John Reynolds

[Supply, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, certainly there are a number of ways and a standard basis of just criminals getting in.

There is the situation of the triad leader I mentioned who was turned down in Hong Kong and got in through the L.A. office. There is no question in my mind, even though there was a report written by a former ambassador, that there were cover-ups in that area. There is very strong evidence and I think we should call these people to the committee. Mr. MacAdam who has gone public and Corporal Read when talking about Sidewinder have some answers in that area as to why these people are getting in. We have to get them before that committee and talk about it.

We have to stop the payoffs and the fraud outside the country. We all know the RCMP has numerous investigations at embassies right now into people who are paid off at the local level to get people to the front of the line. We have to stop that.

One might ask, why did a federal judge with evidence from the RCMP and worldwide police organizations of a well-known triad leader allow that man to stay in Canada? There should be no reason for that whatsoever and yet a judge did that in this country and it was a federal judge. That is what disturbs me the most because most federal judges come by political appointment, as we all know. I just start to wonder.

I have been in this business for a long time. I sat in a committee of this House in the seventies on penitentiaries. It was unanimous from all members of the House, yet I know the government did darned near nothing about it when it came in. I hope that if we make this public enough, we can get some answers, get them out before the public and make sure that things change so that people do not laugh at Canada because it is such an easy place to get into by organized crime.

[Supply, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, no other issue threatens the sovereignty of Canada, or for that matter other nations, like organized crime. Organized crime is operating in Canada with impunity. The extent of organized crime is epidemic.

Allow me to read a statement from the Canadian Police Association: “Recent threats against the Bloc MP should be a wake up call for all politicians” says the executive officer of the 30,000 member Canadian Police Association, David Griffin. “The frightening reality is that organized criminals are flourishing in epidemic proportions and police feel frustrated by the lack of tools and resources to fight back. Canada has gained third world status as a haven for organized criminals and money laundering”, said Griffin. “Even our institutions are being threatened by the influence of global criminals. Two Quebec prison guards were murdered. A member of parliament and his family are now under police protection and players in the National Hockey League have become the targets of Russian gangsters”.

I am told by police officers that there is too much politics and infighting regarding who is in charge of fighting organized crime in Canada. I am told it is foolish to have provincial law enforcement agencies take on this issue. We are in dire need of a national organized crime agency to deal with this issue. We must tie all of the different agencies together.

Recently the solicitor general announced the formation of an organized crime directorate, headed by an individual of deputy minister status in the RCMP. I was told last night by a crime fighter that this initiative is nothing but smoke and mirrors. The individual put in charge has no foot soldier to carry out the task, no resources and is wondering what to do. He is in a void.

Every August a report on organized crime is tabled by the Criminal Intelligence Service of Canada. Every year is a litany of the proliferation of organized crime. Every year it offers, according to my crime fighting friend, no plan of action, simply recognition of everything every police officer already knows but does not have the power to change.

Let us get serious. If Canada were really intent on fighting organized crime we would get away from the rhetoric and deal with such obvious issues as RCMP understaffing in British Columbia due to budgetary cuts. There have have millions of dollars in cuts and the RCMP detachment is not meeting its own standards. Yet, we expect police officers to do their jobs. One would think there is some complicity with organized crime to allow these staffing issues in the RCMP.

If we were serious we would deal with the illegal entry of Chinese migrants. We all know that organized crime is being paid to get them into Canada. If we were serious we would not be playing the patsy for the triads in Vancouver. If we were serious we would take a look at the kinds of companies we allow to do business in Canada, particularly those like COSCO, which is allowed to use the Vancouver waterfront but has been banned from U.S. ports because of nefarious or suspect criminal activity. It imported AK-47s into the United States for criminal purposes. It is banned from U.S. ports, yet it looks after the Vancouver ports now. Is it not interesting that this government allowed the port police to disappear just when it took over? Why are we so naive?

If we were serious we would never have allowed a known triad leader, Tong Sang Lai, to enter Canada. He was rejected in Hong Kong but allowed into our Los Angeles office. He is known and on a Canadian list of high ranking triad leaders. If we were serious we would not have whitewashed how he eluded scrutiny by conducting a phoney inquiry at immigration. Many who know the Lai story know of the drive-by shooting that took place at his residence in Vancouver, a settling of a score. He is still around. Is there is nothing we can do but turn a blind eye to the existence of known triads in Vancouver?

If we were serious, we would question and investigate the existence of crooked Hong Kong police officers who retired, so called, in Canada. These officers made medium salaries in Hong Kong, yet live in million dollar homes in Vancouver. How did they get that kind of money? Are they doing it here on the take? What is the government doing?

At least 44 former Royal Hong Kong Constabulary police officers who fled a corruption crackdown in the former British colony have established themselves in Canada with their ill-gotten gains, police studies show. Dubbed the millionaire cops, the ex-Hong Kong officers, their wives and concubines are believed to have invested tens of millions of dollars in businesses and real estate in Canada, mostly in British Columbia and Ontario.

A covert study by the Asian organized crime investigators, with the help of Immigration Canada officials, found that 30 of the police officers have invested in at least 13 B.C. companies and bought about 50 pieces of property in the Vancouver area. This included large homes in West Vancouver, commercial buildings, a shopping mall and vacant acreage. Others invested in restaurants and bought shares in a private hospital.

The study also found that four of them whose average salary had been about $30,000 Hong Kong a year, a pittance by North American standards, have built a two tower, 600 room hotel in Toronto valued at more than $20 million. Police sources said the B.C. study into the cops with strong connections to triads in the Chinese mob began in the late 1970s and was updated in the 1980s, but it was kept under wraps.

Last night I was told by a crime fighter that he thinks the Canadian embassy in Hong Kong has been bought and paid for by organized crime. He feels our system of security has been penetrated and he has a point. Allow me to explain.

Project Sidewinder, a joint CSIS-RCMP venture, was launched in the mid-1990s to look into the influence of Chinese tycoons in Canada and their political connections. The investigation was going along merrily, perhaps too well. Names were being amassed and the information was being assembled on Chinese espionage activities and triad-linked businesses in Canada. After a couple of years the probe was abruptly shut down, and following that CSIS destroyed documents pertaining to the investigation. Why? Two people involved in it know and stepped forward. One was an immigration official at the Hong Kong embassy, Brian McAdam, an expert on Chinese criminals. He knows the immigration computer, and files and codes were accessed by those who should not have had access.

Another Canadian, Corporal Robert Read of the RCMP, agreed and talked about the project sidewinder and was suspended. In a series of compelling and investigative stories by Fabian Dawson of the Vancouver Province , the project sidewinder story has been revealed. SIRC has been called in to get to the bottom of the issue. Many important names are surfacing in its investigation and many of these names are those of individuals with investments and interests in Canada.

Frankly, the government is ignoring the proliferation of organized Chinese crime figures in Canada. One asks the question where the direction is coming from when it comes to shutting down investigations like Project Sidewinder.

If the Canadian government was serious about organized crime, this would not happen. Is our sovereignty being sold? It is a good reason this is going to committee. It is sad for instance that questionable and suspect organizations of our Hong Kong immigration office are surfacing. As well, one has to question the wisdom of our federal court in this entry of triad leaders into Canada. I will quote one instance, a triad leader turned down by immigration a number of times. His name was Lam Chum-wai, a member of a very notorious triad. Yet the federal court overturned those rejections and he was allowed to stay in Canada. A known criminal should not be in this country, a triad leader by all reports, and yet a federal court judge allowed him to stay in Canada. Nobody questioned that issue of a judge and we should be. We should be asking why this is happening.

In October I had the pleasure of attending the ministerial conference of the G-8 countries on combating transitional organized crime held in Moscow. I knew organized crime was proliferating, but I did not know to what extent and in what high-tech way. Clearly, the bad news guys have the upper hand.

There was a communique issued at that conference that said:

The G-8 are committed to fight against the dark side of globalization—transitional organized crime which threatens to damage our societies and our economies.

We have agreed that transnational organized crime can only be successfully combated by combining preventative and enforcement measures.

We have agreed that all G-8 members who have not yet done so should consider the possibility of accession to the Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of proceeds from Crime. We also agreed on the importance of an outreach to the media and non-governmental organizations because they have important roles to play in fighting against organized crime and corruption.

1. Today, we have endorsed the Guiding Principles and Plan of Action to Combat the Smuggling of and Trafficking in Human Beings, which was prepared by the G-8's Lyon Group under guidance provided at the G-8 Summit in Birmingham in 1998...

2. We have agreed to co-operate against an immediate threat—the possible use of Y2K as a cover for high-tech transnational organized crime frauds. We have agreed to support the continuing work of our Lyon Group subgroup on high-tech crime. We must explore new options for locating and identifying criminals who use networked communications for illegal purposes.

This debate could go on and on. I certainly have a lot more to say but I know my time is just about up.

I congratulate the Bloc members for what they are doing today and I congratulate the government for allowing this to go to committee. I think it is time we got into some very serious discussions in committee as to how do we really stop organized crime in Canada. Let us get the facts on the table. Let us call the Corporal Reads, the Mr. MacAdams and people like that to the committee and get their stories under oath to a bunch of members of parliament who can finally take the tough stand and take some action against organized crime in Canada.

[Supply, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the government supports this motion. I look forward to getting it to committee.

The solicitor general covered a lot of things the government is doing including the new organized crime directorate. One of the problems is that the directorate is sitting there with no staff and bodies. As the solicitor general knows, the RCMP is not meeting its par levels in most of the major detachments in Canada, which is a serious problem. Where is he going to get the money to put the bodies in charge to work with this organized crime directorate to alleviate that situation?

I will mention one case from the early nineties. There was a great operation called Green Ice which was a co-operation of eight countries around the world on drug enforcement. It targeted the Columbian cartel and it was very successful. It seized $47 million U.S., 140 bank accounts and a lot of arrests were made. There was a lot of publicity about how good that was. The Columbian cartel's profits are estimated at $30 billion U.S. a year. That whole operation got two-tenths of 1% of what the Columbian cartel does.

That was one good operation but it only touched two-tenths. To solve this problem we not only need the organized crime directorate but we need a national police force dedicated to organized crime. Would the solicitor general be prepared to talk with the provincial premiers, justice ministers and solicitors general across the country to put together a national police force on organized crime? It would be dedicated to this one issue and would work with municipalities, provinces, all police forces and the armed forces to get to the bottom of the organized crime problem in Canada.

[Supply, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Bloc for this motion. It is an excellent motion and one that we should be debating in the House. My party will be supporting the motion tonight when the vote is held.

I have travelled around the country as the chief justice critic for the Reform Party. I have talked to municipal police, the RCMP, provincial police forces and people in our armed forces. One of the great concerns they have is that we do not have a national police force dedicated to organized crime. Would the Bloc support looking at setting up a national force dedicated only to organized crime? It would work at the municipal level, the provincial level and the federal level to get to the bottom of what is happening in the country on this very serious problem of organized crime.

[National Parks Act, November 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to provide a B.C. perspective to this misguided initiative by the member for Davenport. I will also speak on behalf of individuals and organizations from my constituency of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, people who live in the area where the member of parliament from Toronto wants to put a national park.

I find it interesting that the member for Davenport is trying to foist this upon the citizens of my riding. I surely cannot see a British Columbia member of parliament telling the residents of Davenport or anywhere else in Ontario how to manage their land base. I am also intrigued by this initiative, given that the former secretary of state for parks and the current minister of heritage have rejected the idea of a national park for Stoltmann. It seems a member who knows so much about British Columbia is out of step with the cabinet ministers within his own party.

Allow me to read into the record for the member for Davenport who is from Toronto what the secretary of state for parks said in a letter to the mayor of Squamish, British Columbia dated March 19, 1999 concerning Stoltmann. It states:

Parks Canada is responsible for the establishment and operation of national parks and uses a framework of 39 natural regions for planning the national parks system. At present, 24 are represented by at least one national park or national park reserve. In addition, lands have been reserved for a future national park in four other regions.

The Randy Stoltmann wilderness area is situated in the Pacific coast mountains regions (natural region 1). Gwaii Haanas and Pacific national park reserves currently represent this region in Canada's system of national parks. Given that this region is well represented in the existing network, Parks Canada is focusing its resources on creating new national parks in those natural resource regions that are not yet represented.

Allow me to edify the member from Toronto further on where his government stands. The following is a quote from a letter I received from the Minister of Canadian Heritage dated August 25, 1999:

The federal government is not proposing a national park for Stoltmann. Parks Canada is responsible for the establishment and operation of national parks and uses a framework of 39 natural regions for planning the national parks system. The Randy Stoltmann wilderness area is situated in the Pacific coast mountains region (natural region 1) Gwaii Haanas and Pacific Rim national park reserves currently represent this region in Canada's system of national parks. Given that this region is well represented in the existing network, Parks Canada is focusing its resources on creating new national parks in those regions that are not yet represented.

I ask the member for Davenport if he sees any similarities in the two letters I just quoted from. Does he grasp the logic and rationale for these decisions not to create a park in Stoltmann?

I would also like to add another reason I feel there is no need for another national park in British Columbia. The Government of British Columbia has agreed to a protected area strategy for the lower mainland which resulted in 13% of the land being set aside for park, and a number of those parks are within the immediate vicinity of Stoltmann.

In May 1996 over 136,000 hectares of additional land was protected as parks on the lower mainland alone. That was on top of the 444,000 that had already been set aside for parkland. In fact, 14% of the area from the Fraser Valley to the coast is in protected areas. In the Squamish area parks comprise 22% of the land base. I challenge most other Canadians in major metropolitan areas to meet that quota of 22% of the land base for parks.

Business paid a price at that time and lost thousands of hectares of timber through that process. The British Columbia government assured everyone that the process of additional parkland was complete.

I might add, since the member who is initiating further parkland is not from British Columbia, that this 136,000 hectare allotment of parkland included the 30,357 hectare Clendenning Park and the 19,996 hectare Upper Lillooet Park.

Forest businesses in the area have categorically stated that any thought of a 500,000 hectare park like Stoltmann would mean the end of their business and consequently people on the unemployment line. Perhaps that is what the member for Davenport wants.

Those British Columbians who developed the land use plan for the Squamish area agree that the plan is balanced and sets aside ample land for parks and protected areas. Why does the member for Davenport wish to upset this balance and insinuate himself into the picture? He is not from British Columbia and I know he did not visit this park until after he introduced the bill.

Before he or anyone from Ontario says that British Columbians are not sensitive to parks and protected lands, I will let him know that downtown Vancouver is home to the only wilderness forest in the world. Its 1,000 hectares was opened in 1888 by Lord Stanley and has an 11 kilometre seawall circling it. It has an aquarium, ponds, lagoons, towering trees, and all kinds of flora and fauna. It is called Stanley Park. Does Toronto have a park that is equivalent? I think the member should spend some time looking at his own area.

I wonder how the member for Davenport would feel if preservationist splinter groups assisted by the Western Canada Wilderness Committee were spreading mistruths about the operations of companies and businesses in his riding. These groups have initiated illegal blockades and have vandalized equipment owned by the companies attempting to carry out legitimate logging in the Elaho Valley. These groups have misinformed the public and international customers about forestry and logging in British Columbia and about the Squamish area land use plan. That is the real serious issue, the misinformation to people around the world which is hurting jobs in my community.

Does the member for Davenport condone this behaviour? These same preservationists have not consulted with first nations. The Lil'wat band whose traditional lands fall partially in the Elaho Valley vigorously oppose the creation of a park and object to the protester actions on their traditional lands.

How does the member for Davenport feel about that? I am sure he would agree with me. He does not like these types of confrontations. Why does the member for Davenport encourage further mistruths from these protesters about Interfor wanting to cut 1,300 year old trees when he and the protesters know that this is just not the case.

Let me say a few things about Interfor, the unfortunate company involved in this eco hostage taking. Interfor leads the industry in the use of environmentally sensitive harvesting methods. Interfor owns and operates the largest helicopter logging operation in British Columbia. Helicopter logging is the leading edge of environmentally friendly operations. Interfor gave up some 30,000 hectares of tree forest licence 38 for creation of Clendenning Park in the upper Elaho.

Interfor practises variable retention, which means that its harvesting practices are designed to leave various amounts of standing trees. It is known as a firm that is constantly evaluating its sustainable forestry. Its practices recognize that a variety of systems are appropriate for different forest conditions. In short, Interfor is a good corporate citizen and is being maligned by ecoterrorism tactics.

These tactics put their workers in jeopardy. There is no place for destroying the private property of anyone as these ecoterrorists have done to Interfor. There are over 400 forest sector employees, good hard working union members and their families living in the Squamish area. These people need these jobs. The mayor of the district of Squamish, the council and the community support Interfor, as does the village of Pemberton. They want to see these jobs protected and land use planning involving the entire community. Those who would incite to destroy a comprehensive and balanced approach that has been ratified are not welcome.

I cannot support a bill that has little balance and knowledge of the area. It initiates instability in the Squamish area and as such incites unrest and disharmony. The member for Davenport should stay out of the affairs of British Columbians. I reject his initiative, and so do my constituents, outright.

[Criminal Code, November 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the question here is about priorities.

The minister knows that this legislation before the courts can be handled by the notwithstanding clause. It was put in the constitution by members of parliament for just this reason, to protect children. That is what we are here for, to protect children.

Where is the minister's priority? Is she more interested in protecting poodle-philes than pedophiles?

[Criminal Code, November 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on a day when we are here protecting children, I have a question for the Minister of Justice.

The minister has leaked that she will introduce criminal code amendments concerning cruelty to animals. She is compelled to do this because she received a petition with 6,500 signatures.

Can the minister tell Canadians why 300,000 signatures on a child pornography petition are not as compelling as 6,500 on a poodle-phile petition?

[Criminal Code, November 23rd, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-335, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Young Offenders Act and the Transfer of Offenders Act (death penalty).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Criminal Code, November 23rd, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-334, an act to amend the Criminal Code (wearing of war decorations).

Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the criminal code to allow the next of kin to wear war decorations appropriately.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Immigration Act, November 23rd, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-333, an act to amend the Immigration Act (removal of those convicted of serious criminal offence).

Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the Immigration Act to ensure that those seeking immigrant status who commit a serious criminal offence can be removed from Canada.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)