Bill C-53 (Historical)

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (proceeds of crime) and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act

This enactment amends the Criminal Code, and makes consequential amendments to another Act, to provide a reverse onus of proof in proceeds of crime applications involving offenders who have been convicted of a criminal organization offence or certain offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The enactment provides that a court shall make an order of forfeiture against any property of an offender that is identified in an application if the court is satisfied that the offender has engaged in a pattern of criminal activity or has an income unrelated to crime that cannot reasonably account for all of the offender’s property. A court may not, however, make an order of forfeiture against a property that the offender has shown, on a balance of probabilities, not to be proceeds of crime. A court may also decline to make an order of forfeiture against a property if the court considers it in the interests of justice.
The enactment also amends the Criminal Code to clarify the authority of the Attorney General of Canada in regards to proceeds of crime and to clarify the definition “designated offence” in regards to offences that may be prosecuted by indictment or on summary conviction. It also amends a provision of the Criminal Code to ensure the equivalency of the English and French versions.
The enactment also amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to clarify the authority of a justice under that Act to issue warrants in respect of investigations of drug-related money laundering and the possession of property obtained by drug-related crime.

Business of the House

[The Speaker]

I am sure the House is glad to hear the news, but I do not think it is a point of order.

(Bill C-53. On the Order: Government Orders:)

November 16, 2005--The Minister of Justice--Consideration at report stage and second reading of Bill C-53, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (proceeds of crime) and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, as reported by the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, without amendment.

(Bill concurred in at report stage, read a third time and passed)

(Bill C-54. On the Order: Government Orders:)

November 3, 2005--Resuming consideration of the motion of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that Bill C-54, An Act to provide first nations with the option of managing and regulating oil and gas exploration and exploitation and of receiving moneys otherwise held for them by Canada, be read the third time and passed.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

(Bill C-55. On the Order: Government Orders:)

October 5, 2005--Minister of Industry--An Act to establish the Wage Earner Protection Program Act, to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

(Bill concurred in at report stage, read the third time and passed)

(Bill C-66. On the Order: Government Orders:)

November 1, 2005--Resuming consideration of the motion of the Minister of Finance that Bill C-66, An Act to authorize payments to provide assistance in relation to energy costs, housing energy consumption and public transit infrastructure, and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

(Bill read a second time, referred to and reported from committee without amendment, concurred in at report stage, read the third time and passed)

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent for the following. I move:

That Bill C-53 be deemed to have been concurred in at report stage and read a third time and passed on division;

That Bill C-54 be deemed to have been read a third time and passed on division;

That Bill C-55 be deemed to have been reported from the committee with the following amendments presented by the government:

That Bill C-55, in clause 131, be amended by replacing line 41 on page 127 with the following:

as provided in this section or under the laws of the

That Bill C-55, in clause 131, be amended by adding after line 11 on page 129 the following:

(8) For greater certainty, any collective agreement that the company and the bargaining agent have not agreed to revise remains in force, and the court shall not alter its terms.

and that the said bill be deemed to have been concurred in at report stage and read a third time and passed on division;

That Bill C-66 be deemed to have been read a second time, referred to and reported from committee without amendment, concurred in at report stage and read a third time and passed on division.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue this afternoon with the opposition motion.

On Tuesday, November 22 and Thursday, November 24, we will have allotted days. The opposition House leaders are in fact considering a special House order to expedite Bill C-53, Bill C-54, Bill C-55 and Bill C-66 through all stages with a recorded vote at third reading. I hope we can come to an agreement on that special House order and proceed in that fashion.

If we cannot agree on that special order, then tomorrow we will begin with reference before second reading of Bill C-71, the first nations commercial bill; report stage of Bill S-37, respecting the Hague convention; second reading of Bill S-36, the rough diamonds bill; and reference before second reading of Bill C-72, the bill amending the DNA legislation. We will continue with this business next week, adding the report stage of Bill C-57, the financial governance bill, and other unfinished items.

With respect to the comment about the Chamber of Commerce, it is very clear, and I said this earlier, that Bill C-66 and the ways and means motion are in fact confidence motions. Although I am not sure I should do this, I am taking at the hon. member's word the public statements that in fact those members do support Bill C-66 and the ways and means motion with respect to taxes. Given his comment, I guess I should reconsider and speak to him once again since his party has flip-flopped on a number of occasions.

With respect to prorogation, I have to say that this rumour created by the Conservative Party was merely to keep the NDP in line with its confidence motion that it will put forward in the coming weeks.

Committees of the House

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

In accordance with its order of reference of Wednesday, September 28 your committee has considered Bill C-53, an act to amend the Criminal Code (proceeds of crime) and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make consequential amendments to another act and agreed on Tuesday, November 15 to report it without amendment.

Criminal Code

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my support for Bill C-64, a government bill that would provide a new offence for altering, removing or obliterating a vehicle identification number on a motor vehicle. This bill is important as it addresses a gap that currently exists in the Criminal Code.

At present, there are offences in the Criminal Code that can and are being used to address the problem of automobile theft in Canada. These include, notably, the specific offences of theft and possession of stolen property. There is also the offence of taking a motor vehicle without consent, sometimes referred to as the joyriding offence. Also relevant is the offence of fleeing in a motor vehicle to evade a peace officer, an offence that is frequently engaged in by persons who have stolen cars.

However, while these offences can be and are being used, they do not fully address the activity that is proposed to be directly criminalized in Bill C-64. Currently, the activity of altering a vehicle identification number is most closely associated with the offence of possession of property obtained by crime, in section 354 of the Criminal Code.

When people are found to be in possession of stolen vehicles, it is not at all uncommon to find that those vehicles have had their vehicle identification numbers tampered with. Indeed, section 354 already includes a provision with respect to vehicle identification numbers. In particular, section 354 includes a provision stating that evidence that a person is in possession of a motor vehicle which has had its vehicle identification number wholly or partially removed or obliterated is considered to be evidence that the vehicle was obtained by an offence.

Why then is it worthwhile to also provide for the offence proposed under Bill C-64? The answer is that the proposed new offence does not address possession itself, which is already criminalized, but the actual act of tampering with the vehicle identification number.

A further understanding for the rationale underlying the proposed new offence can be found in part in the very placement of the proposed new offence in the Criminal Code. The offence would be added as new section 377.1. It would not appear adjacent to the possession offence at section 354 but rather adjacent to provisions such as the illegal damaging of documents and offences in relation to registers of information. These offences are designed to protect the integrity of certain important documents and registries of information in Canada.

The vehicle identification number system is itself an important record of information. Each vehicle is given a unique number to confirm its identity and origin. This number, properly remaining in place, plays a vital role in respect of detecting and retrieving a stolen vehicle after a theft. In addition, it can also be used to track recalls, registrations, warranty claims and insurance coverage. It has been referred to as the automotive equivalent of human DNA.

The government has a clear interest in protecting the integrity of this system. Therefore, it is proposing the offence under Bill C-64 which would address the altering, removing or obliteration of a vehicle identification number on a motor vehicle without lawful excuse and under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the person did so to conceal the identity of the motor vehicle.

This proposed new offence would clearly and directly recognize that tampering with a vehicle identification number for this purpose is wrong. The offence would recognize the act as a key and central aspect of a chain of activities involved in the theft of a motor vehicle and the reselling of vehicles or their parts, activities that are frequently engaged in by well organized crime rings.

This chain of activities, that also includes the transportation of stolen vehicles or their parts to foreign countries for resale, generates very considerable profit for organized crime in this country and abroad. It also deprives Canadians of their motor vehicles, which are, of course, extremely significant physical possessions, in monetary and practical terms, for individuals and families.

While insurance can provide compensation for this theft, the amount of theft contributes substantially to insurance costs that are a burden to society at large. The government has a clear and direct interest in addressing this chain of activities and, therefore, indirectly criminalizing one of the central acts that facilitates it.

The additional proposed offence may perhaps be seen as a subtle addition to the already existing offences in the Criminal Code, such as theft and possession of property obtained by crime, but it is an important and justified one for the reasons that I have outlined.

I observe as well that the National Committee to Reduce Auto Theft and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police have called upon the government to pass a distinctive offence of tampering with a vehicle identification number.

It is important to note as well that the creation of a distinct offence of this nature would more clearly help to indicate a perpetrator's potential involvement as part of an organized vehicle theft ring. In this regard, the fact of charges and prosecution under the proposed new offence would be of value to police and the Crown prosecutors in subsequent investigations and prosecutions.

It is also important to observe in this regard that the proposed new offence, with its maximum punishment of five years imprisonment, can qualify as a criminal organization offence under the Criminal Code. Where this is demonstrated, additional criminal law provisions can come into play, including the possibility of an additional conviction for one of the core criminal organization offences found in the Criminal Code, such as participation in the activities of a criminal organization, the possibility of consecutive sentencing for offences arising out of the same transaction, and a deeming of an aggravating factor on sentencing and reduced parole eligibility.

I recognize that questions have been raised as to whether appropriately severe sentences would be available for the proposed new offence where the offence has been committed in connection with organized crime. It should be underlined that this would be available by virtue of these additional criminal organization provisions of the Criminal Code that are designed for this very purpose. I would also underline that another piece of legislation currently before this House, Bill C-53, would provide for aggressive additional proceeds of crime measures in respect of criminal organization offences.

Therefore, these aggressive new proceeds of crime measures, if passed by Parliament, would also be available for the proposed new vehicle identification number tampering offence where it is demonstrated that this tampering was done for a criminal organization.

It must be recognized that not every person who alters, moves or obliterates a vehicle identification number necessarily does so in a criminal context. There may be innocent, lawful explanations for such activity. In recognition of this, the offence criminalizes the act of tampering with the vehicle identification number only where circumstances give rise to a reasonable inference that the person did so for the purpose of concealing the identity of the vehicle. Further, the provision would recognize the possibility of lawful excuse. These are appropriate safeguards in respect of the offence.

I recognize that questions have been asked as to why it was advisable to add the words “under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the person did so to conceal the identity of the motor vehicle”, if the proposed provision also makes reference to the possibility of lawful excuse. The reason is that in certain cases, like legitimate wrecking of an automobile, VINs are regularly obliterated.

In view of these regular circumstances, it is appropriate to more clearly identify a specific wrongful purpose in the definition of the offence itself. The defence of lawful excuse, as appropriate, would be left for circumstances where persons engaged in the act with the apparent wrongful purpose but nevertheless had an excuse for doing so.

It must also be acknowledged that a private member's bill, Bill C-287, introduced by the late Chuck Cadman, provided a critical part of the inspiration for the current government bill. It contains somewhat different language with respect to the lawful excuse element. In particular, Mr. Cadman's bill proposed including the words “the proof of which lies on the person” in the reference to lawful excuse. These additional words are now part of the government bill.

The inclusion of such words would put a persuasive burden on an accused to prove a defence. This is contrary to general traditions under Canadian criminal law under which the persuasive burden remains on the Crown with respect to guilt or innocence.

This is also, in particular, a concern under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In general, whenever an accused is required to disprove, on a balance of probabilities, any factor affecting the verdict of guilt or innocence, charter concerns can arise with respect to the presumption of innocence.

It is not the general practice under the Criminal Code for reverse burdens to be put on an accused with respect to guilt or innocence itself. Convictions are regularly obtained under existing provisions of the code with the full persuasive burden remaining on the Crown.

This is a normal part of our legal tradition in Canada. The government had no intention of leaving the proposed new measure open to a charter doubt. A reverse burden in this case was considered by the government not to serve any necessary purpose. Defence can be effective without it and so it was not included in the government bill.

This bill is an important addition to the criminal law tool kit. It will fill the gap that currently exists in the Criminal Code of Canada. It will address an activity that is part of the cycle of auto theft for profit, frequently engaged in by organized crime. It provides for an appropriate sentence of a maximum of 5 years' imprisonment for the offence itself. Further, in conjunction with existing and additional proposed measures with respect to criminal organization offences, it allows for the imposition of serious additional consequences where a link to organized crime is shown.

At the same time, the drafting of the offence provides for appropriate safeguards so as to accurately describe the criminal nature of the activity captured and so as not to impose a reverse burden on an accused with respect to guilt or innocence that could affect the charter viability of this particular offence.

The government is confident that this will be an effective and justifiable new provision of the Criminal Code. I call upon members of the House to support it.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his very interesting question. It may not be a cure-all, but it is a good part of the solution. Bill C-49 is a good step in the right direction. But we must also give quick passage to Bill C-53, providing for the reversal of onus. This bill will be debated in this House very shortly.

If we want to fight organized crime, this bill will enable us to go after those who traffic white slaves or workers, or those currently involved in modern day slavery, as I said earlier.

This kind of slavery is a lucrative business, the proceeds of which are often used to buy big mansions, snowmobiles and what not. When the time comes to convict the offenders, we will need the last piece of the puzzle, namely Bill C-53, to reverse the onus of proof. It will require offenders who have been convicted to prove that the money is not the proceeds of the crime they committed, more specifically trafficking in persons.

I hasten to conclude by answering the second question. Indeed, police protection could be provided to witnesses. What is commonly known as witness protection, more specifically in connection with organized crime, will be available.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today and address Bill C-53, an act to amend the Criminal Code, proceeds of crime, and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Let me begin by congratulating the Minister of Justice on this small but important step forward in the effort to reform our failing criminal justice system. Placing the reverse onus on the criminal to prove that his seized assets were not obtained through criminal activity is long overdue. As members of the House are well aware, the provisions contained in the bill are a long-standing plank in our Conservative Party platform.

A cynic might suggest that the only reason the bill is moving forward under the Liberals is because of the very precarious situation in which the government finds itself. It needs to fulfill a legislative calendar with legislation that is unlikely to result in its defeat. However, I prefer to believe that the Minister of Justice is listening to the common sense policies that our policy is promoting and is simply doing what is right.

The bottom line is Parliament needs to send a message that crime does not pay.

Unfortunately, our criminal justice system is in such a shambles right now after 12 years of Liberal rule, that many people are getting exactly the opposite message. I cannot help but be reminded of the case of Paul Coffin who was recently convicted for defrauding this very government of $1.5 million. While he repaid much of the money, he received no jail time and kept about $500,000. The message in that case for many Canadians is that crime does pay.

Nevertheless, Bill C-53 would ensure that those who are engaged in serious criminal enterprise, especially the illegal drug trade, would never profit from their crimes. Currently, those involved in this illicit trade in my part of Canada clearly see their crime as a profitable enterprise even when caught and convicted.

Apart from the potential stigma of a criminal conviction, those who run the marijuana grow houses in B.C. really do make a good profit. Even upon conviction there is rarely any jail time and the fines are a fraction of the income received from this illegal activity. They see the fines as simply the cost of doing business. My hope is that Bill C-53 is a first small step in a movement to suppress the grow houses, the smuggling of marijuana and cocaine over our borders and related violence that accompanies the drug trade.

With that in mind, I would like to focus on a couple of aspects of the bill that the minister and the justice committee may want to examine in greater detail as Bill C-53 moves through Parliament.

First is the 10 year limitation on seeking forfeiture. Currently clause 6.1 of the bill says that the court may impose forfeiture only if it is convinced that:

within 10 years before the proceedings were commenced in respect of the offence for which the offender is being sentenced, the offender engaged in a pattern of criminal activity for the purpose of directly or indirectly receiving a material benefit, including a financial benefit;

I believe we may want to reconsider limiting forfeiture in this way. It is important to remember that the individuals involved with most crime families and criminal organizations have been involved in criminal activity their whole lives. Yet, according to the bill, if such a criminal were to be prosecuted for organized crimes that took place more than 10 years before being charged, they apparently would be legally entitled to keep the proceeds of their crimes. Admittedly, such circumstances would be uncommon, yet I do not believe we would want to allow a free pass to such criminals.

Consider the case of a mobster who has lived his whole life off the avails of crime, who is finally ratted out by an informant for murders he committed earlier in his criminal career, yet there is no evidence of criminal activity for the past decade. The police finally have the evidence they need to put the don behind bars. However, even with the conviction and jail sentence, the mobster and his family keep the ill-gotten millions he amassed over his criminal career.

The second area the minister and the committee might want to examine further is the sheltering of ill-gotten gains in someone else's name. This problem was brought to my attention recently through round table meetings I have been holding across Canada as part of our party's task force on safe streets and healthy communities.

The leader of the official opposition asked me and Jim Flaherty, a former attorney general of Ontario and Conservative candidate, to head up this task force as we seek solutions to the problem of violent, drug related crime in Canadian society, the same crimes that Bill C-53 helps to address in part.

Police officers have related to me their frustration at attempting seizure of criminally derived assets from a spouse or a family member who are given title to a car, house or other property. Yes, the bill allows for fines in lieu of seizure where assets are inextricably comingled or found to be beyond the direct reach of authorities. However, I suspect that this obvious loophole for sheltering criminal assets could be tightened significantly.

The third area the minister and the justice committee may want to consider is the sheltering of assets overseas by such criminals. Again, the bill allows for fines in lieu of seizure where assets appear to be beyond the direct reach of Canadian authorities, yet fines may never be paid while criminal assets continue to exist beyond the reach of Her Majesty's government. Indeed, even if this new legislation is effective domestically, then we can well anticipate that the smarter and wealthier criminals will seek to deposit and invest their funds offshore.

According to the International Monetary Fund, estimates of money laundering worldwide amount to anywhere from $590 billion to $1.5 trillion.

According to the most recent Criminal Intelligence Service of Canada report:

—recent law enforcement projects in B.C. have discovered organized crime groups capable of laundering proceeds of crime derived from the cross-border smuggling of cocaine and marijuana, totaling approximately C$200 million.

That is just in B.C.

The Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering, an international-based organization, has recently identified the following worldwide trends in money laundering typologies also evident in Canada: these include the use of wire transfers, and organized crime’s utilization of gatekeepers, as they act as intermediaries with financial institutions in addition to providing an appearance of legitimacy. In addition, casinos, including on-line casinos, white-label Automated Teller Machines (ATMs), and money service businesses, such as currency exchanges are increasingly employed by organized crime groups to launder their money in Canada.

While organized crime groups based in Canada are laundering money here and abroad, Canada is also used by foreign-based groups for the purposes of laundering the proceeds of crime due to the stability of the economy and the soundness of its financial sector. There are individual facilitators and criminal organizations who specialize in providing money laundering services to a number of other organized crime groups.These individuals and criminal groups are not necessarily involved in other types of criminal activity but they do provide an essential component to the successful operation of criminal networks even though they may not be core members of the organization. Some marihuana brokers, for instance, have tasked individuals outside of their criminal organizations with converting the U.S. cash into Canadian currency through currency exchanges on their behalf.

While Parliament is considering the very subject of seizing criminal assets, it is a most appropriate time to be examining how we might strengthen our efforts to reduce the laundering of funds and to repatriate criminal assets from foreign jurisdictions.

Some questions that need answers include the following.

Is there more that can be done domestically to track the flow of funds overseas?

What is needed domestically to help these efforts?

Do we need to impose an anti-money laundering regime on money service businesses and currency exchanges?

Do we need more resources for police or for FINTRAC, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada?

Should we be looking at new treaties with certain offshore banking havens?

Alternatively, are there any jurisdictions that have become extremely problematic for Canada in our fight against organized crime for which the application of limited sanctions may be appropriate?

If the Minister of Justice is serious about forfeiture, then these questions also must be addressed more fully. While legislation alone cannot answer all of these questions, they must be answered all the same.

As I conclude my comments on Bill C-53, I leave members with some thoughts based on what I have been hearing from Canadians as I have travelled across Canada these past weeks as co-chairman of our party's task force on safe streets and healthy communities. Several themes have been repeated at these meetings, including dismay at the toothlessness of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, light or non-existent jail time for serious violent crimes and lax immigration rules that allow criminals to exploit the system. In addition, illegal drugs were fingered as a common denominator in most crimes, while unstable family environments were identified as the starting point for many career criminals.

There is much work to be done to reform the criminal justice system as my task force as reconfirmed. Again, I congratulate the Minister of Justice for adopting this important Conservative policy. I encourage all members to support this bill at second reading.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take part in the debate on Bill C-53 to amending the Criminal Code, especially the provisions on property acquired through crime. In some ways, this is surely the most important of the criminal law bills.

We have seen a certain amount of legislative activism, of course, over the last few years in regard to the criminal law. It has not always been to the liking of defence attorneys. This is a debate in which we are always trying the find the middle ground between the powers that the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness must have and the rights of people representing the accused who are always deemed innocent.

It is true that we are tipping the legal balance a little further today because it is not very common in the criminal law to reverse the onus of proof. Before looking at things in depth, we should realize that this reversal of the onus of proof pertains only to some very specific crimes. First, these offences are related to organized crime. They are related, therefore, to criminal organizations like those described in Criminal Code sections 467 and following. They are usually related to crimes involving drug trafficking.

Still, this bill is historic. I can recall that in the early 1990s biker wars were raging in certain big cities, including Montreal.

It should also be remembered that in Quebec there was an assassination attempt in the mid-1990s on the journalist Michel Auger. We are reminded that 160 people have died, victims in some cases and organized crime members in others, in the conflict among rival groups.

In the early 1990s, I remember meeting the Minister of Justice at the time and his senior officials. It was Allan Rock, currently Canada's ambassador to the United Nations. He was a very nice person who wondered himself about the most effective way of fighting organized crime. That was relatively new, it must be said. I am not speaking of organized crime but of organized crime moving into public spaces, with car bombings and raids and murders in orderly places like cities. That was relatively new.

Of course the elders among us, or the ones with the most experience—let us not confuse the two—will remember the CIOC, the Commission of Inquiry on Organized Crime. This was headed by Justice Robert Cliche.

Its hearings were televised and I remember my parents and a lot of other people in Quebec watching them. What they got out of it was perhaps a more detailed understanding of the ramifications of organized crime in various sectors of the society of the day, including the construction industry.

In the early 1990s I met the Minister of Justice, or at least some of the senior departmental officials, as well as the mother of Daniel Desrochers. No doubt hon. members will recall that, on August 9, 1995, a car bomb on Adam St. in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve took the first innocent victim, this young boy who went to Hochelaga school in the Maisonneuve sector. This boy died because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

At that time, during the 1990s, senior Justice officials were convinced that organized crime could be eradicated just by using Criminal Code provisions against conspiracy. Police and investigators I met with explained to me that this was not possible because there has to be active participation for there to be a conspiracy.

I note the nod from my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue, who remains a member of the legal profession. We remember the likes of Maurice “Mom” Boucher, for instance, who was the one giving the orders and is now behind bars for 25 years, with no possibility of parole. We know very well that the ones giving the orders are not the ones who commit the offence. It was clear that conspiracy provisions would not work for dismantling major organized crime rings.

I met with investigators, police officers, lawyers and criminologists who convinced me that new provisions had to be included in the Criminal Code. At the time, in the mid-1990s, that was not obvious. The example of my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, who was the Minister of Public Safety at the time, comes to mind; he has been justice minister and he is a defence counsel as well. He had very legitimate concerns about this issue, given that the presumption of innocence is something sacred in criminal law. Without the presumption of innocence, there can obviously be abuse.

Now, we are going a little further, arguing that tools are being given to the Crown. There are counsels who might feel somewhat uncomfortable at times, but I believe that is only temporary.

On the face of the wording of the bill, it is clear that these tools provided to the Crown are designed to be used once a conviction has been pronounced. The order sought to reverse the burden of proof applies to possessions presumably obtained illegally. The conviction, however, has already been pronounced, based on all the rules of fairness and natural justice one can expect as part of a trial.

This is nevertheless a very major tool that is being provided. It is hard to understand how individuals who report very modest incomes for income tax purposes can own property worth several million. How can someone who declares an annual income of $12,000 afford a boat, three houses, two triplex buildings and a millionaire's lifestyle?

Now, tools are being provided which respect this balance. I would not want this balance to be upset. I realize that the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof and adjudicative fairness are very important rules that ensure a degree of civility in our justice system.

What will this mean in actual fact? The Crown will have to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the accused is guilty of a criminal offence. We are talking about offences related to organized crime and, in essence, drug trafficking. These offences are indictable offences carrying minimum five-year sentences. Once the individual is convicted of a criminal offence, an order of forfeiture should be made against certain property, although not necessarily all of an individual's property. In its order, the crown should specify the property it wishes to seize on the grounds that it is the proceeds of crime. Here is where the reversal of onus of proof occurs. The accused will have to show how and by what means he acquired that property.

Since my time has almost expired, I want to say rapidly in closing that all parliamentarians should unanimously vote in favour of this bill, which should then, in all due diligence, be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am very interested in Bill C-53. In fact, it does my heart good that we are debating this bill today because I am putting myself in the mindset of police officers in recent history. One can imagine the frustration they feel when they drive by the home of somebody they know full well to be involved in some unsavoury element of organized crime and see the big boat in the driveway, the Ski-Doo and the 4 x 4, and the affluence of a person with no visible means of support who has not filed income tax for five years.

There are people like that who people involved in the criminal justice know full well are guys who are up to no good. It seems like the criminals get to thumb their nose at the police officers who are held to a much higher test in terms of the onus being on them to prove, and this is an almost impossible test, that this person had managed to acquire these luxury items by legal means.

I can just imagine the frustration that police officers must be feeling. I am glad to hear virtual unanimity across the party lines that something should be done to put the tools in the hands of the good guys, and put the burden of proof and the onus on the bad guys to clear up where they got the means to buy something like a 40-foot luxury cabin cruiser. I do not accept any arguments or any criticisms that this could in any way violate someone's constitutional rights. I would ask them to simply reveal where they got the money to buy the boat, or whatever the luxury item might be.

I ask this question of my colleague because I know he has first-hand experience in these things, having been the attorney general for the province of Manitoba for a number of years. What would he recommend we put in place as a process to ensure that the provinces and the law enforcement agencies get their fair share of the proceeds that may come from liquidating these assets and that the money does not in fact end up going into the black hole that we know is the consolidated revenue fund of the Government of Canada?

Can he recommend, even if it is not as an aspect of the legislation, some process by which we will get to use some of these proceeds for future law enforcement and that it does not go to a God knows what priority of the government of the day?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is my honour to rise today in the House to address Bill C-53 as the justice critic for the Conservative Party, the official opposition.

The key purpose of the bill is to provide a reverse onus of proof in proceeds of crime related to organized criminal activity. The provisions in the bill have long been a part of the Conservative Party platform and I hope to see the legislation passed as quickly as possible. Indeed, it is noteworthy that the bill generally speaking enjoys all-party support, something that is all too rare in the House of Commons.

I hope that some of the explanation that the parliamentary secretary gave just a moment ago in the House will assure some members of the New Democratic Party that the interest of innocent third parties are preserved. The bill does not need too much retinkering or amendments. I am concerned that the bill, which appears to be on the face of it a relatively good bill, not be held up any further.

The reverse onus provision for proceeds of crime was recommended by the subcommittee on organized crime but was not included in the government's last bill addressing organized crime, Bill C-24, which was tabled and passed in 2001.

I want to note that there are serious shortcomings in our organized crime legislation. This is an important step to address some of those shortcomings, but there are many other issues that need to be addressed.

I know that it is quite onerous now when we are prosecuting organized criminal organizations that in each specific case there has to be a reproving of the fact that the organization is a criminal organization. Quite frankly we should adopt some of the legislation from other jurisdictions and I specifically refer to the RICO laws in the United States that have been very effective in attacking organized crime. We could learn a lot from that legislation. It respects I believe due process. It respects the constitutional safeguards not only in the American constitution but in the Canadian constitution as well. We should not hesitate to adopt similar procedures where it is in the best interest of Canadian public security.

I make the comment that we do not consider this the fight against organized crime to be at an end simply because we are agreeing to what is an important amendment because in the overall picture it is still a relatively small step.

I feel compelled to point out that the Liberals did not act on the reverse onus measure until they faced significant provincial pressure from the provincial ministers of justice as well as the opposition justice critic since the beginning of this minority Parliament.

I know that certain provinces, including my home province of Manitoba, have passed similar legislation. I do not think we should hesitate in moving forward with federal legislation. The provinces did so out of desperation. They were not receiving any help from the federal government and quite frankly had to move ahead. I support what the provinces generally speaking have been doing. However, it is a much more cumbersome process that the provinces had to adopt.

I strongly believe that the level of government that is primarily responsible for the enforcement of the criminal law should also be responsible for passing appropriate legislation dealing with the proceeds of crime. We should not leave it to the provincial governments to do it under their constitutional jurisdiction under property and civil rights. It is cumbersome and not as effective. This is the right approach and we should not hesitate. I do not think there would be any province standing in the way of Parliament in terms of taking those steps.

Organized crime is a problem that reaches across nations, oceans and boundaries affecting communities everywhere. The violence, the welfare and the financial implications of organized crime are far reaching. Globalization and technological revolution has made it possible for organizations to exert enormous influence on an international scale.

Generally speaking, we are asking our police forces to face a 21st century problem with all of the technological advantages that organized crime has with essentially 19th century tools. Many of our evidentiary laws are old laws.

They are simply not updated often enough in order to keep abreast of the changes in technology, so we need to, on an ongoing basis, ensure that our police forces have not only the appropriate frontline police resources but indeed the legal resources in the form of effective laws. This is one such step in bringing our criminal law essentially out of the 19th century and into the 21st century. In that sense it is a quantum leap for Canada. Unfortunately, we have not learned from the examples which other countries have gained and therefore we are still far behind other countries in terms of addressing issues of organized crime.

The extent of collaboration within and among criminal groups has broadened greatly. The available technology has improved their ability to conduct organized crime by leaps and bounds, and therefore Canada has become a very attractive place for these types of criminals. According to Criminal Intelligence Service Canada, virtually every major criminal group in the world is active in Canada.

In 1998 the Department of the Solicitor General of Canada, now the public safety department, commissioned an independent study to assess the cost of certain activities related to organized crime. It was found that the economic costs of organized crime, I am not talking about the economic profits to organized crime, but the costs, amount to at least $5 billion a year. Frontline police officers who are struggling to maintain their fight on existing technology simply do not have the resources to compete with the new and emerging technologies to which these criminal organizations have access.

The reverse onus provision for proceeds of crime is vital for an effective war on organized criminal activity. At present, in order to obtain an order of forfeiture, the Crown must prove on a balance of probabilities that property is the proceeds of crime and that the property is connected to the crime for which the person was convicted. The Crown must prove that the accused or convicted person owns the property and that the property is the proceeds of crime.

Again, given the resources available to many criminal organizations, accountants, lawyers and the like, they have learned to distance themselves from their assets. Often criminal organizations do not use the regular types of security that other businessmen would have to use. They enforce their security in ways that legitimate business people do not and should not.

If there is no connection between the offence and the property established, the court nevertheless may order forfeiture of the property if it is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the property is the proceeds of crime. That is the existing law now.

The amendments introduced in Bill C-53 provide that once an offender has been convicted of the appropriate crime, that is a criminal organization offence or certain offences under the Controlled Drug and Substances Act, the court shall order the forfeiture of property of the offender identified by the Crown unless the offender proves on a balance of probabilities that the property is not the proceeds of the crime. Once the conviction is made now, any property belonging to the accused is forfeited unless the accused establishes that the property is not the proceeds of the crime.

There have been some concerns about the constitutionality of the legislation. I think, however, it is very clear that there are no constitutional problems. The reverse onus provision does not impinge on individual liberty rights secured by the Constitution, but rather relate to property rights once he or she has already been convicted of a criminal offence.

We are not talking about double jeopardy. We are not talking about reverse onus in the establishment of an essential element to a criminal offence. This is an appropriate constitutional response of the federal government under its criminal law powers or a provincial government under its rights to regulate property and civil rights.

I am quite pleased to support the bill. I would urge my colleagues, not only here in the House but in committee, to move this bill through as quickly as possible.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful to the parliamentary secretary for his views on Bill C-53. Coming from the province of Manitoba, I wholly support this idea as we have similar legislation our province. It has been very useful. I could cite case studies of how it has been operating very well.

My question for my colleague is not about the reverse onus, about having people demonstrate that their assets are not the proceeds of crime. My question has more to do with the technical side of where that money goes if in fact assets are seized. If they are found to be the proceeds of crime and are seized by the government, in what way will the federal government be able to convert those material possessions into dollars? What is the methodology? How will the treasury benefit from the assets seized after they are found to be the proceeds of crime?

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-53 regarding proceeds of crime.

Bill C-53 would be a very worthwhile addition to the proceeds of crime provisions already in the Criminal Code. In particular, it would add the important reverse onus measure, which my colleague has just been discussing, that can apply in appropriate circumstances to applications to forfeit property. It also makes a number of practical improvements to the existing proceeds of crime application procedure, a procedure that will continue to exist in addition to the new reverse onus measures.

I will begin by speaking in more detail about the way in which the new reverse onus provisions of Bill C-53 would operate. The reverse onus forfeiture power would be available after conviction for a criminal organization offence as defined under the Criminal Code that is punishable by five or more years of imprisonment. It would also be available upon conviction on indictment for certain drug offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Under the proposed scheme, the court would have to be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that either the offender has engaged in a pattern of criminal activity for the purpose of providing the offender with material benefit, or that income of the offender unrelated to crime cannot reasonably account for the value of all the property of the offender. Upon these conditions being satisfied, any property of the offender identified by the Attorney General will be forfeited unless the offender demonstrates, again on a balance of probabilities, that the property is not proceeds of crime. The court, however, would be permitted to set a limit on the total amount of property forfeited as may be required by the interests of justice.

I want to comment on the particular offences that would be subject to this reverse onus set of provisions. These offences do not comprise all of the designated offences that are subject to the current proceeds of crime scheme under the Criminal Code. It is important to emphasize this. It is also important to emphasize that the current forfeiture scheme under the code will continue to exist and be available for this wider range of offences. Indeed, at the discretion of the Crown the current forfeiture scheme will also be available even for the particular offences identified in the reverse onus forfeiture scheme.

What Bill C-53 adds, however, is an additional special forfeiture power for which the Crown, at its discretion, may apply in respect of the narrower class of offences that I just mentioned. Ultimately, the new forfeiture power is targeted at organized crime and its main activities. That is why the legislation specifically identifies criminal organization offences as the basis for the reverse onus forfeiture.

These criminal organization offences are crimes that logically can support a presumption that substantial property of the offender is the proceeds of crime. A core aspect of the definition of criminal organization is that it is a group formed for the purpose of committing offences to obtain “material benefit”. There is, therefore, a logical basis founded on the definition of criminal organization itself for the underlying presumption inherent in the reversal of the onus. There is also the justification of taking special measures to address the substantial societal harm caused by organized crime.

The one other category of offences to which the reverse onus provisions will apply are the serious drug offences of trafficking, importing and exporting, and production of illegal drugs where these offences are prosecuted on indictment. There are probably no offences more closely associated with organized crime than these serious drug offences, so it was thought entirely in keeping with the purpose of this legislation to include them. There is also the justification of taking special measures against such drug offences that represent matters of recognized societal harm in their own right. These are the offences that the government puts forward in Bill C-53 as appropriately being subject to the reverse onus forfeiture which my colleague was discussing earlier.

I recognize, of course, that organized crime is involved in a wide variety of offences beyond those specifically identified in Bill C-53. It is worthwhile to point out, however, that while the definition of a criminal organization offence in the Criminal Code of course includes the special criminal organization offences set out in there, such as participation in the activities of a criminal organization, it also includes other indictable offences provided these offences were committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization. Therefore, the potential scope of application of the proposed new reverse measure is quite broad, although still tied to organized crime.

I now wish to address the additional conditions attached to the application of the reverse onus. Once again, these are that the court would have to be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that either the offender engaged in a pattern of criminal activity for the purpose of providing the offender with material benefit, or that income of the offender unrelated to crime cannot reasonably account for the value of all the property possessed by the offender.

These conditions have to be added to help support the presumption that extensive property of the offender is the proceeds of crime and that reverse onus forfeiture is appropriate. It should be remembered that these two conditions are alternative conditions and it is sufficient to prove one or the other. Each is to be assessed on a balance of probabilities.

Demonstration of a pattern of criminality leading to material benefit and the alternative condition that income of the offender unrelated to crime cannot reasonably account for the offender's property each have a clear link to the reversal of the onus with respect to the offender's property. The legislation has been carefully designed to include conditions which ensure that the reverse onus will apply only in appropriate circumstances.

Additional provisions that I wish to discuss are specific safeguards in the legislation to protect legitimate interests in property, including third party interests.

The current proceeds of crime legislation in the Criminal Code includes procedures to ensure that such interests can be considered by the courts. For example, prior to an order of forfeiture being made, a court is directed to require that notice be given to any person who appears to have an interest in the property subject to forfeiture. The court may then hear a claim from such a person. The court may order that the property will be returned to that person if satisfied that the person is lawfully entitled and is innocent of any complicity or collusion. Specific provisions of Bill C-53 ensure that this protection is also available in respect of the new forfeiture powers under the bill.

In addition, the current forfeiture scheme under the Criminal Code allows that any person who claims a legitimate interest in property that has already been forfeited may apply for an order declaring that his or her interest is not affected by the forfeiture. The court may then make the order under this section if it is satisfied that the applicant is innocent of any complicity or collusion in a designated offence that resulted in the forfeiture. Under Bill C-53, these orders are all specifically extended to apply in respect of the new forfeiture power.

In summary, Bill C-53 has as its main purpose the addition of an important new forfeiture power to the Criminal Code. This new power would provide, in appropriate circumstances and subject to certain logical conditions, for the forfeiture of property of an offender unless the offender can prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the property is not the proceeds of crime. Safeguards are also put in place to ensure the protection of legitimate interests in property. The bill seeks to build on current proceeds of crime schemes in the Criminal Code to more effectively address organized crime and its prime motivation of illicit economic gain.

I urge all members to extend their support to Bill C-53.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-53. This legislation has come up in the justice committee in a variety of ways over the last several years and certainly in the last year that I have been my party's representative on the committee. In the course of reviewing this proposed legislation and some of the provincial legislation where there is a corresponding jurisdiction, it is obvious we have to be careful about how we use the legislation once it is in force.

From that perspective, my party supports the principle of the bill, as do all parties in the House. The basic principle is that proceeds of crime should be forfeited and that the Crown should not have to prove what are proceeds of crime using the criminal standard, but rather using the civil standard. Rather than having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the gains were from criminal activity, the prosecutor would only have to establish a reasonable belief that there was a gain. The onus would shift to the convicted person to establish that the assets, the cash or whatever the assets are, were not received as proceeds of a crime.

There is a jurisdictional issue here. Manitoba and Ontario both have legislation that deals with the proceeds of crime. We have to be very careful that we do not further complicate the receipt of these assets by the Crown by overlapping jurisdictions. For that reason, when the bill goes to committee, as it obviously will from the support it has received, that will be one of the issues that will have to be addressed. Hopefully, we will hear from provincial attorneys general or their representatives with regard to their position on the bill.

There is one that gives me greater concern and I have expressed this to my confreres on the committee. I have heard from the Canadian Bar Association and other legal groups. They are concerned about the reverse onus applying to assets that are mixed with those of other individuals.

The commercial wing of the Canadian Bar Association used the example of a person who was in a business relationship and unbeknownst to that person, one of the partners or associates had been engaged in organized crime activity and some of the money invested in the firm had come from those activities, but the person was an innocent third party. That person would be faced with the Crown moving against an asset in which the person had an interest. It is important that we build in protections for that business partner. I believe it is possible to do that without undermining the effectiveness of the legislation, but the legislation as drafted does not address this point, at least not to my satisfaction.

The second area where we run into this is with respect to family assets. The immediate stereotype involves someone in a full time relationship with another person. We assume that individual would know if the other person was engaged in organized crime or drug activity, the two criminal areas that the clauses of the bill control, but that in fact is not the case. It is not unusual for family members—and it does not necessarily mean a spouse or a partner; it may be a more extended family member—with joint assets with the person who has been convicted of an offence to have no knowledge that the asset was obtained by way of proceeds from crime. We need to be sure that we protect those innocent third parties.

There is one final point that I want to make, and this came up in a completely different context. The commissioner of the RCMP was before the committee, and I have to say that my memory is fading on this point as I cannot remember if he was before the justice committee or the subcommittee on public security. He raised concerns about police forces becoming dependent on the proceeds of crime. Where these funds go is also very much an issue.

Commissioner Zaccardelli was very clear that he felt it was inappropriate for any police force in this country, and I think he would probably say anywhere in the world, to become dependent as the recipients of the proceeds of crime once they are forfeited to the Crown. That is another issue that very much has to be addressed, with regard to the role that the crown attorneys and the police forces would play at the local level. That needs to be addressed.

Along the same lines, we do need to hear from the provincial attorneys general, at least some of them who have corresponding legislation.

I believe those are all my comments. We will be very much supportive of this bill going to the committee. I hope the committee will be able to deal with it in an expeditious manner and have it back before the House in short order with the proper protections built in.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel for his question.

This is, in fact, the kind of situation that we want to avoid. We want to ensure that people who have benefited for years from the proceeds and fruits of criminal activity, such as organized crime, are prevented from continuing to benefit from their property after they are been found guilty and done time in prison. What we want is to prevent them upon release from returning to an outrageous lifestyle in the eyes of the average citizen, who works hard every day to put bread and butter on the family table.

People convicted of serious crimes, like those described in Bill C-53, should not be able to benefit from the proceeds of criminal activity, which, whatever kind of crime it is, victimizes people in our society.

That is precisely why the Bloc Québécois has insisted for years on having such a bill passed. That is why Bill C-242 was introduced by your humble servant a few months ago. That is also why a motion was introduced by the Bloc Québécois on an opposition day asking for a bill like the one we are discussing today. That is also the reason why we support Bill C-53. We hope that it will be passed as soon as possible.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague across the floor for applauding my speech in advance. He does not know exactly what will be in it, but he is already applauding. Now that is a good sign.

It is obviously a very great honour and a very great pleasure for me to lead off the debate, on behalf of my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois, on referring Bill C-53 to committee before second reading. This bill will make it possible to reverse the onus of proof in proceeds of crime applications.

People will understand that I feel very proud to address the House at this time because the debate that we are launching is based on a struggle that the Bloc Québécois has waged for many years.

In order to fight crime better in general, and especially organized crime, the Bloc has long sought changes in the Criminal Code to provide a reverse onus of proof in proceeds of crime applications. This would force offenders, once convicted of a serious offence, to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that their property was not acquired through criminal activity.

Organized crime is one of the most serious social issues that we face—all the more so in view of the fact that Quebec has been the scene for ten years of a bloody war among the various criminal motorcycle gangs. This is a war, we should remember, that has cost more than 160 lives, including entirely innocent victims who had the misfortune to find themselves in the way of these bikers.

In the name of public safety, but also and especially to support the police forces in their attempts to counter organized crime, we have campaigned fiercely for substantial changes to the current legal system in order to put more tools at the disposal of crown attorneys and police forces.

By amending the Criminal Code in accordance with the letter and spirit of Bill C-53, we will be taking a huge step forward, and I know already that our efforts will be welcomed by both the police forces and all crown attorneys.

The Bloc Québécois has been pressing the federal government for years to introduce effective legislation for fighting criminal gangs. During the 2000 election campaign, the Bloc carried on this battle, demanding that Ottawa amend the Criminal Code to give police and crown attorneys more effective weapons for fighting and eliminating organized crime.

I would like to take this opportunity to salute the hon. member for Hochelaga, who has been working on this issue for years, that is, since the death of young Daniel Desrochers, 10 years ago. My colleague is a leader in the fight against organized crime.

On October 27, 2004, with the support of the Conservative member for Provencher and the NDP member for Windsor—Tecumseh, I tabled Bill C-242. This bill served as a working paper for the legislation introduced by the Minister of Justice. I want to salute the courage of the minister, and particularly the determination that he has shown in finally convincing cabinet of the merits of the Bloc Québécois' proposal and of the need to follow up on it. It is unfortunate that, for too long, the Liberal government dragged its feet in the fight against organized crime.

It took the Bloc's determination and the government's minority status in the House to force a debate and the tabling of this legislation. Indeed, it was in March 2005 that opposition parties got together to have a motion, of which I was the sponsor, adopted by the House, challenging the government to propose, by May 31, 2005, legislative provisions that would reflect my Bill C-242. Bill C-53 was introduced in the House on May 30, at the very last minute.

Once it is passed, this legislation will greatly streamline the rules of evidence regarding the seizure of goods belonging to a person found guilty of certain offences. More specifically, the bill will amend the Criminal Code so that the goods—identified by the Crown—of a person found guilty of an offence involving a criminal organization, or found guilty of trafficking, importing, exporting or producing drugs, can be confiscated by the court, unless the offender can show, on a balance of probabilities, that his assets are in no way related to his criminal activities, and that they are not proceeds of crime.

In order for the reverse onus to apply, the Crown would first be required to prove, on a balance of probabilities, either that the offender engaged in a criminal organization offence or two serious offences for the purpose of receiving material benefit, or that the legitimate income of the offender cannot reasonably account for all of the offender’s property. I would point out in passing that a serious offence means a criminal act punishable by a maximum prison sentence of five years or more.

At present, in order to obtain an order of forfeiture, the Crown must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the property is the proceeds of crime and that the property is connected to the crime for which the person was convicted. The Crown therefore must do two things: first, convict the accused and second, prove the illegal and illegitimate origin of the property in order to seize it.

The Charter rightly imposes respect of the right of accused persons to be presumed innocent. It is therefore fundamental that the Crown begin by establishing proof beyond any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, before the reversal of the burden of proof intervenes in the equation. The Crown must prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the accused is guilty of a criminal offence and designate the property it wishes to seize because it is the proceeds of a crime. The accused must again prove, this time—I repeat—by the balance of probabilities, the legitimate origin of the property the Crown wants to confiscate from him.

The Bloc has been saying for years that this reversal of the burden of proof is necessary to battle organized crime and money laundering effectively. Organized crime represents an ongoing threat to society and so it is essential to have effective measures in place to facilitate the battle against this scourge.

Given the many negative effects of organized crime, in both in its social and economic aspects, there is ample justification for strengthening the legislation to fight crime.

Economically, organized crime generates huge revenues, which are often reinvested in the legitimate world, but without making a positive contribution to it. The resulting tax evasion deprives governments of considerable revenues, and gangsters refine their techniques every day to avoid having their assets reviewed by the courts.

Very simply, it is becoming particularly frustrating for ordinary taxpayers to see notorious criminals display ostentatiously and condescendingly the proceeds of their illegal activities. How many times have we heard comments from citizens disgusted with the administration of justice when they see individuals with a plainly criminal past being convicted of a crime and then resuming their jet-set lifestyles as if nothing had happened, because they know full well that these people have not earned an honest dollar in their lives?

As lawmakers, we have to act to restore the public's confidence in its justice system. It has become imperative that criminal organizations be sent a clear signal that the days are over when they could shamelessly make a fast buck without facing punishment. From now on, criminals will have to face the consequences of their actions and, in that sense, they will no longer be able to benefit from their criminal and illegal activities.

Let us not be fooled. There is nothing wrong with calling for the seizure of goods constituting the proceeds of crime. It is common sense. Period.

By amending the Criminal Code to reverse the burden of proof as regards the acquisition of luxury items by an individual found guilty of gangsterism, we are giving police and the Crown another means to eradicate this problem. An individual found guilty and sentenced accordingly will still, at the end of the sentence, have to demonstrate that their assets were acquired using legitimate means.

It will become particularly difficult for a criminal to show that his luxury home, his chalet in the north, his condo in Florida, his shiny motorcycle, his sports cars, and his entire lifestyle correspond to declared income more often than not so low it hovers around the poverty line.

Such a legal initiative could also complicate the widespread practice by criminals of using front men. We know that individuals register their assets in the name of their spouse, parents or friends in order to avoid having major financial assets in their own name that could be confiscated by the government. The bill must take into account this particular reality whereby these front men are very often forced to obey the criminals.

I believe this is one of the concerns raised by our NDP colleagues. I can assure them that I will do everything in my power to reassure them in this regard. The analysis that lead to the introduction of Bill C-53 was largely inspired by a number of international legal precedents. The OECD's financial action task force on money laundering, the FATF, had proposed, in one of its 40 recommendations to fight money laundering, adopting measures allowing for the confiscation of assets.

I apologize for speaking so quickly, but I had a lot to say on this subject. I want to close by saying that I am extremely pleased that we are finally addressing this issue. I invite and urge my colleagues on all sides to rapidly conclude this stage and send Bill C-53 to committee, where, I am convinced, it will be adopted without further delay. Then, it will come back to the House and ultimately be passed in order to provide police forces and crown prosecutors with the tools they need and have been demanding for many years.