Bill C-2 (Historical)

Fair and Efficient Criminal Trials Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mega-trials)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to
(a) allow for the appointment of a judge as a case management judge;
(b) define the role and the powers of a case management judge;
(c) streamline the use of direct indictments preferred under section 577;
(d) allow for delayed severance orders;
(e) improve the protection of the identity of jurors;
(f) increase the maximum number of jurors who can hear the evidence on the merits; and
(g) provide that, in the case of a mistrial, certain decisions made during the trial are binding on the parties in any new trial.

Fair and Efficient Criminal Trials Act

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Ahuntsic and congratulate her on her re-election. I have a question for her in response to her speech. If the appointment of superior court judges were delegated to the provinces, how would that speed up the trial process?

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question. The answer is very simple. Justice Brunton said there was a serious shortage of judges. There are several factors, such as court rooms, lawyers, and so on, but there is also a serious shortage of judges. The number of judges cannot be determined by Quebec or any other province. The federal government decides that.

Since Quebec is supposedly a nation and the administration of justice is supposed to be left to the provinces and the Quebec nation, which has been recognized by this House—within a united Canada, of course—then they should be able to appoint judges. Judges are one of the foundations, the very pillars, of our justice system. We need to have an appropriate number of judges for Quebec. Perhaps 12 or 13 judges are enough for Ontario. In Quebec, there are many mega-trials. We have a particular situation involving bikers and street gangs. Within our police culture in Quebec, it is quite common to conduct large-scale police operations to catch many criminals belonging to the same organization and to hold mega-trials.

Quebec created the Gouin Judicial Services Centre to address our very particular criminal situation. In fact, anti-gang legislation originated in Quebec.

Considering our particular situation in that regard, we have specific needs regarding the number and selection of judges. This power needs to be handed over to the provinces so that each province and the Quebec nation can decide what is best for them. However, if the federal government is the one to decide, our hands are tied and we have to wait for the government.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, agree that Quebec has taken some extraordinary necessary steps to deal with organized crime because the province of Quebec has been plagued with extraordinary problems with biker gangs. I sympathize with that fully. My province of Manitoba is similarly cursed with the overwhelming influence of organized crime in the form of biker gangs.

Would the hon. member briefly comment on another initiative in this same vein, whereby we could seize the proceeds of crime from bikers? Nothing bothers police and criminal justice officials more than driving past a biker leader's house to see that he has a boat, a car, a Ski-Doo, a Cadillac, an Escalade and no visible means of support for the last 20 years. Would she agree that we should be able to put a reverse onus bikers? If the bikers cannot prove where they got the money to buy all that stuff, we should be able to seize it from them, auction it off and put that money toward further prosecutions?

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to comment on this matter.

I would like to remind my colleague that the Bloc Québécois fought for the seizure of proceeds of crime, and won. At this time, proceeds of crime are seized.

However, there is an important measure that could be implemented. In Montreal—and I believe the same thing is happening throughout Canada—street gangs in particular have started to get out of the drug trade and to concentrate solely on human trafficking and prostitution.

The seizure of proceeds of crime does not apply to procuring or alleged human trafficking. It applies to drugs and under other Criminal Code sections, but paradoxically it does not apply to human trafficking, one activity of these gang members, and it does not apply to procuring in particular.

This measure should be added to the Criminal Code. Perhaps my colleague remembers that I introduced a bill on human trafficking, which included these two measures. Under the bill, if a person was found guilty of procuring and human trafficking, or of either offence, the proceeds of the crime could be seized. The onus would be on the accused to prove that his big house and assets were the fruits of his labour and not the proceeds of crime. This represented reverse onus. It is an important measure. I hope that all my colleagues will support the adoption of this measure, which I will again introduce in this House in my bill on human trafficking.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, seeing that we have a couple of minutes left, I think it is incumbent upon us to explore the innovations put forward in the bill to the greatest extent possible.

I am particularly interested in the theme of the proceeds of crime that my colleague was just addressing. It is a big ball of wax if we start to reverse the onus on people. I am just wondering how, in the context of her initiatives, she dealt with the implied infringement of civil liberties associated with seizing the assets. How is the burden of proof measured? What is the test they would contemplate in proving that the goodies one plays with are not the proceeds of crime? We need to establish these things and it is worth--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The hon. member for Ahuntsic. A very brief response.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief even though this is a rather complex issue.

I would like to tell the hon. member that this currently exists in the Criminal Code. When a person says that he works at McDonald's and that he has a large, million dollar home and that the house is in his name, it raises questions, particularly if that person was arrested for major drug trafficking; we know that the person is a member of the Hells Angels or another street gang. Generally—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. It being 2:09 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion for second reading now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Is the Chief Government Whip rising on a point of order?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you see the clock at 2:30.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is it agreed to see the clock at 2:30?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Accordingly, it being 2:30 p.m. the House stands adjourned until Monday, June 20 at 11 a.m. pursuant to an order made on Thursday, June 9 and to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:10 p.m.)