1977-06-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Yegreville):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask unanimous consent-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: The latest convert is taking his seat!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We can only hope that the hon. member will find similar support from the Liberal Association of Hochelaga.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Some of that applause came from your leader.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I guess that's right and it did come from my leader. And 1 am very proud of him, too.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: A rat going to a sinking ship.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I seek the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the latest annual report of the CNR which states that Canadian National earned its first overall profit in 20 years in 1976, and in view of the allegation that CNR has made a miscalculation of more than $20 million in the determination of its subsidies to be received from the Canadian Transport Commission under the provisions of the Railway Act, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That the Minister of Transport make a statement on motions to confirm and explain this discrepancy and, furthermore, to state what impact, if any, the over-calculation of revenues will have on the CNR's 1976 and 1977 revenue and profit status.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43, the motion requires the unanimous consent of the House before it can be presented. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of urgency I ask consent to move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House, noting the findings of the National Council of Welfare in two reports issued this month that over half a million Canadian families, including more than one and a half million persons, are trying to live on incomes from employment that are hundreds or thousands of dollars below the poverty line, and noting the Council's declaration that "the working poor have been ignored too long", calls on the government to introduce without further delay (a) a guaranteed annual income program, (b) other measures to meet the needs of the working poor, and (c) a substantial improvement in the Canada Pension Plan to guarantee to every worker a secure retirement, as urgently recommended by the National Council of Welfare.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43 the presentation for debate of such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Today the Ontario royal commission on violence in the communications industry released its findings, the principal one being that there was, according to the commissioner, a direct link between the increase in violent crime on the streets and violence on television. In view of the fact that most of the recommendations of the commissioner are addressed to the government of Canada and are in fact within federal jurisdiction, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan):
80018-21 Vi

June 15, 1977
Garrison Diversion
That the report of the Ontario royal commission on violence in the communications industry be referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate under Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 seeking unanimous consent on an urgent and pressing matter. In view of the opening today of the Belgrade conference on the Helsinki Final Act, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis):
That this House urges the signatory countries to faithfully observe human rights and related international covenants and expresses the concern of Canadians at repression and persecution of peoples seeking to enjoy fundamental freedoms.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: According to Standing Order 43 presentation for debate of such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. My motion is prompted by the fact that yesterday the United States house of representatives ignored the first report of the International Joint Commission on the Garrison diversion project when they gave approval to an appropriations bill which included $18.6 million for the Garrison diversion project, including money for the Lonetree reservoir whose waters will have a serious effect on Manitoba: that this bill was approved even though the report of the International Joint Commission has not been completed; and in light of the fact that President Carter supports the Canadian position. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
[Mr. McGrath.)
That this House instruct the Secretary of State for External Affairs to make strong representations to the government of the United States to put an immediate moratorium on the Garrison diversion project until the International Joint Commission report is complete, and that he respectfully request President Carter to veto funds for the project.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for debate pursuant to Standing Order 43 only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my questions are again on the subject on which the government refuses to have an inquiry and relate to the means for meeting the threat posed by organized crime in Canada. My first question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Since the individuals referred to as the Five Dragons enjoy status as landed immigrants in Canada, can the Minister of Manpower and Immigration tell the House whether the minister or the department knows the present exact whereabouts of the Five Dragons; and can he confirm that one or more of them have left the country?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, adopting the nomenclature of the Leader of the Opposition, our information on the Five Dragons is that four of them are not in the country and are believed to be probably in Taiwan. I might say that with regard to the allegations of corruption in Hong Kong a commission was in fact set up in 1974. Two of these five individuals came to Canada in 1967, two in 1968 and one in 1973, prior to the allegations of corruption in the police force.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the minister has confirmed that at least four of these individuals are now out of the country. Is it the intention of the government, if they return to this country, that they will retain their landed immigrant status?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, under the law of the land, as it presently exists, an individual establishes a domicile or a landed immigrant status. One of the "Perqs" that goes with this is that he has the right to move inside and outside the country. This is a matter we expect to be looking at on an individual basis. We have set up the immigration lookout system, and we will have to predetermine what action, if any, we can take against these individuals.
June 15, 1977

I see the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is laughing. We have the laws of the land and we say to people-


Miss MacDonald:: We are laughing at you.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: -if you take out landed immigrant status and establish a domicile in Canada, you have certain "Perqs" rights, and privileges which the laws of the land allow.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Just answer the question.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: If you do not want to follow those laws but be selective, well and good.


Charles Joseph Clark: Will the minister now tell us whether that privilege of landed immigrant status will be maintained for these individuals who are now out of the country, if they come back to this country? Yes or no?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Will it or will it not be?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, we wonder if the hon. Leader of the Opposition wants one set of laws for one group of individuals-


Walter David Baker: Just answer the question.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: We tell individuals, when they come to this country and make application for a landed immigrant status and get it, that there are certain protections which are afforded them. Those are universally applied across the board. I have said to the hon. member that we will look at the situation if they try to get back as to what action, if any, can be taken against them. It should be pointed out for the benefit of hundreds of thousands of landed immigrants that once they get that status in Canada they receive the protection of the laws of this land.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is precisely to ensure some security and peace of mind among the thousands of Canadians with that status and the thousands of Canadians of the Chinese and Italian communities in Canada that we want to have a public inquiry which will identify and prosecute those individuals who are guilty of wrongdoing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


POSSIBILITY OF CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST FIVE DRAGONS PRIOR TO GRANTING OF LANDED IMMIGRANT STATUS
Charles Joseph Clark: The minister has been very careful in his answers relative to the status of the members of the group known as Five Dragons when they came to Canada. Yesterday he said that they had not been convicted of any crime when they were admitted to Canada. Today he said that one commission was not put into place until after the
Oral Questions
admission into this country of the Five Dragons. I would like to know from the minister whether there was any charge from any commission in Hong Kong or any public suspicion of illegal activity against any of these individuals, at the time they were granted admission to this country, and if so, why were they granted that admission under those circumstances?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, four of the five individuals came into this country in 1967-68 long before any allegations of illegality and corruption were made. The usual checks were made. The usual questions were asked as to criminal activity and the usual background information was secured. They had not been charged with any offence, nor were any charges pending, and they qualified under the landed immigrant point system which was in place at that time. It is great for the hon. member to have the value of hindsight, but I would ask him how he would have dealt with the situation seven or eight years ago.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, is the minister telling us that there were no charges or no allegations of any kind against any of these individuals, at the time they were admitted into Canada? Is that what he is telling us?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member is talking about charges, charges pending or innuendo.


Mr. Hees:: Charges.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Just like in law school.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The hon. Leader of the Opposition supposedly asked a serious question. I do not know why his members will not wait for the answer instead of all the cat-calls. I have indicated to the hon. member that there were no charges pending and that these individuals had not committed any offence. If he is referring to allegations or innuendos which might have arisen, those would have been checked out. The information we have is that they applied in 1967-68-


Walter David Baker: Were there any charges?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: -and these individuals got landed immigrant status under the point system quite legitimately.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. I remind the House that the matter I originally raised in February, 1976 concerned 12 policemen who fled from Hong Kong, not only the Five Dragons. Since the Solicitor General was unable to answer my question yesterday-in all fairness he was not Solicitor Gener-
.6688

June 15, 1977
Oral Questions
al in 1976-I ask the Minister of Justice who, in his response yesterday, acknowledged the existence of a report from his department which he did not have in front of him, if he has now a chance to review that report, and has he a report to make to the House?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, not further to what I said yesterday-


George Harris Hees: What have you been doing in the last 24 hours?


Stanley Ronald Basford: -which was a paraphrase of the report I had at that time, saying there were in Canada a number of ex-Hong Kong policemen who apparently had received in the normal way landed immigrant status-


Mr. Epp:: What do you mean by "normal way"?


Stanley Ronald Basford: -that some were subsequently named in a royal commission in Hong Kong relating to corruption in the police force; that we at that time had not received but expected to receive applications for extradition, one of which has been received. We fully co-operated in the process of that extradition.


ORGANIZED CRIME-REASON FOR DESIRING NEW WIRETAPPING PROVISIONS
William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, I am astonished that the minister, considering the seriousness of the subject before the House, would not have wanted to refer to his report instead of relying on his recollection as he did yesterday. Yesterday he talked of the necessity of having the new provisions of Bill C-51 passed. Why does the Minister of Justice feel the new provisions of Bill C-51 are so necessary, when it is obvious the police were able to obtain all the information aired on the CBC program under existing legislation, thus showing that we do not need wider powers for wiretapping but better enforcement of existing laws?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member obviously and genuinely misunderstood my reply. Yesterday I did not have the report to which he referred. I have since read the report to which 1 referred; my recollection of that report was correct and therefore I really have nothing to add today. With regard to his question, it has been made clear that most of the evidence the CBC used in its program was obtained from testimony and evidence put before the Quebec crime inquiry. Most of it was electronic evidence, wiretap evidence, and most of it was obtained before we had laws in this country prohibiting wiretapping. That is why the CBC was able to have that public information, most of which was obtained by wiretap and much of which would not be authorized today.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration? I remind him we are not asking if the laws of the land have been broken; we are asking if our laws or officials were subverted by people coming into this country. The minister said yesterday and today that allegations against the Five Dragons, and possibly others, had been made and officials were aware of those allegations. My question specifically concerns the RCMP liaison officer posted in Hong Kong. Is the minister saying today that the RCMP liaison officer in Hong Kong was not aware of allegations against the Five Dragons before any of them came to Canada?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can hardly expect me to comment on what may or may not have been in the mind of the RCMP's liaison officer in Hong Kong, but I would say this: Those individuals were admitted under our standard procedures for admitting individuals to Canada. They had gone through the points system; they had in fact been successful, and they were landed immigrants. If there was anything of that nature in the knowledge of the RCMP officer, I would assume that the RCMP officer would have brought that to the attention of our immigration officer.


REASON FOR FAILURE TO ACT AGAINST ONE OF FIVE DRAGONS UNDER SECTION 18(5)(K) OF ACT
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: In view of the minister's answer, I trust he will now check with regard to the information that any RCMP liaison officer in Hong Kong may have had and also check whether that information was passed on to any member of our Canadian immigration service and will provide us with an answer at a later date.
The minister, in answer to a question from the Leader of the Opposition, indicated that the last person came in in 1973. That is within a period of five years, and under section 18(5)(k), five years is the period set forth which should not have elapsed in terms of the disallowance of persons coming into this country who are likely to have committed some offence, particularly under the Narcotics Control Act. I will not quote the whole section, but I would like the minister to say why no action was taken under that section of the Immigration Act since the minister has clearly admitted in the House today that at least one of the Five Dragons came in within the last five years.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I have to check the specific reference. My information is that the individual Hon Kwing Shum is the one currently residing in Canada. He was the one who landed in 1973.1 will check out his particular status-I do not have it in
June 15, 1977

the report, or at least I cannot find it in the report-but I will check it out in keeping with the hon. member's question.


POSSIBILITY OF INTERCESSION BY BANKS ON BEHALF OF FIVE DRAGONS
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The China Post of Hong Kong has indicated that the net worth of Lui Luk, one of the Five Dragons, is some $500 million. I wonder if the minister could advise us, in view of the fact that he has now had an opportunity to examine the record, to examine the circumstances, whether any banking official in Canada or any other place interceded on behalf of any of the Five Dragons to encourage their immigration to this country?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: If they were bringing in that kind of money, one has to be a little wary about allegations made in the press. The information I have is that the Five Dragons-to use the phraseology we are using here-who were admitted as immigrants revealed that their declared assets ranged from $53,000 to $341,000, hardly the millions referred to by the CBC or in the newspaper article.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday, during the question period, I advised the Minister of Finance of the serious concern of the Canadian poultry producers about the massive poultry imports into Canada from the United States. In his reply, the minister said this, and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, I take the question as notice for my colleague and I will ask him to answer the hon. member.
In view of the seriousness of the matter, although only 24 hours have elapsed since then, as transportation is very swift and trucks are coming in fully loaded causing the producers even greater alarm today, can the minister tell the House whether in fact he has advised his colleague of the situation, and can he tell the House today what steps will be taken to improve the lot of poultry producers and also to protect their industry?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as 1 said yesterday, the Minister of Agriculture is aware of the situation and I believe he will be in a position to make a statement on the matter within a few days.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should have liked to put a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture who was in the House just a few
Oral Questions
moments ago. Since he is absent from the House now, with your permission, may I be given the floor before the end of the question period, in order to put to him that most important question?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am advised by my colleagues that the Minister of Agriculture made his statement last night.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


FINANCE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance with reference to some of the increasing activities of organized crime. Without getting into currency control in the usually accepted definition, has the minister considered exploring the feasability of some sort of monitoring of funds which may be transferred to or from our country with the object of attempting to identify underworld or mob money which may be transferred for the purposes of laundering or investment in illicit enterprises? I think the minister would agree that even with our deficit position we do not want that kind of foreign investment, even if Lui Luk does have $500 million.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say to the hon. gentleman that I appreciate his bringing to my attention his intention to ask this question. I agree with the final statement the hon. gentleman has made. Without having had an opportunity to consider this very much further I think the real risk would be that we would have to monitor all private transactions and all private transfers of capital between Canada and other countries for the purpose of securing this information. As the hon. member knows, the government has not involved itself in investigating the capital transactions of all Canadians or of all persons bringing money into this country. I think that the impact on the private sector of attempting to do this would require some very careful consideration, even though the purpose the hon. gentleman suggests is a laudible one.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's answer, and I am wondering if he would consider the feasability of consulting some financial institutions to seek their cooperation, on a voluntary basis, in attempting to be extremely vigilant, and perhaps in reporting any attempts that they could discern in order to frustrate or to foil transfers of underworld funds which it might be considered are coming in for this purpose. Could the minister give us that undertaking?

June 15, 1977
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would be prepared to consider that.


IMMIGRATION
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and refer to a letter from the Minister of Justice to the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra dated May 7, 1976 in which the minister indicates that "There is not any evidence of criminal offences committed in Canada" by the so-called Five Dragons. After the minister wrote that letter was the Minister of Manpower and Immigration asked to check further into the background of the Five Dragons, especially in view of the fact that they had been given landed immigrant status and under the terms of the Immigration Act landed immigrant status can be withdrawn if persons are engaged in criminal activity or might be engaged in criminal activity?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I did not quite follow the hon. member's question. Did he indicate that a letter was sent by the former minister of justice to the former minister of manpower and immigration?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The present Minister of Justice.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Perhaps the hon. member can repeat his question so that I can get it straight.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: In a letter dated May 7, 1976 the present Minister of Justice indicated to the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra that, and I quote: "There is not any evidence of criminal offences committed in Canada." He was referring to the Five Dragons. After the Minister of Justice wrote to the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra was the Minister of Manpower and Immigration asked to do a further check on the background of the Five Dragons, especially in view of the fact that they had landed immigrant status and under the terms of the Immigration Act the minister has the power to withdraw that status if persons are known to engage in criminal activity?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I would want to check on the details of that, but I believe that the information given at that time by the Minister of Justice was probably furnished by the minister of manpower and immigration of the day, in other words, prior to the information being given to the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. However, I would have to check that out. I do not have information on that today.


ALLEGATIONS AGAINST DEPARTMENTAL PERSONNEL-REQUEST FOR REPORT
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, that is astounding because this matter was raised yesterday. The minister has

had another 24 hours, and he again says he will check. In view of the allegations which have been made, namely, that individual members of the Department of Manpower and Immigration had been subverted by persons who wanted to get other persons into Canada, and in view of the minister's undertaking yesterday, has he carried out an investigation in his department, has he questioned persons whose names were mentioned as having involvement with criminals, and what is the evidence he can now give to this House?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is playing pretty freely with the word "allegation" when referring to individuals in the department being subverted. One person I remember being mentioned was an officer of the PM-2 category. In any event, the way these individuals came, as I understand it, that person would have had nothing to do with their applications for landed immigrant status because all that would have been handled abroad. That officer would not have been in a position to do anything in so far as applications were concerned. However, needless to say when allegations of this nature are made, we conduct investigations, but we could not in the first instance determine that the individual named had done anything or had been in a position to do anything to aid those five individuals.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. In view of the very serious allegations raised in the CBC documentary on Monday night regarding the infiltration of the RCMP by organized criminal elements and allegations of potential collusion in the drug trafficking trade on the west coast, and in view of the responsibility of the Solicitor General to protect the integrity and the good name of the RCMP, of which all Canadians are justly proud, will the Solicitor General take advantage of the question period today to state precisely what he intends to do about this? Has he ordered an investigation? Has he ordered a transcript of the program and had consultations with the producers?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure whether the hon. member was in the House yesterday, but I tried to deal with the matter he is raising, which I think is a very important matter. As a matter of fact, while I tried to explain the allegations against members of the RCMP, some of the hon. member's colleagues tried to drown me out to prevent me from trying to address the allegations that had been made. If the hon. member would care to read the answer I gave to the questions yesterday, he would see that one of the RCMP members against whom allegations were made is still a very valued member of the RCMP drug squad in Vancouver. However, apparently the CBC decided to
June 15, 1977

believe the innuendoes and accusations brought against this member by members of the underworld in Vancouver rather than the version the officers of the force gave.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the minister yesterday, and he did not deal with this question. In view of these serious allegations regarding possible collusion with criminal elements in drug trafficking on the west coast and possible infiltration of the RCMP, does the minister intend as Solicitor General to conduct an investigation into these very serious charges to clear the good name of the RCMP?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House feel that there is no need to clear the good name of the RCMP because the RCMP has a good name.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Fox: The RCMP is extremely concerned-as any other police force would be-about the possibility of infiltration, and any allegations to that effect are indeed investigated very seriously by the force. However, up to now the RCMP has been unable to substantiate, following its own internal investigations, any allegations made against members of the force.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, is the Solicitor General, on his own initiative, prepared to contact the producers of that CBC program to ask them to produce any evidence they may have to substantiate these allegations?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the RCMP that the producers of the program were indeed interviewed by some members of the RCMP. They were asked to indicate the sources of these allegations. It turned out that the sources they had were apparently the same sources that the RCMP had investigated following allegations which had been made, once again by underworld elements in the Vancouver city area, in an obvious effort to discredit the force. After the explanation that the RCMP gave to the producers of the CBC, my information is that the CBC decided to produce the show notwithstanding.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM ALLEGEDLY EXCESSIVE SALARY INCREASES-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO CURTAIL
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and concerns rough justice. Is the minister aware that in 1976, according to the American Securities and Exchange Commission, 51 Canadian executives representing more than 25 companies received salary increases of up to $60,000 and as high as 70 per cent over the previous year in the controls program? If he is aware of these totally unfair increases for the rich at a time when the more than V/2 million Canadians living at the
Oral Questions
poverty level are restricted to the $2,400 increase, can he tell the House if he has ordered immediate rollbacks?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has not realized this was the subject matter of discussion in the House some weeks ago at which time I indicated I had contacted the Anti-Inflation Board and the board had indicated in a number of cases the increases were related to averaging in the executive group and in other cases to contracts which had been entered into prior to the imposition of the anti-inflation program. As the hon. member knows, contracts which preceded the program are not covered by the regulations. I have, however, indicated-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Apparently the hon. member's colleagues are reluctant to hear a response. I have indicated to the board that given the amount of the increases it would be desirable for the board to re-examine the rules upon which it considered these particular increases in the light of the restraints imposed upon others in the community.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question. I was listening to the response and indeed wished I had not heard what I did. The cases I have just referred to the minister are not the ones that were raised in the House some weeks ago. This is a new set of executives who are getting salary increases in the neighbourhood of $60,000. It is not the same case list. I should like to ask the minister if the government, in its profound concern with rough justice, discovers that Canadians can get $60,000 increases while those at the poverty level get much less under the controls program, will it take immediate action to change the regulations so that the rich can operate with the same set of rules as the poor?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I really have responded to the question already. I point out to the hon. gentleman that we have asked the board to re-examine these particular increases. I must say I find it a little surprising to hear this coming from the hon. gentleman who has advocated the total removal of controls.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows very well that we would like to get rid of the controls program precisely because of these inequities in salary arrangements that give one set of increases to the rich and another to the poor. Short of total removal of this program, which we would like to see, would the minister at least correct this obvious and glaring injustice so that everyone in Canada will be held down to the $2,400 per year increase as long as one Canadian is held down to that level?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have already said twice to the hon. gentleman that that is exactly what we have asked the board to consider.
6692

June 15, 1977
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications.
If need be, what specific means does the minister intend to use to reaffirm and prove clearly the intention of her department to comply with the legislation and the determination of this government to encourage the freedom of speech in Canada?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member refers to the discussions that were held last weekend concerning Bill C-43. I must say that anybody reading carefully Bill C-43 can in no way construe it as a threat to the freedom of speech. As a matter of fact, this is the conclusion expressed by one of the experts invited to attend the Vigilance Day who is the vice-dean of the law faculty at the University of Montreal.
The parts of the bill which are questioned here are clauses 4(2) and 5(2): These clauses are intended to provide that the law does apply to the authority of the federal Parliament, and that the practice of exempting federal departments and provinces from paying for the costs involved in the operation of the microwave system is indeed maintained. That is the reason for these two clauses. Clauses 4(2) and 5(2) cannot be read without taking into consideration clause 9(2) which says very precisely and clearly that no provision in this legislation-none is none-can encroach upon the freedom of speech, among other things.


IMMIGRATION
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I should like to refer to a reply he gave to an earlier question in which he stated that to his knowledge there were no charges pending against certain individuals from Hong Kong who were earlier granted landed immigrant status. I refer as well to a response given by the Minister of Justice yesterday reported at page 6646 of Hansard in which he said:
However, as I recall it, those individuals that were mentioned were legally landed knowing that there were royal commissions under way in Hong Kong which might result in reports being made against some of them-
I should like to ask the minister how he reconciles his statement today with what the Minister of Justice said yesterday. Is he or his department in the habit of granting landed immigrant status to individuals who were under investigation by a royal commission in another country?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I gave the House the dates involved. Two of the four individuals entered in 1967 and another two in 1968 with the fifth arriving in 1973. That is a matter of record, and the particular commission was set up to look into corruption in 1974.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister consulted with his colleague the Minister of Justice to find out which individuals that minister referred to when he said that certain individuals were admitted knowing a royal commission was underway which might result in their being named? Has he consulted with the Minister of Justice as to whom he was referring?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: No, I have not, Mr. Speaker.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. It relates to the allegation he made outside the House yesterday that the premature disclosure of certain allegations or perhaps even certain evidence regarding some individuals allegedly involved in organized crime in this country and the buildup of the police case against these individuals, was absolutely destroyed because of that premature disclosure. So that we can properly evaluate the minister's charge and because it is all hanging out anyway, would he be good enough to detail for us what that evidence was, who the individuals were and what the charges were about?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member cares to remain for the rest of the afternoon, I understand there is a motion to be put forward by the opposition concerning the establishment of a royal coommission inquiry into crime in Canada. I will be speaking during the course of that debate when I will make my views known to the House in complete detail, far more completely than I could at this moment.


ALLEGATION TORONTO WORLD CENTRE FOR PRODUCTION OF ILLICIT NARCOTICS-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Can the minister provide any information to the House about the allegation made by the CBC of illegal production of narcotics in Toronto or indeed any other Canadian cities? In particular can he confirm that Toronto is a world centre for production of illicit drugs?


Francis Fox: It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that much of the CBC documentary was based on successful police investigations. Of course, if I look at what the RCMP has been doing either independently or in
June 15, 1977

joint force operations over the past three years, I find there have been more than 22 illicit laboratories closed in that period by the RCMP, some of which were in the Toronto area.


Paul Yewchuk: A supplementary question. In view of the allegation made by the CBC documentary that Toronto is a world centre for production of illicit drugs, is the minister satisfied with the current controls over drug production for this country and if not, what legislative or administrative changes is he proposing, if any, to counteract the alleged illicit drug production activity?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice dealt with this question at length in the past few days as to what the government's response has been to that problem. Bill C-51 is presently before the House. We hope that all hon. members will want to take their responsibility of helping the police gain additional methods, tools and techniques to combat organized crime and other facts of criminal activity in this country.


PERCENTAGE OF ILLICIT DRUG LABORATORIES CLOSED AS RESULT OF WIRETAPPING
Paul Yewchuk: In view of the minister's claim that the wiretapping bill is necessary, will he indicate what percentage of the 21 laboratories which were closed down were convicted because of wiretapping activities by the RCMP?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter I will be dealing with during the course of my statement. The hon. member for Calgary North has a number of times indicated there were only 13 convictions which resulted out of wiretappings in this country in 1976. That, as I pointed out in my speech on second reading of Bill C-51, is inaccurate and incomplete information. I hope to have the opportunity to set the record straight once again this afternoon. I hope the hon. member for Calgary North will pay some attention to the real statistics this time.

[ Translation]


INDUSTRY
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
On June 7 last, the minister told me that he was willing to appoint one of his officials to deal especially with the furniture problem in the Bois-Franc area. Since then, the plants of Victoriaville Specialities Co. Limited, Victoriaville Upholstering Limited, Poly Design, Dubo meubles and Victoriaville Furniture Limited have systematically announced that their business would be closing before July 1. The minister having
Oral Questions
stated also that he was waiting for a report from the Quebec Furniture Manufacturers' Association, is he in a position to tell us now whether he has received that report and if he has some proposals to make to assist more particularly the furniture industry in Quebec?


Hon. Jean Chr6tien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have been advised that I would receive within ten days the report prepared by the officials of my department in co-operation with the Quebec Furniture Manufacturers' Association. As for the official to whom I referred, I am told that a departmental official is constantly in communication with the manufacturers' association and takes note of all demands.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question.
Given the more than tragic situation faced by workers in those plants, could the minister ask his official to contact officials of the Bank Canadian National who are very concerned at the prospect of that plant and other related plants closing down, to review the situation of those plants?


Mr. Chretien:: Mr. Speaker, I shall pass the hon. member's suggestion on to my officials.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of the fact that the United States House of Representatives yesterday gave approval to an appropriations bill which included $18.6 million for the Garrison diversion project, including money for the Lonetree reservoir whose waters will have a serious effect on Manitoba, will the government urge the U.S. government to put an immediate moratorium on the Garrison diversion project until the report of the IJC is complete, and will the government respectfully request President Carter to veto funds for the Garrison project in light of his support for the Canadian position?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we have already made the kind of representations the hon. member is now requesting. This has been done on several occasions. Our embassy in Washington is in constant touch with this and related questions. I am not sure that any new instruction is needed for them to state the Canadian position, which is quite unequivocal. In so far as a request to the President with regard to veto, I do not feel in the circumstances that it would be appropriate for us to advise the head of another government in that connection. However, I can report to the House that the information we have is that it is President Carter's intention to impose such a veto, but that
6694

June 15, 1977
Oral Questions
is on the basis of his own judgment rather than any recent representations from us.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, the United States is ignoring our requests as well as the first report of the IJC, proceeding with more funds for the project which will affect Manitoba waters. Can the minister not make some kind of representation which will show that they are acting in very bad faith by alloting more funds at this time? They know this project will affect Manitoba waters.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to agree with the hon. member that our representations are being ignored. The House will recall that President Carter unequivocally withdrew the administration's support. As is often the case in the United States, Congress has moved to restore certain of those expenditures, not all of them. I repeat that the President's position remains what it was when he gave the information to our Prime Minister in February. While I would be very pleased to reiterate and call to the attention of the United States administration the position of the government of Canada, just as we in this House might very well be offended, I do not think it is appropriate for us to make representations to the United States Congress.


HELSINKI REVIEW CONFERENCE IN BELGRADE-SUGGESTION HUMAN RIGHTS BE ON AGENDA
Hon. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I think all members will welcome the decision by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers to issue a denunciation of the breaches of human rights in Uganda.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: On this first day of the Helsinki review conference in Belgrade, is it the intention of the government to insist that the agenda of this conference not be emasculated by any attempt to remove the discussion of progress or lack thereof in the field of human rights? In particular, will the government put before this conference the experience of Canada in the field of family reunification and family visits with special reference to the fact that some 2,000 Soviet citizens are still awaiting permission to leave that country simply to visit relatives in Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member and the House that our position will be, as I stated previously and reiterate now, to make the strongest possible representations at the Belgrade conference with regard to the issue of human rights as he has outlined them. I should recall for the House that the meeting beginning today is designed for agenda drafting. The substantive talks, of course, will not take place until September. In terms of the agenda, it is the instruction to

the Canadian delegation now in Belgrade that ample room and time be afforded to the question of human rights.


QUALIFICATION ON LOAN TO PHILIPPINES THAT BREACH OF HUMAN RIGHTS EXISTED-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On the basis of innovation with human rights, will the minister extend the congratulations of this House to the Canadian representative on the World Bank to put a qualification on a loan of money to the Philippines on the basis that a serious infraction of human rights existed in that country? Will Canada pursue this forthright policy in the future, equating human rights and whether we lend money and so on to various countries which are in breach of human rights?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of principle, I agree with the hon. member in terms of the repugnance we feel toward certain administrations. However, I wish to leave ourselves some manoeuvrability when assistance of a financial nature is designed for the very poor people of a country as opposed to supporting the administration. In principle, I have no quarrel with that view.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a correction to yesterday's Hansard. It was brought to light by the question of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). It relates to my answer to the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke). I am recorded as saying:
I do not have the report in front of me. However, as I recall it, those individuals that were mentioned were legally landed knowing that there were royal commissions under way in Hong Kong which might result-
I do not recall my words in the House yesterday, but that clearly is wrong. Since the questions yesterday, as I have indicated to the member for Vancouver Quadra, I read the report I had at the time, and it is clear in my report and, I am sure, was clear yesterday in my answer that I said I do not have the report in front of me, but as I recall it, those individuals who were mentioned were legally landed. That is the report I had.
Later, however, in February, 1976-at the time the report was given to me and when I subsequently wrote to the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra-it was known that there were royal commissions and inquiries going on in Hong Kong which could result in reports being made against some of them, and that those reports might lead to requests for extradition. This knowledge was in a report to me in February of 1976. As the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, (Mr. Cullen) has made clear, and as the report of 1976 made clear, they were legally landed.
June 15, 1977


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we simply cannot accept in this House a situation where on one day a minister of the Crown gives information or impressions which the next day he withdraws after questioning reveals that, whether advertently or not, the information given the first day under questioning was not correct. At the very least, this government, which changes its story on this matter from day to day, intends to continue to block an inquiry or royal commission. All the facts relating to the entry into Canada of the people known as the Five Dragons and others associated with them should be made available to the House both by tabling and through an opportunity for a special or standing committee to examine the officers and the ministers who were involved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) sought, and was given, the floor on the basis of a notice sent to me in relation to a question of privilege. It turned out at the beginning to be a point of order relating to a correction to be made to yesterday's declaration, whether in fact it was a correction to Hansard or not. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has contributed to that point, and there is really no procedure by which I can hear the Minister of Justice on the same point without again allowing the Leader of the Opposition to speak, and going on indefinitely.
The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen).


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, may I answer the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) who asked about the status of an individual, Mr. Hon Shum. He was a landed immigrant in 1973-


Walter David Baker: Are we carrying on with the question period, Mr. Speaker?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Do you want clarification, or not?


Walter David Baker: Make a statement on motions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Without the consent of the House there is no opportunity for a minister to expand on an answer he gave in the question period. If the minister desires to do so now, he will require unanimous consent. Is the House prepared to give its consent to hear an expanded answer from the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I was not seeking to expand on my answer, Mr. Speaker. However, I had indicated to the hon. member that I did not have the information to hand, whereas as a matter of fact I have. The individual in question, Mr. Shum, was landed in 1973 and an attempt to extradite him failed on a legal technicality. I understand an appeal is pending at the present time.
Privilege-Mr. Reynolds PRIVILEGE


MR. REYNOLDS-REMARKS ON CBC TELEVISION PROGRAM
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege involving my reputation as a member of this House.
Members will have seen or heard about the program on CBC television on Sunday and Monday nights which accused me of consorting with and acting on behalf of underworld figures in Vancouver. This accusation is totally false and I join with other members on both sides of the House who were grossly slandered, or whose words were twisted and edited beyond recognition, in expressing revulsion that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should feel it part of its mandate to deliberately lie to its viewers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Douglas Reynolds: The CBC insinuated that I was a close acquaintance of people that I knew to be underworld figures. This is completely untrue. My dealings with these men were limited to the response a member of parliament normally makes to people who seek his help. Like all members, I reply daily to dozens of phone messages and letters. I do not have the resources to investigate all the people I talk to on the phone, or write to, or meet. Nor have I any way of knowing the background of everyone who owns a restaurant in which I sometimes eat, or a business I would visit. How many members of parliament can say they do, Mr. Speaker? It is unreasonable to think that an MP can have complete information on the connections of casual acquaintances.
Mr. Speaker, I have been a full-time member of parliament for five years. I have worked extremely hard and have always had an open-door policy for anyone who wanted to see me. I am proud of that record.
The CBC accused me of either corruption or naivety. I must remind the House that I could hardly have been stronger in my requests for action to combat the criminal elements in Canadian society. I am not about to totally reverse the main purpose of my political career and start acting on their half. The CBC has advanced nothing more than a sly, cut-up version of film clips to suggest otherwise. The help sought by Mr. Cala is the same as that sought daily by hundreds of constituents of all members, and my response was even less helpful than most would give. I told him I had no idea where the Mackenzie Valley pipeline would be built and advised him to call another MP and an oil lobbying person. I could not even give him an educated guess.
I would like to point out in passing that the House dealt with this problem once before, when the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) was accused of having violated budget secrecy with respect to motor boat taxes. I ask hon. members to recall that the Montreal Gazette was criticized by a committee of this House for totally misrepresenting the hon. member's actions.
As to the suggestion that I am naive, I feel that if there is naivety anywhere, it was on the part of the gentlemen who

June 15, 1977
Privilege-Mr. Reynolds
contacted me and who seemed to believe that an opposition MP would have full and useful knowledge of a pipeline route 20 months before a decision was due to be made.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I think the House should know how this libellous concoction was put together. First, I was approached for an interview about the subcommittee on penitentiaries by Dubro and MacAdam. If I looked surprised when asked about Joe Gentile, it was because the interviewer suddenly started asking about a topic that did not arise out of anything previously discussed. In the program my answers were rearranged to convey as damaging an impression as possible.
On realizing, after the interview-which took place at my home-the nature of the hatchet job which was being prepared, I went to my next meeting with Mr. Jim Dubro and Mr. Bill MacAdam, the producer, at a Toronto hotel with my lawyer in attendance. This meeting was held on June 9 at the Chelsea Inn and had been agreed to at the time of our first interview. We discussed a number of points which I felt showed a lot of the CBC information to be erroneous and slanted for the benefit of some of those who would like to see my career and reputation ruined.
It was quite obvious to the CBC people that the reason my lawyer was there was to ensure I had every opportunity to make sure my point of view was heard, and also that if the program on the weekend was to include this erroneous information, we would seek an injunction in a court of law, as would have been my legal fight. We were assured, Mr. Speaker, by these two gentlemen that the weekend program had nothing to do with me and in fact they had arranged a meeting tentatively for today so that we could follow up this story even further.
By lying to me in such a facile manner, the CBC deprived me of my legal right to challenge their intention to air the segments slandering me. I believe this was a despicable and dishonourable way for the CBC to act-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Douglas Reynolds: -and I intend to take legal action. My lawyer in Vancouver, Mr. Allan McEachern-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Douglas Reynolds: -has already served a writ today. To clarify matters, Mr. Speaker, he is no relation of my hon. friend on the other side. To any who may wonder why no legal action was taken until today, I would draw their attention to the British Columbia libel and slander act which suggests that one clear day after the offence should lapse before commencement of any action.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this program impugns my integrity as a member of parliament and is entirely within the

ambit of privilege as defined by Beauchesne, particularly citations 110 and 111(h). However, I also know that British practice tends to hold that a remedy through the courts should be sought if one is available, and I believe that is the most appropriate course of action in this case. Therefore, I will not move a motion but I will see the gentlemen from the CBC in court.
Everyone here believes in freedom of the press, Mr. Speaker, but surely that is defined as the right to publicize or broadcast the truth. By that definition, the CBC's presentation was a hypocritical and untruthful exercise in character assassination. I will not stand for it, and neither would any other member of this House. I hope the CBC pays as much attention to the proceedings in court and to this statement as it has to its own libellous fabrications.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That being what I presume, from my own rough count, is the last contribution to this fascinating subject, I would now propose to carry this matter under study for a few days, probably until Monday or Tuesday, before attempting to make a final pronouncement on it.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Public Accounts- Mr. Lawrence.
[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration-Miss Nicholson.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-424, respecting representation in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to maintain membership in the House of Commons at approximately its present level until the population of Canada exceeds 50 million. At present, the base figure for Quebec of 75
June 15, 1977

increases by four members with each successive readjustment, at roughly ten-year intervals, and the total number of members for all provinces increases correspondingly without regard to the actual increase in population. The proposed amendment would freeze the base figure at its present 75, and the total representation at approximately 282.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,006, 1,481, 1,506, 1,539, 1,555, 1,607, 2,075, 2,310, 2,338, 2,359, 2,424 and 2,641.


Mr. Howie: What is the period of (a) assessment (b) refund under the Excise Tax Act and is consideration being given to a uniform three year limit in each case?


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: In so far as the Department of National Revenue is concerned: (a) The Excise Tax Act places no limitation on the time period of the taxpayer's operation which may be subject to assessment, (b) Prior to the Budget of March 31, 1977, the general refund provisions required an applicant to file his written application for tax refund within two years from the time the refund first became payable. It was proposed in the Budget that the period within which a person may apply to recover tax by way of refund, deduction or other payment be extended from two years to four years in the general refund provisions of the Excise Tax Act. This extension will apply to all applications, other than those which have expired on or before March 31, 1977.
In so far as the Department of Finance is concerned: Amendments to the Excise Tax Act will be considered during the continuing review of matters related to the federal sales tax. If a decision is taken to impose time limits in the case of assessments, or to further adjust the time limits applicable to refunds, the government will announce its intentions in the usual budgetary context.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	How much did the government obtain from the petroleum industry through all revenue sources including corporation taxes, sales tax, excise taxes, etc. in 1975 and what has been anticipated for 1976?
2.	How much of the revenue was paid out in compensation to eastern refiners?
3.	For each of the same years, what amounts were invested by the government in (a) conventional exploration (b) synthetic investments (c) other energy?
Order Paper Questions
4.	How much of the total revenue for 1975 and 1976 went toward general revenue?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: In so far as the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is concerned: 1. Export charge collections for 1975 were $1,166 million, and estimates for 1976 are $716 million. Gasoline excise tax revenues were $233.3 million in 1975 and an estimated $550 million for 1976. No accurate figures for income tax collections are available for this industry alone, but the mineral fuels industry, which includes coal, as well as oil and gas, provided for $634 million in 1975 and $490 million for the first three quarters of 1976. These figures include provincial income taxes amounting to perhaps one quarter of the total.
2.	Compensation payments were $1,450 million in 1975 and $967 million in 1976.
3.	(a) Conventional exploration expenditures by the government through Panarctic and Petro-Canada, were $18 million in 1975 and $41 million in 1976. (b) Synthetic investments were $58 million in 1975 and $87 million in 1976. (c) As for investments in other energy, many of the research expenditures of the department and other agencies could be so classified. Perhaps the largest item is Atomic Energy of Canada's Nuclear Research and Utilization program, which was voted $86 million in fiscal 1975-76 and $102 million in fiscal 1976-77.
4.	All revenue, as is the case of taxes collected from any industry, are of course, treated as general revenue, and as such are available for other programs such as equalization. Federal equalization payments attributable to provincial oil and gas revenues amounted to $448 million in fiscal 1975-76 and $484 million in fiscal 1976-77.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How much money did the government provide in the form of grants to assist the Commemorations of Treaties 6 and 7 in Alberta from July, 1976?
2.	How many (a) government employees (b) other persons attended the Commemorations at the expense of the government and, in each case, what was the cost?


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development provided a total of $120,000 in the form of contributions for these commemorations.
2. (a) Eight officials attended the commemoration of the signing of Treaty 6 in Saddle Lake, Alberta last summer at a total cost of $5,922.77. Of this amount, $4,747.24 was incurred by the officer responsible for co-ordinating the Treaty centennial celebration and includes all travel pertaining to centennial events. Several of the other officers who attended were in the Saddle Lake area for other business and the cost of their attendance at the commemoration was minimal, (b) The Department has no knowledge of any other persons who

June 15, 1977
Order Paper Questions
attended the Commemorations at the expense of the government.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the Department in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


B. Keith Penner: 1.
(c)
	(i) 1975	(ii) 1976
B.C.	$ 6,034.00	$ 4.482.00Alberta	51,642.00	67,129.00Saskatchewan	Nil	NilManitoba	20,720.45	43,622.97Ontario	185,087.68	279,016.83Quebec	64,613.00	63,349.00New Brunswick	Nil	NilNova Scotia	Nil	1,460.00P.E.I.	Nil	NilNewfoundland	Nil	Nil1975	1976(0	6	(a)	(i)	2(ii)	111	(ii)	104(Hi)	Nit	(iii)	Nil(iv)	69	(iv)	125(v)	161	(v)	228(vi)	18	(vi)	16(vii)	Nil	(vii)	Nil(viii)	Nil	(viii)	6(ix)	Nil	(ix)	Nil(x)	Nil	(x)	Nil(i)	Nil	(b)	(0	Nil(ii)	Nil	(ii)	Nil(iii)	Nil	(iii)	Nil(iv)	Nil	(iv)	Nil(v)	Nil	(v)	8(vi)	3	(vi)	6(vii)	Nil	(vii)	Nil(viii)	Nil	(viii)	Nil(ix)	Nil	(ix)	Nil(x)	Nil	(x)	Nil2.	Employees hired in Quebec by the Parks Canada Programme were paid from supplementary estimates. All others were paid from main estimates.
3.
	(i) 1975	(ii) 1976
B.C.	$ 5.65	$ 6.00Alberta	5.30	5.47Saskatchewan	N/A	N/AManitoba	5.07	6.01Ontario	5.43	6.30Quebec	4.86	5.68New Brunswick	N/A	N/ANova Scotia	N/A	5.20P.E.I.	N/A	N/ANewfoundland	N/A	N/A
(b) This is not available from the department. This information is known only to the agencies and their employees.


Mr. Marshall: Has the government received a request from the Province of Newfoundland for assistance to reduce the cost of energy and, if so, what are the details?


Alastair William Gillespie: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: A request for assistance has been received based on the Province of Newfoundland's assessment of its need for a support programme directed towards reducing the cost of energy in that province. Since the request is still being assessed, details cannot be made available.


Mr. Jones: 1.	Was the flag lowered on Parliament Hill on the occasion of the death of the former Prime Minister of Great Britain, the Rt. Hon. Anthony Eden, Lord Avon and, if not, for what reason?
2.	Was the flag lowered on the occasion of the death of Charles DeGaulle, the former President of France and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: 1. No. The rules respecting the display of the Canadian flag provide for the flag on the Peace Tower in Ottawa to be lowered upon the death of a former foreign head of state. These rules do not provide for the lowering of the flag upon the death of a former foreign government leader.
2. Yes. See 1.


Mr. Howie: 1.	In how many cases have buildings been found to contain unacceptable levels of radioactivity since 1970?
2.	In how many of the cases were acts or omissions by Atomic Energy of Canada found to be the cause of the contamination and what were the causes in the other cases?
[Mr. Penner.)
June 15, 1977

3.	In each case, what (a) was the type of building (b) was the number of persons who regularly used the building (c) measures were taken to reduce the level of radioactivity and at what cost (d) was the date of the discovery of the unacceptable levels (e) was the date the levels were reduced to an acceptable point (f) was the location of the building (g) was the exact source of the contamination?


Alastair William Gillespie: Atomic Energy Control Board reports as follows: 1. Radiation surveys conducted since 1970 have revealed 11 sites in which unacceptable levels of radioactivity existed. The location of these sites and the status of the investigation and remedial measures are as follows: (i) 103 Church Street, Toronto, Ontario, Discovery, February 1975; Source, Radium and radium luminous paint; Status, Decontamination complete. (ii) University of Toronto, Discovery, 1975; Source, Minor contamination of physics building (basement) from previous radium work. Status, Decontamination complete, (iii) Lumidial Canada Ltd. Richmond Hill, Ont. Discovery, May 1975; Source, Radium luminous paint; Status, Decontamination complete, (iv) Port Hope, Ontario, Discovery, 1975; Source, Radioactive contamination and residue from radium and uranium extraction process. Status, 3170 sites surveyed. Approximately 500 sites contaminated. Approximately 500 sites questionable. Remedial program underway with James F. MacLaren Ltd. acting as Program Manager. Contamination is not restricted to any type of building, i.e no distinction between private residences, business establishments, etc. (v) Elliot Lake, Ontario, Discovery, 1976; Source, Contamination throughout town due to radioactive waste rock and natural occurrences of uranium. Status, Clean-up pending Cabinet decision. 270 out of 1600 sites identified as possibly requiring remedial work. An additional 327 sites to be further investigated. (vi) Haley Industries, Haley Station, Ont. Discovery, 1976; Source, thorium used in magnesium alloy production. Status, Contamination contained and further operations to be under licences from the AECB. (vii) Chromasco Limited, Haley Station, Ont. Discovery, 1976; Source, Pyrochlore slag and some thorium. Status, Clean-up in progress. Temporary storage on company property under AECB surveillance. Permanent storage to be arranged, (viii) 1670 William Street, Montreal, Quebec. Discovery, Following 103 Church Street; Source, Radium; Status, Decontamination complete, (ix) Uranium City, Saskatchewan. Discovery, 1975; Source, Radioactive waste rock and natural occurrences of uranium. Status, Approximately 158 out of 750 sites require work. Work is in progress, (x) Eldorado Townsite, Saskatchewan. Discovery, 1975; Source, Same as Uranium City; Status, Approximately 10 out of 68 sites require remedial work, (xi) Northwest Industries Limited, Edmonton, Alberta. Discovery, Following 103 Church Street; Source, Radium luminous paint; Status, Decontamination complete.
2.	None of the aforementioned cases of radioactive contamination are or were related to activities of the Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.
3.	(a) Houses, factories, hangars and schools; (b) from two or three in the case of a family residence; to several hundred in the case of the schools, (c) (i) Location of source of contami-
Order Paper Questions
nation and where feasible removal; (ii) costs not as yet fully determined, (d), (e) and (f) See answer to question 1. (g) In most cases radium and its immediate decay products.


Mr. Fortin: Does the government have a short term programme to make the public aware of the need for energy conservation and (a) if so, what is it (b) if not, for what reason?


Alastair William Gillespie: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: Since its inception, the Office of Energy Conservation has had, and still has, a comprehensive information programme with annual budgets of $760,000, $2,500,000 and $3,000,000 for the fiscal years 1974-75, 1975-76, 1976-77 respectively, to make the public aware of the need to conserve Canada's non-renewable resources. The awareness programme has been heightened by publications (eg. 100 Ways to Save Energy and Money in the Home, the Billpayers Guide to Furnace Servicing, Keeping the Heat In, etc.. . ) selective radio, television and newspaper advertisements and educational aids for teachers and public meetings. One of the most visible parts of the programme has been the mobile information project which has run in parts of Ontario, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and presently in New Brunswick. Under this arrangement, two qualified representatives from E. M. & R. meet with citizens groups, associations, elementary and secondary schools to discuss the issues of the energy situation in Canada and how all Canadians can and must conserve our precious resources. Films, slide shows and publications are the media utilized in presentations.


Mr. Stevens: As of December 31 (a) 1968 (b) 1976, how many federal employees were charged with policy-making, or interpretation of policies, regulating all forms of communications?


Mr. Ross Milne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: In so far as the Department of Communications is concerned: (a) N/A-The Department of Communications was created in 1969. (b) 26 employees.
In so far as the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission is concerned; according to the present structure of the Commission, the staff of the Research and Broadcast Programmes Directorates are involved in regulatory policy and evaluation functions, as is the Executive Director, senior members of the staff, the Chairman and members of the Commission. The role played by these people is one of (a) formulation and development of regulatory policy relating to current problems in the communications industry; and (b) decisions reflecting the implementation of policy proposals. No employees or members of the Commission are

June 15, 1977
Order Paper Questions
exclusively charged with policy-making or interpretation of policies of communications.


Mr. Kaplan: 1.	How many translators work for the Department of the Secretary of State?
2.	Approximately, how long does it take to translate one page of a statement on policy?


John (Moody) Roberts: 1. At March 31, 1977, the Translation Bureau staff in the TR (Translation) Group was as follows: 712 translators, 36 translator-interpreters, 250 revisers. Other employees in TR positions are either interpreters, terminologists or management.
2. It is estimated that it takes one to two hours to translate and revise a page of 200 hundred words.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	What additional staff was hired and what was the cost to operate the Student Summer Employment Programme (a) Northern Programme (b) Parks Canada Summer Recruitment (c) Parks awareness (d) High School Programme under the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?
2.	Are any other programmes available for students under the Department?


B. Keith Penner: 1.
	Additional	Number
	Staff	Cost of of students
	Hired	Program Employed
(a) Northern Programme	0	$ 79,944,00 112(b) Parks Canada Summer Recruitment	0	287,594.41 164(c) Parks Awareness	1	99,378.53 42*(d) High School Programme (Indian Affairs Programme)	0	902,361.00 2,329
* These are jobs in the private sector performed under contract arrangements with Parks Canada.
2. Yes. Summer Youth Employment programme (Indian Affairs Programme), Indian and Eskimo Recruitment and Development. Additional summer students were hired from the Parks Canada Operating budget for guides, animators and for maintenance jobs.


Mr. Woolliams: Did Maclean-Hunter Limited, Toronto, Ontario, receive grants from the Department of the Secretary of State in (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 and, if so, in each case (i) from which section (ii) in what amount (iii) for what purpose?


John (Moody) Roberts: No.
[Mr. Milne.)


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 792 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	Is the government aware of any water systems in Canada that have an abnormally high level of mercury in freshwater fish and, if so, what are their names?
2.	Have the pollution sources been identified and, if so, in each case, what action was taken by the government to control the source and with what results?
3.	With regard to the mercury levels in sediments, what has been the result of government action to control mercury pollution?
4.	What are the major pollution sources of mercury in Canada that are not under government regulations whether it be the Clean Air Act or the Fisheries Act?
5.	Are mine tailings being dumped directly into Canadian waters and, if so (a) by what companies (b) what are the monitoring procedures used in Canada to monitor tailings in comparison to the state of the art (c) what are the monitoring procedures used in each case (d) are efforts being made in Canada for the reclamation of land on mine tailing sites?
6.	Have (a) medical (b) social services been provided by the government to each community that has been reported to consume considerable amounts of mercury-contaminated fish and, if so, what are they?
7.	Did the government propose the establishment of a national park as a solution to better the conditions of the people of Whitedog and Grassy Narrows and, if so, for what reason?
8.	Has the government ever used epidemiological evidence to prosecute a polluting company in Canada?
9.	Would the current discharge of mercury be reduced if all process water contaminated with mercury were to receive full recycling treatment?
Return tabled.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary would take the occasion to look into question No. 710 which has been on the order paper since October 19. Perhaps I might get an answer before we break for the summer recess.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I will follow up on the hon. member's request, and either I or the parliamentary secretary to the House leader will report to him.
June 15, 1977


Maurice Adrian Dionne: While 1 am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, may I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all remaining notices of motions for the production of documents be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That a ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act laid upon the table June 13, 1977, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Donald Stovel Macdonald: That a ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Application Rules, 1971, laid upon the table June 13, 1977, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Donald Stovel Macdonald: that Bill C-56, to amend the statute law relating to income tax (No. 2) be read the first time and printed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Mr. McCleave:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the second time. Next sitting of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Jardine McCleave: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Government orders.
Organized Crime


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I hope that my opposition to the income tax bill-I am really concerned about the life insurance policy provisions-is recorded as "on division".


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: That this House calls on the government to establish forthwith a royal commission on organized crime in Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the last time this House had the opportunity to debate this matter in this kind of detail was November 12, 1974. The motion at that time was put down by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) who made a very eloquent plea for some changes in our law in terms of this insidious and growing force in Canadian society-organized crime. We have indicated before, and I want to indicate now, that this party congratulates the CBC on a hard-hitting and tough journalistic exercise. In my view, if we had more programs like this presentation of the CBC, we would not only have a higher listening audience but we would have better co-operation from ordinary members of the public in getting at the problem of organized crime, which starts at the street level.
This House should issue very high congratulations to the CBC. I have a caveat to say about those congratulations. As I indicated, the last time the House debated this motion the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe was the person who put it on the order paper. As a viewer, it did seem to me unfair that the insinuation and the innuendo implicated three members of parliament. Those members of parliament will have an opportunity to answer in the courts, but I hope they will answer in the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, right here in the House, so that there will be a full and open inquiry into these matters. There was certainly an insinuation in the program concerning those members and I hope they welcome a full and open inquiry into the political area.
Surely we have missed the main point, and that is the reason a royal commission is so necessary. The royal commission should not be limited to the rules of this House, but should go into the question of organized crime and how far it has insinuated its tentacles into the political, business and union life of Canada. That is what we need to find out.


An hon. Member:: And the police force.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Yes, and the police force, if it is there. I see the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) is shrugging his shoulders and indicating that it is not there. I am sure he will stand up and say that it is not there.

June 15, 1977
Organized Crime


Francis Fox: I cannot believe it.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I am sure he will get up and apologize for the RCMP, as he has done since the time he attained his portfolio. His job is not to apologize for the RCMP. His job is not to defend the RCMP, and it is not to defend bureaucracy. His job is to provide leadership in crime enforcement in Canada. In terms of the RCMP, he is the law enforcement officer. He is the person who should exercise his political clout over that force. He should move that force forward in terms of organized crime. During the course of this debate I will talk about the way we can go about doing that.
We have two ministers in this House, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) and the Solicitor General, who have said they oppose this motion for a royal commission. They have two grounds on which they oppose it. They are important men, and I take it they are very serious about those grounds. They say the provinces have the authority to set up their own commissions, and the provinces can deal with this matter. I should like to indicate that organized crime is transprovincial, transnational and international. As they discovered in the United States, if you are going to fight organized crime you cannot do it with little, local commissions which work at cross-purposes and do not relate their information in terms of the attack.


Francis Fox: That is not the case in Canada.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The Solicitor General says that is not the case in Canada.


An hon. Member:: We have never caught anyone yet.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: We have never caught anyone involved in organized crime in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker-


Francis Fox: That is not the situation in Canada.


An hon. Member:: Let the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) talk. The Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) has had his say.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) has the floor. We will be here until six o'clock. We will all have our day in court.


Mr. Woolliams:: Good idea.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The one thing organized crime is delighted with is this government's position of not going for a national royal commission. They are delighted with the fact that this government would rather see those commissions fractured and hived off into little distributions. They are pleased with the fact that each little commission will be chopping away at one little tentacle of the octopus, while the head stays intact, merrily doing its dirty work in Canada. That is the position of this government on a national royal commission: We will let the provinces do it and will abandon more jurisdiction to the

provinces. They have been doing this since 1972. Our party is one party which is not going to abandon jurisdiction over law enforcement at the federal level, as this government is going to do.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Right on.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Their second argument seems to boggle the mind. They indicate that they will get these criminals and have the Five Dragons in jail in no time: The only thing which needs to be done is to pass the amendments to the wiretap act; they are keeping these people on the streets by being in opposition to our wiretap act amendments.
When that bill comes out of committee and the Liberal majority gets its way, as it usually does, and the bill is passed, we can expect to see all kinds of arrests by the fall. The Five Dragons will be behind bars, our friends in Montreal will be picked up off the streets, and there will be no problem at all. That is the argument which has been presented to this House, and it is the most specious, silly argument I have ever heard. It is a silly argument to say, because some minor amendments to the wiretap act have not been passed, that this government has been inhibited in regard to organized crime.
I should like to refer to the broad powers which the government says they do not have in order to deal with organized crime under the wiretap act. One of them deals with the question of the introduction of evidence. It can be argued and debated by lawyers as to whether it complicates the courts system and expands the time that is necessary. For a minister of the Crown to stand and seriously tell us that because he does not have that little amendment in terms of the evidentiary rule in court, he has not been able to successfully attack organized crime, is so specious as not to be worthy of serious attention.


An hon. Member:: He should resign.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The second question the minister must deal with is the law which is in existence. I am sure the minister has looked at it, but I want to remind him of the existing wiretap law. Parliament gave this government the power to go out and tap what organized crime says. I am referring to section 178(1) of the existing law which refers to any other indictable offence in respect of which there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that it forms a pattern of similar or related offences by two or more persons acting in concert and that such pattern is part of the activities of organized crime.
This parliament gave the minister full power against organized crime when it passed the previous legislation. The minister continues to raise the red herring that if these other offences are not included in the section, he will be terribly handicapped or inhibited. The law has always been there. The minister has to direct himself to the real questions: Have the law enforcement people been properly directed? Has the balance of the forces been correct? Have we had too many RCMP officers chasing around the campuses of Canada trying to track down some left-wing radicals, when they should have been out on the streets of Montreal and Vancouver working
June 15, 1977

under cover to put some of these rotters in jail where they belong? Those are questions for which the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General have no real answers.


An hon. Member:: That goes back to Goyer.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I am aware of that. I am waiting with an open mind to hear the minister's defence of the attack which he and his predecessors have made in the area of organized crime. I would be interested in hearing what his staff allocations are. I would be happy if he told us how many in the Ottawa detachment have as their sole responsibility an attack on organized crime, versus the number who have responsibility in terms of subversive activity in Canada. The minister might be persuaded to change the balance of his forces in terms of attacking organized crime.
Those are the two reasons which have been given in opposition to the call for a royal commission. The validity is not there. I should like to indicate some of the reasons it is useful to have a royal commission. First of all, A1 Capone was not put in jail because he killed anybody; he was put in jail because the United States enforcement authorities decided that he was a kingpin in organized crime and they determined that he was no longer going to carry on those activities in the United States. They convicted him of evading income tax. That is how they imprisoned A1 Capone.
What is the use of talking about provincial and federal jurisdictions? Why say, "Let British Columbia have its own royal commission and let Quebec have its own royal commission?" Has the federal government no say when there are violations of our immigration laws or income tax laws? I say this because organized crime likes to evade income tax. We should not insist on splitting responsibility, as it were. We may not be able to catch some of the kingpins of organized crime unless the federal authority enforces offences against the Income Tax Act, for instance.
Anyone with experience in the field will concede the extreme difficulty of nailing the kingpins of organized crime. Most of these people do not bother using the telephone. Someone ought to tell the minister: I think the force knows it. I suggest the wiretap law on which the government seems to rely so heavily is not the most effective instrument for combatting organized crime. If you took the earphones off some of our policemen, and put them on the streets to do undercover and investigate work of the sort our CBC reporters have done, for example, you would get convictions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Ramsay Clark, when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in 1973, pointed out the difficulties of the wiretap law. He said the police would use it as a crutch and lean on it so heavily that they would neglect the undercover, dangerous work which must be done, the work which we give the police tremendous credit for doing. The government is responsible for allocating
Organized Crime
resources to the police properly and appropriately. No one in this House says we should not have a wiretap law but, we say it should be a balanced wiretap law.
If the minister's response to organized crime is, "Give us more evidentiary rules, expand two sections in the offences section of the code and we will clean up organized crime," one can only say his response is inadequate. We want the government to adopt a co-ordinated approach. We want to see the Minister of Justice involved in prosecutions, and the Solicitor General in law enforcement. As well, we want to see some indication of an increase in the allocation to the force. Perhaps the minister will announce today his intention to increase the allocation. The opposition knows this is an expensive business.
I know of one investigation, concerning one figure, which is costing $1.5 million per year. The Canadian people will back any minister who says, "I am not going to apologize for this spending. I am looking ahead in our fight against organized crime."
We do not want the minister to defend the bureaucracy and the force. We all love the force. That's a motherhood question in Canada. Everyone wants to see the RCMP working effectively and well. It is the minister's responsibility to give direction which will protect the force's reputation as one of the best police forces in the world. And, I say it is one of the best in the world. But unless the minister changes his attitude, it will be in trouble.
What are the other arguments in favour of a royal commission? There is reluctance on the part of politicians at any time to look at themselves in relation to organized crime.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Why?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The examples in the United States on this subject are legion. Justice must not only be done; it must appear to be done. That is an old legal cliche. The House of Commons is the wrong place to examine organized crime in detail. It must be done by a royal commission. We have undertaken inquiries into various matters. Of necessity to itself, organized crime tries to infiltrate the political arena. As someone said today, I think, you never know who has made a contribution to your campaign. You have to be very careful about where the money comes from.
A royal commission does not have its hands tied politically. It can act on the question of organized crime. The request for a royal commission is not new. Government members have suggested in this House that the opposition just discovered organized crime after watching a couple of hours of television. There have been calls for a royal commission going back to 1973. Various members of this House have made the request. Therefore, this is not a new idea of the opposition's; it is not something we have just discovered. We want the government to respond to a problem the Canadian people have faced for five or six years, and it is getting worse every year.
What has been the United States experience? As I said, many of their kingpins were caught because they violated U.S. income tax law. During the 1950s and the 1960s, U.S. authorities found that their attack on organized crime was ineffective

June 15, 1977
Organized Crime
for exactly the reasons we have put forward today. They found that you must deal with organized crime on a national basis, because these criminals can move from one community to another so quickly and act so ruthlessly that you cannot hamper them with regional commissions. Our government will not look this obvious fact in the face. It is resisting the call for a royal commission because it comes from the opposition. I am sure if the backbenchers of the Liberal party had asked for it, the government would have jumped on the bandwagon right away.
I plead with the government not to make this a political issue. If you want to give Jacques Lavoie the credit for it, go ahead. It will not bother us so long as we establish the commission. Or give Jack Horner the credit. I am sure Jack would support a royal commission into almost anything.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. Would the hon. member please refer to members of this House by their ridings, and not by their names?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) and the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Lavoie) will forgive me. I want the minister to consider the precedents established in the United States where organized crime has been a serious problem for a long time. In 1950, the United States attorney general convened a national conference on organized crime. In that year, as well, there were held well publicized hearings of Senator Kefauver's Senate special committee into organized crime. In 1957, Senator McClellan's select Senate committee looked into organized crime's infiltration of business and labour. In 1958, the attorney general's special group on organized crime was formed within the department of justice of the United States. In 1961, OCR was vastly expanded in order to get regular reports on organized crime from 26 federal government agencies. As well, the number of OCR attorneys was quadrupled.
In 1966, President Johnson restated his determination to accelerate the war on organized crime and launched the president's commission on law enforcement and administration of justice, which included a task force on organized crime. Incidentally, that 1966 report, if I may summarize it, called for limited wiretap provisions, with severe restrictions to project the civil liberties and privacy of individuals. That was a government that was tough on crime; it was attacking crime. But even then they wanted very clear and severe restrictions on the privacy law. I would ask the minister again to look at that report.
In 1967, the recommendations of this commission were presented. In 1970, arising from the 1967 report, all organized crime efforts in the federal government were co-ordinated by the newly created national council on organized crime, and I emphasize that it was the national council on organized crime. In 1970, the U.S. organized crime control act became law. In 1977, the federal organized crime task force acted as an ongoing co-ordination and action agency against the activities

of organized crime, and in 1977 at least one U.S. university had an institute of organized crime. That is a pretty interesting record to which this government has had access and for which it has had a precedent, because surely it was aware that organized crime, which knows no boundaries or borders, was infiltrating major urban centres in Canada. Compare the record in the United States with the record of the government in this country against organized crime and you will find it is a do-nothing record.
What can we see as the accomplishments of a royal commission? In British Columbia-I might say, under the NDP government at that time-a co-ordinated law enforcement unit was formed. I am sure even my good friend, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), would agree with the establishment of the law enforcement unit because it has since been carried on by the present government in a very effective way. The principles behind a co-ordinated law enforcement unit are exactly the kind of principles we should apply at the national level.


Francis Fox: Right on.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: One reason it is necessary to have a royal commission is that royal commissioners can examine the question and be given a mandate to recommend that the co-ordination of law enforcement should take place at the national level, and so they can examine the reports of the British Columbia commission. I want to read the reason the co-ordinated law enforcement unit was formed. If you can apply that logic, I am sure the Solicitor General will agree that a royal commission should be given a mandate to inquire into this matter. This is from the introduction of the CLEU report. It reads:
The tactic of forming a massive joint forces operation to combat organized crime was advocated by the police themselves, who had had considerable success with combined-force efforts in the past. At the same time, a manpower utilization study found that police expended too much of their time on activities such as escorting and guarding prisoners, or in handling court officer duty. An expansion of the sheriffs office was conceived, and training provided so that sheriffs officers could assume these non-police functions. As the sheriffs took up their new tasks, police officers were released to undertake operational activities.
The co-ordinated law enforcement unit was established:
(a)	To provide long term study into the activities of an individual, or group, believe to be involved in organized crime, where, because of limitations of jurisdiction, manpower, budget, or diversity of criminal activity, no single agency could be expected to devote its total resources.
(b)	To stimulate and co-ordinate interdepartmental and intragovernmental co-operation between the various federal, provincial and municipal agencies and the British Columbia Department of the Attorney General.
(c)	To provide the proper atmosphere under which the various agencies could develop the intelligence gathering process and expedite information exchange.
(d)	To develop investigation to the point where it established that a criminal offence had been, was being, or might be committed-
It goes on in terms of the justification of the first report of CLEU in British Columbia. Each and every reason for the existence of the co-ordinated law enforcement unit applies on the national scene. It is too bad that the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General did not move in terms of the national level so that we would have a formal body formed, because the problems they are seeking to solve in British Columbia are the same problems they are trying to solve in Toronto, Quebec and
June 15, 1977

the outlying areas. As well, we have the problem of organized crime moving into places such as taverns and entertainment areas.
A royal commission can make those kinds of recommendations in terms of changing the way we go about investigating crime. I have spoken of investigation at the political level. A royal commission can do something else. It can inquire into some of the specific allegations that have been made in the CBC documentary. As people in the House have said, a lot of it seems to be innuendo, and I have used that word myself regarding some of the individuals. There is enough smoke in that program, however, for someone to check to see how hard the fire is burning.
Let us go back for a minute to the question of the Five Dragons. An in-house inquiry into the immigration service, I submit, would not satisfy very strongly and firmly held public suspicion in the Five Dragons' case. I want to review briefly some of the bald facts in that case, and I ask the ministers seriously to consider their position that this and the other questions that were raised in the program-concerning, in particular, Hamilton, Toronto and Montreal-do not merit a judicial inquiry. Let us deal with one individual, Mr. Lui Luk. The South China Morning Post reports that his financial worth is $500 million. I will have to check whether that is Hong Kong or Canadian money.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is a lot of money, anyhow.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: If it is $500 million in Hong Kong money, it is $125 million in Canadian money at today's exchange rate. Poor old Lui Luk is a wonderful candidate to come to this country if you take him under the entrepreneurial section and give him 25 points.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Quite some savings.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: He must be a terrific saver. He can teach us all a lesson about building up a bank account. This man was a sergeant in the Hong Kong police force. By the way, we have taken about 30 of his friends into Canada from the Hong Kong police force. This man, being such a tremendous saver, decided that his police life was over and that he wanted to come to Canada. What did he do? He made an application, I presume under the normal procedure.
No minister of the House can stand up and say that corruption in the Hong Kong police force was not well known for a very long time. There have been stories printed in the world press about it. I say to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) that an official-I will provide the name to the minister-advised the RCMP liaisons officer in Hong Kong about the background of the Five Dragons. I would have expected that in the course of time that information would have been passed on to the immigration service. If it was not, we should find out why. If it was passed on, we should find out why the section of the Immigration Act was not applied against these individuals before they came to Canada.
Organized Crime
We should also find out who interceded on behalf of these immigrants. Was anyone in the banking world seeking to increase the banks' deposits? That is an interesting question which certainly should be answered. There is enough information just in the one case to take a serious look at how these individuals came to Canada. I remember a fellow called Dr. Gunter Frank who was considered a dangerous fellow. He wanted to come and teach a course for a couple of months in Toronto, but they said he was a dangerous radical, some kind of Marxist. In fact, he just wanted to come to Canada to give a speech.


Mr. Hogan:: Queen's University invited him.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I do not know how much he had in the bank, but apparently he was such a danger to Canada that we could not expose our youth to the revolutionary ideas of Dr. Frank. However, Lui Luk, with his $500 million, is all right. We can bring him in. We need all that type of person we can get, because they bring capital into Canada.


Mr. Gilbert:: And corruption.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: That is why we say there has not been leadership. That is why we say this government brushes the problem under the carpet.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I thank the House for allowing me to continue. I shall be very brief in winding up. Allegations have been made concerning the Vancouver drug squad, and I want to say that all the information I have is that Inspector Dickins and his squad are doing a first-rate job in Vancouver.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: We should not simply throw charges about the force around, but we do need to have the public satisfied and with these kinds of allegations only a royal commission can do it. A royal commission could bring about a national council on organized crime. It could be called a co-ordinated law enforcement unit, but we have to bring together society's tools to strike out at this insidious force, because the people who are hurt are not members of parliament or people with big bank accounts. People on the street, prostitutes and people subjected to loansharking activities are the ones who are hurt. Those are the people who need help and protection.
This party has a reputation, in terms of civil liberties, which is second to none and it has agonized over the question of a royal commission because we believe that is a very serious decision to make. We must protect the liberties of those who would have to come before the cameras and before such an

June 15, 1977
Organized Crime
inquiry. After weighing, as we must, what has to be done for the benefit of the whole of society, and particularly for the benefit of hundreds of thousands of poor victims out there, we have come down in favour of a royal commission. A royal commission could take the public into its confidence. It could make the ordinary person on the street understand that the policeman is his friend, that law enforcement agencies are his friends, that he does not need to be pushed around by organized crime and the mafia, and that he can use the forces of law and order for protection.
We need a royal commission to bring about a change in public attitude. That is why 1 plead with the Solicitor General not to reject this proposal. He should not reject it just because it is an opposition proposal or because it may look as though he caved in to the opposition. I do not think there is anyone on this side of the House who would not congratulate the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice for adopting this proposal and making it their own.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: We would applaud them.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The House has been indulgent. I have taken a fair amount of time. I could go into much more detail, and perhaps I will at another time. However, I want to tell the Solicitor General, the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration that any information I have, they can have. We are certainly willing to co-operate in any way we can to see that vice is stamped out.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to make a few comments on organized crime in Canada, and particularly on certain initiatives taken by the federal government to control and fight this problem. It goes without saying, Mr. Speaker, that if this were only a political matter, I would be the first to comply with the request of the hon. member opposite for because even if, politically speaking, it is not the most efficient way to control organized crime, it would be in my own interest to support his proposition. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if I do not support the proposition of the hon. member, it is because we have extremely serious reasons not to do so.

Mr. Speaker, much has been said and written about organized crime, and while it has been romanticized by some and deplored by commentators in the media and others, it is indeed a complex problem which requires a sophisticated response. There are, of course, different suggestions about the approach which should be adopted to deal with the problem of organized crime. The suggestion is made today that a royal commission of inquiry or some other type of public inquiry would expose organized crime, but at the same time it would also expose everything the police know about organized crime and thereby hamper police investigations.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.
(Mr. Leggatt.]


Mr. Peters:: Be reasonable.


Francis Fox: An alternative approach would be to try to assist the police in their efforts to organize and equip themselves to deal with this cancer which strikes at the very heart of our society. The question of a crime probe is one I have examined very closely and discussed in detail with the RCMP. I am sure hon. members opposite will agree that the RCMP has a great deal of experience in combatting organized crime.


Andrew Hogan: They tried it in the United States and it was successful.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) has the floor, and I suggest that hon. members listen.


Francis Fox: The very considered advice of the RCMP is that it would not be a good way of combatting organized crime. I am always impressed by the great depth of knowledge hon. members opposite have about the practices and procedures in other countries. I must say that they do not seem to be aware of the type of response that has been going on in this country since the mid-fifties. In the course of my remarks this afternoon I will try to bring them up to date.
However, first I would like to take this opportunity to make a few comments on the recent CBC television program on organized crime. While the efforts of the producers have, of course, heightened the awareness of many Canadians and served to inform many others, their methods, including serious insinuations and innuendoes, have left much to be desired. It has been acknowledged that it took 2 Vi years to produce three hours of television air time. It took 2Vi years to put together film footage on cases which are already well documented. The so-called "French connection", for instance, has already been the subject of a book and two movies. That connection was undone as a result of international police co-operation.


William Arnold Peters: Not one of them is in jail.


Francis Fox: The hon. member's facts are wrong. Most of the people involved in Montreal are, or have been, in jail.


William Arnold Peters: They are walking the streets.


Francis Fox: The case of the Dubois brothers was well publicized as a result of the work of the Quebec commission into organized crime, and the work of the anti-corruption squad of the Hong Kong police has been covered by the media. The cases of Vic Cotroni and Paolo Violi are matters of public record and have received considerable media coverage in the past.
I do not make these remarks in a critical sense. I use them only by way of illustration. It took 2Vi years to prepare a three-hour television program based in large part on material which is in the public forum. It is well documented and need not withstand cross-examination or scrutiny by the courts. On the other hand, police investigators must develop information, collect evidence and locate witnesses who will prove guilt
June 15, 1977

beyond doubt. The police cannot rely on hearsay, inference or innuendo. They must have evidence which is subjected to rigid scrutiny and cross-examination. The CBC seems to be able to use hidden cameras and hidden microphones without any criticism whatsoever from hon. members opposite, but that is the kind of thing they want to deny the police in their fight against organized crime, a fight which they are directly mandated to undertake.


Some hon. Members:: Elear, hear!


Francis Fox: If I may, I would like briefly to review some of the initiatives which have been taken with regard to combatting organized crime in Canada. These initiatives were taken by responsible law enforcement authorities, without fanfare. Attorneys general and police departments across the country are co-operating in a number of areas. For many years the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and other major police forces in Canada have been keenly aware of, and very concerned about, the influence of organized crime in this country. This concern was expressed during the 1950s when efforts were made to investigate the activities of residents in Canada who were in contact with or associated with individuals from other countries, particularly the U.S.A., who were involved with organized crime.
By the early 1960s the Canadian police community started to form, within various police forces, intelligence units to gather information and data on suspected or known persons controlling criminal activities. The RCMP, because of its national responsibility for law enforcement, began to play a liaison role to promote the formation of such units and the exchange of intelligence among major police forces in Canada. Attorneys general were briefed on the phenomena of organized crime and met to discuss the problem and possible solutions.
This brings me to January, 1966, when a federal-provincial conference of attorneys general was held in Ottawa. At that conference the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), who was at the time minister of justice for the province of Quebec, proposed the creation of a central intelligence bureau for the use of all police forces in Canada "to provide for the collection, analysis and dissemination of criminal intelligence to effectively combat organized crime". A resolution of the conference created a committee on criminal intelligence to explore the nature, scope and workability of a new central intelligence mechanism.
By August, 1967, the report of the committee on criminal intelligence recommended the formation of a Canadian criminal intelligence system with a central repository at RCMP headquarters, Ottawa; the establishment of provincial criminal intelligence centres in each province; that provincial criminal intelligence centres in the provinces policed by the RCMP be formed from RCMP criminal intelligence units already in existence; that the provincial criminal intelligence centres in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec be otherwise designated. They subsequently became the criminal intelligence service of
Organized Crime
Ontario and the Quebec research bureau on organized crime. In October, 1969, the name Criminal Intelligence Service of Canada was created.
In March, 1970, the Criminal Intelligence Service of Canada constitution and manual of procedure was formally adopted. The adoption of this constitution was truly a milestone. For the first time, Canadian law enforcement agencies had a formal base on which to develop a national system to fight organized crime. In this regard we are envied by the United States government because it has not been possible to do the same thing there. In 1970, there were five provincial bureaux in operation, namely the Quebec Research Bureau on organized crime, one in Manitoba, one in Saskatchewan, one in Ontario and one in Alberta. In 1971, three other provincial bureaux became operative in British Columbia, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
The Criminal Intelligence Service of Canada, central repository of criminal intelligence, is located at the RCMP headquarters in Ottawa within the national criminal intelligence branch, and the provincial bureaux are regional repositories. All repositories are designed to provide facilities for the collection, analysis and dissemination of criminal intelligence with the view effectively to combat organized crime in Canada. The CISC executive committee is comprised of 17 members representing major police forces in Canada. The idea is co-operation in the fight against organized crime. As of December 31, 1976, CISC regular membership consisted of 48 police agencies.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you will permit me to outline some examples of the type of co-operation which exists as a result of the approach to organized crime which has been adopted, an approach which I fully endorse. Eight RCMP members assisted the Quebec commission of inquiry into organized crime. The RCMP in Vancouver has joined the Vancouver city police intelligence unit in developing profiles on major criminals and criminal groups to assist joint forces' operations. This is commonly known as the Vancouver integrated intelligence unit. An investigation in Toronto into an international bank inspector fraud in 1976 resulted in the arrest of a major organized crime figure and 18 associates. In Montreal, an operation involving the RCMP and police forces in Quebec exposed the well-publicized "tainted meat operation". The Criminal Intelligence Service bureau, via the American authorities, have established a gun tracing program on behalf of all police departments in Canada to stem the flow of illegal firearms into this country.
Mr. Speaker, the concept of co-operation has produced effective results. A recent joint force operation in 1977 in Toronto which involved the RCMP, the Ontario provincial police and the metropolitan Toronto police resulted in more than 60 charges being laid against 48 persons. These persons are suspected of being crime figures and their associates. The charges included fraud, extortion, assault, counterfeiting and drugs. There are a number of examples of joint force operations in Montreal, some of which are still before the courts. As a result of one such operation, nine charges of fraud and conspiracy were laid against three persons. In another case, six

June 15, 1977
Organized Crime
charges of fraud were laid against four persons. In Halifax a very successful joint force operation resulted in 87 charges being laid against ten persons-fraud, extortion, arson, break and entry and drugs.
A joint force operation into a prostitution organization which operated in Alberta and British Columbia resulted in charges being laid against three major organized crime figures and five of their associates, as well as the prostitutes involved. I would like to emphasize that in this case three major organized crime figures were brought before the courts.
There are other examples of successful joint force operations in Winnipeg, Saskatoon and southern Ontario, but I do not wish to go into the details completely. I would, however, like to use one more case to illustrate just how well the joint force operation concept can work. In Vancouver there was a case where more than $3 million in cash, jewellery and precious metals were stolen. Criminal intelligence investigators were aware of the theft and were actively investigating it before it was reported to the police. Five persons were arrested in Vancouver and Winnipeg, and the case is still before the courts.
I fully acknowledge that organized crime constitutes a serious problem in Canada and that it extends to every field of criminal activity and is not confined by geography. Organized criminals are actively engaged in the drug trade, gambling, counterfeiting and commercial frauds on a local, national and international scale. In recognition of this, the RCMP has allocated the following resources to activities related to organized crime: The national criminal intelligence branch, 208 men; support services, 504-and this includes surveillance; commercial crime, 426; drugs, 709; customs and excise, 239; immigration and passport, 80; for a total of 2,166.
Yesterday, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) commented that there were only six members of the RCMP assigned to organized crime responsibilities in Ottawa.
I suppose there are problems of definition, but A Division, RCMP, in Ottawa has 143 officers deployed on duties related to organized crime. I would be pleased to support this information with figures.


William Arnold Peters: That is the traffic division.


Francis Fox: As far as other major cities are concerned, the figures are as follows: criminal intelligence services in Toronto have 32 personnel; support services, 56; commercial crime squad, 66; drug squad, 77; customs and excise, 28; immigration and passports, 20. In Montreal, criminal intelligence services have 29 personnel; support services, 130; commercial crime squad, 100; drug squad, 88; customs and excise, 41; immigration and passports, 19. In Vancouver, criminal intelligence services, 29 personnel; support services, 128; commercial crime, 50; drugs, 102; customs and excise, 29; immigration and passports, 10. This is without counting the ramifications of the specialized people in police agencies at provincial or municipal levels across the country. Information coming from them is passed on to the other police agencies and constitutes a wide

network of people highly involved in the fight against organized crime in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I, for one, have confidence in the police and in the approach adopted to the problem of organized criminals and organized crime. I would like to support their efforts by supplementing the investigative tools available to them. We must remember that wiretapping during the course of a criminal investigation is controlled by the courts and that there are severe penalties for illegal wiretaps.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: How many have ever been charged?


Francis Fox: The point that must be made in response to the question raised by the hon. member is that in the case where any illegal act of wiretapping was brought to the attention of this government, immediate criminal charges would follow. What the hon. member is unwilling to recognize is the very serious manner in which authorization procedures for wiretaps are conducted in this country.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Have you read the cases?


Francis Fox: The only thing I can deduct from the hon. member's course of questions is that he has lost complete confidence, not only in the police forces of this country and the senior officers who authorize wiretaps but also in the crown attorneys who must bring wiretap applications to the judges who have to authorize them, and he has completely lost confidence in the judiciary of this country who authorize wiretaps. The hon. member is intimating that the judiciary ought not to be authorizing those wiretaps. I am sure the hon. member will want to make those points himself.
We have seen examples of police co-operation in joint force operations in bringing organized criminals before the courts. This seems to me to be a responsible approach and one which will serve the needs of Canada and criminal justice. Since we are on wiretaps, I would like to reiterate some of the comments I made during the course of the debate on second reading of Bill C-51. I brought out certain statistics concerning the use of wiretaps and their successful use in completing investigations by the police into a number of areas, including organized crime.
The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) repeated certain allegations to the effect that in 1975 or 1976 there were 1,062 persons arrested as a result of wiretaps, but only 13 resulted in convictions. I think it is worth while to point out that in the same annual report from which he was quoting there is an updated section for the year 1975. This updated section shows different statistics indeed. If the hon. member cares to read that part of the report, he will see that criminal proceedings in which private communication obtained under authorization were introduced into evidence led to successful prosecutions numbering 18 in 1975. The hon. member may also wish to look at the same report which indicates that the updated figure for 1976 under this section rose from 18 to 70. Similarly, under the same section of the 1975 report it
June 15, 1977

showed resulting convictions of 18. When the updated figures for 1975 were published in the 1976 report which the hon. member is so prone to quote, this number had risen to 69.
These figures reflect only those prosecutions and convictions made with the use of wiretap evidence produced in court. I underline the words "produced in court". It is, of course, important to realize that a lot of people who have been arrested as a result of wiretap information decided to plead guilty when confronted with the wiretap evidence. That is something that was not brought out clearly by the hon. member. In such cases, the actual wiretap evidence is not produced in court. The updated figures for 1976 show, under the relevant sections, which are (1) and (m), that 514 convictions out of 1,492 arrests resulted directly or indirectly from evidence obtained through wiretaps. Of course, the prosecution of many of those who were arrested and charged in 1975 is still before the courts. The end result should be a very high ratio of convictions to arrests on the basis of evidence collected under the provisions of this law.
The statistics indicate several points. First, where wiretap evidence is produced in court the resulting conviction rate is almost 100 per cent. Second, the annual reports required by parliament-and perhaps we should change it-do not at the moment reflect actions before the courts which at the time of compilation were still incomplete. Accordingly, it is necessary to analyse not just one year's report but successive years' reports in order to fully appreciate the success achieved under this law.
To get back to the main subject of discussion, I am sure that all provincial attorneys general are concerned about organized crime. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) and I will be meeting with the provincial attorneys general later this month. There will, of course, be an opportunity for an exchange of views on methods of dealing with the problems. Unless there has been a very recent change of approach, I understand that all attorneys general support the concept of co-operation and joint force operation and do not support the idea of the institution of a national inquiry into organized crime.
There are many who advocate a royal commission or similar type of public inquiry into organized crime. I admit that there are some advantages to this approach. It does create an awareness among citizens of the nature and extent of organized criminal activities. It may expose the techniques employed by organized criminals to exploit an unsuspecting and unaware public. It would also expose key figures of the organized criminal community, their connections and the extent of their influence in legitimate activities. It would probably also expose organized criminals without having to gather the evidence necessary to produce in court.
There are definitely drawbacks, as well. The question surely arises as to whether it would be a satisfactory approach to a problem as complex as organized crime. A public inquiry would, of course, require a large staff of investigators and support personnel. Many of these people would have to be diverted from their current police responsibilities: that is undeniable. The diversion of police resources, and the publicity
Organized Crime
generated by a public inquiry, would without any doubt whatsoever-and I am clearly advised in that regard by the RCMP who have a great deal of expertise in this area-hamper ongoing, current investigations.
There may be a time when the drama of a public inquiry would be helpful, but at the moment one must remember some of the main disadvantages of a public inquiry. It would expose evidence and information in the hands of police as well as investigative techniques, without bringing criminals before the courts where they could be dealt with according to law.
I have given examples of joint police force operation right across the country, the type of network the federal government set up along with provincial attorneys general to establish a national system of intelligence of criminal activities in Canada, with the resultant prosecution. We just have to look at what has happened in Halifax, Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver over the past few months. It indicates quite clearly we are on the right track in combatting organized crime in this country.


John Gilbert: Tell that to the public; they do not believe it.


Francis Fox: The hon. member says the public do not believe that. My responsibility as a minister of the Crown is to ensure that the most productive way of fighting organized crime is the one that is used in this country, not to try to come up with the most popular way of fighting organized crime which is not at the same time the most productive way. I am willing to stand here and say that at this stage I have not been convinced that it would be productive for the police to fight organized crime through a royal commission of inquiry which would be held in the full light of day. I am willing to accept the fact that what I am saying today is not politically popular in the country. However, I am willing to take my responsibility as a minister of the Crown and my responsibility to the people of this country to see to it that the productive way of fighting organized crime is indeed undertaken by the police forces of this country.


An hon. Member:: You are being the spokesman for the police.


Francis Fox: The hon. member says I am being the spokesman for the police. I have spoken to people in the police who are extremely knowledgeable in these matters, a lot more knowledgeable than members opposite who are not interested in the fight against organized crime but in scoring political points in this country because they think an election is coming up.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Francis Fox: If hon. members will give me the opportunity, I will conclude and have the great pleasure of listening to their words of wisdom in this debate. Organized crime should be dealt with by the criminal justice system, the police, the prosecutors and the courts. Hon. members can assist this process by responsible support of legislation designed to combat organized crime and protect our society.

June 15, 1977
Organized Crime


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering whether, with the consent of the House, I might be permitted to put a question to the minister.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The minister's time has not yet expired. Will he accept a question from the hon. member?


Francis Fox: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I will preface my question by saying that I am in favour of a federal royal commission to investigate crime. In his presentation the minister left the impression that a royal commission would be harmful because it would upset investigations by various police forces across the country. I ask him this question and I hope he is as honest as he is pious. Does he think what came out of the royal commission in the province of Quebec was positive, or negative?


Francis Fox: Perhaps I could answer the hon. member's question by putting another question. Would he like to tell me how many new prosecutions arose out of the inquiry into organized crime in Montreal? That was, of course, a decision taken by the attorney general of Quebec, as was his right. He came to the conclusion that in the circumstances an inquiry in that province would be useful. Undoubtedly it had some value, but perhaps the hon. member would like to tell me how many new prosecutions were entered upon as a result of it.


Mr. Stanfield:: There's a brave Solicitor General.


Francis Fox: The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) appears to have some comments to make. There was only one case that I can think of. It was the one into the tainted meat business in that province. The material had already been developed by the police, and the hon. member cannot assure me that prosecutions would not have gone forward in any event. I have not examined the situation which the attorney general of Quebec had to deal with when he decided to come up with that case, but I am saying that very few prosecutions resulted from the inquiry, leaving aside penalties imposed for contempt. If the hon. member can point to additional evidence which came out at that time, evidence which was not available to the police earlier, I would be very pleased to hear from him.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is the longest evasion I ever heard.


An hon. Member:: A good answer.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: An hon. member across the way said it was a good answer. It was no answer. If you talk to the police chief in Montreal, as I have done, the information one gets is that the inquiry is assisting the police in their work. The Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) talks about one case, the one he mentioned which involved dead meat carcasses being ground into hamburger, and so on. I would think that this, in itself, was enough to justify the

inquiry even if nothing else came out of it; and, in fact, a great deal came out of it.
I want to tell hon. members opposite where we stand as a party. We support this motion wholeheartedly. We have always believed there should be such an inquiry. I intend to put on record the number of times we have asked for an inquiry by the federal government, particularly in light of the answer of the Solicitor General yesterday. First, by what authority has the government the right to set up a royal commission into organized crime? Let us turn to section 91(21) of the British North America Act, which provides that the criminal law, except the constitution of the courts of criminal jurisdiction but including criminal matters, falls directly within the power of parliament. It is true that according to section 92, the administration of justice in the provinces, including the constitution, maintenance and organization of provincial courts, both civil and criminal, falls under provincial jurisdiction. But basically, legislation within the criminal law falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government. This is particularly the case, as the hon. member for Northumber-land-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) pointed out yesterday, when questions of immigration, narcotics and other subjects dealt with by federal statute are concerned.
The necessary authority is already in the hands of the government, and I submit the time has come to set up a royal commission to deal with organized crime. The only excuse the government gives for not doing so is that Bill C-51 would solve the whole problem. Let us deal with the question of wiretapping. I proposed to quote from the annual report of His Excellency the Governor General of Canada presented as required by the Criminal Code, section 178(22). Ministers are always trying to deny these figures, but this is what it says on page 6:
The number of persons arrested whose identity became known to a peace officer as a result of an interception under an authorization was 1,062.
In the following paragraph we read:
The number of criminal proceedings commenced at the instance of the Attorney General of Canada in which private communications were obtained by interception under an authorization were adduced in evidence, and the number of such proceedings that resulted in a conviction was 13.
That is, the number of authorizations used amounted to 1,062, and the number of convictions totalled 13. Those are the facts. The government cannot deny them, no matter how they try. That is from a report of the Governor General. Yesterday, as reported at page 6642 of Hansard, the Solicitor General had this to say in answer to the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark):
The hon. member also asked a more general question in connection with organized crime. Listening to the opposition during the course of the question period this afternoon, one gets the impression they discovered organized crime on Monday and Tuesday nights by watching television.
What is the real situation in that regard? I want to put on record the number of times members of this party, including the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), myself and others, have asked for a royal commission to look into organized crime.
June 15, 1977


An hon. Member:: What have they got to hide?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As reported at page 8343 of Hansard of September 23, 1964, I put a question to the then prime minister concerning allegations that there might have been corrupt practices in reference to the administration of the law in the Banks' case. This was the subject of an inquiry by the Norris commission, after several men had been murdered by turning on steam in a furnace. Judge Norris recommended at that time the setting up of a royal commission to investigate syndicated crime. My own plea that a royal commission be set up was refused by the prime minister of the day, the late L. B. Pearson.
On October 13, 1967, as reported at page 3062, of Hansard,
I again asked for the setting up of a royal commission because of certain facts which had come to light and because ex-commissioner Harvison of the RCMP, contrary to the view taken by the solicitor general, had stated that organized crime was coming into Canada from the United States. The prime minister, Mr. Pearson, said no. He did not think the establishment of a royal commission would solve anything.
Now we come to February 24, 1969. Our party whip from Edmonton Centre asked that a royal commission be set up. In reply, Senator Mcllraith, as he is now, said:
I do not believe, and I cannot believe, the premise on which the question is based.
He refused the suggestion that a royal commission be established. When the Solicitor General suggests we only found out about organized crime by watching television, I would draw his attention to these representations on behalf of our party. On January 27, 1969, the right hon. member for Prince Albert dealt with the subject of organized crime and, as reported at page 4837, of Hansard, said he would like to see a little action taken. He recommended that a royal commission be set up to look into the question of organized and international crime in co-operation with the provinces. So I do not think we discovered this type of crime by viewing CBC programs. Again, on February 5, 1971, as reported at page 3124 of Hansard, my right hon. friend from Prince Albert stated:
In the spirit of reform which has always been a reason for action on his part, I should like the minister to consider the setting up of a royal commission to look fully into the question of the infiltration into Canada of international wrongdoers-
He was referring, of course to Hong Kong. Then, again, the right hon. member for Prince Albert, on November 28, 1973, at page 8247 of Hansard, after setting out certain facts and referring to 95 cases involving international crime, immigration and other matters which had come to his attention, asked for a royal commission. Again it was refused. Then on March 7, 1974, the right hon. member for Prince Albert repeated his plea, and again it was refused by the government on flimsy arguments.
When the Solicitor General says that we have only just found out about crime, I would remind him, as did the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), that the hon.
Organized Crime
member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) moved a motion similar to the motion today on November 12, 1974. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe talked about his career yesterday. He mentioned that he was the solicitor general of Quebec, minister of justice of Quebec and was a judge who had to have his home guarded because he stood up against the mafia. So we did not find out about crime from the CBC for the very first time. Our position has been a positive one; we have continued to ask for a royal commission.
Again, on October 20, 1975, the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) asked for a royal commission. His request was refused. On January 27, 1976, as reported at page 10357 of Hansard, I asked for a royal commission. In light of the program shown on the CBC, the knowledge we have had since 1964, the pressure that has been brought by this side of the House on the government, and the recommendations of Mr. Justice Norris flowing from his inquiry into the SIU which revealed the tremendous depth of organized crime across this nation, I say now is the time to set up that royal commission.
Why do we believe we should have a royal commission? Apart from the facts I have related, let me examine what a royal commission can do which a court cannot do. If you set up a judicial inquiry or a royal commission into organized crime, in the terms of reference provision is made for the subpoenaeing of witnesses and documents and the right to cross-examine those who are involved in organized crime.
I am sure that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) and the Solicitor General will agree with me that one of the most difficult charges to prove under the Criminal Code is the charge of conspiracy. It is always difficult to link facts together so as to secure a conviction either by a judge or a jury. The reason for this is the good principle that an accused never need say anything in his defence; the Crown must always prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. But with a judicial inquiry there is a different set of rules. Hardened, syndicated criminals who pay to murder, to rob and to corrupt, or their agents, can be brought before a royal commission and interrogated under oath by lawyers for the commission and people from various parts of society who are interested. Their answers are given under oath. You can also document your case and in this regard ask for police assistance in getting the material required. In that way you can find out who is who.
For example, we would never have known that at the recent Montreal world fair the carcasses of six diseased cattle were ground up into hamburger, chewed up with onions and sold at inflated prices, were it not for a judicial inquiry. We can also discover what kind of corruption is taking place under the Immigration Act and what corruption may be going on in the field of drugs.
I am not being political now when I say that I am always amazed when governments in this country take great credit for the number of convictions they obtain. The government is ready to bust a little kid at university for smoking marijuana, but it fails to get the hardened criminals involved in the trafficking of drugs. This is why we need a judicial inquiry, so

June 15, 1977
Organized Crime
we can find out who these people are, how they get into this country, how much infiltration there is from the United States, Europe, Asia, Hong Kong or any other place. I agree with the hon. member for New Westminster; it is beyond my comprehension how the government can continue to say no to a judicial inquiry.
Therefore, I can only ask the government this: Do they fear an inquiry? Have they got something to hide which they know about, such as Hal Banks or Doyle?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Oh, come on.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not know whether they have, so let us have an inquiry.


Stanley Ronald Basford: This is a serious subject.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is a very serious subject and I wish the minister would treat it seriously instead of brushing it off or hiding behind a smokescreen. The only thing the government has done to control crime was in connection with capital punishment. Although we on this side had a free vote on that issue, the vote was not free for cabinet members. The increase in the crime of murder went up by 115 per cent in one year in Canada, and much of that is committed by organized criminals. I say that the time has come for a royal commission to investigate organized and syndicated crime.
Ten years ago the press were saying that racketeers and organized criminals were better co-ordinated than Canadian lawmen. RCMP officials at that time gave us the dire warning that United States crime bosses were taking over this country. Jet age crime, as one columnist called it, was challenging on a big scale, exploiting the weaknesses of divided authority and loose liaison. The right hon. member for Prince Albert, in commenting on the Speech from the Throne in 1967, has this to say:
There is not a word in the speech about crime. I do not intend to fill the record with statements of recent days about the mafia, but there is no doubt that there has been and is today a continuing disregard of the law by persons responsible for this situation ... the time has come to do something in connection with the crime explosion. I suggest a royal commission to look into the whole picture of crime and its expansion.
On September 23, 1964, in relation to the Banks affair-I know my hon. friend does not like that-I asked the then prime minister, Mr. Pearson, for a royal commission which would, among other things, determine how Banks was able to ignore and avoid the law. Banks was convicted, let out on bail and he left the country. The then secretary of state for the United States admitted that the Democrat party had received $100,000 from the SIU, from the man who Canada allowed to escape, the man who many in the press claim, not by innuendo but on police information, had political connections in this House. The right hon. member for Prince Albert went on to say:
I should like to see a little action with regard to international crime.
But we have had nothing but words. As I have said, on October 13 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) perpetuated the policy of his predecessor and said that the government would

not yield to the request of the opposition for an investigation into syndicated crime in our urban cities. As I say, all words and no action. Then on February 5, 1971, the former prime minister said, as reported at page 3125 of Hansard:
-I should like the minister to consider the setting up of a royal commission to look fully into the question of infiltration into Canada of international wrongdoers-
We have lots of evidence in this regard, so again I ask in all seriousness, why is the government saying no? The Solicitor General says that this might interfere with the police. The facts are that the province of Quebec found syndicated crime existing in Montreal, and by setting up an investigation they were able to help the police through the evidence which flowed therefrom. We cannot tell how many cases where charges were laid and convictions obtained resulted from that investigation. During that time many of these people left Montreal and went to other cities.
Another matter I cannot understand is this. In Bill C-83 the Minister of Justice included a section which was in the bill last session, a criminal amendment, giving authority to the provinces to hold an inquiry. We said then that they did not need that law. The Supreme Court of Canada says that under the British North America Act, Canada has the authority, in reference to the administration of justice under section 91, to hold that royal commission. The government has advocated leaving this up to the provinces. Are we going to have, apart from Quebec, nine royal commissions looking into the problems across the nation? It is time this government, the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General measured up to their responsibilities.
Good, hard police work, without wiretapping, found out that Eaton's in Calgary, on a big sale day, would be blown up in order to get money out of their vault. How many people would have been murdered? The ring which was going to blow up Eaton's in Calgary came from Vancouver, Montreal and Calgary. Across this land there are syndicated people receiving money for murder, fraud and all types of crime as described under our code. That degrades the whole social structure of this country and erodes our youth and the people across this land.
I see, Mr. Speaker, you are about to rise. This is an important subject and I will not take longer than my 20 minutes. I should like to end with these words. For ten long years this party has stood positively for a royal commission set up by the federal government to investigate crime. That is our policy, and that is what we will do when we are elected to the government of Canada.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, during the few minutes allotted to me I would like to make a few comments on the motion moved today by my colleagues of the New Democratic Party on the relevance of a royal commission on organized crime in Canada. It is not a matter which can be easily solved. I heard the speech made by the mover (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
Leggatt) as well as that of the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) and I was surprised to note that with sometimes plausible arguments the proposition has been lightly dismissed.
Mr. Speaker, due to the complexity and the importance of the matter, I do not believe that we should merely dismiss a proposal for the establishment of a royal commission on organized crime. Besides, the minister recalled that government action can be summed up in about 27 years of history, more precisely, it goes back to 1968, when various police forces started a cooperative movement to try and stamp out organized crime.
Mr. Speaker, our country is still young, but we must admit that crime is not marginal, it is organized. It is made up of men, women and young people, it is everywhere in Canada, not only in Quebec or Ontario, it is found in all provinces and in all major cities. It has its own financial means, and they are tremendous, its own leaders; in short, it is organized. Mr. Speaker, I would even say it is a parallel organization which works within the state and had tentacles gradually reaching some officials and certain departments. Of course, they have their inside quarrels. Sometimes it gives the impression of so-called political scandals, but we know it exists.
Mr. Speaker, I ask myself this question briefly but seriously to answer the motion of the New Democratic Party. We know, on the one hand, that organized crime exists in Canada, that it has its tentacles, that it is well organized and that more often than not it thwarts the police forces of the country. On the other hand, we in Quebec, particularly in Montreal, have had the experience of the Commission of Inquiry into Organized Crime, and I am tempted to say like the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) that that commission only succeeded, in the end, in damaging the reputation of a number of simple people whose picture we saw on television. It provided money and paid judges and lawyers. It was, all in all, a source of amusement for a great many people. But if we consider the number of proceedings which were instituted as a result of this inquiry into organized crime, we can wonder to what extent such a commission can effectively fight against organized crime.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, the point of the mover was that a royal commission would cause every Canadian, every Quebecer, every Ontarian to wonder seriously about this, to increase his awareness of organized crime and to change his attitude as to the co-operation he should offer our police forces, something we are all seeking. Then, Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General argued that a royal commission would not be effective against crime, whereas the mover emphasized that it would increase the awareness of the Canadian public, open to the public a number of files, force various police corps to come clean, in a positive sense, and review their methods. Mr. Speaker, then, I think that that argument nullifies the Solicitor General's argument, and is valid as far as we are concerned.
We have heard in the House, at least since I first came here in 1968, great speeches occasionally from solicitors general- and we have had many of them since 1968-or indeed from ministers of justice about how serious the government was in
Organized Crime
its fight against crime. I might recall for example the famous omnibus bill, and the government proposals regarding the use of wiretapping in this country; I might also recall several questions raised in this House, and positions stated by various ministers on the role of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I might also recall a government proposal for gun control in this country.
All that is part of the means of action this government has to fight against organized crime of all kinds.
Just as you did, Mr. Speaker, I heard that controlling firearms in Canada, controlling their circulation, sale, distribution and use would have the direct effect of controlling organized crime or facing up to it. However, it is becoming ever more obvious that we control the firearms of law-abiding citizens. The firearms of the so-called criminals or bandits are not better controlled. As if a gangster will have his weapon registered. We would be very naive to believe this. I can hardly understand why the minister and his predecessors put forward this kind of arguments to say that the government is serious about this control.
I believe the minister said earlier that over 2,168 people are employed in the fight against organized crime. So there should be some action, some fight. What has the government to conceal about their methods? On the one hand the government is serious about controlling organized crime, they have the means, the methods, the men and, on the other hand, there is more and more uncertainty, fear, dissatisfaction among the public in Canada as far as the administration of justice in general is concerned. Therefore why not reconcile those two common and converging goals and set up a public inquiry on organized crime so as to stir up public opinion and reconsider methods used by the RCMP and other police forces.
Mr. Speaker, when I happen to think about it I wonder sometime if society itself is really committed to fighting crime. Not long ago-and I am sure that members from Quebec will remember that event-important demonstrations were being held in Quebec, not by anybody but by our law enforcement agents, our policemen, who merely wanted to pair up in police cruisers. They stated in a very clear, efficient and strong manner the reasons for this request. Of course, this does not come under federal government jurisdiction but it is part of the same society, the same approach. This request allowed for a remarkable debate. Public opinion supported our policemen's request. I did too because I thought it was normal that our policemen be not only well organized and equipped but that they could work in a way not to serve as targets for criminals and be in a position to defend themselves. How often have I intervened in the House, since 1968, asking the government to invest more money in crime prevention and juvenile delinquency! When I was a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, we looked into the matter. It is absolutely unbelievable that it should take so long to act on it. One need but consult the figures published by Statistics Canada, and repeated by the Solicitor General and again by

June 15, 1977
Organized Crime
many other hon. members, to realize that with regard to crime in this country we are somewhat like fire brigades: quite content to put out fires whenever they occur. We do not prevent crime. In any event, the methods the government claims to apply have clearly proved to be inefficient to fight against crime at its source.
Our judicial system is weak in many regards. When one knows how judges are appointed, one wonders about the quality of their decisions, since appointments to the bench are political in nature. Is it any wonder then that at times people lose faith in the administration of justice? I say that is serious, because when the day comes when citizens lose confidence in the administration of justice, one of the three fundamental powers in our country, the executive, the legislative and the judiciary, we reach the point where concern about the future becomes acute. The mechanism for the appointment of judges should also be revised.
Our crime prevention methods will have to be re-assessed. It is not enough to say that a royal inquiry will be carried out: most of all, we will have to know exactly what will be investigated, what powers the commission will have. I think we have to know. For the experience to be valuable, to be more than the mere public display of ruffians connected with organized crime, we will have, Mr. Speaker, to take that opportunity to re-assess our methods for preventing crime, juvenile delinquency, to know how delinquents are dealt with, how much money is invested.
Mr. Speaker, we will have to ask ourselves what crime is, and here I thank the mover of the New Democratic Party for making the House aware of that issue and giving us the opportunity to speak. They say they will fight organized crime. Some call for the establishment of a public inquiry. So, what is a crime? Is it, Mr. Speaker, when somebody is deprived of certain rights? Is it somebody's action which deprives ofthers and society of their rights? Just what is a crime? Is it strictly a question of murder? In that case, we will have to speak particularly of crime, of its commercial aspect and this is a point which I find highly interesting.
Mr. Speaker, the Social Crediters have spoken about it long ago and I am sure that the minister is going to find it amusing and is going to say that Social Credit members always manage to talk about the Bank Act, even when debating a motion on organized crime. But from our point of view, Mr. Speaker, the bank system is very close to organized crime. I see that the minister finds it amusing. If he wants to find it amusing, there will be two of us to be amused. Here is a list of about 700 to 800 workers from my riding who are threatened with the loss of their holiday pay because plants will be closing and because the creditors will act under section 88 of the Bank Act.
That, Mr. Speaker, is a direct theft which will be made on the workers' back. The closing of those plants will take place on July 1 if nothing is done to stop it in the meantime and if the government does not intervene. These plants, Mr. Speaker, are not typical of our area, as one finds them throughout Quebec. They make furniture. It is not a final decision, but according to our information, and we have every reason to

believe it is accurate, the holiday pay will not be paid to these employees because the creditors are hiding behind the famous section 88 of the Bank Act. Who pays for these holidays? It is a deduction from the worker's pay to pay him holidays when the time comes. He earns this money by the sweat of his brow, by the long working hours which he has worked. It is not a theft, it is a right. This holiday pay belongs to him. On top of losing his job, Mr. Speaker, when he has been working in a factory for 10, 15 or 20 years, he is about to lose his holiday pay, currently known as the 4 per cent. This is commercial fraud. This is not part of organized crime for the government. Banks can act and behave just as they want, there is no problem-


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: It is a legal theft!


André-Gilles Fortin: As my colleague, the member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) suggests, it is a legal theft. Mr. Speaker, the worst bandits are not necessarily people who got locked up by the police. There are a good number of them who are still at large and who, under the cover of law, as civil servants or as presidents of banks, think nothing of exploiting others. Regarding loansharking, for example, the government says that it is going to introduce a bill against loansharking-


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: They are the ones who allowed this.


André-Gilles Fortin: What a joke! If we had loansharking, it was precisely because this government allowed it. The government says it is going to control loansharking, but at the same time it is lending money to the government of Quebec to build low-cost housing for old people, at an interest rate of 10 per cent, with compound interest calculated every three months.
That is another type of legal robbery, but that is not considered as organized crime: it is legalized, it is part of the rules of the game. Mr. Speaker, after hearing what the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) had to say, a man whom I hold in deep respect, I suggest that he has handled this matter quite superficially. When it comes to setting up a royal inquiry commission on organized crime, I agree for the basic reason that this will help us create some awareness among the Canadian people. On the other hand, I would agree with it provided the mandate of this royal inquiry commission is enlarged to include a study on the effects of the implementation of the bank system in Canada. What is happening in the bank system is quite important, but he seems to find it funny. As if it were a joke! But it is far from being funny when one considers that our fellow citizens are left out to struggle with certain sections of the Bank Act.
I suggest this is legalized robbery and that the government has no right to close its eyes on such practices. A while ago, 1 was listening to the Solicitor General. I would like this to be my last remark, he sounded very serious, very committed in the fight against organized crime, yet, at the same time, he is the man who abolishes capital punishment. Isn't that a feat of logic! The abolishment of capital punishment simply shows today that killing is not a serious matter: any man can do what
June 15, 1977

he wants. Oh, sure, he is going to be penalized, all he has to do is post bail and he simply gets out, right in the street. What about the National Parole Board? It is the same thing with them, everything is fine; it is almost a vacation board for some prisoners, this one comes back, the other gets out and that other one is travelling.
We are about to see on the roads a new type of signs: Warning-Prisoners crossing. Yes, they are about to do it. When I was a little boy, I could see warning signs that read! Caution-Animals crossing. But now what we will see is this: Caution-Prisoners crossing. Yes, they get in, they get out and they move around. No wonder Canadians are generally preoccupied with this matter. The hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) sat on the committee that reivewed penitentiaries and he visited some. Take a look at the recommendations of that committee. They were unanimous and quite positive. Mark my words: Within three or five years from now, this very subject will again be debated in the House. We will only find out that the results will have been almost zilch just as what came out of all previous royal inquiry commission. This is why I say that in principle I cannot disagree with the proposition of the New Democratic Party concerning the establishment of a royal commission. But this proposition is not enough to show that we really want to fight organized crime.
Mr. Speaker, we have an alternative: If we want law and order, we will adopt mechanisms and legislation proving that we are serious and consequently we will punish those who violate the law and encourage those who abide the law. I think that is essential. The government must think twice before off handedly dismissing this proposition. On the other hand, I invite my colleagues of the NDP to specify what will be the extended terms of reference they wish to give this commission.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox), as the minister to whom the RCMP reports, has given a full and comprehensive statement on behalf of the government on the motion before the House. However, I want to cover very briefly a few points that result from the statement of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt).
First, I want to say to him that he asked us to be non-political and then he proceeded himself to be immensely political, as did the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). Surely there is no disagreement in the House, on either side, that we must search continuously to find in this country the most effective means of combatting organized crime. Little is achieved in the search for the most effective method by trying to turn this into a political argument or trying to attack the motives of this or that party. I am saddened by the political approach that the hon. member for New Westminster took to this whole issue. Our objectives in the House have been, and continue to be, to find the most effective way to deal with organized crime. Its influence in Canada is pervasive, it is vicious, and it is costing our economy millions of dollars and
Organized Crime
countless lives. Its addition to the crime picture in Canada is frightening to all of us involved.
The CBC, in its program, has brought to a wider public some knowledge and recognition of the problems in this country relating to organized crime. But I want to make it clear, as did the Solicitor General, that that program brought forward nothing that was new-most of it was already public knowledge-and certainly nothing that was not already known to law enforcement officers across the country. The hon. member for New Westminster seemed to think that that program has suddenly put a new light on organized crime in law enforcement circles. That is without foundation.
It would seem to me that the most important thing in debating this motion is that we want, and it seems to me that the people of Canada want, not inquiries but action. They want to see people investigated, charged, prosecuted effectively, and incarcerated in our penitentiaries. As the Globe and Mail, with which I often disagree, said the other day in an editorial on this issue-they were referring to an attorney general-"He talks of an inquiry. We have had inquiries. What we need is prosecutions". I totally agree with that.
The Solicitor General has pointed out in his statement the methods that Canadian police forces are using by joint force operations to get prosecutions. To bring an air of reality to this debate I would like to read into the record a statement that was issued a few moments ago in Toronto by three of this country's major police forces, the metropolitan police force, the Ontario provincial police and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It reads:
The metropolitan police force, the Ontario provincial police and the RCMP have been aware from the beginning that the CBC was involved in a research program in order to produce a documentary exposing some aspects of organized crime in Canada. We have all viewed the program and we will comment on it as it pertains to Ontario. We make no comment on the factual accuracy of what was shown on this program. However, as far as we are concerned there were no new facts of any investigative evidentiary value that were disclosed.
We recognized for some time that organized crime is active in Ontario. The three forces represented have been continually working to prosecute those persons involved in such criminal activities. These investigations have been carried out independently as well as in combined force operations. In respect of a number of people mentioned in the documentary, in so far as Ontario is concerned, there have been prosecutions and convictions and charges are pending against others.
For example, Papalia along with Sheldon Swartz was recently convicted of extortion and sentenced to six years in prison. Cotroni and Violi were also convicted of extortion and while the convictions have been quashed by the Ontario Court of Appeal, leave to appeal that decision to the Supreme Court of Canada is currently being sought by the attorney general's department. Paul Volpe has been charged with conspiracy to defraud. This case is currently before the courts.
In the past five months, combined force operations have charged in excess of 60 people whom we have identified as being involved in organized crime in Ontario. Charges have been laid ranging from extortion in connection with loansharking, counterfeiting, fraud, gambling, offensive weapons and drugs. The three forces are also continuing to enhance their efforts towards prosecuting persons involved in organized crime. This approach is in accordance with the public statement made by the solicitor general of Ontario, the hon. Mr. MacBeth, on April 19, 1977. The province of Ontario has provided the OPP with additional resources and the attorney general, the hon. Mr. McMurtry, has assigned prosecutorial staff from his ministry to handle the prosecution and to provide legal advice to the police during the investigation.
6716

June 15, 1977
Organized Crime
I would say, parenthetically, that the Solicitor General indicated in the House the other day that the same situation prevails in this government. When the government announced the restraint program on government expenditures, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) explicitly exempted from those restraints law enforcement officers and the RCMP. I continue to read the statement issued, as follows:
Organized crime can, of course, not be combatted by the police alone, we require the support of the public, the other components of the criminal justice system and our legislators. For example, speedy passage is required of amendments to the wiretap legislation which will permit us to more effectively investigate organized crime. Many of the amendments proposed in Bill C-51 are good ones but in our view they do not go far enough because they do not provide any effective expanded authority to wiretap in relation to organized crime. We understand that the CACP has recommended that the definition section of the legislation be changed to make this possible.


An hon. Member:: Who wrote that?


Stanley Ronald Basford: If the question implies that I did, let me say that obviously I have no authority or control over the Ontario provincial police. I continue to read as follows:
We are unanimous in the position that a public inquiry in Ontario is not necessary at this time. With improved legislation and the support of the public and other components of the criminal justice system we are confident that with our policy of combined force operations which assist in providing effective detection and prosecution we can deal with the organized crime problem in Ontario.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Justice would permit a brief question on that interesting document.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The minister has very significant experience in terms of the operations of police forces. In his experience, has he had a request from a police force that he conduct a public inquiry into itself? In his experience as Minister of Justice or as a member of parliament, has this happened?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I really do not know what relevance that question has to this debate. The motion we are debating deals with appointing a commission to inquire into organized crime, and the question relates to some investigation into police operations, so I must admit that I have no idea what connection this has with the debate.
I have consistently said in this House over the last few days when this issue has come before us that since 1975 reports tabled in this House by solicitors general, made by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, by provincial attorneys general and by their police advisers, have shown that the present wiretap provisions are not effective in dealing with organized crime. When the legislation was first passed, Mr. Paul Atkey, who was a Conservative member from Toronto, worked very hard on that legislation. The scheme was that authorization to wiretap for a group of named offences could be obtained. Then there was concern that there should be some general section which would allow police authorities to use electronic surveillance against the organizers of organized crime. Wording was

put into the second part of that section to deal with organized crime. We are advised by police authorities from one end of Canada to the other that that second part with that definition of organized crime is not working and that the purpose of parliament in 1974 is being defeated.
I plead with the hon. member for New Westminster to understand that in 1974 parliament, conscious of the civil rights of Canadians, endeavoured to word a section so that electronic surveillance could be used against organized crime.


Mr. Rodriguez:: It was a minority government.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The evidence we have had since is that that section is not working. Therefore, surely it should be amended. I plead with the hon. member for New Westminster to consider carefully that in 1974 parliament endeavoured to deal with organized crime. We have been advised year after year by officials that that section is not working. Therefore, we should deal with the section in committee this week and amend it in accordance with the advice we are receiving from attorneys general, from police authorities and from the advice contained in the brief of the Canadian police chiefs.
The other aspect of this is the notification which can be limited to 90 days. Apparently, the CBC took Vh years to make a program, most of which was public information which did not have to stand up in court and which did not have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The CBC took Vh years, yet the parliament of Canada, in its law, says to the police that in investigating organized crime they can be limited to 90 days.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Surely, as law enforcement officers, we have a responsibility to this parliament and to the people of Canada to put that on the record. As I have said a number of times in the committee and in this chamber, parliament has a duty to deal with this matter without rhetoric, without emotion and without politics.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: But the hon. member for New Westminster, who I think is opposed to wiretapping of any kind, says that it would be good for the police to go out on the beat and to do some police work. That will catch ordinary house and garden criminals but it will not catch the godfathers of organized crime. Surely, the suggestion of the NDP that that is how we are going to investigate, charge and prosecute the godfathers of organized crime in this country shows that the NDP does not know what it is talking about.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would accept a question at this time.


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker, but I will at the end of my remarks. My time is very limited. The hon. member for New Westminster, for whom I have an immense amount of respect, called upon us to appoint an inquiry into organized crime in
June 15, 1977

the hope that it would recommend some new form of coordinated law enforcement in Canada. Are we to deal with organized crime by ignoring and acting contrary to the recommendations of the principal police authorities of this country? That does not seem to me to be co-ordinated law enforcement.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: There are judicial authorities, too, and you are the Minister of Justice.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Should we, as parliamentarians, close our minds and our ears to what the police forces of this country are telling us as to what we need in terms of legislation?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Who is running this country, anyhow?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The issue raised by the hon. member for New Westminster is important. We have, and need, co-ordinated law enforcement. The Solicitor General spoke in detail and in specifics about joint force operations. I have indicated, however, that the enforcement of the Criminal Code is a provincial responsibility. The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) asked me a very pertinent question the other day about narcotics, immigration and other matters which clearly are within federal authority and control. However, the great bulk of the criminal law of this country is enforced by provincial attorneys general and provincial police forces.
On Monday 1 undertook to consult provincial attorneys general. 1 have talked with the attorneys general of British Columbia and Ontario, and I had communication through my office with the minister of justice of the province of Quebec. All the attorneys general of Canada and all the solicitors general of Canada and I will be meeting in Ottawa during the last week in June. However, I spoke with the attorneys general of the largest provinces in the country-certainly, by all indications, the three provinces in which there is the most organized crime-and they said they do not want to see some unilateral federal action without consultation with them. Of course, they will have to speak for themselves. We have agreed that there should be such consultation during our conference at the end of June. However, here we have the NDP and the official opposition saying that we should make some easy, political decision. They claim we should have better coordinated law enforcement and that we should make some unilateral decision, without proper consultation and co-ordination with provincial attorneys general who are responsible for the administration of the Criminal Code.
Surely, if we are to be effective in dealing with organized crime in Canada, we cannot make these kinds of unilateral decisions. In the search for the most effective way of dealing with organized crime these decisions should only be made after the closest possible consultation and co-ordination with provincial attorneys general and law enforcement officials. I, therefore, think it would be silly to accept this motion today when there has not been an opportunity for that kind of consultation and when the attorneys general of three provinces have told me
Organized Crime
they do not want me to make a decision until they have had a chance to discuss the matter with me further.
There has been a great deal of reference to the United States in the course of debate, with the suggestion that there is better control of organized crime there. 1 disagree with that. 1 think it is an irresponsible reflection on the police forces and law enforcement authorities of this country. There has been the inference that the United States deals with organized crime better than we do, but I suspect if that were so we would not be encountering the problem we have in Canada today. Organized crime is not a domestic Canadian industry; it is being imported.
In British Columbia, through a law enforcement unit comprised of the RCMP and others, we have upgraded law enforcement in the area of narcotics. It costs $8,000 to hire a courier to carry heroin from the golden triangle of Southeast Asia to Canada, while in the United States it only costs $2,000. The substantial difference is caused by the effectiveness of law enforcement in this country, where couriers are being apprehended at a far more effective rate than in the United States. So I want to resist and reject the inference of some hon. members that law enforcement authorities in the United States do a better job than our own.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. minister, but his allotted time has expired. He may continue, however, if there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am grateful for that co-operation, Mr. Speaker. I want to conclude by referring to British Columbia, because in moving the motion the hon. member for New Westminster referred to the co-ordinated law enforcement unit that operates in the province. Either this afternoon or tomorrow a proposal will be published in Victoria by that unit which was discussed with the attorney general of British Columbia and myself, as well as the Solicitor General and the health ministers of both governments, regarding the heroin trade. On March 24 we issued a joint statement on behalf of both governments, assigning the most senior law enforcement officers with experience in the area of drugs to examine the question of supply and demand. The work of that task force is almost completed and I expect to have a report very shortly. Both governments will then be able to ensure the best possible co-ordination to tackle the hard drug trade in Canada.
The hon. member calls for an inquiry because he claims we need greater co-ordination of police efforts. One need only look at what is going on to realize the degree of co-ordination that exists. The police forces and governments are continually working to improve that co-ordination, and I know we are not going to get it by making unilateral and immensely important decisions on a crime inquiry contrary to the advice of every senior police officer in the country.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say to the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) that I wholeheartedly support the motion he
80018-23'/2

June 15, 1977
Organized Crime
brought before the House today. I would like to commence my few remarks by reminding the Minister of Justice (Mr. Bas-ford) that he exhibits an obvious double standard when he speaks of the weight he wants the House to place on the advice of police officers with respect to increasing the powers for wiretapping. He admonishes us not to go against the advice of the police. But, Mr. Speaker, what group was more vocal in opposition to capital punishment than the police forces of this country? Did the Minister of Justice give them any more than lip service at that time? What the minister and the government wish to do obviously depends on their interpretation, not what the police wish to do.
It is also obvious that the minister's opposition to a royal commission inquiry on crime is based on equally tenuous logic. He argues that it is not a suitable forum, and the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) indicated that the police would have to divulge sources of information and that all this would set back crime prevention in this country. I do not think that would stand the test of logic, either. There is a provision in the Federal Court Act that the Solicitor General never fails to utilize when it suits him, and perhaps when it is necessary as well. I will not comment on that. Section 41(2) permits essential information in the eyes of the government-without the supervision of a judge, incidentally-to be withheld. I am certain that a royal commission with proper terms of reference could ensure that equal precautions could be taken so that if it appeared that the cause of the police in any particular area was menaced, the very capable people in charge of a royal commission of this magnitude would take equal precautions to keep that type of evidence from being introduced.
A royal commission could do something that the CBC tried and failed to do, namely, it could bring to the attention of the people of Canada, in the best possible way, the need for the maximum amount of effort to combat the encroachment of organized crime in this country. It would provide a forum where everyone who had anything to contribute and wished to do so, could appear without fear, favour, suspicion of collusion or any other unworthy motive. People could come and tell what they know, and make recommendations. All Canadians from coast to coast, and all law enforcement agencies could join in a crusade against organized crime. That is what it is going to take at this time to stop the ever-increasing encroachment of crime in all areas of society in this country.
Everyone who has studied the subject knows that the main targets of organized crime at this time are legitimate businesses. If you look beneath the surface you find their initiatives in industries such as trucking, waste disposal, real estate, construction, money lending-even the banks are not immune. As a senior official of the state of Michigan pointed out recently, the Americans are finding out there is a tendency for loansharking to be integrated in some banks. There have not been any prosecutions yet in the state of Michigan, but it has been indicated that there is evidence of mob influence pervading some banking institutions. In any event, banks are being victimized by bad loans and are being ripped off by various confidence schemes.

If we are to improve our capacity to combat organized crime, we have to look at various initiatives and at the very structure of our institutions. It is interesting that the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice both had to take some responsibility for this situation, in effect. That used not to be the case. As no other speaker has dealt with this particular topic, it seems to me it would be useful to look back and see the way things used to be when the RCMP only had to report to the minister of justice, which was one of the senior portfolios in parliament at an earlier time but which has lost some of its clout.
In this regard, it is interesting to see what the opinion was at the time the portfolio of solicitor general was created. It is also interesting to recall some of the predictions made at that time. I wish to read briefly from an article in the December 22, 1965, edition of the Toronto Star by a reporter who wrote this fairly comprehensive article. He wrote:
Prime Minister Pearson's cabinet reorganization last week contained a "sleeper" which attracted less attention than it deserved. This was the proposed splitting up of the functions of the Department of Justice.
Under this arrangement, the justice department will continue to administer the federal courts, draft legislation, and conduct litigation and prosecutions for the government. But a new department, headed by the Solicitor General, will administer the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the penitentiaries and the parole board.
It, is difficult to see any advantage in this change under Canadian conditions. The great problem in this country, in matters of justice and law enforcement, has always been the complicated and awkward division of responsibility between the federal government and the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, we see that that still continues to be the case. The article continues:
The confusion that already exists could be aggravated further by dividing the federal jurisdiction between two departments.
I will not read the entire article. One very relevant and somehow familiar passage is as follows:
It is not at all clear, in fact, what the government has in mind in proposing the change. At his press conference last Friday, Mr. Pearson spoke rather vaguely of the need for a more vigorous fight against organized crime.
Doesn't that have a funny ring over ten years later?
It is probable that the poor showing the department made in the Rivard affair contributed to the decision that a change was necessary.
But here again the remedy may only aggravate the disease. As former justice minister Davie Fulton put it this week, "It would be far more likely under the new setup that an RCMP report would never get to the Department of Justice."
It would appear the Solicitor General may have some problems there as well.
What the department needs, in fact-
That is, the Department of Justice.
-is not a hasty amputation but a careful reorganization to improve co-ordination between its various branches.
There is something to be gained by pondering the import of that brief excerpt from a 1965 newspaper. In the over ten years that have since elapsed we have not seen much of a national effort nor many results in combatting organized crime. True, the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice have read into the record some impressive accomplishments. I
June 15, 1977

am sure that all members of this House applaud those accomplishments. We only wish they were even more significant. 1 agree with the hon. gentlemen in those two portfolios that there is not a member of the House of Commons who does not wholeheartedly support the efforts of the RCMP. Indeed, I suspect there is not one of us who would not willingly support greater appropriations, budgetary and in every other way, to facilitate their efforts against organized crime.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: We are not here to venerate nor denigrate the RCMP. We are here to improve the conditions under which they work. We would also like to make some constructive suggestions to the government to expedite their work.
The point made by the Minister of Justice that somehow we have a better record in Canada at the present time than the United States does not stand the test of logic. Certainly, anyone who has looked at any of the publications or programs lately realizes that organized crime has the same capacity as any multinational corporation. Meyer Lansky has just as much organizational ability as anybody who runs any multinational corporation in legitimate society. If the pickings in Canada are attractive, it will not take very long for organized crime to move their operations here, which according to the evidence we have seen lately is exactly what they are doing.
There is another problem. It has to do with the RCMP in the sense that if we are to expect the RCMP to fulfil their difficult and demanding role, we must take a look at the conditions under which they work and the attitude and relationship that exists between the RCMP and the Solicitor General to whom they report. I have been advocating, as have other hon. members, for a long time some needed changes to facilitate a better recourse to natural justice within the RCMP for members of the force. I see the previous solicitor general in the chamber at the present time. He made an effort to do that, but unfortunately during the time he was in the portfolio there were not many tangible results to change the poor treatment, in some cases, of RCMP officers which were brought to his attention. I wholeheartedly support the RCMP. Indeed, in many cases I have acted for individual officers. However, I was somewhat disturbed about the attitude exhibited by certain RCMP officers high up in the hierarchy toward the Solicitor General.
A most flagrant example to illustrate this, and which still causes me some concern for the relationship at times between the Solicitor General and the force for which he is responsible is contained in a report which I was able to get. I have a portion of it here. I have the whole document, if anybody wants to see it. A high ranking inspector, an officer in charge of the legal branch, said this about the then solicitor general:
It is not surprising either that there is at least the allegation, if not the fact, of influence peddling between the lawyer and the Solicitor General.
The background of this was simply that the solicitor general, to his credit, had been in touch with a lawyer in the Ogilvy Cope firm in Montreal named Arthur Campeau, who was trying to get a little bit of justice for some RCMP officers,
Organized Crime
Don McCleery and Gilles Brunet, who had been summarily discharged under section 173 without a smidgeon of a hearing. He was entering into some sort of dialogue with the lawyer to see what could be done to mitigate the circumstances if that were justified. It was absolutely unforgivable for a high-ranking RCMP officer to make that kind of ajlegation against the then solicitor general, under the circumstances. That is the type of thing that worries me about the relationship between the solicitor general and the force. It makes me think that the force should still be reporting to a more senior minister, the minister of justice, and it would resolve some of this bifurcated responsibility that exists between these two ministers vis-a-vis our national police force.
Another incident that shook my confidence about the type of information that we as members of the House of Commons get in these matters was the response I got to questions concerning information that I had elicited abaut the RCMP being in danger of being sued by a Montreal businessman as a result of some unfortunate things that the force had said about him. I raised this in the House of Commons and got very little response. I finally put it down for the adjournment debate. I then had the solicitor general's parliamentary secretary of the day, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Poulin), practically tell me-and it is in Hansard-that I was crazy to suggest such a thing; that the RCMP would ever negotiate with anyone as to whether they would be sued or not.
I did not put it on the record. I can, because I have those documents as well. But I have a report signed by a former RCMP inspector saying precisely the opposite; that he went to that businessman's office, Mr. Bronfman, twice for the express purpose of negotiating with that man in order that he would not sue the force for defamation or libel. The information I got in the House of Commons about this matter was directly contrary to the facts, and misleading. I only mention it again to show that the information members of parliament get in this place from those on the other side is either the result of poor information gathered by the force-and I prefer to think that is the case-or reluctance to come clean by the government with their parliamentary colleagues. This is the type of thing that is worrisome. It affects the perception of both the force and the minister.
1 raise that at this time in the context of this debate in the hope that some of these things will be looked into and studied. Most of all, I do it in the hope that the Solicitor General, who in my opinion is doing a good job and appears to be very cognizant about the need to do something about these conditions and to improve the communication and relationship between himself and the force, will look into some of these past injustices which he knows exist regarding McCleery, Brunet, Primeau, and others.
He has said he has already some indication that some of the recommendations of Judge Rene Marin are being brought in. I accept his word, I hope some day he will make the House aware of precisely what changes have been brought in as a

June 15, 1977
Organized Crime
result of Judge Marin's recommendations. He has also given us an undertaking that he will be bringing in legislation, possibly in the fall, to implement in a more formal way parts of Judge Marin's report. I trust that he will do that.
As far as the fight against crime in concerned, everyone must surely realize that if we are to assist the police there has to be a change in public attitude. There has to be greater utilization of specialized law enforcement personnel for the purpose of fighting organized crime with every weapon available. This does not mean we must resort to unrestricted wiretapping, or that we should forget the very important criteria of civil rights in our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: It seems to me that a substantial body of opinion in this country reflects the view of the editorial in today's Ottawa Citizen which says, in part, when referring to this matter, that it is before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and that somebody, if an open society is to be preserved, must reject the frightening proposals of the Minister of Justice.
None of us here in this chamber wants to inhibit the police, but for the Minister of Justice to say that at the same time we must give them carte blanche as far as wiretapping is concerned, just because they want it, whilst ignoring the fact that they wanted just as much to retain capital punishment and their advice was there disregarded, is expecting members of the House of Commons to be extremely gullible. Just as justice is sometimes too important to be left to lawyers, I think that civil rights are too important to be left to police officers.


Mr. Allmand:: Very good.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that as far as the more intelligent use of law enforcement aids is concerned, there is much room for the better private security agencies to play a role in this country. At the present time there are many.


Francis Fox: Which ones?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I am pleased the Solicitor General asked the question, because if he had been on the ball he would have had someone down to the national convention of the Canadian Society for Industrial Security which took place in Halifax and which was attended, incidentally, by the commanding officer of H Division of the RCMP. Modesty will not permit me to tell hon. members who was the keynote speaker on that occasion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Go on, tell us.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Well then, it was I. And nobody followed me when I left. Mr. Speaker, the fact that people today are very willing, in many cases, to deal with those who are fences, who deal in illicit goods, and who at the same time profess themselves to be respectable citizens, makes the task of law enforce-

ment a lot more difficult. A reporter for one of Canada's great newspapers, the Halifax Herald, wrote:
If Mr. Joe Citizen stopped purchasing stolen goods from thieves, thieving would not be a worth-while practice.
Also, Mr. Speaker, if merchants who operate large business concerns while using mass displays in a self-service format would take better security precautions and hire worth-while private security people to protect their property-something which cannot be done to the same extent as used to be the case-if they would do this and free the resources of regular police forces for the fight against organized crime, that in itself would be a very useful initiative. It is very clear that in the circumstances of today the public of Canada must be mobilized and made aware of what is happening to our country as far as the progression of organized crime is concerned. The Solicitor General-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired. He may continue only with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will not continue for long. I would just like to say, in conclusion, that as far as the basis for a national inquiry, a royal commission on organized crime, is concerned in this country, never before has there been a time when it would be more appropriate to establish one than at the present. The various attorneys general in this country, law enforcement agencies and, more important, the public at large could use this proposed royal commission to consider collective measures and draw up a master plan to combat organized crime.
The very publicity that in some cases can be so harmful to members such as my hon. friend from Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) could, in a judicial and directed forum, focus on the need for an organized fight against crime without the unfortunate fall-out and needless harm done to reputations like his when the CBC attempts to bring to the Canadian people some realization of the problem. It may have been with the best of motives but surely the national broadcasting corporation, commendable as its attempts may have been to bring home to the Canadian people the need for an inquiry, can never serve as a substitute for a royal commission to inquire into something as important as this. That is why I think the hon. member for New Westminster has done parliament and the country a valuable service by moving this motion at this particular time.


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to congratulate the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) for bringing in his motion, although I do not necessarily agree that a royal commission should be set up at this time. It is a very timely issue-the kind of thing the hon. member always does. I know of his hard work as a member of the committee on justice and legal affairs. I know he takes this work seriously and that he means it when he says a royal commission to investigate
June 15, 1977

organized crime ought to be appointed. I also wish to congratulate the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) whose speech was so persuasive that I almost changed my mind and decided 1 had better not make a speech on the subject at all. But this having been said, 1 should like to offer a few observations on the motion.
Over the past few years, television viewers have been treated to some very spectacular revelations in the Quebec crime probes. The CBC's special crime reports last Sunday and Monday have further fed public interest and concern over organized crime. These programmes have, understandably, mobilized concern about the penetration of organized crime in our society. However, the remedy suggested, that of a royal commission, will in all probability tell us little that we do not already know. Recent news reports and the CBC special have made it very clear who is involved in organized crime. The media have already made public who is connected with whom, and how. I doubt very much that this information is new to the RCMP. These people are well known to police agencies. So what possible practical service could be done by running over the ground again? The sensationalism which usually accompanies public hearings such as the one the hon. member has suggested would, instead of helping our law enforcement agencies, act as a major stumbling block.
If nothing else, the people involved in organized crime are astute. They shun publicity, as was graphically demonstrated by one man who spat at the CBC cameraman filming him as he walked down the street. I am sure that recent publicity has not acted as any kind of deterrent-Increased publicity would not, in my view, act as a deterrent, either. I believe that this kind of exposure will make these people go even further underground. It will make more difficult the already difficult task the police currently face.
The Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) suggested yesterday that many months and years of work are involved in acquiring evidence in some cases. It is difficult to calculate how much of this hard work has been wasted as a result of sensational publicity. However, I am sure that a royal commission would not provide the proper means for the protection of the Canadian people. At best, we could expect these people to lie low and, like a possum, play dead. But I suggest that as soon as the heat is off a miraculous resurrection will occur and we will be back to square one. We will be no further ahead and we will have wasted valuable time and money, time and money that could be better spent by the police in obtaining evidence that would put these people behind bars where they belong.
The police do not want a public inquiry. They think that the job is better handled through law enforcement agencies. I suggest that the people of Canada want to get on with ridding our cities and towns of organized crime. A royal commission would only prolong that elimination. We only have to look at the Quebec crime probe to see the mixed effects that spectacular publicity produces. We have seen dangerous criminals
Organized Crime
made into cult figures, and unfortunately have not seen many individuals put behind bars for their very real crimes.
Organized crime is an old and sad story in Canada. Criminal mobs and gangland style killings go back many years. Recently these activities have received documentation in a book entitled "The Canadian Connection", by Jean-Pierre Charbonneau. From this book it is apparent our police forces have been waging a constant battle against known criminal elements. For the police it is not a question of who, but how and when and where. The answers must be able to stand up in court and to lead to the conviction of criminal defendants.
Will these answers be available in testimony before a royal commission? I think not, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, real life is not like "Kojak" who has a secret witness to tell all. An obstinate criminal refusing to answer legitimate questions before a royal commission is both a forceful moral lesson and good TV, but it does not provide us with the answers we need. The answers to our questions are available from the processes of law enforcement and it is to these processes that we must address ourselves.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) has proposed that Bill C-51 will provide the police with greater powers to attack organized crime, particularly with regard to wiretapping. The provisions of Bill C-51 will extend the time period for a tap and also extend the time by which the person under surveillance has to be informed of the tap. Some have said that recent figures show wiretapping is not very effective because only a few indictments are obtained from hundreds of wiretaps. I submit that this is misleading. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has stated:
The fact remains that one indictment alone can cover hundreds of accused persons and therefore, the number of indictments is no indication at all of the value of electronic surveillance.
The Minister of Justice stated in the House yesterday:
Obviously authorizations obtained in one year do not lead to arrests or convictions in that year, but in subsequent years.
Others have suggested that the extensions of time limits involved in wiretapping will broaden police powers to such an extent that they, the police, will casually tap phones without legitimate cause. On this point I would like to say that there are judicial restrictions which preclude this type of illegal use of wiretaps. As well, the police would have to have far greater resources than they do at present to maintain indiscriminate wiretaps. The police are far too busy using their manpower and energies on those criminals involved in serious crimes. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that while the privacy of individuals must be protected, it is also the right of the Canadian people to be protected from those persons who may be suspected of, and in many cases are known to be involved in, criminal activity. Today's Globe and Mail reported that a man was found guilty of conspiring to pass forged cheques for more than $110,000. Several people were involved and the police cracked the ring by using wiretap evidence. Therefore, I believe that the passage of Bill C-51 would be a far more effective measure to get rid of organized crime than a royal commission.

June 15, 1977
Organized Crime
I would like to remind hon. members of other legislation which will also strike a serious blow to organized crime. Bill C-16, the Borrowers and Depositors Protection Act, has provisions which will, if passed, seriously challenge one of organized crime's most profitable ventures-loansharking. I might mention to members of the House that in 1975 I presented a private member's bill on loansharking, but it was talked out. Perhaps if we had not talked it out but had implemented its recommendations, we would not have the loansharking that we have today.
Testimony to the Quebec crime probe has again and again told of the ruthlessness of "Shylocks" and of how lucrative this "business" is. One racketeer told the commission that a man lost his $40,000 clothing store because he owed a loan shark $1,200 and could not meet the weekly payments. Another was reduced from being owner of a dry-cleaning firm to a $100 per week employee in the same business because of loan sharks. Inspector Joe Terdik of the Peel regional police intelligence branch says that loansharking is more than people being sucked into a payment web; it is also a device used to extend organized crime into legitimate businesses.
Bill C-16 has limits concerning interest rates which will provide fines and imprisonment for those lenders convicted of charging exorbitant amounts. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Abbott) stated before the health, welfare and social affairs committee:
-to enhance the effectiveness of the "criminal rate" provision and to facilitate civil recovery by borrowers who have been subject to such rates it is intended to make a conviction under the "criminal rate" provision conclusive proof that an unwarranted rate was charged. As such not only will the "criminal lender" be subject to fines and imprisonment, but he will also, in effect, be automatically liable to refund all or most of the interest exacted-
Let me reiterate it is not a royal commission that we need. We need enabling legislation and public support for the police forces waging this war which is going on at the present time. Jean-Pierre Charbonneau has stated the case well as follows:
The battle against drug trafficking is a perpetual recommencement. Those who wage it know that. They wish, however-and they are right to do so-that the public would understand them better and support them a little more. Their use of informers, spies... electronic eavesdropping do not meet with general favour. And yet... without these methods it would be impossible to carry out an effective battle against those exploiters of human misery.
In a lengthy article from Time magazine of May 16, 1977, it was recommended that more money and manpower must be provided for those agencies fighting organized crime and that easier bugging of known members of organized crime be allowed. Also recommended was tightened legislation to prohibit laundering of money, loansharking and racketeering. I submit we have two of these recommendations before us now in Bill C-51 and Bill C-16. Moreover, the Solicitor General has said new provisions to help the RCMP combat organized crime will be brought forward shortly.
The Minister of Justice also said in his speech this afternoon that he will be meeting with the attorneys general of the various provinces on this very matter of organized crime. What we must do is get on with it and not languish by holding royal commissions which will bear little fruit.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. With the conclusion of this debate, proceedings on the motion before the House have expired pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 58. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned till tomorrow at 11 o'clock a.m., pursuant to an order made Monday, May 30, 1977.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

Thursday, June 16, 1977