime can gain or purchase influence. We must look at the awarding of contracts, the financial support offered politicians, all the areas that politicians prefer not to discuss. Organized crime grows when there are conditions that encourage its growth. We must examine these conditions. We must do so carefully. We must do so methodically.
Mr. Speaker, it is fashionable to make fun of royal commissions and their often meandering and lack-lustre use of time and resources in the pursuit of recommendations that are often vague and inconclusive. In the matter of organized crime, I wonder whether, rather than the creation of some new inquiry that can only really examine the superficial actions committed at the lowest echelons of syndicated criminal activity, this parliament might not consider a royal commission into the causes of organized crime, a commission that would concentrate on the social and economic conditions that breed organized crime and provide the atmosphere and sense of despair upon which organized crime depends.
The commission should, most properly, have both federal and provincial participation and seek to examine the conditions of social and economic environment that breed criminal activity; the relationship between organized
1232

November 12, 1974
Organized Crime
crime and government at all levels; the improvement of specific areas of social and welfare legislation that would contribute to a lessening of the crime rate; the susceptibility of national, provincial and municipal police forces to infiltration by organized crime; organized crime and political influence; the role of our penal institutions in encouraging and abetting organized crime; the relationship between organized crime and labour, industry, immigration and government.
We need a royal commission because we need an ongoing commitment to a thorough examination of organized crime in its national and international context, with a view not simply to prosecution before the courts but to political action in the parliament and legislatures of Canada. We need more than a commitment to rise every few months and denounce organized crime as evil and hateful. We need a commitment to do what can, and must, be done politically to restrict the horizons of organized crime and protect our society against its growth and power.
We can begin to discharge that commitment by being first committed to finding out about the fears and vacuums in our social and economic fabric that give the bacteria of organized crime a place to grow. It is that type of commitment, to find out, that this parliament would now do well to consider.


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should first like to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the motion now under debate in the House. I think the motion is timely. The problem is one about which the great mass of the Canadian people is becoming increasingly concerned, and with great justification. I should also like to congratulate the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) for what I think is a very reasoned and progressive approach to this problem. The kind of speech we have just heard is one that all of us would do well to read again; it contains an element of philosophy with which I would say many in our party would agree. Certainly, the recommendation he makes of a royal commission to study this very serious situation is one with which we agree. This is an insidious problem which continues to grow, and I think by attracting a great deal of public attention to it, and scrutiny through a royal commission studying this serious matter, we might do much to attack the problem of organized crime in this country.
I should like, as a member from British Columbia, to deal with the important crime aspect of this problem. One of the unenviable characteristics of the lower mainland of British Columbia is that it now leads the country in crime statistics. There are many benefits of living in British Columbia, but this is not one of them. We have to examine carefully the reason for this situation. One does not have to look far to find it. Seventy per cent of organized crime in British Columbia is related directly to the drug trade in the province. It has now reached the point in British Columbia where it is of epidemic proportions, and it will become an epidemic in the country unless we have from this government a massive and positive approach to the problem.

We cannot say that this is a serious problem without considering some of the statistics involved. Recently, a co-ordinated law enforcement unit was set up in British Columbia. It was a unit specially organized to detect and prosecute organized crime, zeroing in on the drug trade. The government of British Columbia deserves some credit for setting up this unit, which recently issued a report outlining some very interesting statistics. I should like to quote from its report as follows:
It has been conservatively estimated that there are 10,000 heroin addicts (in B.C.), or two-thirds of the national estimated figure of 15,000.
I might say that the report went on to say that the unit believed its figures were conservative. The report continued:
The city of Vancouver alone is believed to have in excess of 6,500 addicts who require approximately $455,000 each day to support their habits.
To emphasize that point, I would repeat that it requires half a million dollars a day to support this insidious trade in drugs. The report then states:
This estimate is based on the average daily use of two capsules of heroin per addict at $35 per capsule.
Later in the report it is stated:
Coupled with this increase in heroin addiction is a rise in the incidence of violent crimes, which more than doubled in the period from 1962 to 1971 and again increased in 1972.
In Vancouver, it is estimated that up to 70 per cent of all serious crimes are drug-related.
In the years 1969 to 1973, 30 of the murders in the lower mainland are known to have been drug-related, and in the years 1971 to 1973 seven attempted murders were similarly categorized.
The annual cost of the drug trade in British Columbia is estimated by this unit to be $255.5 million. It comes after tourism as the second largest industry in British Columbia. The matter is out of control, and the government should again look at it in terms of its approach and the amount of attention it gives to this problem. There are incidents in our province of 12-year old school children being addicted to heroin, and the problem is reaching the elementary school level. Another fact of interest is that the Vancouver coroner reported recently that there were
1,000	drug-related deaths in British Columbia in the past three years. Under the present system, as many as 50 per cent of our prisoners in maximum security institutions are there because of drug-related crimes. I do not think those who say that the answer to this problem is to increase the penalty in respect of drug trafficking and drug addiction have read the Narcotic Control Act or considered the penalties presently provided. First of all, the maximum penalty for trafficking in heroin is life imprisonment, and the penalty for simple possession of heroin is a maximum of seven years. Unless we are going to bring back capital punishment in respect of trafficking, the penalties are there.
The fact is that the penalty has nothing to do with reducing this particularly iniquitous trade in narcotics. It is not the penalty that is important; it is the certainty of apprenhension upon which we must concentrate. You can fool around with the penalties all you want, but you are not going to change the statistics. It is interesting to note that in British Columbia, when marijuana first came to the province, the court of appeal said that obviously it was
November 12, 1974

a problem that was growing and it had to be controlled. In the well known case of Regina v. Adelman, the court of appeal of the province said that one of the ways to control the use of marijuana was to impose six months mandatory imprisonment upon any person convicted of possession. Following that decision, all the magistrates in the province used that judgment as a guideline and imposed at least six months imprisonment for first offence convictions for possession. Since that time the use of marijuana has quadrupled or quintupled; certainly it has reached the point where its use is greater than ever before.
I am pleased to see the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) in the House, as I know of her intense interest in the subject of drugs. She has spent a great deal of time studying the problem and I hope she will participate in this debate. Let me say something to her, through you, Mr. Speaker, regarding penalties imposed for the possession of drugs. If I am wrong, I hope she will correct me. The hon. lady had some concern that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) was about to remove the section from the Criminal Code which provided seven years imprisonment for importing marijuana or any other drug. Let me point out to the hon. member that if she had had a child who came across the border with a "joint" in his pocket, at that time the mandatory penalty, upon conviction, was seven years in jail. One of the few progressive steps we were able to get from the Minister of Justice was removal of that particular section. The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) was instrumental, as I recall it, in this House in pointing out the iniquitous feature of that section which should not have been in the act.
The penalties imposed are clearly not the answer; this fact has been demonstrated over and over again. The problem is out of control and the penalties we have been imposing have done nothing about it. What we do not understand, in respect of the drug trade, is the nature of the typical drug pusher. I have had the opportunity of defending pushers from time to time. The individuals who sit behind desks in New York and in Asia exporting these materials have not been convicted so far. We have not got to them, and until we adopt a whole new approach we will never get to them. The people we are getting to are the addicts. If addicts are to maintain their habit, they must sell the drug or turn someone else on. That is the insidious part of this drug problem: the guy you have addicted to the drug has to get his neighbour hooked on it in order to make a profit and maintain his own habit.
We must start treating this as a medical rather than a criminal problem. It is long past the time this government took another look at the Le Dain commission report on which we spent some $4 million. The only response we have been able to get so far from the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) is that they will move the use of marijuana from the Narcotics Control Act to the Food and Drugs Act. That is a big deal; but what will it do about this problem? What will it do to reduce the amount of crime that has developed from the use of marijuana?
I think we must ask ourselves whether this government will take a meaningful approach toward stopping or controlling drug addiction and drug trafficking. What they
Organized Crime
have done-and I give them some credit for this-is to improve their prosecution procedures. They have set up a fairly large group of prosecutors, in the Vancouver area in particular, and increased the number of convictions. Statistics show that this is a direct result of the increased enforcement by the Minister of Justice, and I congratulate the government for that gesture. However, we need to spend more money in the investigatory area. This problem will not be solved until we get down to doing the hard work of detecting, walking the streets, increasing the number of undercover people and tripling or quadrupling the amount of money that the federal government is now spending. I do not have the figures in front of me, but I hope the Solicitor General will tell us the amount of money he is spending on this problem. However, so far as I know, the new, co-ordinated law enforcement unit in British Columbia is provincially funded.
We have a national emergency in terms of heroin addiction and drug trafficking, and the problem must be treated on a national basis. We cannot continue saying; "It is your problem out there on the coast." If we do not solve the problem in British Columbia, it will crop up in Saskatoon and all across the country in our small communities.


Erik Nielsen: We have it now.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: You have it, but not to the same extent, because British Columbia is one of the most heavily urbanized sections of the country. In every community where you have a great discrepancy between wealth and poverty, the rate of crime is high and certainly the rate of drug addiction is high. I should like to get back to the point I was making. We must beef-up the whole investigatory branch and we must establish closer liaison between the federal government and the co-ordinated law enforcement unit in order to control this problem. This is not a provincial responsibility but a national responsibility and it is time we realized it.
We have to think about where we go in terms of the Le Dain commission report. As I have said before, the federal government has spent some $4 million gathering a great deal of evidence on the whole question of drug addiction. Let me summarize very briefly what the report said. It said that we must de-criminalize heroin addiction which, as the report states, is a medical and not a criminal problem. It is no good saying that it is wrong to use heroin and "We will lock you up if we find you using it". That is exactly what we have been doing up to now. Not only has that failed to solve the problem, but it has made our area one of the drug centres of North America.
We can no longer use that approach. We must use alternate approaches. One of the approaches recommended by the Le Dain commission offers one of the greatest hopes of solving the problem, because when you take the market away from the organized drug trade, you start to move in on the problem. In all these consensual crimes-and this is a consensual crime because no one forces the needle into your arm-all that the organized drug people are doing is satisfying the existing market; but because it is a criminal activity the market continues to grow, profits grow and the whole thing spirals out of control. The Le Dain commission report, according to a newspaper article, said:

November 12, 1974
Organized Crime
The commissioners would empower police officers to bring any person who they have reasonable grounds to believe is an addict before a magistrate who would then decide whether the person should undergo a medical examination.
If the person was found to be drug-dependent by the examining physician, confirmed by another physician, he could then be committed to a residential treatment facility by them for up to three months.
The commissioners were quick to point out that "the goal would be to replace the initial compulsion as soon as possible by voluntary acceptance of and response to treatment".
That system has been used before. It was used in Japan. Ten years ago, Japan had 40,000 addicts; today they have 100. I know it is a different social climate and there are reasons for distinguishing the Japanese experience from our own, but I am urging the minister to let us try something. Even if it is a pilot project, let us try it and find out whether there is any merit in compulsory treatment. If we were to set up such a treatment centre on the lower mainland, I am sure the million people in the area would be delighted that some action was taking place and a new approach was being used. As I said, in Japan they have almost eliminated drug addiction with compulsory treatment. What they did is interesting. They finally cut off the trafficking routes to Japan, and they did it the hard way-by spending a lot of money, using a tremendous number of agents, and attacking the problem with the seriousness it deserves. That is what I suggest this government has failed to do. They have used the timeworn methods of controlling a disease which is growing and spiralling. We must take a new approach to the drug addiction problem. Incidentally, in the Japanese experiment there was rejection of the methadone treatment. I urge that we be very careful in the use of the methadone treatment because it has some very bad side-effects. I hope it will be rejected in any system that we adopt in this country. We also have the British experience. Britain, with a population of some 50 million people, has around 3,000 addicts. Canada, with a population of 20 million, in round figures, has around 15,000 addicts, conservatively. The British system tries to de-criminalize heroin trafficking. We must take the same route.
The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe dealt in some detail with the question of organized crime. Organized crime continues to feed in the consensual area. The Americans call it consensual crime. Where there is a market, organized crime will thrive. In a city where there are great discrepancies between rich and poor, organized crime has a heyday. One of the answers to this problem is to go some distance in removing these discrepancies within our cities. It is interesting that in a socially cohesive unit such as a small community, the crime rate is much lower. Social forces have tremendous influence on the whole community in reducing crime. But now we have various segments in our major urban centres which are at war with each other. There was the day when the police would grab a juvenile, take him to the old man and say, "If you don't do something to the kid, we will"-and it worked. Unfortunately, we are now so highly organized and overpopulated that this work is now being done by social workers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired, unless there is unanimous agreement to allow him to continue. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I would like to thank hon. members for their indulgence. I will be brief. Unless we attack the sources of crime and the social conditions which breed it, unless we attack the market for organized crime-that is, the condition which allows it to grow in such an insidious way-and unless we finally make up our minds to de-criminalize heroin addiction, and I do not mean get rid of trafficking because trafficking must remain a crime with the heavy penalties that it now has, the problem will get worse. But we are going down the road to destruction, in terms of the social cohesiveness of this country, if we do not finally attack this serious problem on a massive, national scale-and I mean with money, not gestures, Mr. Speaker.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like, on starting my remarks, to congratulate the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) for having moved the motion before the House today. I congratulate and thank him for giving us the opportunity of discussing this matter, of seeing things as they are, of putting them before the government and making the required suggestions to bring the government to adopt the means and take the steps required to fight against crime in all its forms in Canada.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, crime does not exist solely in Canada. Other countries face similar problems, but we must fight against crime here, at home, against crime in all its forms. I trust that in his motion, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe did not intend to situate the drug problem only in British Columbia, the loan shark business only in Ontario, and the mafia-type operations only in Quebec.
To my mind, those problems exist in all parts of Canada; the eastern provinces and the Maritimes are not exempt from them though crime may assume there less sophisticated forms than in the larger provinces such as Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, drugs are a very important problem because they attack the whole population, though especially our young people. We must deal with drug traffic profiteers; they above all others, Mr. Speaker, must be sought out. Not only do they pounce down on our high school students; they also have the gall to attack our students in primary school.
Mr. Speaker, in 1971 the government introduced a program to fight usage of drugs. This involved a four-point research program; collection, analysis, processing and publicizing of data. At the time, I blamed the government for doing nothing against the international and Canadian underworlds that make enormous profits by selling drugs to 12-, 13- or 14-year old secondary school students.
Mr. Speaker, the information program introduced in 1971 can have no other results than a somewhat better knowledge of the problem. But what has been done in the fight against it? Some people are arrested, drugs are seized. A few days ago, in my area, an operation was launched to try and discover drug peddlers. It resulted in
November 12, 1974

one arrest only. Somebody was found to have one ounce of drug in the trunk of his car. He was arrested, so much the better, but I definitely feel, Mr. Speaker, that the person was planted there to get arrested in order to divert attention from the true drug traffickers, who went off unscathed.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the fight against the usage of drugs is not waged seriously. It seems increasingly easy to go through customs with drugs that are later peddled in a variety of forms among our youngsters. This has been noticed in the past. Research is done on the matter, and we are told that international agreements exist for the tracking and capture of drug traffickers. This has been up to now definitely unproductive, because the drug keeps on flowing into the country. It is still distributed everywhere. British Columbia is mentioned in the motion. It is certainly through that province that the entry of drugs is the easiest.
Mr. Speaker, it is urgent to cope with that problem before our people, more especially our youngsters are contaminated by drugs. A press release which the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) published on March 30, 1973, read partly as follows:
-extensive statistics on the numbers of persons known to have used or been involved in some way with mood-modifying drugs including heroin and other narcotics, cannabis and hallucinogens during 1972. "I received these statistics on March 29, 1973", the minister explained, "and after evaluating them considered they should be released promptly to the public".
A total of 8958 illicit narcotic users were made known to the department in 1972. Of this number, 7719 are definitely known to have used heroin; most of the rest probably did also.
Mr. Speaker, we can learn who are the illicit narcotic users, but we must above all be in a position to identify those who provide them with those narcotics and I think that by cutting off supply sources, we would more effectively control their use.
Needless to recall here the way drug peddlers, profiteers and pushers act. They have all sorts of clever tricks to force drugs into the habits of young people, and once these have taken to addiction, they feel compelled to buy drugs, and are thus almost ineluctably led to become criminals.
Mr. Speaker, in respect of drugs as well as crime in general, several discoveries have been made especially in the past two years. I should like to emphasize the fact that we fight or want to fight crime as such, but pay little or insufficient attention to criminals, whether they are thieves, arsonists, drug pushers or underground leaders. In trying to fight crime, we forget criminals. In the past two years, according to an enquiry of the Office for the Prevention and Treatment of Alcoholism and other Toxico-manias, drug consumption has increased noticeably among young people. It was also found out that in 1971, 30.4 per cent of students who answered the questions of a public survey, declared they had already used drugs, as compared with 11.7 per cent in 1969. Such a considerable increase, Mr. Speaker, should alarm everyone, educators and governments. I quote:
This is one of the outstanding facts in an enquiry on student drug consumption at high school and college levels in the island of Montreal in 1969 and 1971. That enquiry was carried out by Mr. Leandre Bilo-
Organized Crime
deau, a sociologist, under the direction of Mr. Aime L. Raic, research director at the Office for the Prevention and Treatment of Alcoholism and other Toxicomanias. It was released by Doctor Andre Boudreau, the director of OPTAT.
The comparison between the 1969 results and those of 1971 reveals: That the barbiturates consumption was tripled and the consumption of hallucinogens other than LSD almost tripled;
That the consumption of marijuana and LSD was more than doubled; That the consumption of stimulants and tranquilizers had increased by one third;
And that the consumption of alcoholic drinks and tobacco had increased by approximately one tenth;
That the proportion of glue sniffers is the same in 1971 as it was in 1969.
In 1969, the highest proportion of consumers for each type of drugs was recruted among the twenty-year-and-over age group, while in 1971, it is recruited in the seventeen-year-and-over age group.
Mr. Speaker, this inquiry has confirmed what I was saying a moment ago, namely that efforts are being made to reach our young as soon as possible, even when they are still children, and adict them to drugs. This situation is alarming enough, Mr. Speaker, for the governments to take immediate steps to combat this type of crime.
Mr. Speaker, in the second part of his motion, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe mentions loan sharking. Mr. Speaker, I have here the perfect example of loan sharking, and I intend to have it read into the official report of the House of Commons. When we talk about loan sharking, we do not refer only to the criminal activity of racketeers in the slums of Montreal, Vancouver or elsewhere. There are some people who are legitimately in business and who may be considered by some as the saviours of our people, I mean, the finance companies.
Mr. Speaker, finance companies that operate under the acts, and sometimes even outside them, are in the same class as any member of organized crime operating in the usurious loans field.
I have here the copy of a contract registered on October 7, 1971 and passed between a finance company and one of my constituents. This man needed the sum of $8,200. He went to this loan company. I do not think there is any need to name it because they are all alike and they all act in the same way. He obtained the amount of $8,200 very easily, because he could provide good collaterals. He was required to take out life and health insurance policies. The agent explained that if he paid health and life insurance premiums for 10 years, as this was to be the loan repayment period, it would cost him a great deal of money. He was told that a three-year insurance policy would be less expensive than a 10-year policy. He therefore accepted the price reduction he was offered, but the finance company agent also made him sign a loan contract for a period of three years rather than ten. The contract specified that there would be 35 equal payments and that the 36th should make up the full reimbursement, or else the rest of the debt would have to be refinanced.
After 35 months, the man realized that he had paid $5,053.65 in three years. He had also paid $299.98 for notary fees when signing the contract. He had paid $369 in life and health insurance premiums, and he realized that, while he had paid all this money, the capital of his debt had been reduced by only $1,100. The company was offering to renew his contract for the balance of his debt, or

November 12, 1974
Organized Crime
nearly the entire amount, which meant that he had once again to pay notary fees and insurance premiums. He realized that he was not better off after three years than at the time he took out his loan and that he would probably have to repay this debt all his life, and in addition, that, on his death, his succession would have to continue paying the finance company.
Mr. Speaker, usurious loans are those we must fight against with laws, but with laws that are enforced, of course, and not put on the shelves and forgotten. We must enforce them. Whatever the names of the chairmen of those finance companies might be, they must be put in prison like others when they violate the legislation made by governments.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a type of usurious loan from which especially the poor must suffer. This is an important point we must also consider.
I come now to organized crime, to crime in general. We know that in the last few years the Canadian government, along with governments in the United States and in other countries, has felt pity for criminals to the extent that they have abolished the death penalty. They have made release on parole or on bail easier. They have even made it easier for prisoners to escape. It is now easier to get out of prison than to get in.
Now, Mr. Speaker, given those facts, we notice a sharp increase in the rate of crimes of all kinds in Canada as well as in the United States or elsewhere. Unfortunately, I was unable to find recent statistics on the crime upsurge in Canada, but I have here an article by Elmer Von Feldt and published in the November 1974 issue of Columbia magazine, and I quote:
The real evil of the American society, that keeps pace with the inflation calamity is violent crime. It has shot up by 47 per cent during these last five years.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, one can easily conclude that the situation is about the same in Canada. It is true that we have a serious problem on account of inflation but the crime problem in Canada is no less serious. The situation south of our border is about the same as the one we have here.
Further Mr. Feldt provides statistics on the kinds of violent crimes committed in the United States:
Such statistics that make one ponder still give more weight to the recent warning sounded by Attorney General William B. Saxbe that this nation should begin to keep a closer watch on the criminal. He gave striking advice to the chiefs of police of 27 great cities attending a meeting in Chicago last August.
And the Attorney General of the United States insists on the following:
"The tendency on the part of certain people always to blame the crime but never the criminal should be revised once more...
"There was a time when most people looked upon the criminal as an abject person. Today, the criminal is more and more considered as a hero-not only in arts but on street corners also.
"Those who kill, who rape and who rob are often considered as political victims.
"Certain crimes-perhaps many crimes-will not be cured merely through the elimination of conditions that many people finally accepted as the deep causes of illegal behaviour.

"Many criminals transgress the law because they do want to. When dealing with them, the first thing to do is to increase our chances against them. We must make criminal conduct much more risky. We must ensure that chances are with society; that, when somebody commits a crime, he will be caught; once caught, he will have to face a fast and unfallible justice; when condemned, he will go to prison."
I, for one, would like to add: he will have to stay in prison.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member because the time allocated to him has expired. Unless he obtains the unanimous consent of the House, he may not be allowed to go on with his remarks.
Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to complete his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérard Laprise: I thank the House for allowing me to conclude my observations. I would have many other things to say on this subject, but others will have the opportunity to express their views. I would like to end with the motion moved by the mover, this afternoon, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe, asking that a royal commission be instituted to find out the causes of organized crime.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the member for Saint-Hyacinthe is serious about it. I hope he is. I know he has wide experience in this field since he has been a lawyer, a judge, a minister, and a judge again. I think he is one of those who best know the problems of organized crime, not only from the criminal's, but also from the victim's point of view.
For years, we have had royal commissions in Quebec, and in Canada too, not particularly on organized crime, but on other problems. Two kinds of inquiries are now being conducted in Quebec, one on crime in general and the other on the problems of building trades which, strangely enough, have some similitude with organized crime.
Several years ago, an inquiry was conducted by Mayor Drapeau of Montreal in cooperation with Mr. Pacifique Plante. What was the net result? Not very much! Another inquiry was launched a couple of years ago, I believe. What further result did it produce? Nothing much! We now have yet another inquiry. We find that crime exists, it is obvious, but what is being done against the criminal?
We have often seen hardened criminals apprehended after committing a loathsome crime. Police officers have risked their life to apprehend these criminals, the latter are put in prison and a few days later, they are back on the streets, as free men, making faces at the police officers that had arrested them.
One wonders if it is worthwhile risking the life of police officers to arrest loathsome individuals when it is known that a few days later they will be as free as wind and will continue committing more crimes. It is well known that some individuals are now free after buying their evasion way out and they are endangering everyone's life.
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier and as others have pointed out, I think that we should pay more attention to criminals than to crimes.
November 12, 1974


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to assure the House that, with the opposition, the government is most concerned about the growth of crime and criminal conspiracies in Canada. We would agree with the motion, that there are particular problems with respect to the drug trade in British Columbia, loan sharking in Ontario and mafia-type conspiracies in Quebec. The government has increased, and continues to increase, its activities to combat crime through the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and by other means to protect the public and to bring these criminals to justice. I will speak first about the increasingly serious problem of abuse and trafficking in illicit drugs which, as hon. members have pointed out, continues to escalate in most communities in Canada. It is clear to all of us that the trafficking in and use of heroin, cocaine and the abuse of chemicals such as methamphetamine-Speed-MDA, LSD and other related drugs is a problem of increasing dimensions and a major cause for concern.
The use of heroin by the younger generation is on the rise. As recently as 1968 there were only 12 known habitual users of heroin in Canada under the age of 20. In 1973, this total had increased to 709. It is estimated today there are between 16,000 and 19,000 heroin addicts in Canada. It is also significant to note that Europe used to be the major source of supply for heroin entering Canada. During the past year, however, all indications are that most of the heroin entering Canada originated in Southeast Asia. The European supply was cut back due to rigorous enforcement in France and lack of heroin cultivation in Turkey. As many members know, the Turkish government has reversed its stand and will again allow cultivation of heroin.
With respect to cannabis, a significant development is the recent interest in importation and trafficking of cannabis drugs on the part of major criminal organizations. In the recent past, those primarily involved with the importation and trafficking of cannabis were the younger entrepreneurs. During 1973, five gangland-style murders in Montreal were directly connected to an investigation on the importation of hashish.
The Royal Canadian Mountain Police presently assumes primary responsibility for investigating offences of trafficking in drugs at all levels of police jurisdiction, local, provincial, interprovincial and international. Drug trafficking is a large, highly organized criminal operation involving contacts and resources at all levels of jurisdiction. Competent drug law enforcement requires a comprehensive and consistent process in the total community. Specialists in drug law enforcement are capable of dealing with specific situations, as is presently the practice of members of the RCMP special drug squads, but consistent enforcement at an adequate level will only be accomplished efficiently by all police forces and all members of those police forces assuming responsibility for enforcement.
As far as the federal government and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are concerned, the following priorities for drug law enforcement are required: (a) the RCMP to provide leadership to improve drug intelligence, co-ordination and co-operation between all police department;
Organized Crime
(b) the RCMP to have primary responsibility for enforcement of drug trafficking offences at international, national, provincial and local levels and to provide assistance as required to other police forces where resources are available; (c) as a general rule, all police forces should accept responsibility for drug law enforcement within their respective jurisdictions and should be encouraged to develop the capacity for drug law enforcement where it is now lacking.
The RCMP offers a two-week drug investigation course for members of municipal and provincial police departments. In 1972-73, 38 members of municipal and provincial police departments took advantage of this course. In 197475, 123 members attended these courses. Hon. members should also note that the number of federal drug enforcement positions in the RCMP has increased from 102 in 1969-70 to 543 projected for 1975-76. For the fiscal year 1973-74, in excess of one million man-hours was expended by the RCMP in drug law enforcement.
I should also point out that because of the increase in the scope and size of international and national traffic in illicit narcotics, the drug enforcement program now includes international investigations. Many successful international investigations have been conducted by the RCMP in France, Italy, The Netherlands, England, Spain, Lebanon, Pakistan, India, Hong Kong mainland, Mexico, and the United States.
These investigations have been conducted in co-operation with Interpol, through close co-operative ventures such as Franco-American-Canadian meetings on drug enforcement and by sending RCMP investigators to source and transit countries to work on joint international investigations. In addition, the RCMP now has drug investigators stationed in Paris and Hong Kong to assist in international drug information liaison.
I now wish to deal with British Columbia in particular. I am advised that between 60 and 70 per cent of the total illicit drug problem in Canada is centred in British Columbia. Heroin addiction is the major problem, and it is estimated that 10,000 persons are involved in the illicit use of this drug in that province. In the city of Vancouver, a single dose, or capsule of heroin now costs $35. Each person using heroin will purchase an average of two capsules each day. This means that 10,000 heroin users will spend $700,000 each day, or $20 million each month.
During the past two months, 21 Vi pounds of heroin have been seized as a result of drug investigations in British Columbia. The RCMP recently conducted a major undercover operation in the greater Vancouver area during which 25 persons were charged with selling narcotics. Sixteen of those charged were considered to be major international or national drug traffickers. Unfortunately, the magnitude of illicit heroin traffic in British Columbia is such that these recent successful operations have not reduced the current availability of heroin.
There have been new initiatives, however. In British Columbia there are now 107 RCMP federal drug unit positions, of which 69 are assigned to the Vancouver RCMP drug unit. The Vancouver unit is to be increased by 17 positions by April 1, 1975, for a total of 86. The depart-

November 12, 1974
Organized Crime
ment of the attorney general of British Columbia has initiated a new program called CLEU or Co-ordinated Law Enforcement Unit. As part of this program, members of the RCMP and the Vancouver city police work together on major criminal problems. A recent successful drug investigation was concluded by a combined group of 16 RCMP members and nine Vancouver city police members.
Mr. Speaker, I should now like to explain to the House the assistance given by the federal government to the provinces in the form of Royal Canadian Mounted Police, national police, services. The government provides and bears the total cost of a national police service to all Canadian law enforcement agencies as one way of helping to combat crime in Canada. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is the major and central criminal intelligence body in Canada and must be in a position to provide full and comprehensive facilities for the exchange of criminal intelligence with other police forces. These national police services include: (a) an identification branch and central fingerprint bureau; (b) six crime detection laboratories, located in New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and Manitoba; (c) the Canadian Police Information Centre; (d) the Criminal Intelligence Service Canada; (e) Interpol; and (f) the Canadian Police College.
Of most direct significance to this debate, particularly as it concerns crime rings and criminal conspiracies, is the Criminal Intelligence Service Canada which I should like to describe in some detail. In 1962, it was decided to create a Canada-wide network of criminal intelligence units to combat the growing problem of organized crime in a coordinated and efficient manner. In 1970, Criminal Intelligence Service Canada was founded and it presently consists of 23 national criminal intelligence sections, six airport special squads, three special surveillance sections and 46 intelligence sections from other police departments and enforcement agencies. Two types of intelligence are handled-strategic intelligence and tactical intelligence. Strategic intelligence confirms the existence of organized crime elements and identifies the members of the group, their criminal activities, internal administration, movements, sources of income and vulnerability. Tactical intelligence is the gaining of information for prosecution and is subject to the rules of evidence.
The Criminal Intelligence Service, because it promotes a close working relationship between police forces, has made possible a number of successful joint force operations. During the past three years, joint force operations have resulted in excess of 250 criminal charges being laid, they have prevented at least two murders and located one of Canada's ten most wanted criminals. In addition, many notable criminals have been identified and a secret organization along the lines of the old mafia code was found to exist in Canada. During the past year, many of the efforts of the Criminal Intelligence Service have been directed toward the high priority areas of drug enforcement and commercial fraud. Hon. members may wish to note that in 1969-70 the national crime intelligence sections numbered 65 men in total. This year, 1974-75, the strength of these sections has been more than doubled to 146 members.
I turn now, Mr. Speaker, to the specific problem of loan sharking, that is, the loaning of money at exorbitant rates

of interest. This is a matter of great concern to the government. I am advised by the RCMP that this is one of the most lucrative practices used by criminals. Loan sharking is difficult to detect, and under current legislation, chiefly involving the Small Loans Act, prosecution is not effective. For this reason my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), is preparing legislation for revision of the Interest Act. One feature of the proposed new legislation will be the licensing of all persons engaged in the business of lending money.
I am advised that loan sharking is in operation in many of our major cities. There appears to be no set interest rate on such loans; the majority run from 10 per cent to 35 per cent per week on the full amount borrowed. On occasion, criminals involved will borrow money at normal rates of interest and loan it out at exorbitant rates to establish themselves. Loan sharking also breeds other forms of crime, both directly and indirectly. On occasion, loans are made to finance illegal activities such as drug trafficking, gambling and robberies. Indirectly, other crimes are committed by victims as the only means to repay loans. This repayment could take the form of supplying the loan shark with information that can be used to assist in other criminal offences such as robberies. Because of lack of complaints from victims, it is almost impossible for the police authorities to accurately assess the seriousness of loan sharking operations throughout the country. We know a serious problem exists, however, and we propose to concentrate on work in this area.
Before I comment specifically on the matters raised by hon. members opposite, I should like to point out that the Department of the Solicitor General has, itself, as a principal objective, the prevention of crime and the protection of the public. I must remind the House that jurisdiction for the enforcement of the criminal law in Canada is broadly divided between the provincial governments and the federal government. The federal government legislates in the area of criminal law and for the most part the provinces enforce this legislation. The Criminal Code is enforced by provincial attorneys general-


Erik Nielsen: Except in the Territories.


William Warren Allmand: Except in the Territories; the hon. member is correct. Other criminal law statutes, such as the Narcotics Control Act, are enforced by the federal government. With respect to the courts, judges are appointed by the federal government, and in many of the courts administration is conducted by the provinces. Probation comes under provincial jurisdiction; parole under federal jurisdiction. Jail sentences of less than two years are under provincial jurisdiction; longer sentences are within federal jurisdiction.
So we have a very mixed jurisdiction in the area of criminal law. It is an area where it is extremely important that there be close co-operation not only between the federal and provincial governments but also between the federal, provincial and municipal governments. That having been said, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the federal government should take a leadership role in the criminal justice system. As a result, last year I called the first
November 12, 1974

federal-provincial conference in 14 years dealing with this matter.
The ministry of the Solicitor General, as I have said, is a focal point, or should become more and more the focal point, for the co-ordination and support of the fight against crime. It will support and assist the Commissioner of the RCMP in his efforts to improve co-operation between police forces. It will encourage and attempt to improve federal-provincial co-operation within the criminal justice system, and it will encourage better consultation within the national police community. In addition, it will work toward a common high standard of police training and police technology on a national basis. I should like to point out that one of the major projects of the secretariat of the Solicitor General's ministry is the conference that we are now planning, with the provinces, on the native offender. This conference will be taking place in Alberta some time in the month of February.
I should now like to comment briefly on some of the points made by hon. members opposite. I must congratulate them on the good speeches they have made. I think the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) very well described the problem of organized crime in Canada and its serious consequences. I also appreciated his comment that we must not only look to the symptoms of crime but to the causes of crime; that if we are to be successful in the long run, we must do much more in the area of the causes of crime. I should like to point out to the House that in recent years, through the ministry of the Solicitor General, we have been trying to do just that. We have had interdepartmental committees on crime and housing, dealing with the whole problem of urban renewal, slums and crime. We have had an interdepartmental committee with respect to Indian affairs and the native offender. We have had interdepartmental committees on the drug problem.
The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe recommended a royal commission into the causes of organized crime, and I will take that suggestion under consideration. I can only say that the advice I have from police forces is that a royal commission would not be that useful. They feel that for the most part a probe of this kind is usually overtaken by time and events, and that generally the work of a royal commission is not that useful in assisting the police. On the other hand, I would be willing to consider, and I am considering now, the possibility of a federal-provincial conference on crime and policing. As I pointed out earlier in my remarks, this is an area which concerns the provinces. The hon. member himself said that anything that is done should be done in equal co-operation with the provinces and, as I say, I am considering a federal-provincial conferecne on this particular matter.
The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) suggested that we should take action, either immediately or as soon as possible, on the recommendations made in the Le Dain report. As hon. members know, the principal responsibility for implementing the recommendations of the Le Dain report comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). However, we do have an interdepartmental committee working on this particular report. My ministry is involved, other ministries are involved and we will soon have an announcement to make in this respect.
Organized Crime
The hon. member also said that the methods presently used by the RCMP are out of date. He said they were time-worn methods, and he made reference to Japan, Great Britain and other jurisdictions with regard to things we should be doing. As I mentioned earlier in my remarks, we are presently doing some of the things the hon. member suggested, such as international policing, stationing men in other countries and following up on drug trafficking in other countries. In particular, we are participating with the provinces, especially with the province of British Columbia, in regard to CLEU. The hon. member might say that we should do more, and I agree we should and we will try to do more.
The hon. member strongly suggested that we should try to do more in the area of diversion, especially with young offenders. Again, this is a matter we are examining. We are presently working to frame and to put to the House very shortly a new young offenders act to replace the Juvenile Deliquents Act. We are working very closely with the provinces to bring about a system whereby we will be able to provide, in co-operation with the provinces, services and facilities for young offenders.
The hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) concentrated to a great extent on drug traffickers, and I agree with many of the things he said. He said that there was too much tendency nowadays to be sorry for criminals, that too much emphasis was placed on helping criminals. In response, I can only say that we are introducing new programs in the area of rehabilitation-these are sometimes interpreted as being sorry for criminals-because we are hoping we will get to the causes of crime, a matter mentioned by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe. These programs are designed to rehabilitate criminals. We believe that if we are to be serious about protecting the public we must do everything possible to help inmates so that they do not return to crime. I know that very often these programs are considered as being soft on crime, but they are really designed to protect the public.


Erik Nielsen: Would the minister permit a question at this point?


William Warren Allmand: Yes, I would.


Erik Nielsen: The minister ran through the functions of the various agencies in his department, but he made one glaring omission and that was the police security and planning analysis group, or whatever name the agency is now known by. The name seems to change as rapidly as do some of the faces around here. Would the minister bring us up to date on what part that group is playing in combating organized crime in Canada?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, that would take a long speech, but I can say that this group was very helpful to me in bringing together all the facts and information that I used in my speech today. Many projects are under way in this particular unit. We are studying projects on gun control and many types of preventive crime. A written question was asked last week and I filed an answer listing a large number of projects. I do not have the list of projects with me today, but in general the PSPB-the Police and Securities Planning Branch-is a research

November 12, 1974
Organized Crime
branch, an analysis branch in the area of crime, crime prevention and security matters.


Erik Nielsen: No longer known as "Goyer's gumshoes".


William Warren Allmand: I do not think it was ever known as that. I should like to say a few words about the RCMP and its support of provincial initiatives. The role of the RCMP as the federal law enforcement agency is, in part, to prevent and detect offences against federal statutes and to conduct investigations as required. Enforcement of the Criminal Code is considered for the most part to be within the provincial governments' responsibility for the administration of justice. In saying this, however, I want to point out that in eight of our ten provinces the RCMP act as the provincial police force and in this role is responsible to the respective attorneys general or solicitors general. In the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, in which the RCMP is not the provincial police force, and in the eight contract provinces, I may say that co-operation between the RCMP and provincial authorities is excellent.
I might illustrate this by pointing out that through the national Criminal Intelligence Service, and in other ways, the RCMP have responded to recent provincial initiatives, such as the Quebec commission of inquiry into organized crime, the Ontario inquiry into organized crime and the building trades, and the recent work of the British Columbia co-ordinated law enforcement unit.
Before I resume my seat, Mr. Speaker, I must advise the House that unfortunately I must be absent this evening. For some time now I have had scheduled a visit to Alberta tomorrow to meet with Hon. Helen Hunley, the solicitor general of that province, to open a new correctional college near Edmonton and to examine the conditions under which our federal female inmates are now kept in provincial institutions. As hon. members know, we have agreed with the provinces to have our federal female inmates sent back to the provinces from which they came, under a special federal-provincial agreement.


An hon. Member:: You are going to give effect to women's lib.


William Warren Allmand: I regret this absence. I notified the chief spokesman of each party this morning and I think most of them understood the situation. I might say that in my absence I will have in the galleries a number of RCMP and the chief adviser of the department to listen to the speeches of hon. members and to report to me. I will read their remarks in Hansard tomorrow as soon as I return.


Erik Nielsen: I thought they had the place tapped anyway.


William Warren Allmand: I conclude my remarks by assuring hon. members that their points of view and suggestions during the debate on this serious matter will be taken seriously, and we are committed to doing everything possible within our jurisdiction to prevent and reduce crime and to help the provinces achieve this same goal. I know that all hon. members of the House have the same objective.


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the mover, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), first of all for bringing this resolution before the House today. I can say with all modesty that I had nothing to do with its formulation or the very stable, very restrained and very philosophical approach the hon. member took in his speech in which he outlined in a very sympathetic way the causes of crime in the country. It was a speech well worth making, and I quite frankly say to him, through you, Mr. Speaker, that I envy his oratorical powers and the way in which he made his speech. It was a speech well worth making. It is about time somebody said what the hon. member said today about crime, and I most heartily agree with him.
Let me say again, attempting to use the most restrained language possible, that I found the minister's reply today very disappointing. Now that we have had the philosophical approach from the hon. member, indicating the causes of organized crime in this country, I would suggest that my role now is to indicate in some small way the inroads organized crime has already made in this country.
I think the attitude displayed by the minister here today was good, as far as he went, but as is usual with most things we hear from across the floor of this chamber, I must say in all sincerity that his statement today was extremely disappointing and lacking in real depth as to just what has happened in this country in the last decade. I suggest that is indicated, as well, by the attendance here today. We have the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who was here for the question period but who quickly left, and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) who I suggest should be playing a supervisory role in this whole matter but who has not even put in an attendance today. I would indicate to the minister, as well, that I am disappointed that he has to leave in approximately five minutes as he indicated earlier.
Traditionally, in fighting crime in this country the provincial and local presence has been paramount. In the last decade especially, sophisticated uses of communications and transportation techniques by warped but intelligent men have of necessity left provincial, municipal and local law enforcement agencies far behind and virtually helpless in combating internationally-directed and syndicated organized crime. This is true, not because of lack of intent, and in many cases not because of lack of training, but simply because of their limited, restricted jurisdiction. The minister may point with pride to the divided jurisdiction in combating crime in this country.


William Warren Allmand: Not with pride. That is our system.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: The minister may point to the system in an attempt to defend it, but I find it almost indefensible. I think we are wavering, in this country, under an extremely archaic system, one that has certainly not kept up with the times. I think the place from which initiative and leadership should come is here in Ottawa. Initiative and leadership should come from the federal government toward changing the system, because the system is clearly wrong. I think the federal government and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police should have become far more paramount and should be the priority law enforcement agency. This government should be the government con-
November 12, 1974

cerned with combating organized crime in this country. It should be far more innovative and far more supervisory in leading the fight against organized crime, in a way that so far simply has not surfaced.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the hon. member a question?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: When I have finished I will be glad to entertain questions. At a time when crime statistics in this country are far more than merely alarming, and at a time when obviously there is international control and foreign direction to what is going on in this country in respect of crime, the reverse is true of this government. Initiative and leadership on the part of this government is absolutely nil, and this has been demonstrated time and time again.
Over the last decade the morale in the RCMP has deteriorated to the point now that the RCMP is no longer the proud and effective force it once was. The leadership which emanates from this government has sadly deteriorated. We need more political direction. The law enforcement agencies need more money, more help, more facilities, experts and professional people. They are simply not getting that type of leadership, they are not getting that type of financial help and they are not getting the direction they need. I suggest this is not only true of the RCMP. Our Customs and Excise Branch has simply stood still for the last 50 years. Generally speaking, the Department of Revenue investigators are simply incompetent, due to their lack of training and lack of knowledge of what has been going on in the past. I think they sincerely and genuinely need far more facilities, better training and better pay. I think, as well, they need university and research assistance in ways they are not getting it at the moment.
I think this is the reason for the debate today. This is an honest attempt by the opposition, using the only means available to it at the moment, to wake a sleepy, lethargic government out of its apathy. Today we are seeing the effects of that apathy. At the moment we have, at the most, 20 government members in the House. I suggest that we have had a very lethargic and sleepy reply from a mediocre minister. For instance, why did he not deal with the involvement of organized crime in the construction industry labour unions and in other industries which has become apparent in the last 18 months in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario? It is nonsense on the part of the minister or anyone else to suggest that this whole matter is subject only to provincial jurisdiction. We have had royal commissions in both provinces-one is still continuing-which indicate in no uncertain terms that organized crime is now linked with the construction industry in both Ontario and Quebec.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police investigations alone have linked certain underworld figures with the violence which plagued the industry two years ago, and last year in James Bay approximately $8,000 of syndicate money supported local 791 in its strike at an estimated cost of over $1 million in the $26 million road construction project. Known, internationally-syndicated "soldiers" were also
Organized Crime
employed on this side at the time. But today we have no comment, no information, no suggestion whatsoever from the minister. Why did he not deal today with the white-collar crime which is rampant?


William Warren Allmand: Why didn't you put it in the motion?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Why did he not deal with commercial fraud, phony bankruptcies, insurance swindles? Certainly we should have heard something from the minister today about those crimes. The leadership and the initiative by this government is overdue with respect to, for instance, the establishment of a national securities commission. What happened to the thrust which existed a few years ago in respect of such legislation? Since then the problem in this country has become worse, not better, and for the last three years-I am not blaming this particular minister, but the whole department-we have not heard a word about it. And it is overdue. What in the world is the sense of us taking stock swindlers out of Bay Street if they settle in New Brunswick, for instance, later to be chased away from there by the New Brunswick government? All they do then is settle on the west coast. There has been ample evidence in the newspapers-


William Warren Allmand: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is a member of the political party which drafted the motion before us today, which refers to international and interprovincial crime rings operating in drugs, loan sharking and mafia-type conspiracies. Now he rises in his place and, in a way which I believe is irrelevant to the motion, asks us why we did not deal with matters which are not dealt with in the motion. I would have been pleased to deal with all these matters had the opposition placed them in the motion, and I would ask the hon. member to stick to the matters which his own party put in the motion before us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. The Chair always has some difficulty in determining precisely how relevant are comments made in speeches to the motion or the bill before us. It is customary for the Chair to allow some degree of latitude in this regard, but I think that all speakers will wish to direct themselves to the motion that is now before the House.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for that. The motion today is on organized crime, and it is to organized crime that I am directing my remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I merely want to say that it is not only speculative newspaper reports today which indicate that organized crime and its many offshoots have moved into the Vancouver Stock Exchange, for example. I think that these are valid and worthy subjects that should be dealt with by us today, whether or not the minister likes it. But if he wants to talk about loan sharking, why did he not talk about it a few moments ago? Did he give us any plans or programs about the loan sharking shakedown that is now taking place here in Ontario and in Quebec especially?

November 12, 1974
Organized Crime
We are not dealing with peanuts; we are dealing with an industry which in Ontario alone deals in hundreds of millions of dollars annually.' Think of private insurance companies, private loan companies. Think of one outfit alone which in the city of Toronto has a turnover of over $100 million. There are in existence today foreign-con-trolled crime syndicates in metro Toronto alone which deal in that amount of money annually. One newspaper report which appeared the other day said that on the island of Montreal alone the total amount for loan sharking last year was over $700 million. We are not dealing with peanuts; we are dealing with powerful, intelligent, but warped groups which can manipulate governments and ministers as well as law enforcement agencies.
I say that the initiative and leadership in combating these groups must come from Ottawa. We can no longer rely on the attitude we have seen here today, according to which law enforcement agencies, local or provincial, are considered paramount. They cannot be, because we are dealing with international crime. Although money lending is not an offence under the Criminal Code as yet, the setting up of unreasonable interest rates is a crime and is covered by the Small Loans Act. The minister said it is ineffective. I should like to know how in the world he knows that, since the department has not attempted a prosecution under that act for the last three years.


William Warren Allmand: We do not prosecute them.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I am speaking of crimes relating to the terrorizing of private citizens, as well as the rapid increase in spin-off crimes which often results when borrowers are unable to repay their debts.
How about gambling in this country? Again, the attitude we see frequently is that this is something that can be looked after at the local or provincial level. That is nonsense. Gambling is prohibited by the federal Criminal Code, and at least two provinces where the abuses really exist, in the last three years have requested this government to allow them to control betting and the bookie business. It is well known, and it is openly carried on. If you do not believe me, sir, ask the guard, if you do not believe me, ask our House of Commons elevator operator, if you do not believe me, ask our messenger service who or where the nearest bookie in this building is. He will tell you, because it is done. It is a business in Ontario alone that handles at least $150 million annually, over one-half of which is bet on sports other than racing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Hon. members opposite can poke fun at it, but I say to you, sir, that this is one of the cash registers of organized crime in this country, and it can and should be prevented. I believe that it can be prevented very easily by the government itself taking over control. This has been requested by provincial governments, and it has been refused time and time again. I say that this internationally-financed ring cannot operate without its United States connections. Let me read to you a very short paragraph from a Canadian report-not a very old report;
Organized crime provides lay-off centres in Buffalo, in Atlanta, in Las Vegas, and in New Jersey, as well as betting information centres for the provision of odds and "point spreads" where necessary. A

lay-off centre is apparently essential for most bookmakers to survive. They cannot afford to refuse bets or they will lose customers, while a pay-off on some large bets would put many out of business.
This is a business that is carried on here. Today we did not hear a word about the gambling business from the minister. We did not hear a word about the new techniques, new procedures and new research that should be taking place. We did not hear that gambling and the bookie business could not carry on without some sort of co-operation from government and local officials. Nor could it carry on without the co-operation of the news media in this country, Mr. Speaker. I say that very clearly. Have you ever opened the newspaper at the sports page and seen, not just the race results but the betting odds and the amounts won in the previous day's races? I say to you that the radio stations and news media of this country somehow or other must be influenced daily to publish that type of information. I say to you there are not that many horse lovers on the North American continent who are wondering or worrying about what horse won; instead, they are worrying how much the horse won for them through their local bookie down the street. Government, at the federal, provincial and local level can and should control that, but they do not. They do not even know the problems, much less do anything about gambling.
I should like now to deal with the drug problem. We have heard some rather misleading statistics from the minister. I think he underrated the problem. Drug addiction has increased by 455 per cent in the last five years in British Columbia alone. In other words, the British Columbia total is approximately two-thirds of the national total. The minister told us that there had only been a five-fold increase in the number of investigators with federal law enforcement agencies on the west coast. I think he should be ashamed to come into this House with such information, and should not boast that he is doing something about the problem. The drug trade in British Columbia alone-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member in the midst of his speech, but the time allotted to him in this debate has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, may I ask if that includes the interruptions and the points of order?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. I thank the hon. member for drawing that to the attention of the House. The Chair did take account of the fact that there was a point of order, and the hon. member was allowed the extra minutes that were taken up by it.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, during the hon. member's remarks I put a question to him and he said he would accept it at the end of his speech. Would he accept it now? It is a serious question, and I should like to know what he meant by some of his remarks.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: May I continue for a moment, Mr. Speaker?
November 12, 1974


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The minister may wish to ask a question, and by allowing the hon. member to answer we would be extending his time in this debate. That could only be done by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the courtesy of the House and I do not want to trespass any more than I have to, but may I get on to one other subject-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. I believe there has been a misunderstanding. The minister rose to ask a question and the Chair put to the House the question whether the hon. member could be given additional time to answer. I think that is what was requested and there is agreement to it.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I either have extra time to continue, or I do not. If I have extra time to continue, I should like to use it in another way, and I will certainly entertain the minister's question.


An hon. Member:: Let him ask the question.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: If I may continue, and I assume I may-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but he has not been given time to continue. The request was for a question, and if the minister wishes to put that question now, the House has consented to allow the hon. member time to answer.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise a point of order. The last speaker who had difficulty ending his speech within the time requested extra time, and you were kind enough to follow the usual custom and ask the House whether he could have it, and consent was given. With respect, what you are saying now is that the only question is whether the minister ought to be able to question the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence). Bearing in mind the undertaking which the hon. member has given to take a question from the minister, may I ask, on his behalf, that you put the usual question whether he can have time to finish his speech?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. The Chair has ruled in this regard, that it should be at the end of the hon. member's speech. He did not request additional time. The Chair put the question to the House when the minister asked to put a question to the hon. member. That is the situation. If the hon. member wishes to request an extension of time, he may certainly do so and that question will be put to the House.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I thought I did request it. I thought you put the question and I thought the answer was in the affirmative.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is it agreed that the hon. member shall have additional time to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Organized, Crime


Allan Frederick Lawrence: As I said, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the courtesy of the House and I hope I shall not trespass unduly. There are a number of subjects that one would want to get into in a wide-ranging debate such as this, but I want to deal with two, if I may. One is the question of whether organized crime has infiltrated the very ranks of government itself. I should like to bring to the attention of the House the case of Mr. Charles Spatero who at one time was from Buffalo, New York. Dilly, as he is known to his friends, is what is known in the trade as a "torch". A torch is a gentleman who specializes in incendiary and arson work in Toronto, Montreal and some of our larger areas.
For the last little while there has been an alarming outbreak of arson. It is connected, obviously, with loan sharking, obviously with protection rackets and obviously with the enforcement of underworld regulations and judgments. They do exist, Mr. Speaker. I should like to suggest to you that so far in this session, in any event, I have heard no explanation whatsoever from the government or the minister as to the rather novel and alarming series of events that have overtaken Mr. Charles Angelo Spatero. He was sentenced in 1970 to the maximum sentence for arson in this country, 14 years, by Judge Martin in Toronto. On June 15, while incarcerated in Warkworth prison-which is just outside the boundaries of my riding-Mr. Spatero managed to obtain a three-day pass in order to see his wife who was supposed to be in a motel nearby.
Here is a man who received the maximum sentence on a charge of arson, Mr. Speaker. The evidence at the trial clearly indicated that he was not just on trial for one charge, but in actual fact there were five different related charges of arson. The one they got Dilly on was for pouring alcohol and gasoline all through a crowded tavern in downtown Toronto. In any event, he got 14 years. Somehow, somewhere, a man with that record got a three-day weekend pass on June 15. I do not find that remarkable because there are many other instances of people such as that getting weekend passes today. This is a novel technique that was brought about by the Trudeau government in this country. I am not so sure it has been a success, but that is not the point I am worried about today.
On June 15, on that weekend pass, of course, Dilly Spatero never returned to the Warkworth prison. Before long it was obvious that he had got into a green Cadillac- registered to a known underworld figure in New York state-in Campbellford which is just a few miles away from the prison, and obviously he was across the border in a matter of hours. That was known to law enforcement agencies in New York state, to law enforcement agencies in Canada; and it was known, as well, by the newspapers. Actually, on October 23 the reporters of two Toronto newspapers interviewed Mr. Spatero in Buffalo, New York. The point is that he was an escaped arsonist, a dangerous man. That was even the opinion of the late Mr. Maggadino, the crime boss in Buffalo who controlled certain kinds of crime in Hamilton and Toronto. Mr. Maggadino is no longer alive, but his organization is still alive. This man, Spatero, is a recognized torch. He should not have been out on weekend leave. He was out, and he got away. There has been an unaccountable delay in serving extradition papers in respect of Mr. Spatero.

November 12, 1974
Organized Crime
Let me go over the facts again. In 1970 he was convicted and sent up for 14 years. On June 15 he escaped. Not until July were extradition papers finally signed by the Department of Justice in Ottawa. But absolutely nothing was done with those papers. Mr. Spatero was in Buffalo and everyone knew he was in Buffalo. The New York state people were doing their utmost to pin something on him so that he could be put away, because he is a recognized, dangerous figure. Reporters from the Toronto Star and the Toronto Sun interviewed him on October 25. At the same time, sir, the district attorney in Buffalo publicly indicated his displeasure because the authorities could not nail him for anything. The papers from Ottawa simply had never reached Washington. Hence, they had never gone from Washington to Buffalo because they were not in the United States.
It looks to me as if this case goes far beyond mere bureaucratic bungling in Ottawa. What happened goes beyond coincidence. I could give more examples like this, but will not bore the House with them. Events like this, linked with some of the difficulties encountered by the RCMP in Quebec, lead one to the inescapable conclusion that organized crime has put great pressure even on governments, even on our law enforcement agencies. Have we heard any worth-while explanation from the minister regarding the activities of Mr. Samson, the RCMP officer in Montreal who was involved in the July 26 bombing of one of the directors of Steinberg's?


William Warren Allmand: Ask questions and I will do my best to answer them.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Injured in the attempt, he is reputed to have been in contact both with Camille Gervais and William Obrunt. Gervais is awaiting sentence for conspiracy, while Obrunt has been designated by police as an underworld banker. Obrunt has been missing at least since October 16, 1974, and still does not seem to have been located. This leaves us with two questions: where is Obrunt now, and what does the government intend to do to find him and to prosecute him? I say that the Samson affair ties in with another alleged link to organized crime. RCMP officers McLery and Brunet were fired from the force in December, 1973, apparently due to their association-with whom? With Mr. Obrunt. They attempted to have their case reviewed but ran into difficulty when told that all relevant facts would be made public. They then decided not to have their case reviewed. I do not know where the pressure for that came from, whether it came from the underworld or from the RCMP; but no matter where the pressure came from, the circumstances look suspicious and the government owes us an explanation. All three of these men were involved with intelligence and with security.
On October 24, only eight days after they gave evidence that Samson was somehow connected with the underworld, it was announced that the FBI and the CIA had been asked to aid with security for the Olympic Games. The timing is too obvious to be ignored. The hypothesis is that by infiltrating the RCMP, organized crime was able to get hold of the security plans for the Olympics. Obvi-

ously, these plans would be sold to the highest terrorist bidders in the world.
I will not deal with the computation of crimes: we can deal with that another day. Let me say that I echo the sentiments which have been expressed in this debate. Our aim in this country should be to increase the deterrent to crime by increasing the chance of detection. We do not necessarily need to increase the length of jail terms or their severity. I completely agree with the thrust of the speech made by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe. We need more work, more leadership, more initiative to be shown by the government in combating crime and its causes. If we can do that best by establishing a royal commission, we should establish that royal commission. The minister suggested that royal commissions, according to police experts, are not the best way of assisting the police. A royal commission might not assist the police, but it would wake up a lethargic and apathetic government and demonstrate the existence of difficulties in this area.
I suggest that we need more co-operation and communication among federal, provincial and local police forces; that we need improved co-operation and communication among federal and provincial departments of justice, prosecutors and officials. For heaven's sake, the provincial Crown Attorney system is there; why duplicate it at the federal level by establishing a new list of federal Crown Attorneys? The police need to concentrate on serious crimes involving victims, and we must investigate the feasibility of removing from the Criminal Code crimes which do not involve victims; crimes such as gambling, prostitution, liquor offences, and so on. Further, RCMP law enforcement officers are too important to be wasted. They should be given better training, and their time should not be wasted in patrolling Ottawa's NCC roads and handing out tickets for driving offences. They should be the experts trained to combat crime. Today, that is simply not the case.
One could make many suggestions. Most of all, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, and the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) must be aware of what is going on today. They must demonstrate their inherent desire to come to grips with the problem. That, sir, we have not seen.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question. Actually, I could ask about 30 or 40 questions, but will be content with one. At the beginning of his remarks he said that the system in Canada, under which criminal jurisdiction is divided between the provinces and the federal government, is wrong, is scandalous. Was he seriously suggesting that the constitution should be amended, or that the federal government should ignore the constitution and take away from the provinces their jurisdiction in the criminal justice field and, as well, their responsibility in enforcing the Criminal Code? In other words, was he suggesting that the federal government should take over from the provinces the enforcement and prosecution of offences under the Criminal Code?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I am no lover of the British North America Act and I think it is scandalous that we, in this country, are still labouring under an inadequate constitution. For that I blame my hon. friend and his govern-
November 12, 1974

ment colleagues. In this country there has grown up a duplicate system of courts, a duplicate system of the administration of justice, and a duplicate system of law enforcement. I thought I had touched on these questions; evidently the minister was not listening. There is, as well, a duplicate function of Crown prosecutors. I say those things are wrong. There has to be a sorting out period. It has to come from Ottawa.
By far the paramount group to combat internationally syndicated crime in this country has to come from Ottawa simply because the local jurisdictions, the local law enforcement people, the provincial police, do not have the jurisdiction, funds or facilities which the federal government should have. Today they do not have those. They should have them, and the blame has to fall squarely on the minister.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. During the course of the remarks of my friend, the hon. member for Northumber-land-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), he made certain references to the messengers, elevator operators, and perhaps other employees who work for us in this building. My friend is a lawyer. He is a former attorney general of Ontario. He knows these fine points much better than I could possibly understand them. However, to make a blanket reference to the employees of this building and to suggest that they are involved in activities that are-


Allan Frederick Lawrence: You missed the whole point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member says I missed the whole point. I say to the hon. member that he said either too much or too little. If he is laying a charge against the employees in this building, he should be pretty specific about it. However, if he is now prepared to say that the employees in this building are not engaged in anything that is criminal or quasi-criminal, that of course would clear the air. As one member of this House who is well served by the employees of this building, I do not like to see them maligned in this way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, may I reply to the question of privilege. The point I was trying to make is that the bookie business and gambling in this country, this province, and even in this building is a recognized business. It will not be stamped out. It cannot be. Therefore, the way to combat it is to control it. Certainly that is what I meant by indicating to the members that the location of bookies, even in these buildings, is not a hard thing to find at all. It is because we are served so well by our messengers, elevator operators and guards that they are quite willing to tell us what is common knowledge elsewhere. If you ask them, they will tell you where the local bookie is for this floor in this building.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that my hon. friend has made the matter worse.


Mrs. Holt:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence). As
Organized Crime
attorney general for Ontario, what did you do in the heartland of organized crime, and why?


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Simma Holt: What place does partisan politics have in such a grave social problem, a problem of national concern? Every citizen of this country is concerned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please.


Mr. Poulin:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Unless my hearing is wrong, in his reply on the question of privilege the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) said that the business of book making is a recognized business in this building. I think that is a great disservice to those who serve us here. The hon. member should be prepared to state specifically where this is occurring and name those persons involved. Otherwise it casts an aspersion on all persons who are here. The hon. member said it is a recognized business in this building, in this chamber, in this House of Commons. I think the matter should be cleared up, Mr. Speaker.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to what was said by my friend and neighbour, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Poulin) and others with regard to what was alleged to be a question of privilege. If that is what they are going to say, I suggest with respect that this debate ought not to continue. My feeling is it does not in any way infringe upon the privileges of a member of parliament in relation to his duties as a representative in this place. That is what constitutes a question of privilege.
This is certainly not a question of privilege in parliamentary terms. If this debate is going to continue, instead of debating the very important issue contained in this motion we will spend the rest of the day protecting certain interests. That is not the purpose. Certainly it is not a question of privilege under the rules of this House.


Mr. Stollery:: Mr. speaker, by the hon. member casting aspersions on the staff of this House, this is a question of privilege. He has also cast aspersions on the members of this House by stating that this is common knowledge. I would like to make it clear that I do not know anything about any such activity going on in this House. In my view this constitutes a question of privilege. I in no way associate myself with what the hon. member has said and the accusations he has made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), I do not wish to spin this matter out now, but I wish to reserve the right, if after consulting the record I still feel there is a question of privilege, to raise it tomorrow.

November 12, 1974
Organized Crime



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)-External Affairs-Representation of Palestinians at Geneva Conference-Canadian Position; the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez)-Consumer Affairs-Alleged failure of powdered milk processors and retailers to give consumers benefit of subsidy-Government action; the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) Weights and Measures-Metric system-Compensation to schools for cost of conversion.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wagner:
That this House, noting that international and interprovincial crime rings are operating out of control in the drug trade in British Columbia, the loan shark business in Ontario and in mafia-type conspiracies in Quebec, urges the government to act immediately-directly and through aid to the provinces-to protect the public and to bring these criminals to justice.
Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) for bringing before us a matter which all of us, including the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), consider to be of urgent concern.
None of us like the thought of invasion of our privacy and the taking over of our daily lives by crime syndicates, or habits promoted by them. By the same token I believe there are different ways to tackle this problem.
Many members have concentrated on police work or our laws. I tend to believe we are being a little more than unfair if we are continually to make references to those who have served us, and attempted to serve us well, by saying they are not serving us. Many of our policemen and police forces are doing a great service for us. This is recognized in each community. Indeed, many of our laws are framed in a way which were intended to help.
Unfortunately, this is somewhat of a two-edged sword. Sometimes in the framing of a law, someone uses life like a rock, and the law as a chisel, and tries to carve it in their own likeness. Then they try to impose on others their thoughts as to how life should be.
Some of us look on life as an ocean, and on the laws as sandcastles which crumble as the ocean moves. We hope there will be some around us and among those who make our laws and enforce them, who have this kind of under-

standing. I reject the idea that discipline will get us respect. I believe discipline is the result of respect. Therefore I believe the discipline demanded by society must to a great extent be achieved by itself.
Far too little has been said about the young in this discussion. Who are all these people who sell these drugs? Who are all these people in Vancouver? Who are all these people in the Atlantic provinces? Who are all these people in Montreal?


Mr. Ellis:: Ask the minister. He should know.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Are they people none of us will ever know? Are they people that only the minister or a police officer or a judge will know? Are we not the ones who must take the responsibility, rather than placing it on the shoulders of someone else? At what point do we accept this responsibility? At what point do we ask ourselves whether they are juvenile delinquents or whether they are the result of delinquent adults?
The hon. member for Sainte-Hyacinthe comes from an area I knew very well, which I was familiar with, Verdun, Quebec. I remember that we organized a series of open-air dances in co-operation with the police, though after a good deal of opposition from other quarters. We noticed that the incidence of delinquency dropped on those evenings. The police stopped the traffic for the young people; they became friends of the young people, servants of the young people, and servants of the community. As a result the young people respected them. Basically, a healthy respect existed in that community between the young people and the police force.
The Le Dain Commission Report was not the be all and end all as far as drugs are concerned. Many things have changed since that report was issued. It is about time many of us, including policemen and citizens generally, read more about drugs and discovered that this is only a passing history.
I do recall one passage in the report-it did not appear to receive wide publicity at the time-about the situation in one of the maritime provinces. It appears that the citizens did not know what was going on, and even the mayor of Moncton did not know what was going on, but when a questionnaire was sent to one of the schools they discovered that 60 per cent of the young people had experienced soft drugs, acid, or hard drugs. No one mentioned that 85 per cent of the teachers were involved. This was in a small community. I wonder what might be happening in a large community such as the one I come from, Mr. Speaker.
I am not afraid to say for the record that the people of Hamilton Mountain are concerned. They are so concerned that they have started a full-scale drug education program. They have set up a community centre with special courses for nurses, doctors and social workers who attend. They believe they should be dealing with the situation from a knowledge of drugs and the circumstances in which they are taken. Too often I hear it said that the law should take care of these offenders.
I have nothing to say against lawyers, but I must face the fact that when standing before the court each one of them can only see how correct he is-not one is called upon to question his personal position when defending a
November 12, 1974

drug trafficker. The time is coming when we shall be obliged to make a decision, not as legislators, or policemen, or lawyers, but as people who should count ourselves as part of the authority, or force, which serves all of us.
The excellent recommendations which come from the universities from time to time should be adopted, along with other worthwhile suggestions from members of police forces and interested citizens. Members of the community generally should talk about these things and make their contributions toward the decision process.
I respect the views which have been put forward during this debate. Regardless .of our feelings when we oppose each other for policital reasons, I believe that from time to time something will come before this House with which we can all be concerned. I am sure that those who follow me in this debate will have many more informed and intelligent things to say about the subject than I have, and I shall listen attentively.
The time has come to recognize that the way to law and order, the way to deal with the Godfather image, is through education. I believe that basically young people have a liking for and a respect for policemen. Many times that respect is taken from them by the courts, or by those in authority, or by people who seek for their own purposes to make the law or the police force look incorrect, regardless of the effect on the young.
I found that basically there was a kindred feeling between young people and policemen. Basically, you played ball in the streets, when you were too poor to have a dime, and you used the centre sewer as home plate and the two side sewers as third and first base. When a policeman came to move you he moved you as few times as he could, provided it didn't endanger your life. He didn't come driving down the street with a siren to arrest you. So many times in the past policemen have done this, and they are still doing it.
We should look to the policemen, Mr. Speaker. They must be involved in this education process. We should hear what they have to say about some of the measures we have passed as legislators. We should hear why they believe some of those measures do not help them in their tasks. We must seek ways of bringing together all the people who are most deeply involved. We should look upon policemen as those who serve us, respect them for what they do, and give them the opportunity to voice their opinion. I think many young people want this.
If I might just close with one thought in connection with any revision of our law which may take place, I would say this: there is a man by the name of George Raymond, the author and owner of the television show, "This is the Law". In September 1974, while researching material for a film concerning the Canadian children of alcoholic parents, Mr. Raymond was awakened to the depressing dilemma of hundreds of thousands of children in this country who are mentally and physically abused by an alcoholic parent, every day of their young lives.
Overwhelmed by the enormity of this single area of child neglect, and having in mind in the very broadest sense the myriad of other problems and decisions a child is compelled to face by himself, alone, every day, due to parental and public indifference, he was inspired to write
Organized. Crime
"The Rights of Man." The words are by George Raymond, the music by Tommy Ambrose.
So much has been said 'bout the Rights of Man Since the time when that man could first write,
Since he moved from his cave to the light of the day And he yearned for the land which was so far far away Since he learned how to work-how to love-how to play.
He's been worried 'bout his personal rights.
So much has been said 'bout the Rights of Man Since he first came aware of his might,
Look at all that Man's done since he climbed from his tree How he's learned how to walk-how to sail on the sea How he's jumped on the moon with such obvious glee,
Always worried 'bout his personal rights.
So much has been said 'bout the Rights of Man Since priorities gave him a fright,
Since man learned how to add and subtract and divide His material wealth-which he often would hide While he figured the wealth of the opposite side,
He's been worried 'bout his personal rights.
So much has been said 'bout the Rights of Man Since he first felt his halo grow tight,
How man said "If it's there-then it's good for us all"
So he worked and invented and prospered-grew tall Or drew strength from some bottle to soften his fall,
Always worried 'bout his personal rights.
So much has been said 'bout the Rights of Man Since the time when man first said "I'm right",
'bout the wonderful things man has said and then done Since he first grew his food-since he harnessed the sun How he's spread the good word since inventing the gun,
Always worried 'bout his personal rights.
So much has been said 'bout the Rights of Man Since his genius first helped win his fights,
Look at all that he's done since he first turned the sod How he's crippled and killed for some great nameless god How he despoils his children while using the rod.
Always worried 'bout his personal rights.
But what of the rights of The Child of Man As man dreams of his personal wealth?
The young child who's ignored both in body and mind Who is lonely and hungry and cold and can't find Any shelter or love in a world where he's tossed,
To be shot-to be burned-to be bombed-to be lost.
Yes, what of the rights of The Child of Man As man hurried through life to his fate?
While preoccupied man carries on with neglect Of his children-while showing the highest respect For the power and might of the sword and the gun,
And the pitiful acre dead bodies just won.
So what of the rights of The Child of Man As man scratches along to his goals?
Where consumption of his all consuming desire Where the dollar and status will kindle his fire To be first-to be fastest and biggest-why not?
Who has time for the plight of some faceless young tot?

November 12, 1974
Organized Crime
I think we have to look to those who make money out of drugs. We have to look to those who have the power to direct others. But I do say that each and every one of us has the responsibility to think of the rights of children at this time. If our laws could in some way be expressed, they would be expressed by what most of us when we were young saw, and what most of us see now-a policeman holding the hand of a small child.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to call it six o'clock; I do not want my speech interrupted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: I am grateful that you allowed me to call it six o'clock a minute or two before that hour so that my trend of thought, if that is the expression, would not be interruped.
I think it is useful for this House of Commons to spend a day debating a matter or an issue which is of very great concern to a good number of Canadians. I want to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Hya-cinthe (Mr. Wagner), for a very constructively argued contribution to this debate. His argument seemed to me to be progressive and positive.
When we are considering the whole issue of crime, Mr. Speaker, we have to keep slogans to a minimum. Simplistic solutions really do not help us at all. After all, the last person to use law and order as an election gimmick, the last person to use this over-simplified and pejorative phrase, the last campaign which aroused the public into a state of frenzy about law and order was that of Richard Nixon, a Richard Nixon who subverted law while invoking a slogan. We have a very great deal to learn from the very unhappy experience of the United States about what I would call an over-simple view of a terribly complex issue.
There is nothing new, of course, in organized crime, and for the purpose of this debate I think of organized crime as crime organized on a continental or worldwide basis. However, what is new, it seems to me, is the amount of technological sophistication which those engaged in organized crime are able to use for their nefarious purposes.
We have heard from our colleague, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), and we have also read the statistics about the very grave phenomena of the drug problem of British Columbia. We have learned with horror the fact that drug addiction has increased by something like 455 per cent in the last five years in the province of British Columbia. In other words, the total there is approximately two-thirds of the national total in hard drug terms. The drug trade there has mushroomed into a

half billion dollar business, and some eight syndicates in the lower mainland have used the proceeds of the drug trade to have money laundered through legitimate businesses.
Mention has already been made of the Co-ordinated Law Enforcement Unit, an enterprise, as I understand it, of the Attorney General of British Columbia. It is a cooperative effort by metropolitan Vancouver, British Columbia and the RCMP, but the spark came from the Attorney General of British Columbia.
That group found that "gang money", as they call it, is being "laundered" through legitimate business enterprises throughout the province. Law enforcement agencies estimate that up to 30 per cent of the mining and local junior industrial companies on the Vancouver stock exchange are in danger of being manipulated by criminally oriented promoters who are getting away virtually scotfree. The report also cites the securities industry, the second mortgage field and nightclubs as the three other areas that might be called legitimate businesses in their organization and concept, yet have been infiltrated by what might be termed "dirty" money.
Statistics Canada figures, from law enforcement, judicial and correctional statistics, support the agonizing situation, if I can use that adjective, in British Columbia. Statistics Canada goes on to describe the totals for Canada. It states:
Each of the four drug classifications continue to show an increase nationally from a low of 17.2 per cent for addicting opiate like drugs to a high of 106.8 per cent (101.0 per cent in the first half of 1973) for Cannabis (Marijuana) related offences.
While the percentage change for three of the four drug offences varied substantially from large increases to significant decreases in the provinces, all provinces showed an increase in the Cannabis classification from a low of 27.4 per cent in Prince Edward Island, to a high of 127.3 per cent in Ontario.
Some hon. members have made the suggestion that for drug trafficking we should return to capital punishment. I have taken part in two capital punishment debates in this parliament, and I have no doubt at all that capital punishment is not a deterrent to drug trafficking or anything else. As the hon. member for New Westminster reminded us, there are now very severe penalties, such as life imprisonment, for drug trafficking.
There is just one other statistic that I would like to share. There is one element of the crime picture in Canada that has taken a somewhat positive turn, and that is that the murder rate in this country in 1974 is substantially less than in 1973 by some 15 per cent. In 1973, the rate was lower than in 1972. I just put these statistics on the record as a footnote to remind some hon. members that, whether or not capital punishment is abolished, the violent crime of murder is on the decrease in Canada. I am sorry to say, and hon. members probably know this, that other forms of violent crime have in fact increased over the last few years.
What should be done about organized crime? I believe, as do several hon. members who have spoken, that our aim should be to increase the deterrent by increasing the chances of detection. I think that this is the key, and several hon. members have made this point. There is really
November 12, 1974

not much point in increasing the length of jail terms or their severity-they are already very severe. I think we need several things and I should like to share my thoughts with hon. members.
First, we need improved co-operation and communication between federal, provincial and local police forces, and I think the key example, of which several hon. members have spoken, that operates in British Columbia is a very positive thing.
Second, we need improved co-operation and communication between federal and provincial justice departments, prosecutors and officials. I share the view of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) that it is too bad that we are into the business of proliferating the office of the Crown Attorney. There are excellent Crown Attorneys working in the provinces. It is a pity that these officials have not had the responsibility of prosecuting narcotics offences and that the patronage system has been operating in this federal field. Many law enforcement people to whom I have spoken have deplored this because they feel that Crown Attorneys build up a body of jurisprudence, a body of expertise, and could well handle this and other federal offences.
Third, we need the concentration by police on serious crimes involving a victim.
Fourth, we need an investigation of the feasibility of the gradual removal of victimless crimes from the statute books, such as gambling, prostitution, liquor offences, and so on. The police are now being used as sort of moral guides, and in many cases the morals which they are trying to enforce have become outdated by changed public attitudes. That does not say that all our attitudes with regard to these things have changed, but it means that in general the police are expected in some cases to be watchdogs over morality rather than involved in the much more serious business of investigating crimes where there is a victim.
Fifth, should my last suggestion be adopted, of course this would free prison space and also free the police.
Sixth, we must free trained policemen from the need to handle minor traffic offences, family quarrels, and so on. The police now are expected to cover the whole gamut of serious and grave crimes from murder to whether someone overstayed their time in a parking spot.
Seventh, I suggest that we need to investigate measures to make criminals pay restitution for their acts to victims, as recommended last week by the Law Reform Commission in a most interesting report. I will come back to that report in a minute. At present the victim is often penalized physically or financially for life, while the criminal is in jail for a short term.
Eighth, only when we are certain that victims are protected should we concern ourselves with what we might call the general welfare of the criminal, although this also must be put in perspective.
Ninth, the best deterrent is not inhumane punishment but the certainty of detection. I do not know whether any hon. members listened last night to a radio program where a person who has just come out after nine years in Dorchester, the maximum security penitentiary, kept repeating that he was not sure about the rehabilitation in Dor-
Organized Crime
Chester but he was very certain that what would prevent him from repeating his crime was the fear of detection. Lastly, I think we should remember that detection rates are very low in this country, that the courts are overcrowded and that punishment is seriously varied depending on where you are located.
I was going to say that punishment is also dependent on whom you know, but I do not think that is the case. I think it is a fact that a variety of people are responsible for punishment. I think that the Department of the Solicitor General is to be commended for the efforts they and the Justice Department have made toward getting supreme court and county judges and magistrates together to discuss the matter of sentencing, because I think that the variety of sentences handed out for similar crimes in this country makes cynics, not only of those caught but of many of us who practice law.
I was interested in the third report of the Law Reform Commission for a couple of reasons. First of all, it is well written. In a very few pages it sets out some recommendations and some conclusions that had been reached by the commission since its second annual report. It is a pleasure to read a document prepared by officials that is written in elegant English, and presumably the same goes for the other official language, French. It happened that the original of this report was written-and I took the trouble to find out-by Professor Patrick Fitzgerald of Carleton University.
A surprising number of people have spoken to me about the elegant or, more than that, the very clear, direct, understandable and pleasant language. I wish everybody in offices in this national capital could read this report. I do think that there are all too few reports produced in government departments that have any lasting quality. Anyway, it is the report of the commission, no matter who wrote it. The commission reminds us:
Reforming laws means more than changing them; it means improving them. The two don't always go together. Cromwell's Parliament once passed an act outlawing Christmas-a change admittedly but was it an improvement? Was the new law a true reflection of the social need?
All I could do here is interpolate that if anybody were to pass a law outlawing Christmas until Christmas, I think it would be an improvement. This is away off the subject and I am ready to be taken to task for it right away, but it did remind me that we seem to start Christmas right after Halloween now.
To get back to the point, Mr. Speaker, the commission goes on to ask how we can ensure that new laws truly reflect the social need?
The report reminds us that in ancient Greece somebody who had a proposal to make for a change in the law was brought forward with a yoke around his neck. He then had to debate the change and if he were successful in persuading the citizens he was freed and, if not, he suffered the consequences. Nobody would propose such a drastic thing in 1974, I hope, but I thought that the commission report gave a rather thoughtful analysis of the difficulty of law reform.

November 12, 1974
Organized Crime
Anybody can propose an amendment to a statute. All that is needed is paste, a pair of scissors and a parliament that is-I will not say lazy because this parliament has not been going long enough for me to make any judgment on that. But it is easy enough to change the criminal law by patchwork. To change the philosophy behind the law without the public understanding and support which are essential, is much more difficult.
I myself happen to have voted for and supported with enthusiasm the change in the provisions for bail. But, Mr. Speaker, we parliamentarians made a very grave mistake about that law because we did not take the trouble and the time to instruct the law enforcement agencies in the use of the changed rule, and did not perform our duty by taking our case-or the government's case since the credit rightfully belongs to the government-for this good reform to the public to get an understanding of it.
The Law Reform Commission discussed a couple of things that we are working on, and I will end on this note as I see Mr. Speaker is getting very nervous. In working papers Nos. 5 and 6 the Law Reform Commission made two very worthwhile recommendations. Working paper No. 5 dealt with restitution and compensation for the victims of crime, and working paper No. 6 dealt with fines rather than incarceration. The commission did a very wise and more than humane thing-I know some people will think I am being sentimental when indeed I am anything but-indeed I think a sentence to jail is often a copout. In many cases it is much easier to go to jail than to pay the restitution or a fine.
I think if the government sees fit to accept these recommendations on restitution, compensation and fines, a lot of the pressures on our penitentiary system could be relieved and the police could get on with their real business, that is, dealing with the grave and serious crimes about which many of my colleagues on both sides of the House have reminded us today.


Simma Holt: Mr. Speaker, this is really my first speech in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: I am very happy that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) brought this matter up because it has been of deepest concern to me for many, many years. I have worked on the problem of drugs, on juvenile crime-all crime right through to murder- throughout my entire career of 30 years. I am glad the hon. member brought it up as a non-partisan issue, one that every person in this chamber should be concerned about. Every family in this country, every father and mother- everyone-has been touched by this.
There was a day when I was a rarity because I knew criminals, and I knew them as a white collar worker. Today everybody knows a drug user, either in their own family or in the neighbourhood. It is the great devastation of our time; it can destroy the very fabric of our society if it continues.
I am also very grateful to my compatriot, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), who recorded most accurately the problem in the west, one that is

now spreading throughout the country. I do not agree with everything he said, but I agree in part.
If oratory could solve the horrendous problem of mass killing by drug dealers, once known as merchants of death, it would have been solved this afternoon in this House of Commons.
I am deeply concerned that some hon. members are so out of touch that they believe the drug scene is the syndrome of the poor. It is not, Mr. Speaker; it is a problem of all classes of society, particularly the middle and upper classes.


An hon. Member:: That is why we are dealing with it now.


Simma Holt: As a newcomer here I understand now why this disease has been allowed to spread and contaminate the whole country-why children have been affected and disabled by the time they reach their majority. They deteriorated and died on the streets. I watched it, Mr. Speaker. That is why I find this debating and playing games with such a serious problem so absolutely abhorrent.
I was appalled that the hon. member for Northumber-land-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) made this a political debate when he, as Attorney General of the Province of Ontario only a few years ago, could have resolved many of the problems that are now endemic in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Don't get political!


Simma Holt: As a citizen of this great country I was saddened to think that a problem as serious as this could be treated as a matter of oratory. I hope I am not included in that because there is much I want to tell members from my experience working on the streets of Vancouver, on Mountain Avenue in Montreal, Yorkville in Toronto, Osborne Street in Winnipeg and in Calgary. I worked in Haight-Ashbury; I worked in Aspen, Colorado; and the lower east side of New York to research this problem. I have researched the basic causes of violence. So I come here not for oratory but to tell this House that we have a problem which everyone of us must put our minds to in order to solve it.
I begged for help in 1966, Mr. Speaker. I went across this country as it was exploding, and asked for help. But I was accused of being an alarmist. I tried to explain that when a house is burning and children are inside, we do not stand back and wait.
Nine year olds are now mainlining drugs and heroin. In British Columbia, 65 per cent of addicts are under 18 years of age. We are talking of children, Mr. Speaker. I can remember when I wrote a news story about a 17-year old girl using heroin and it ran on page one. That was only ten years ago, Mr. Speaker.
I can remember in the drug wars of 1955-56. When I worked behind the scenes with users, pushers and police, they only used bombs because there were just two syndicates. Now there are probably seven or eight, because the market is big enough to support them all.
November 12, 1974

We should be fortunate in Canada if there were only
15,000	addicts in this country. Statistics compiled by the new Co-ordinating Law Enforcement Unit, called CLEU in British Columbia, show that the average drug user uses an average of two caps a day, and that heroin addiction progresses and gets worse. In the old days you heard people talk of going "cold turkey", which was a painful experience. It simply meant that a user was trying to cut back to, say, one cap a day. In those days he paid $5 for a cap; today's price is between $35 and $40. If the user could stay on two caps a day, he thought it a miracle.
In almost every neighbourhood of Vancouver, Victoria, Nanaimo or Prince Rupert, actually in practically every village and town of British Columbia, you will find addicts. There is a well known corner in Vancouver where many known addicts used to congregate. The addict population remained stable for 10 or 12 years. Of the 3,300 known addicts in Canada, two thirds could be found in that neighbourhood of Vancouver. Today the addict population is much larger and the problem is much more serious. Young addicts are using between 15 and 20 caps a day, some as many as 35 caps. You can work out the arithmetic of the massive use and see how much crime results from a habit this big.
There has been so much oratory in this chamber today that perhaps it is time to put before hon. members some basic facts about the drug situation. I am aware of various facets of the law. I am not a lawyer but have worked in the streets and have been involved in observing nearly every facet of crime. I have worked in the courts, in the prisons, on parole cases, in the streets with addicts, and with hippies. They have even crashed my living room. I talked freely to them and learned from them. I have been close to the judiciary, to the legal profession and to the police doing law enforcement. I plan to go back to the streets again soon to bring my knowledge up to date. I spent half a day in Vancouver two weeks ago to obtain up-to-date information. I used to go out regularly, once a month, to find out what had happened since the drug scene exploded in 1966.
Today, following the drug user explosion which took place in Vancouver in 1966 and, to a lesser degree, in Toronto and Montreal, there is hardly a street in British Columbia on which you will not find drugs. Originally, of course, drugs simply meant heroin. There was little marijuana or cannabis about. Now you will find MDA, a high powered acid, amphetamines, particularly one called speed which kills-as they know in Toronto-cocaine, which we have not seen in British Columbia for 40 years, opium, the old time drug and elephant weed or Thai stick. How many of you have heard of that powerful form of cannabis?
In addition you will find cannabis in various forms. People say the drug is harmless, less dangerous than alcohol. Let me say here and now that alcohol is indeed the most dangerous drug. Who can say that if cannabis were to be freely available in society in the same manner as alcohol is freely available we will not see 750,000 cannabis addicts? If I had time I would tell you the damage cannabis does.
Organized Crime
Much research has been done into cannabis for the past 30 years. The term cannabis may cover various forms of the drug. For instance, there is marijuana, which varies in strength and degree of effectiveness. I am putting this simply because some members may not be aware of what is happening. Some having started need more and stronger cannabis. Others say, "If you have not tried it, don't knock it." I have not tried it. It is against the law, and it should stay that way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: It varies in strength, depending on where it was grown, under what temperature conditions and so on. Hashish has long been known as the assassin's drug. It is 10 times as strong as ordinary marijuana. Liquid hashish is 10 times as strong as plain hashish, or 100 times stronger than marijuana.
What has happened? Despite the protestations of swingers in our society who want to be "with it", who said that cannabis is not dangerous, the number of addicts has increased from 3,300, of whom 2,200 were in that notorious area of Vancouver, to God knows what number nowadays. You will find their numbers increased dramatically in the two major cities of eastern Canada, and now, as I say, there are God knows how many addicts. You cannot walk on any street in downtown Vancouver in B.C. without seeing them.
There is a difference between the heroin addict of the old days and the modern addict. The old addict was euphoric, without the courage to engage in violence. To obtain drugs the old addict went into prostitution, shoplifting or burglary. At that time a cap cost only $5. Today the western addict is the way the New York addict has been for many years, a violent, dangerous killer. Studies show that the New York addict progressed, in the main, from cannabis to heroin. At least 70 per cent have followed that path. I am certain that the use of a combination of drugs is responsible for the emergence of violence in Vancouver.
Many professionals-doctors, lawyers, social workers, academics and other "with it" people-tried to ingratiate themselves with the young by "doing their thing". Unfortunately, the problem grew too big for the police to handle. Young people started to call the police pigs and, as you will recall, the police countered by saying, "If you are in trouble call a hippy." The police of Vancouver have done a good job, and they could do much better if their efforts were not nullified by the courts. They want people to help them. No doubt we need a larger force to cope with the problem. Often they need to do one job three times, largely because of the work of judges and lawyers.
The courts are not working to resolve the problem. Their actions are aggravating it. The police will work as much as five years gathering evidence through intensive surveillance for a charge or series of charges. The arrest is made and, within a few hours, bail is set and the accused is out on the street. These people have to intensify their drug pushing. They have to raise more money to pay their lawyer or, if there is a possibility of incarceration, to take off to somewhere else. Judges have handed down almost minimal sentences. The court of appeal recently reversed a sentence handed down by a provincial judge who had

November 12, 1974
Organized Crime
sentenced a major pusher to a fine of $15,000 with three years to pay or five months in jail. A major drug pusher can raise $15,000 within a month.
Let me tell you how quickly drug pushers can grow rich. Several years ago I was involved with a motorcycle gang.


Mr. Peters:: You don't look the type.


Simma Holt: I will show you how to use a chain some day, if I really get rough. This young punk I am thinking of could not even afford his 50 cent initiation fee into a motorcycle gang- that's how poor he was. He could not afford to pay his dues at one time. Today, as a non-user pusher, he has at least five pieces of real estate in Vancouver and drives the latest model Mercedes-Benz.
In the spring of 1966 I began a book on teenagers. I discussed the changing morality of the young. I had two paragraphs dealing with LSD and marijuana. Then came Dr. Timothy Leary of Harvard, the great guru of the psychedelic cult, and all his followers. There were many in Canada, including a very famous doctor from Montreal who said that neither of these drugs was dangerous. By fall I had to stop production of that book because the situation had exploded. Originally we had only heard about this from Haight-Ashbury and the east end of New York. At that time there was nothing in Canada. It was not even enough for a footnote in a book.
In September, four months later, I sat with the young who came from eastern Canada, St. Catharines, Durham, Windsor, Hamilton. They were all eastern transients. We called them "hippies". In those days there was only one house of hippies. We called it a crash pad. Within two months every part of the city had these houses filled with circles of pot smokers. In addition, they were mainlining speed. I watched a boy mainline and rush against the wall.
They were joy popping heroin and smoking opium. Two draft dodgers in one house were showing them how to flag. That is shooting a needle in your arm and watching the blood come up.


An hon. Member:: Really?


Simma Holt: Maybe you know about it. Maybe you are experts. But the way you talked today I did not think you knew about drugs.
The next thing we knew, they were mainlining chocolate cake, syrup and peanut butter. That was how the needle freak began and heroin started. We saw it all start. Then, as now, in this great and beautiful House members were playing their usual games and not paying attention to what was happening across this country.


An hon. Member:: The Liberals were in office.


Simma Holt: You were all involved! You only wanted to make Hansard'.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: Today this subject has been raised in a serious way. It is not political. There is only one member of this House who has made it something political, silly

and immature. I must apologize, Mr. Speaker, for being rude. I have a lot to say, but I guess I had better not.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.


Simma Holt: Are you a lawyer? Are you a lawyer who has done what they did in Prince George? A lawyer rushed to get 14 out on bail on April 6 of this year. They are now pushing more intensively. They come in regularly with their drugs. There is a flash flood of drugs in Prince George, a little city in northern British Columbia. They come there with their drugs, and then get out before the police can do anything. These 14 are still awaiting trial. Justice delayed is justice denied to individuals and to society. That is your legal cliche.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Simma Holt: Could I have just one more minute, Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have already given a minute for the applause. The hon. member can continue only with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Will the hon. member permit a question during the course of her remarks?


Simma Holt: Yes, it makes it easier.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The hon. member indicated that in Vancouver drug addiction used to be restricted to about half a block. She put the figure at about 3,300 people. She also indicated that this disease now affects all classes. Does she agree that the reason we are debating this is that this disease now affects the middle class in Canada? One of the reasons we are finally waking up to the problem is that it is affecting our children. We should have been concerned for years about the same problem.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: I absolutely agree that is true. It is now the children of the professionals and the middle class. That is what has happened. I do not disagree with that.
It was not 3,300 on Vancouver's notorious corner on Hastings Street. There were 2,200 there and 1,100 for the rest of Canada. That is an estimate. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I am not used to speaking from prepared notes and I am sort of lost.
Recently the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) was forced to move by direct indictment in order to get 24 people accused with respect to a drug ring importing from the Golden Triangle, in south east Asia, Laos, Burma and Thailand. There was a mass of undercover work and the arrest of 24 people. As a result drugs in Vancouver have temporarily dried up. Violence has increased. There is not a night goes by without three or four people being attacked. A policeman was shot within the last week. Unfortunately the minister had to move by direct indictment in order to get this case quickly before the courts.
November 12, 1974

Major cases have been delayed in coming before the courts by various stalling techniques. Two and a half years later there is an acquittal because the policemen cannot possibly handle the evidence of years before, mixed with the masses of crime that followed it.
I will simply go on to my recommendations. I have background for them. Mr. Speaker, I think there is a stiffening of public attitude toward drugs and crime. I hope there will be a stiffening here in this House.
We must fill the loopholes that now exist in the Bail Reform Act, but in the meantime we must use the 72 hour holding time which allows the courts to get information. This prevents the release of a drug pusher. If there is evidence of a massive drug operator, and that knowledge is before the courts, I hope bail will be denied. This will entail a speedy trial. I do not believe people should be kept in prison for long periods while the courts play with their cases.
There should be a review of the law on capital punishment to include the mass killers, which are what drug pushers are in our society. I know men are still in prison for life on commuted death sentences for killing one person in a fight; yet we allow these people to go out again on the street and kill thousands and thousands of young people.
I would recommend that we implement, as quickly as possible, Part II of the Narcotics Control Act. It is now on the books, but it has never been implemented. It would require all levels of government to achieve its purposes. It provides for the compulsory treatment of addicts. This is similar to what has happened in Japan and the way they are solving the problem there. But in Japan the addict coming for treatment and returning to drugs, immediately returns to the treatment centre. There is no secret that he must go back if he returns to drugs, and there is no such thing as mere possession. A person who is using drugs today must be a pusher, and there is no conscience among drug users; they will push it on anyone to get their own supplies.
I agree with the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe that there should be preventative correction. It goes back to day one in the life of a child, where there must be intervention to help families who cannot cope with their own problems.
We must find a way to put sanctions on countries like Turkey and those in the Golden Triangle which produce and distribute drugs throughout the world for non-medical use. It is a known fact that social solutions can never keep up with social problems. Perhaps today there was more talk than action, but on serious problems such as we are discussing today this great House of Commons should be seeking answers and solutions.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt -Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join the others who have congratulated the mover of this motion, not only for bringing this matter to the attention of the House but also for his initial presentation, his reasoned, constructive, philosophical approach to this subject. I should also like to congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs.
Organized Crime
Holt), who has just preceded me. It is obvious to me from the manner in which she presented her case, as well as from my reading of some of the work she has written, that she is perhaps the most knowledgeable person in this area that we have in the House today.
I take it that one of the main roles of parliament is to highlight national problems as revealed to us as members of parliament in our contact with constituents, and in our mail. Organized crime, and law enforcement in connection with organized crime, are certainly one of those problems today. I take it also that the role of the opposition is to criticize from time to time, to propose courses of action, and to suggest alternatives for the government to implement.
I thought I had the parameters of this problem sorted out earlier on this debate until I heard the speech given by the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand). He added another dimension which I find quite terrifying. Not being legally trained I was not aware of the implications of this particular aspect. In this area of international crime I find that the fracturing of responsibility, as mentioned by the minister, is one of the greatest sources of concern. It is one we have overlooked; because of split jurisdictions there is an ever present risk of breakdown in communications, of failure to take action where action is required, and of the danger that we shall fall between two stools or between more than two stools, maybe half a dozen stools, and here we are, flat, to the detriment of society.
We are pleading therefore in this debate for an assertion of positive leadership by the central government in contemplating this international phenomenon, this terrifying spectre. I underline the words "international phenomenon". Only the federal government can act in this area. It must do so.
Two weeks ago I visited all the high schools in my riding. I fondly imagined when I had made arrangements to visit these high schools that I would impart information. It turned out pretty much the other way. I came away with the feeling that I was carrying back with me a good deal more information than I had left behind. One of the most terrifying bits of information I got was connected with drugs. However, from one class-let's be fair-I learned of a community effort in trying to determine whether a pond was being contaminated because of the flow of some polluting material. That was a good community venture.
But in another class, what did I learn? One subject they wanted to talk about was marijuana. "Why don't we legalize it?" they asked. Why don't we make it possible for them to get marijuana? I argued that to do so would be leading further and further into a morass, and that it would lead to heroin. They denied it entirely. "How do you know it will?" they asked. "Have you ever tried it?" "I have never tried it", I told them. "All right, don't talk to us because we have tried it and we know. It does not lead to heroin".
I take the words of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway quite seriously because I know she has studied this seriously, and when she says it leads on, I take it it leads on. I am going to send a copy of these proceedings to that class, not because of my contribution but because of the other contributions which have been made here today.
285.43 - 11

November 12, 1974
Organized Crime
They asked me how I knew it would lead to heroin if I had never tried it. How could I be so positive about it.
The argument continued, and they brought up alcohol and said "Why don't you do something about alcohol?" Well, we all admit alcohol is a problem. I held my ground, but I do not think I persuaded them. I said we were now confronted with a new hallucinogenic compound whose long term effects we did not know, so why broaden the permissive use of this until more is known. We have gone through the alcohol-prohibition kick. We are aware of the evils to which it could give rise, biologically, socially and domestically. We must exercise extreme caution.
Here we have something relatively new on the horizon. Are we going to take those steps which the young want, to legalize even the drug they consider the least harmful, cannabis? I am persuaded that if this is done we will not know the end of that road. We should exercise a good deal more caution regarding drug use than is the case with alcohol when we allocate funds for extensive research, something to which I shall return.
My other reason for urging that there be no extension is in the very nature of the people now using it-people with active, enquiring minds out to experiment. We all did this in our own way at that age, but happily I like to think without such inflammatory materials or quite such dangerous substances. Because of the adventurousness of these youngsters, many may try marijuana and, because the experience seems to give them some sort of a lift, they will try something else, and then they will take more and more. With the ever increasing threshold of tolerance about which we have just heard, they go from cap to cap to many caps, and the problem increases. The social consequences of this course of action are calamitous; we see some evidence of this today.
It is rather interesting to speculate why the roles have changed a little bit on the alcohol-drug scene. These children spoke about the damage that alcohol was doing in their lives. They saw their adult parents in the pubs on Saturday night, then come reeling home while the kids were wondering when supper would be served. The role is now changing: it is the children who are off on a trip and the parents are agonizing where they are, what is going to happen to them and how far they have got mixed up in drugs.
I have also been at meetings where mothers and fathers of drug addicted children pleaded for help. They did not know where to turn. They turn to the police, to social workers and to doctors, but so far there seems to be no real help given these parents, at least not within our present framework. Not enough time or money is devoted to this purpose. Closer municipal, provincial and federal co-operation is required, and I hope the day is not far off when this co-operation will be forthcoming.
There is a court record that appears regularly in either the Colonist or the Times in my area, and 80 per cent of the cases of one particular judge are in the sordid area of drug addiction. Children of 18, 19 and 20 come back to court, and back again. The rulings and endurance of this judge in face of this addiction are stoic in the extreme and he

deserves the maximum support of our community. I hope that the solutions he is looking for will one day emerge.
I maintain that in present day society there has been a breakdown-this was evident from my discussions in the schools-in discipline and self-control within the family, within the schools and within the community. This promotes disrespect for law and for law enforcement. This is a subject that requires much more careful study before we can return to an era when discipline and self-control are qualities that are admirable, not qualities that people can say are of no account.
I am not all that enamoured of statistics, and we have had a good many statistics referred to us tonight showing how many drug addicts there are in Vancouver and in British Columbia in general, and how much it costs to support drug addiction. The figures I have in front of me are official, and show there are 6,500 addicts on the lower mainland, requiring some $350,000 a day to support the habit. I understand more extensive statistics suggest that this figure is closer to 15,000 and that the daily cost is $1 million. These are figures we have heard tonight, but they are worth repeating on the record of today's debate. These aberrations and moral derelictions are supported, promoted, aided and urged on by organized crime, crime that is organized on an international scale.
What can we do, Mr. Speaker, to come to grips with this problem? First of all, 1 suggest we must help the police. We must assist in getting the crime detection duties of our police forces assigned their proper priority, with crime detection itself at the top of the list. Professional training is needed. It has been mentioned before, but I repeat there are other duties now being performed by our police forces which might well be performed by those who are less professionally trained. These lesser duties need to be done, but not at the expense of the high priority that criminal detection requires.
Raids have been carried out, of course, and some of the drugs in use have been picked up; this fact was mentioned by the speaker who immediately preceded me. Rather than cite examples of this, I think some other facts ought to be put on the record. These are to be found in a report already mentioned by a number of speakers, the report by CLEU, initiated by the B.C. government. Federal support was given, but this report was initiated by the B.C. government, for reasons I find difficult to understand; leadership should have come from Ottawa. This report refers to the price spread of these products from when they first arrive until they get on the street. From a price of $7,500 for one pound, purchased direct from the Orient and delivered to Vancouver, the price rises to $22,000 to $25,000 when purchased by the distributor from the importer.


An hon. Member:: Beryl Plumptre should look into that.


Donald W. Munro: Yes, the price spread here is incredible; it just about triples. From a price of $3,000 per ounce purchased at the middleman level we go to $550 to $625 for one bundle of 25 caps as purchased by the street dealer or pusher. So hon. members can see that the price of this product multiplies astronomically. Exponential logarithms have nothing on these prices in the drug field. Prices in various parts of Canada are also cited by the report, which appeared in the Vancouver Sun on
November 12, 1974

October 26, not so very long ago, page 7. This report is very definitely worth reading. Nothing on this scale would be possible without the massive intervention of organized international crime, with criminals battening on to a society whose defences are not what they ought to be.
There is mentioned, in these various extracts, the attention being focused on the many dangers of drug and drug abuse by the B.C. provincial government. There was also the provincial government inquiry by the B.C. Alcoholic and Drug Commission, and its report I think is also worthy of quoting. Since this is the library copy I did not feel I should mark it up, Mr. Speaker, so I will have to search through it for the particular item. I should really have used my red pencil to get these sorted out. There are very clear references in this report of the B.C. Alcoholic and Drug Commission report which indicate that this problem is going from bad to worse.
I have mentioned the role our policemen can play. In the community in which I live we have an extremely fine police force composed of officers who have been deeply involved and committed to community work. There are several who do a great deal in this particular field, and in the recovery of those who have lost their way in other areas and for other reasons. One particular man I think of is highly respected in the community and is always sought by the students and young people themselves. This is the sort of role a policeman should play.
I think it was the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane) who mentioned the need for a close relationship between the policeman and the community. He said that in his early days the policeman was always a friend. We now hear, and it is regrettable that they are all too often called "pigs". They cannot remain in that categorization in the minds of our young people. They must return to the role of being friends, counsel and advisers in our communities.
In one quotation I was unable to find from the B.C. Alcoholic and Drug Commission Report there is a passage I think deserves mention at this stage. The report suggests that it is not going to be government activity alone that will solve everything. It suggests that when people begin to take responsibility for their actions we will then be reaching the point where we will be able to do something about this. This is the line I tried to adopt when I was talking to high school students. I said their actions are going to lead to consequences of which they are not aware. I suggested that they beware of that course of action as they cannot do something like this and get away with it. This is just not possible.
We also heard the note sounded last week by the Law Reform Commission which was quoted by my hon. friend-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of allowing others to speak I will refrain from summarizing the various points I have tried to make.
Organized Crime


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Mr. Speaker, like many others who have preceded me in this debate today I should like to add my congratulation to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) on the philosophical manner in which he put the problems, as he terms them in his motion, of "interprovincial crime rings . .. operating out of control in the drug trade in British Columbia, the loan shark business in Ontario and in mafia-type conspiracies in Quebec".
The problems of international and interprovincial crime are, indeed, problems that have occupied the minds of the law makers and law enforcers of this nation and, indeed, of nations throughout the world since the beginning of time. In order to conquer these problems we need fundamental laws. I submit to you that this parliament in the last few years has been passing consistently such laws. We need in addition to good law enforcement-and this requires co-operation at all levels, municipal, provincial and federal, of law enforcement agencies-to ensure that the criminal who dares break the law will meet with the most severe sanctions this parliament can possibly determine.
As is the case with many problems, there are in respect of the drug addict legal problems and medical problems as well. This was pointed out by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). I feel that in the case of a person who is truly sick, the man who is addicted to the use of this most terrible drug, heroin, and who is at the same time a pusher, he is taking the place of the chain store and the supermarkets on the streets of British Columbia as well as other parts of our nation. It is through that supermarket chain that most people are introduced to the use of heroin. The man who himself must feed his own habit by inducing others to become addicted to drugs is the man who epitomizes the most serious problem we have to face in combating the addiction to drugs, especially heroin, across this nation.
If we go back in the chain of supply we must inevitably come to the commercial trafficker in drugs. Perhaps I might be permitted to call upon my own personal experience in the practice of law in citing a case which illustrates two things; the great benefit which accrues to those who are commercial traffickers in drugs, and the great courage of police officers of this country, as well as of international police forces, in attempting to curb this type of crime.
The particular case I cite took place in this city some few years ago. It involved the co-operation of the United States Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, the RCMP and the Ottawa city police. At the time there was a quantity of heroin of a purity of about 99 per cent being offered for sale. The transaction was to take place in a prominent hotel in this city. I commend the officers involved in this undercover operation for their heroism.
There was one officer in a room with four persons who were trafficking in this drug. The amount involved was valued at some $2.5 million.
He was alone in the room and, as the criminals came in, they frisked him to make sure that he had no weapon on him. His coat was off and a gun was stuck in the small of
28543-11%

November 12, 1974
Organized Crime
his back. He was confronted by international elements, one of whom was a French national with a French passport, another a citizen of the United States, and two musclemen who were from the city of Ottawa. They came in to the room with this lone officer who weighed perhaps 150 pounds, a small, defenceless man, by himself, with three and a half kilos of pure heroin. He was there alone to represent the law enforcement agents of this community and in fact all of us.
As the result of good police work international co-operation and good laws in this case, as well as the result of the wiretap which was being taken of the transaction, immediately upon the transaction having been consumat-ed and the illicit substance delivered in the hotel room in Ottawa-the money was delivered simultaneously in another hotel room in New York city, the French national, we believed, having brought the substance to the city- they were all arrested at the same time. As a result of the fact that RCMP officers were in adjacent rooms-I have said there was an undercover operator in the room where the transaction was taking place-and the good work of the Ottawa city policemen-all of whom could have been shot and killed suddenly but this was prevented by better use of detective information-everything ended well.
If I mention that story in order to point out that to combat this type of international crime we in Canada must have effective police work, coupled with good laws, and the best possible technological equipment available to help the police forces.
Let me refer back to the last parliament, the twenty ninth parliament, when, on two separate occasions, the Conservative Party and the NDP joined to vote against the government. On both occasions they produced a catastrophe for themselves and, I believe, for the people of Canada. The last one of those occasions was on July 8 when they voted against us and suffered a loss. The result of that has been a good strong government on this side. But prior to that, and the only other time that the two opposition parties joined their forces to vote against us, was when they wanted to introduce into the protection of privacy act a 90 day warning period, which would mean that 90 days after a wiretap is authorized against someone suspected of having committed a crime he would be notified of it.
Originally the period for which wiretapping was authorized was only 30 days which, in my submission, is far too short a time to allow for any proper detective or investigative work, but in the event that they do not come upon sufficient evidence to lay a charge, at the end of 90 days they would have to notify the person who is under investigation that he has been under electronic surveillance. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe and the hon. member for New Westminster brought forward that amendment which would have prohibited the type of investigation to which I have referred, which resulted in the apprehension and conviction of international criminals dealing in this most reprehensible of crimes, that is, international trafficking in heroin.
The investigation to which I have referred took many months, many months in the United States and many months in Canada, and the wiretap evidence which was produced at the trial of those individuals was secured by a

court order, not a court order in the province of Ontario or any other jurisdiction within the province, but a court order obtained by the Supreme Court of the State of New York, because that was where the tap was finally put on. There was constant communication between Ottawa and New York while this transaction was taking place.
So it does not make sense for a member of the official opposition to say on one hand that we should do everything we can to combat organized crime-and I agree with that-and on the other hand to speak out of both sides of his mouth and deny agencies what they need in order to investigate and keep under surveillance at all times persons who are engaged in the most reprehensible of all crimes, that is, commercial trafficking in heroin.
The one who is causing us more problems, however, but who could not exist were it not for the former, is the one who is selling four or five caps a day and who is himself an addict and under compulsion, because of his need to feed his habit, to sell to others and, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) said, to induce young children to form this insidious habit. The Narcotic Control Act dates back to 1960 when we were in a different age, a different time. It seems to me that the act needs to be reviewed in its entirety by the government in light of the changing circumstances and changing attitudes of society with respect to the use of drugs. The act has been amended since it was passed in 1960, but not sufficiently.
The riding which I represent has within its boundaries many primary and secondary schools, colleges and universities, and it is of great concern to the people in this community, as it is to the people of British Columbia and all across Canada, that we do what we can, and that we do it as quickly as we can, to point out to the young people- and as a father of five teenagers I am fully aware of the importance of this-that the use of drugs can lead to nothing but harm for them and for those with whom they associate.
The bail reform laws that we have in this country now have had a salutary effect in ensuring that those people who do not have enough money and who were formerly refused bail are now granted their freedom. However, in the prosecution of drug offences it is more the rule than otherwise that a person who is charged with trafficking in heroin is immediately released on bail. And immediately upon his release he will have to go back to his old pattern in order to feed his habit. Such people are often arrested again for the same crime.
I would suggest to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) that the Bail Reform Act should be looked at closely in view of the facts that have emerged since its introduction. Perhaps it should be amended to give precise instructions to the judges who are charged with administering it, rather than the onus being placed on the Crown to demonstrate that the person involved is not likely to show for his trial or that he is likely to commit another crime. We might get to the position where such persons would be kept in custody so long as there was evidence to indicate the likelihood of their committing the same crime again!
I understand that in Vancouver some 3,000 drug cases are awaiting trial. This is because of the Bail Reform Act
November 12, 1974

on the one hand and because of legal aid too, although the latter is a good thing. The same backlog exists in Toronto. As the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway said a few moments ago, "Justice delayed is justice denied".
I am afraid that during the two years some of those people out on bail are awaiting trial they may commit the same crime again. Unfortunately, even if convicted of the second crime committed while on bail, the sentence is often not as severe as it should be.
If I may comment briefly on the statement of the hon. member for New Westminster, Mr. Speaker, I believe we are dealing with more than just a medical problem when we are dealing with the addict who is also a pusher. This is a very serious social problem which this parliament must face, and perhaps it will be necessary for us to review the Narcotic Control Act in order to deal with it. Traffickers may indeed be sick but they are also committing a criminal offence. There should be strict conditions for parole and medical treatment for such offenders, but not just paper parole and paper medical treatment. There should be effective supervision so that if they dare move into that field again, or induce other persons to use drugs, they would be incarcerated, whether for medical treatment or the protection of society.
Our fundamental problem is how to deter people from engaging in this and indeed all types of criminal activity, and thereby protect society. I heard the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) say that the method of fighting crime in Canada is wrong. Mr. Speaker, my investigations and research indicate that our law enforcement agencies are among the most highly respected in the world. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is one of the most highly thought of anywhere.


Donald W. Munro: Let's keep it that way.


Fabian Hugh Poulin: The immediate past commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was named as president of Interpol in the last session, which would indicate that the RCMP is regarded highly by the law enforcement agencies of other nations. I think we in this House and this country should be giving our police forces the best and latest technological assistance available to encourage them in their fight against crime. This would be in the best interests of the people of Canada.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, while this country of late has been concerned with the high cost of living and the accompanying economic problems-and so it should-I am pleased that the time has come to bring attention to bear on an area of equally great concern to virtually every Canadian, even if just for a day. I refer, of course, to the ever-growing crime rate and even, in many cases, to the very issue of life and death. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) should be congratulated for bringing this matter before the House in such an eloquent manner.
The rate of criminal activity is increasing daily in our society and, quite simply, current methods of crime control are obviously not working. We find organized crime making giant inroads into every major city in this country. For example, in Toronto alone, organized crime is
Organized Crime
already well established from the loan sharking field to the narcotics trade. All resources of our police department are being utilized to the maximun and, despite this, we are falling behind in the race even to hold the line on the spread of organized crime in this country.
Of all criminal activities, the most infectious and dangerous is that of the narcotics trade. No one crime so destroys any individual. No one crime is more responsible for over-all criminal activity such as theft, breaking and entering, robbery, prostitution, and crimes of violence within the criminal community itself. For no one crime is it so difficult to convict the ringleaders. No one crime accounts for more police requirements than does this area of activity. Those criminals involved are the worst in our society, for they pick on the weak, the confused, the frustrated and the young, and they spread a disease worse than cancer, a disease that could not only ruin an individual but destroy our whole way of life.
As if this is not enough, we must consider the inroads being made by these traffickers in human misery among our children. Recent reports have indicated an increase in prostitution among 13 and 14 year old girls in an effort to feed their drug habits. In southern Ontario alone the growth of the illegal drug trade has been made painfully obvious by the huge quantities of drugs seized by police authorities. In addition, a number of illegal drug laboratories catering not only to the southern Ontario market but to the export market as well, have been uncovered. It becomes difficult, if not impossible, even to estimate the illicit drug market in this country, but several million dollars each day is not an exaggerated figure.
In spite of all this-in spite of the human misery and the increasing pressure on the police to combat the growth of this illegal drug activity, what do we find the government doing? Mr. Speaker, rather than increasing penalties for importing and trafficking in narcotics and attacking the problem head on, as New York State has done with its tough legislation, the Liberal government sounds out a policy of relaxation on such laws.
I for one would not hesitate to go as far as having trafficking in narcotics included as a capital offence. To touch on capital punishment, Mr. Speaker, when is the government going to have the backbone and guts to enforce the regulations regarding capital punishment already in existence? I refer of course to the killing of policemen and prison guards in the execution of their duty. The time has come to let the criminal element of this country know that the wanton slaying of those who uphold our laws shall be punishable with death. They should pay with their lives. We should set the example, not merely speak about it.
In addition, the parole system which has permitted convicted killers to come out of jail and kill again must no longer be tolerated. Similarly, maximum security institutions to which our hardened criminals have been sentenced must be administered by competent custodians, and not simple minded political hacks who apparently permit these killers to come and go as they please, as witnessed recently at St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary for the third or fourth time in as many years.

November 12, 1974
Organized Crime
Consider this headline in today's Toronto Star, "Escaped killer admits 2 more murders". Arthur Gagnier wrote an "Open Letter to Society", which was published in that newspaper. Gagnier, first convicted of murder at 17, admitted he has killed twice more since he escaped from prison in August. For how long will the government allow this situation to exist? If Gagnier is caught, will the capital punishment provisions of the Criminal Code come into effect? This has not happened in the past, and I doubt if the present government will insist on capital punishment being inflicted in these circumstances.
No killer has the right to inflict his presence on society after he has been sentenced for murder. For if he does, he is living proof that society has no desire to protect itself or protect those hired to protect lives and property. To let him back into society makes a mockery of the law, makes a mockery of those who enacted the legislation, and of those who elected the representatives who passed the legislation.
Another area in which organized crime has made major advances is that of money lending, more commonly known as loan-sharking. In Toronto this practice has led organized criminals to place more and more funds at the disposal of such money lenders. It is estimated that upwards of $100 million is on loan in the cities of Toronto and Montreal. This figure may not be large by itself; but consider the repayment plans. Commonly, 25 per cent is taken off the top of the loan; in addition, between 25 per cent and 50 per cent is charged on the balance each month.
Surely no one is so naive as not to believe the stories of harassment, intimidation and physical injury which result from non-payment. There are many such examples in Toronto alone. Right now an individual in my city is missing and believed dead by the police because of nonrepayment of his loan to loan sharks. It is time for new legislation which will bring these loan sharks to trial. Let us plug loopholes in the Criminal Code and in the Small Loans Act which permit the operations of loan sharks.
Many other areas of crime should come under investigation. For example, to what degree have labour unions been infiltrated by the underworld? To what extent has the laundering of dirty money through legitimate business enterprises been accomplished in this country? To what extent is organized crime manipulating our stock exchanges; and, most important, what can be done to turn the tide in favour of our law enforcement agencies?
Obviously although an increase in manpower would be an asset and greater budgets for technical improvement welcome, such action alone is not enough. Without the legal tools, and without the backing of our courts, we are tying the hands of those very organizations we expect to protect us. Civil liberties organizations demand more and more rights for criminals and are getting them, at the expense of the honest, hard working citizens of this country. They have obtained so much that it has become virtually impossible for police investigation officers to secure convictions in any but the most straightforward and simple cases. In retrospect I, for one, feel that the passage of the wiretapping bill was, in the words of Toronto Police Chief Harold Adamson, "a moment of joy throughout the criminal community". Investigations which might take long months of surveillance if a conviction is to be 
obtained will now be limited to a 90-day period. The hope of conviction in international conspiracies is virtually eliminated.
It is my fervent wish that after this debate we shall see established a government committee which will present new meaningful legislation to equip crime fighting agencies throughout this country with better tools and more power to combat our ever increasing criminal element. Surely the time has come to declare this country's intention to afford safeguards and protection for its citizens.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the mover of the motion, not for what he said in the motion but for the sentiments he expressed. He used to be known as a law and order judge, but in his speech he showed a breadth of sympathy which was refreshing. Let me say this, however: if we were sitting on a jury instead of in the House of Commons, we should be a hung jury. I am glad of the many changes in the law which we introduced in previous parliaments, because they certainly would not be introduced in the present parliament.
Almost everyone who participated in the debate was in favour of capital punishment for all sorts of offences. The last speaker included two or three that had not been mentioned previously. That is not the way to overcome society's difficulties. We, as legislators, must remember that we are not legislating for the present only; we are legislating for future generations. Many ideas expressed today were retrograde rather than progressive.
Little has been said about organized crime in general. An hon. lady spoke about drugs and suggested she knew more than some others about the subject. That may well be so. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) suggested that we should look at the whole problem and decide how best to solve it. The best way may not be by sending people to jail. God knows, Canada has an unenviable record in sending people to jail. We have the largest jail population, in percentage terms, of any civilized country. If we do what some members suggest, we should need even more jails. Why, we could not even keep up with the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) who seems to think that the solution to our problems is more and bigger penitentiaries.


Walter David Baker: And letting criminals escape.


William Arnold Peters: We have to let them escape because we can't build jails fast enough.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: A few moments ago an hon. member was talking about the problem of alcohol. He talked of the relationship between the problem of alcohol and problems that affected the previous generation. Today alcohol is probably the major problem in the United States. More difficulties are caused by it than all the other drugs put together.
I am interested in what happened to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). Sam Bronfman is one of the most wealthy men in this world. He
November 12, 1974

owns Seagrams Distillery. That institution existed during prohibition. Immense profits were made in illegal rum running across the border between the United States and Canada. The Minister of National Health and Welfare should be looking at the problem of alcohol in this country instead of accepting a ride in a private plane owned by Seagrams Distillery.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: What is wrong with that?


William Arnold Peters: Maybe there is nothing wrong with that, but it seems to me there is a hell of a lot that is not right with a minister who does not see anything wrong with it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: A lot has been said about drugs. I do not know much about them, but I do know some of the problems they have created. Youth today look at most adults as outsiders.


Walter David Baker: Squares.


William Arnold Peters: Yes, squares, one of the reasons is that we have not looked at the Le Dain Report with a view to legalizing or removing marijuana from the penal code.
A few minutes ago a member talked about the RCMP. He stated how wonderful they are. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, they are much like the Ontario Provincial Police who, over the years, have made their reputation tearing up and down the roads on weekends catching people speeding. Previously in this House I mentioned the problem where the RCMP broke into a woman's bathroom. That is what the RCMP, do Mr. Speaker.
What do they accomplish over a weekend? Two or three kids are caught drinking in a pub under age, and one or two kids are caught for personal possession of marijuana. Does that do anything for society? Does it help the situation?
I agree with the hon. member for Saint Hyacinthe. We have to look at the problem and we have to do it in a social sense. In the United States they have said that an addict is not sick. A doctor can no longer prescribe cocaine for his patients.
Great Britain had the same problem. They handled it in a different way. They decided these people could be helped medically. They introduced the registration of addicts, and began to treat them. There are many indications of the results in Great Britain. The crime rate in any major city on the North American continent indicates the results we have had.
Members of parliament should look at this problem in the social sense. For many years they have looked at it in a sense of punishment. That is totally unsatisfactory.
It is not the people on the street who are getting rich. The people who are getting rich are those in organized crime. Even though they are known to the police, they are untouchable. There is not a member of this House who does not know where money can be obtained from one of the crime fields in the drug industry.
Adjournment Debate
We have not attacked this problem. We do not appear to be prepared to attack. I agree with the hon. member for Saint Hyacinthe that it is time wo looked at this problem. What are the social ills being caused by this problem? We must take steps to do something about this.
Policemen in this country are not highly respected. They do jobs that society will not support. Any police force which tries to enforce laws that society does not believe should be retained is not a satisfactory force. It does not have the support of the community.
It is time that we looked at some of the laws which allow organized crime to flourish. We must bring them into line with the thinking of society. Our police forces could then enforce laws that should be enforced. If we do that, we will not have the hang everybody attitude that most members in this debate have talked about. Members will stand up and say they are prepared to look at what society is now, and what the young people are saying. They will consider the most progressive thought possible. We will have legislation that will enable our police forces to operate in a community spirit, enforcing the laws that we make.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 58, the proceedings on the motion have expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, on November 1 I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) if it was now the opinion of the Canadian government that the Palestinian people should be represented at the Geneva Conference by the PLO. As I indicated in my question, my inquiry was based upon the fact that all the leaders of the Arab states, including His Majesty the King of Jordan, had, at the Rabat summit conference, agreed that the PLO should represent the Palestinian people. My question was also asked against the background of the statement of the Canadian government's point of view expressed by the minister, his predecessor, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), to the effect that the Palestinian people should, in fact, be represented at Geneva.

November 12, 1974
Adjournment Debate
For a long time I had been told that Canada would not prejudge the situation; that the parties involved would decide. I was a little surprised that the minister would reiterate this pat formula after the Rabat conference. If the Canadian government does not agree with the Arab leaders' choice, and apparently it does not or the reply to my question would have been in the affirmative, what group does the government believe should be there? King Hussein has accepted the PLO. Does Canada disagree with him?
I need hardly ask if the government of Canada desires the presence of those splinter Palestinian groups who oppose the PLO for its moderation. Does the government of Canada believe that the Palestinians should appropriately be represented at Geneva by the government of Israel? Putting it simply and directly, it is now a little late to proclaim our unwillingness to prejudge. Judgments of real significance have already been made and we do ourselves and the cause of peace no real good by protective phraseology.
I do not pose questions of this kind to embarrass the minister or the government, for, while I do not have a high regard for the latter, I have the utmost respect and esteem for the former. Rather, am I seeking to stimulate interest in this subject because I verily believe it to be one of the most serious and explosive issues facing the whole of mankind today. The Middle East, the cradle of our civilization, could also be the crucible of its destruction. Through timeless ages this small portion of the globe has heard the clashing of armies and witnessed the crashing of great civilizations. More than once in the last ten years in this House I have recalled fearfully that Armageddon, the prophetic point of no return for mankind, has its locale in the Middle East.
I hope Canada will be strong in the cause of moderation and firm in the exercise of wisdom. We are dealing with an area which has a sad and long record of bad faith, violence, super-power meddling and intense human suffering. It is not helpful now to recall that in the setting up of the state of Israel the U.N. violated one of its fundamental principles-adherence to the right of self-determination.
Nothing is gained, either, by noting that death-dealing raids on Lebanese civilians or Palestinian refugees are no less violent than raids on Israeli citizens within their country. Little is gained by recalling the Arab terrorist acts upon innocent airline passengers while forgetting or condoning the shooting down of a civil Libyan aircraft. Terrorism, violence, threats and intimidation are not the ingredients of settlement.
We must be realistic. It is as unwise as it is immoral to act as though there were no Palestine and no Palestinians. As that brilliant expert on the Middle East, Rabbi Slonim, put it recently: "Only the PLO can be dealt with politically; it is the only representation the Palestinians have. Treating it as though it were not just a monolith of irredeemable terrorists is worth a try."
These and similar counsels of wisdom are worth heeding. Let the Palestinians forsake the threat of some of their numbers to obliterate Israel. It is now a fact of life in

the Middle East. On the other hand, if Israel desires peace-and no part of the region needs it more-let it recognize that its right to existence does not imply existence within borders of its own choosing.
As long ago as 1970, at a meeting of parliamentarians in Cairo, I was presumptuous enough to advise the friends of Palestine as to the unreality of any campaign to erase Israel. At the same time I expressed the view that Israel's borders were not a matter for unilateral decision by that internationally-created entity.
It is my hope that Canada, realistically, patiently and tirelessly, will work toward a day when co-existence will replace terrorism, and violence will give way to enlightened self-interest. I bring to my support a statement by a very great scholar, former President of the Hebrew university in Jerusalem, upon his resignation from the United Jewish Appeal because of its refusal to do anything about the Arab refugees. These are the words of Dr. Juda L. Magnes: "Peace can come only if Israel and Ishmael can feel that they are brothers."


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) has made a number of important comments on the situation in the Middle East. His observations in the House are usually witty, perceptive and helpful. I shall certainly not have the time in the few minutes at my disposal to deal with the complex and delicate situation which prevails in the Middle East at the present time, or with the debates which have taken place at the United Nations General Assembly, particularly the debate to commence tomorrow on the Palestinian question.
The hon. gentleman has referred to the question of the representation of the Palestinians at the upcoming Middle East peace negotiations or discussions that will hopefully lead to a peace settlement. We as a government have taken the view that the Palestinian people ought to be represented at any discussions regarding a settlement in the Middle East. It is obvious that the Palestinians constitute an important party to a future settlement and therefore ought to be represented.
When the matter was put before the United Nations, in explaining our abstention we stated that it was not the intention of the Canadian government to prejudge what the form of that representation ought to be. I think this is an appropriate position for Canada to take. We have taken a fair-minded and objective approach to the Middle East situation, and we think we should leave it to the parties themselves to determine what form such representation ought to take.
It is true that at the Rabat summit conference the Arab countries, apparently with the concurrence of the King of Jordan, accepted the PLO as, in their view, the appropriate representative of the Palestinian people. That, of course, is a new factor in the situation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret interrupting the minister but the time allotted him to reply has expired.
November 12, 1974


CONSUMER AFFAIRS-ALLEGED FAILURE OF POWDERED MILK PROCESSORS AND RETAILERS TO GIVE CONSUMERS BENEFIT OF SUBSIDY-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, on October 25 the Food Prices Review Board revealed that during the course of its regular monitoring inspections it found there were instances where the full benefit of the 24 cents per pound subsidy on skim milk powder was not being reflected in retail prices. This discovery was made in a number of stores in Vancouver, Victoria, Winnipeg, Sudbury and Montreal.
The board further indicated that it was not certain whether the retailers or the country's eight skim milk powder processing companies were at fault, and that it had therefore brought the matter to the attention of the agriculture ministry with a request that steps be taken to ensure that all processors and retailers of skim milk powder comply with the spirit and the letter of the subsidy program.
This revelation by the Food Prices Review Board prompted me to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) on October 28 if he would reveal what steps were being taken by his department to recover the money which had been stolen from the public treasury. The minister replied that he would refer my remarks to the Director of Investigation and Research, who would take action in accordance with the provisions of the act. May I point out here that I firmly believe that this action on the part of the retailer or retailers involved was nothing less than fraudulent, nothing less than theft of public funds. We are talking about a government subsidy being paid to stabilize the price of skim milk powder at a reasonable price to the consumer. It is public money, and it belongs back in the pocket of the consumer.
The Retail Council of Canada disagrees with me. Let me quote from the Ottawa Citizen which recorded the remarks of the Retail Council spokesman, Mr. Smith. According to the Citizen he said this:
Stores need not pass on to shoppers the federal subsidy of 24 cents a pound on skim milk powder. The council has advised grocery stores that they are not obliged to give consumers the subsidy. Mr. Smith said retailers have been told they "run the risk of a certain amount of government criticism" if they refuse to pass on the subsidy.
The Citizen went on to say that no law requires the retailers to let government subsidies influence pricing. Mr. Smith then went on to say that retailers have the right to make their own price decisions. That should give Canadians an idea of where the Retail Council stands on the subject of subsidies. What the Retail Council was in effect saying is that they can pocket the money Canadian taxpayers are contributing in an effort to lower the skim milk powder prices. This kind of logic is really ridiculous.
I am 100 per cent positive that not one Canadian consumer wants his tax dollar going into the bulging pockets of the retailers. I should think that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs would have moved on the basis of this statement from the Retail Council. But no, apparently when the Canadian taxpayer provides a subsidy on a product we have to legislate a law that retailers cannot put that subsidy in their pockets.
Adjournment Debate
Let us at this point review the course of action followed by the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. First they embarked on an investigation, presumably to see if the Food Prices Review Board was telling the truth. They found that, and I quote from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs as reported in Hansard on October 30:
The greater majority of retailers-with only one exception-have passed on the subsidy to consumers.
Apparently the Minister of Agriculture threatened to withdraw the subsidy if the retailer did not comply. I have no argument with that action, but again the logic is ridiculous. However the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs entered into a type of negotiations with the retailer to the effect that: "If you, the retailer, who has been pocketing the taxpayer's money, will now reduce your prices on skim milk powder to an amount equivalent and for a length of time equivalent to that which you overcharged the consumer, then we will not tell the public your name."
Well, for heaven's sake, who does the minister think runs this country? Apparently he does not know, so for his information I should like to point out that taxpayers, the people of Canada, run this country, and they depend upon the minister to make sure their interests are protected. As the minister responsible for consumer affairs he has no darn business protecting the identity of that retailer. I want to know the name of the retailer who was ripping off the Canadian taxpayer and the Canadian consumer, because I do not want to shop there any more, and I bet my constituents do not want to shop there either. I can pick up the newspaper any day and read about the trial of any individual who is accused of wrongdoing. I hope that in his prepared reply the parliamentary secretary to the minister will tell me the name of the retailer who was pocketing the subsidy.
This situation has made it amply clear that the subsidy program as it is presently structured is far too open to ripoffs of the consumer by the retailer. Under its present structure the subsidy is administered by the Department of Agriculture, which pays the subsidy to the processor, who is then responsible for ensuring that the retailer does indeed give the consumer the benefit of such subsidy. If the processor discovers that the subsidy is not being passed on by the retailer, the onus is on the processor to cut off supplies of the subsidized material to the retailer. Then we bave the Food Prices Review Board out watchdogging at public expense, and not having the power even to release the name of the culprit. It is fairly obvious that this Liberal subsidy program does not work for the consumer.
This brings me to my final point, Mr. Speaker. It is absolutely essential that we have a minister of consumer affairs whose purpose is to protect the consumer as he forages for his daily bread in the retail jungle. Indeed, this whole business of the minister being the minister for both consumer and corporate affairs reminds me of the biblical quotation from Matt. 6:24:
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.
To paraphrase, Mr. Speaker, the minister cannot serve the consumer and the companies.
1262

November 12, 1974
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, let me first of all state that, as the hon. member is aware, the responsibility for the skim milk subsidy program as such lies with the Department of Agriculture and not with the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Secondly, as far as the government as a whole is concerned, it is a matter of record that the government not only hoped but fully intended that consumers would receive the full benefit of the subsidy. To this end the Department of Agriculture set up a monitoring program, and through this we know that some outlets have not consistently passed on the subsidy.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) stated in the House on October 28 that his officials have held discussions with the dairy council and the Retail Council of Canada, and have informed non-conforming outlets that the subsidy will be withdrawn from them if it is not fully passed on.
The minister stated, as recorded at page 880 of Hansard for October 30:
The latest report I have had came yesterday. Every retail outlet was passing this saving on to the consumers except for one, and yesterday they thought they would be doing it. I have not received a report on that this morning.
As reported at page 8 of the Globe and Mail of November
5:
A supermarket chain has rolled back a price increase on skim milk powder in face of a Government threat to cut it out of the federal subsidy program. The chain has agreed to lower the price below the regular level by as much as it increased it, and to keep the lower price in effect for as long as it maintained the higher one.
There is no doubt that the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs know and understand the importance of these subsidies being passed on directly to the consumer. The Department of Agriculture has a monitoring program to ensure that that is done, and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, in the areas where subsidies are under our supervisory control, is doing precisely the same thing.


WEIGHTS AND MEASURES-METRIC SYSTEM- COMPENSATION TO SCHOOLS FOR COST OF CONVERSION
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my comments tonight to the matter of metric conversion. In 1970 parliament endorsed the white paper on metric conversion in Canada, and in June, 1971, the Metric Commission was established by order in council. Its major responsibility, within its terms of reference, was to prepare an over-all plan for conversion to the metric system. This responsibility, which was accepted by the federal government and directly transferred to the commission, is, to my mind, not being fully met by the commission at present, and all the ramifications of that conversion are not apparent to Canadians.
In a recent Gallup poll which was made public on November 2 of this year it was made evident that 62 per cent of Canadians who were questioned on whether or not they understood what the metric system meant said they understood the system. Yet when they were asked to

explain what it was, only 33 per cent related it satisfactorily to the decimal system. It was this minimal knowledge which was regarded as satisfactory so far as the purposes of the poll were concerned.
At present we are faced with the actual conversion to the metric system, and the paramount question with which we are confronted is public education, not only education within our public schools at all levels but the education of the public at large, if the system is to work at all. I believe that the cost of this conversion will be astronomical, and I have not as yet seen anyone come up with a clearcut figure of what the conversion will cost.
However, I should like to point out three areas of which I can think immediately where the costs would have to be substantial. One would be the area of land titles. I believe the old ones will become obsolete because they do not have metric linear measurements. Another is highway signs, which are generally the responsibility of provincial governments. I have seen some changes taking place with regard to present mileage measurements. I believe that conversion will present a major cost. Lastly, we will have conversion in the public education system. A start will have to be made to educate people in the metric system.
We should also consider the cost which will have to be borne by an individual who is, let us say, working as an auto mechanic. He will have to buy another set of tools. Surely the government should give some consideration to a tax writeoff or concession to that individual because of the extra costs he will have to bear.
It is my belief that the federal responsibility with regard to the conversion is based on the fact that the federal government made a decision to convert to the metric system. This was the unanimous decision of the House of Commons, and I accept it. It should also be clear that the federal government has a responsibility in cost sharing for all metric conversion in areas where it has not previously taken financial responsibility because of provincial rights. An example of this is education. The Manitoba Association of School Trustees estimates that the cost of conversion for individuals in the academic stream in schools will be approximately $4 per pupil, and about $50 per pupil in the vocational schools.
If we accept that metric conversion is a federal responsibility then surely it is incumbent upon the government to announce, well in advance of conversion, what form of grants or assistance will be made available to public institutions such as school boards, to cover the costs of conversion. The school boards of Canada get their primary funds from local taxpayers, Mr. Speaker, so I believe it is incumbent upon the government to clarify what steps it will take to east the financial burden of metric conversion on such bodies.


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the government in regard to metric conversion was outlined in the White Paper on Metric Conversion laid before the House in January 1970, and approved by the leaders of all parties. Throughout this White Paper the analysis is based on the assumption that
November 12, 1974

the costs of conversion will be borne by those incurring them, just as the benefits flowing from conversion will accrue to the individual organization, either directly or through the general health of the economy.
This policy of costs being borne by those incurring them places pressure on the individual organization to apply to the problem of metric conversion, initiative and enterprise to minimize costs. In fact experience in countries such as Great Britain and Australia, which have followed this policy, confirms that conversion in individual firms has generally been achieved at substantially lower costs than were originally estimated.
In the case of education the responsibility for costs is in the jurisdiction of the provinces. Already work done by
Adjournment Debate
the task force of the Council of Ministers of Education indicates that, with imagination, initiative and ingenuity, costs can be kept down. Conversion is being phased in so that some advantage can be taken of obsolescence and the normal patterns of replacement.
To the extent that there may be, in some cases, an unreasonable burden placed on the budgets of individual school divisions this is primarily a responsibility of the province to meet. However, the benefits that the program of metric conversion will bring to the general health of the economy will be experienced by the provinces and to the same extent as by the federal government.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.
28543-12^2

Wednesday, November 13, 1974