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.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I'm not finished. There are no time limits during clause-by-clause proceedings. When I'm done, I'll let you know, Mr. Chairman.

Not one of the researchers who testified was able to convince us that minimum mandatory penalties had any beneficial effects. When you ask us to vote on a bill, it's our responsibility as parliamentarians to have a good grasp of the issue. It makes no difference to me to know the Conservatives campaigned on this issue. If that's their only argument, then I would vote against the bill. Yours is a minority government, which means the majority of Canadians did not entrust you with a mandate to govern the country.

Political parties propose sound measures, and some that are less so. You were elected and we were elected, and we need to respect that. Again, Mr. Chairman, we need to put an end to this demagogy, to this contention that some parliamentarians are less concerned than others about public safety.

What's important to me—and I'm speaking more directly to my friend Mr. Petit—is that police officers be given more substantial means with which to conduct investigations. Mr. Petit rightly pointed out to us that there are 38 biker gangs in Canada, not to mention 300 gangs with 11,000 members.

Officials from the Organized Crime Prevention Bureau gave testimony before our committee and announced that they had successfully shut down the Hells Angels. Half of the Hells Angels in Quebec are behind bars, but not because of the minimum penalty provisions in the Criminal Code. They are behind bars because of extended electronic surveillance warrants and because more probing investigations were conducted. These are areas on which I want to focus. If the government wants to bring in draft legislation which would help police officers improve their investigative methods, then we will move quickly to pass these bills.

I asked that we look into the reasons why Bill C-53, with its reverse onus of proof provisions with respect to proceeds of crime, has not yet been applied. Instead of voting on minimum penalties that we know will not have a deterrent effect, in my estimation, it's far more important for the committee to understand the rationale for the reverse onus of proof provisions with respect to proceeds of crime involving some of the most hardened offenders. Yet the RCMP has not yet been able to present a test case.

Mr. Chairman, we need to be courteous and respectful of one another. We are all concerned about people's safety. No one here has cornered the market on wisdom.

[D/Commr Pierre-Yves Bourduas]

Your question is a relevant one. The act entered into force in November 2005. Since then, the Department of Justice has had to administer the act, under which the burden of proof is reversed, but not enough. It doesn't go far enough. The Crown nevertheless has to prove criminal activity, as well as the connection between the material acquisitions and the criminal activity, before the reversal of the burden of proof applies.

At the time debate on the bill was taking place, we asked that an individual's involvement in criminal activities be proven. Once the proof is made, we rely on the principle that no one may benefit from crime. The reversal of the burden of proof is applied, for example, where an individual has to explain to the court how, with an annual income of $10,000, he was able to own three expensive residences. It's in that sense that the act doesn't go far enough, and that's why the Department of Justice laid no information before the courts under this act to date.

We talked about — and Sergeant Butler mentioned this as well — the increasingly frequent use of the services of the Canada Revenue Agency. Ten investigators from that agency worked on the last case, Project Colisée, and I can tell you one thing: if you want to discourage organized crime people and let them know clearly that Canada is not a good place to do business, seize their assets. These people get involved in organized crime above all to acquire assets. If tough laws are applied and these assets are seized, the message is clear.

As regards the reversal of the burden of proof, the Department of Justice is waiting for an airtight casein order to establish well-settled case law. Then it will be possible to build around this act. Our investigators are trying to provide the Justice Department attorneys with the necessary evidence, precisely in order to begin a prosecution under Bill C-53. Unfortunately, that has not yet occurred, madam.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Good morning.

Thank you for the quality of your presentations.

A number of questions that I would have liked to ask have already been asked. I'm nevertheless going to put two to Mr. Bourduas.

Earlier my colleague talked about the reversal of the burden of proof, under Bill C-53, in the case of property acquired by gangs associated with organized crime. Could you tell us why you haven't made more use of that provision?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

You're not using Bill C-53?

Don't you use Bill C-53? We voted on this bill, and all of the parties agreed. Don't you use that?

[Richard Rosenberg, President, B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association (FIPA)]

Thank you for the invitation.

I represent two organizations here, actually, the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association.

On February 9, 1999, I appeared before the Standing Committee on Industry to present my views on behalf of Electronic Frontier Canada on Bill C-54, PIPEDA.

We supported the bill in principle. Now, on behalf of BC FIPA and BCCLA, I wish to renew our support for privacy protection in Canada by means of PIPEDA. However, there are a number of issues that must be addressed in order to ensure that the privacy of Canadians continues to be protected by this important piece of federal legislation.

In this submission, I will address a number of issues related to both the legislation itself and the operation of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.

It's important to emphasize that privacy rights are increasingly under attack, and a necessary bulwark in defence of these rights is at the very least adequate legislation supported by a vigorous agency to defend privacy rights and to draw attention to current and anticipated problems.

The most important recommendation I will make in these notes is that the current ombudsman model for conflict regulation employed by the OPC be replaced, providing the minister with order-making powers.

I draw your attention to a story that appeared early in November in the newspapers, in which the British Broadcasting Corporation, the BBC, reported that Richard Thomas, the information commissioner of Britain, had referred to Britain as “waking up to a surveillance society that is all around us”.

Some of its characteristics are given as follows: by 2016, shoppers could be scanned as they enter stores; schools could bring in cards allowing parents to monitor what their children eat; and jobs might be refused to applicants who were seen as a health risk.

The report referred to above is a report on the surveillance society, and I take this as a very serious report. Britain, of course, has been described frequently as one of the most surveillant societies in existence.

To set the tone of some of the remarks that follow, let me turn to some comments I made a little more than six years ago, about the time PIPEDA was approved. I gave some examples of privacy invasions. I argued that one of the reasons for having a law in Canada was that it was necessary that both companies and government be responsible in their privacy activities, and that there be a possibility for questioning the privacy activities, and that the legislation could and should provide this.

Let me describe some of the concerns I have, and I think that will be the focus of my remarks. I have nine concerns, the first of which I'm calling publicizing complaints.

For the most part, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, the OPC, has decided not to reveal the names of complainants, nor the organizations and companies against which complaints have been launched. It appears that under the current regimen there is little cost to companies that do not resolve their privacy issues; not properly implementing a required privacy regimen is just a small cost of doing business. Public attention would be a much more effective means to achieve compliance.

Second, a much more effective education function is required. The OPC could serve a more effective role than it has up to now; namely, to bring the office and its role under PIPEDA to the attention of the Canadian public. In my classes and talks I have rarely found anyone who knows about Canada's privacy law, his or her rights under the law, or the existence of the OPC, the current Privacy Commissioner, or the activities of the office.

A survey commissioned by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner in March of this year showed that something like 8% of Canadians had heard of PIPEDA. Clearly, if you're not aware of laws protecting you, it's going to be hard to take advantage of the protection they provide.

My third concern is the response of companies to breaches of their security. What, if anything, should companies be required to do when their security barriers are breached, with a resulting release of personal information? Such events have become fairly frequent, and most of the attention has been directed towards companies whose primary activity is the collection, compilation, and marketing of personal information.

When PIPEDA came into effect, the term “identity theft” probably was little known. Now ID theft is well known as one of the major crimes associated with Internet technology. In the body of the submission, I include a table showing the numbers of breaches that have occurred in the U.S. in the last couple of years.

The fourth point is on the transborder data flows of personal information of Canadians. The OPC has brought this issue to the attention of the Canadian public, especially with regard to the possible access to the personal information of Canadians held in the U.S. by the FBI under the U.S.A. Patriot Act. In 2004 this issue arose in British Columbia because the government had outsourced medical records to a subsidiary of the Maximus corporation, a U.S. company. It took B.C. Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis's holding of hearings to find and determine what threats might occur because of this activity. Very briefly stated, the B.C. government introduced and passed legislation in response, which had some of the following requirements: no remote access to data from outside Canada; special restrictions on data access; and requirements for supervision of U.S. employees. I have more listed here. What's important is that the federal government has to deal with these possibilities as well.

Number five, on workplace privacy issues, PIPEDA does not cover information collected by employers about non-federally regulated private sector employees. Workers in three provinces--B.C., Alberta, and Quebec--have protection in the workplace, but basically there is a real lack of it. I should add, for full disclosure, that a researcher and I did a six-month research project for the Office of the Privacy Commissioner on workplace privacy, and we submitted a report to that office expressing our concern about the future of the rights of workers in Canada.

Number six is the development of the electronic medical record, the EMR, and its privacy implications. We recall that when PIPEDA was enacted, the application of the law to the protection of medical records was postponed for one year in order to provide for additional consultation to deal with any special issues associated with such records. I take medical information to be the most sensitive of all personal information and deserving of the highest degree of protection. We're now in the process, across the country, of instituting information systems that will contain, in part, the medical record of every patient who has been involved in the medical system.

Some serious questions arise as to who has access to this medical record and to what degree patients have a chance to say yes or no. One very simplistic model has most of the information about drugs and so on, or about visits, which are not of the most sensitive nature, being available in general without any special permission, but that particular information that's most sensitive might be considered to be in a special lock box, so that only when a patient gives direct permission can that information be released. You ask to whom it would be released. That would be to other doctors, to administrators to make sure that the health process is being conducted efficiently, and to researchers who would like to have access to medical records.

Point seven is on the challenges of emerging privacy-threatening technologies. The law, generally speaking, always seems to be behind new technologies that appear and have good uses, and all of a sudden they start applying to areas that hadn't been thought of. Obviously the law will still apply, but to try to figure out what's going on is the difficulty. I bring your attention to RFID technology, which is being used in U.S. passports. It's part of inventory control, and it also has possibilities for more sinister use. I don't think that's too strong a word.

Let me read you this story, which appeared earlier this year:

A Cincinnati video surveillance company CityWatcher.com now requires employees to use Verichip human implantable microchips to enter a secure data centre. Until now, the employees entered the data centre with a VeriChip housed in a heart-shaped plastic casing that hangs from their keychain. The VeriChip is a glass encapsulated RFID tag that is injected into the triceps area of the arm to uniquely identify individuals. The tag can be read by radio waves from a few inches away.

If it had slightly higher power it could be read from several metres away.

How do you feel about this? How should a privacy commissioner act in response to these kinds of activities? There is now talk about medical records going on chips to be implanted. Then you can't forget things, and you'll have this medical record. This is just one of the kinds of technologies to which we're really going to have to pay attention.

My eighth point is on current views of some aspects of consent. This is a very long area of great concern. Of a document released by the Privacy Commissioner to stimulate discussion, half of it had to do with various questions of access. Who has rights? Is there blanket access? In some of this, there was some concern about access now taking place under various acts of Parliament meant to deal with terrorism, and the requirements to gain information about individuals without informing them it's being taken. The general question is, how much information can you take from people without getting their assent or at least informing them you're taking it? I use the general term “access” to cover many of these things, but there isn't time to go into them in detail.

Let me turn very quickly to the last of my comments, which is where I began. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada is committed to the ombudsman model of mediation. Complaints are heard, meetings are held, and non-binding recommendations are issued, with the names of all parties almost always concealed. If they are dissatisfied, a complainant can bring the case to the Federal Court at his or her own expense.

Has this model been effective? There's some disagreement in public responses to this question. Certainly the OPC seems to be committed to its current mode of operation. It is significant that in the three other provinces in Canada with their own versions of PIPEDA, British Columbia, Alberta, and Quebec—and of course the Quebec model came in several years earlier—the model used involves order-making powers. That is, complaints are heard, decisions with legal force are made public, and parties are named. So the full force of public scrutiny is serving as a constant light shining on the privacy practices of companies and organizations, for whom negative publicity is not in their self-interest. That clearly is the single most important recommendation I'm making in this submission.

Let me thank you for the opportunity to appear before you on this very important matter.

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.

[Randy White, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we in the Conservative Party support Bill C-53. I want to make a couple of comments about things that take place in the real world outside Parliament because I spend a fair bit of time on street issues.

The hon. member on the other side talked about organized crime groups having substantial assets. I along with many other people really wonder what it is going to take in Canada to get organized crime groups off the streets.

We watch every day as the Hells Angels parade around the country with their nice jackets and their bikes and that sort of thing. Now they are disguising themselves by wearing suits. We are still allowing these people to rove around the country like they are some kind of bicycle heroes, but that is not the case. Those people are selling drugs to our kids. They are involved in prostitution. They are involved in all kinds of crime, and yet we tolerate their existence. I have a hard time with that quite frankly, and it is difficult to believe that it even happens.

Bill C-53 is important, but it is also important to follow up on my colleague's comments. This should not just be about the seizure of assets, because it is after the assets are seized that one of the biggest problems begins. I am going to cover several instances that I have been involved with just to give the House some examples. I also want to mention the contradiction in our laws today with respect to things like seizing assets.

I am very much involved in the debate about harm reduction in drugs, which of course is not harm reduction but rather harm extension. Harm reduction extends the use of drugs. It does not reduce the harm at all, as we will find out too late one day. Harm reduction involves injection sites, needle exchanges, crack inhalation sites, issuance of heroin to individuals, and the legalization of marijuana. Lately it also involves roving injection teams in Vancouver, if anybody has ever heard of anything so absurd.

Roving injection teams involve addicts who rove the streets and back alleys with needles to inject incapacitated addicts because they are too incapacitated to inject themselves. Not too long ago that was called attempted murder. When individuals walk into an injection site with illegal drugs in their hands, one has to wonder why there is some kind of free bubble zone to allow that when we are supposedly saying those kind of drugs are illegal to possess. The government has to get out of its schizophrenic mode where basically it is saying that drugs are against the law, but it is okay to break the law.

That is my preamble to my examples of this bill, which is really talking about seizure of assets, and it is a good thing.

Not too long ago there was a drug bust. It not only included drugs, but about eight or ten feet away in the rafters there was about $400,000 all wrapped up in plastic which the police took out of the building. This case went to court and the judge, in his infinite wisdom, gave all the money back to the dealers because they said they did not know it was there, that it was just something that must have been up in the rafters. Poor dears. He virtually gave the drug dealers $400,000 because in that courtroom with that defence lawyer, they did the wrong thing. They went after the defence of that drug money.

Although we have laws in this country, the problem is that lawyers on the defence side and the judges making the decisions are making the wrong decisions applicable to laws like this. It is not just the law that has seizure of assets that is important, it is the application of the law within the courtroom. I do not know what it is going to take for us in our society to go to the defence lawyers and say that we all have a problem, that for goodness' sake they know where the $400,000 has come from. It cannot be given back to the dealers. They would just use it to buy and sell again.

I cannot say how many times I have been involved in situations where money has been seized, put in trust because it cannot be given back to the dealers, when in fact the lawyers can get their hands on it. They go in on behalf of the dealers, charge a fee of the amount that is in the trust account, get all the money out of the trust account, give part of it back to the dealers and keep a good chunk of change for themselves. Those lawyers out there know who I am talking about. That is trafficking. It is wrong. It is stupid. It is not just a matter of setting a law to seize assets, it is the application of the law after it is made. These laws are not made to be broken or challenged. They are not made to have application under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They are made to prevent illegal use of money.

How do these guys get around it? I have mentioned before that recently a young man was kidnapped in my community. He was thrown into a van and pistol whipped. This sounds like something out of Terminator II in the United States. He was in the van which was involved in a high-speed chase with the police. The bad guys drove through a stoplight and killed a woman who was entering the intersection on a green light. They rolled the van and took off from the scene of the accident. It was a hit and run. Four of them were caught. All four were charged. They had guns, money and drugs in the car.

I was in the courtroom. They dropped all charges against three of them who said they did not know the other guy, that they did not know there was money in the van or to whom the drugs and gun belonged. It is the application of the laws. I do not know what it is in the House. We develop good laws and they are broken all the time.

There was hardly enough room around the front of the bench for lawyers because there were so many of them. Quite frankly it was a laughing stock of a zoo. Ultimately the driver of the vehicle was charged with dangerous driving. There were no gun charges. Everything was dropped.

The guy who was kidnapped, who was a witness, was asked what he did. He said, “I deliver”. “What do you deliver?” “Drugs”. He was asked if he liked that and he said no because his supervisor put him on the midnight shift from dial-a-dope.

These stories sound bizarre, but they are in fact true. What I am saying in the House of Commons is that while we have a bill we support, we have to approach those in the legal industry and tell them to apply this the right way and not to abuse where our intentions are going.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in debate on 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.

First and foremost, this bill seeks to amend the Criminal Code to put in place a reverse onus with respect to certain proceeds of crime applications. The new measures would apply to those convicted of a criminal organization offence or a serious drug offence and will provide that, subject to certain conditions, the property of such an offender identified by the Crown can be forfeited by order of a court unless the offender proves that the property is not the proceeds of crime.

In effect, these new provisions would add a new, more aggressive forfeiture method to the Criminal Code, in addition to the proceeds of crime forfeiture provisions that already exist.

This legislation also makes a number of corrective amendments to the current forfeiture of crime provisions for the purpose of ensuring clarity in these provisions.

The proposed new reverse-onus forfeiture power under Bill C-53 builds upon the current proceeds of crime scheme in the Criminal Code.

The current provisions originate from legislation put in place in 1989. They are part of the criminal process that comes into play when a court is imposing sentence on an offender. At their core, they are fundamentally designed to put in practice the straightforward principle that crime ought not to pay.

By allowing the government to claim the proceeds of crime, these provisions directly attack the illicit economic gain that is the prime motivation of many types of criminal activity, especially organized crime activity.

As such, proceeds of crime legislation is absolutely vital in helping to deter this type of crime and to undermine the criminal groups that are responsible for it.

These proceeds of crime provisions are found at part XII.2 of the Criminal Code. They allow for the forfeiture of proceeds upon application by the Crown after a conviction for an indictable offence under federal law, other than a small number of offences exempted by regulation. These offences, for which this current procedure is available, are referred to as designated offences under the code.

Currently, in order to obtain forfeiture the Crown must show on a balance of probabilities that the property is the proceeds of crime and the property is connected to the crime for which the person was convicted. Alternatively, the Crown can also obtain forfeiture even if no connection between the particular offence and the property is established, provided that the court is nevertheless satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the property is proceeds of crime.

Attached to these existing forfeiture tools are other related powers. These include, for example, powers allowing special search warrants to find property that may be proceeds of crime; the powers of restraint and seizure of property pending resolution of criminal proceedings to ensure that the property does not disappear before a possible forfeiture order; and provisions for court proceedings to permit relief from forfeiture where appropriate in order to ensure the protection of legitimate interests in property, including third party interests.

These existing proceeds of crime measures have proven to be fair and effective powers under the Criminal Code. However, there are strong arguments that they have not been effective enough.

While Canadian authorities have managed to seize, restrain and ultimately forfeit substantial suspected criminal assets, these amounts are believed to represent a relatively small proportion of the total amount of proceeds of criminal activity in Canada.

Organized crime groups in particular are believed to have control of sizeable financial assets that are the product of illicit financial activity that have not successfully been recovered by Canadian authorities. There is a substantial international dimension in this as well, as criminal groups transfer illicit gains out of the country, or indeed, transfer illicit gains from activities in other countries into Canada.

While our current proceeds of crime provisions are effective, the government is of the view that they can and should be improved upon, especially in relation to organized crime. We must build upon the current provisions in order to make them more effective. In particular, there are limitations in the way the current provisions operate that create barriers for police and prosecutors.

While criminal organizations are believed to be involved in numerous offences leading to substantial illicit material gain, convictions are typically obtained only with respect to a small number of offences. It is not always the case that these offences have associated proceeds.

For example, if such a criminal is convicted of murder, no particular proceeds will in general be associated with that one offence. Even for other types of offences that often do involve economic gain, such as drug trafficking, it frequently is the case that arrests will take place just before a major drug transaction takes place. While the organization itself likely will have been involved in numerous other trafficking activities, the particular offence for which the person is charged in that case would have involved an offer to traffic, for which there may be few or no related proceeds. Even where conviction does take place for an offence for which there are related proceeds, and forfeiture of these proceeds is possible, the particular offence and associated proceeds will very often only represent a small proportion of the total offences and illicit accumulation of property for which the criminal organization is responsible.

This means that the Crown often has to rely on the second branch of the current proceeds test, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the property is nevertheless the proceeds of criminal offences. This often means that even after a successful prosecution, there is a prospect of substantial additional proceeds litigation with sometimes doubtful prospects of success to obtain property, which in the organized crime context very much appears from the outset to be proceeds of crime.

It is for this reason that a new reverse onus proceeds of crime forfeiture power is needed. It is the view of the government that there are certain criminal circumstances under which it is legitimate to presume that the identified assets of an offender are proceeds of crime. Of course, it should still be open to an offender to prove on a balance of probabilities that assets are in fact not proceeds of crime. However, failing such proof, the property should be forfeited by the order of the court. This is the basis of the proposed new power under Bill C-53.

This is a type of procedure that has already been adopted in a number of other democracies in respect of proceeds of crime. It is a power that federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for justice have identified as needed in Canada as well.

I believe that this initiative has considerable support within this House. I urge all members to work together to ensure that it is passed as soon as possible.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, for the Minister of Justice]

moved:

That 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, be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

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

May 30, 2005--the Minister of Justice--Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness 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.

Business of the House

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

My understanding is that the minister referred to Bill C-53. It is my understanding that it is the prerogative of the government to move this forward.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe my hon. colleague said Bill C-53.

[Claudette Bradshaw, Liberal, Minister of State (Human Resources Development)]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Pursuant to Standing Order 73, I would like to inform the House that it is our intention to propose that 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, be referred to committee before second reading.

Criminal Code

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

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to put a question to my colleague, the hon. member for Québec. I know that she is doing an outstanding job on status of women issues brought before this House. There are two bills in particular, namely Bill C-53, which is currently before the committee—I will have the opportunity to work on it in the coming months—and particularly Bill C-49, which I hope will be passed by this House and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness as soon as possible.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague the same question I asked of the previous speaker. I did not get a very clear answer from the department or from the member opposite. I know that my hon. colleague has done extensive work on this issue.

There is a clause in Bill C-49 that is of particular interest to us. I will quote it. It deals with causing:

—by means of deception or the use or threat of force or of any other form of coercion, to have an organ or tissue removed.

Under Bill C-49, this would be illegal and would be prosecuted under the Criminal Code as aggravated assault and assault with a weapon. I wonder if this will apply to the same extent to the whole issue of female circumcision.This is an issue that has been much publicized, without ever being settled. With this bill, could those who, directly or indirectly, commit this kind of aggravated assault on women be prosecuted? That was my question to the hon. member.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me a chance to speak today on Bill C-49 so that the Bloc Québécois can state its position on this matter. This bill is of special interest to me in my capacity as status of women critic. This is a new job for me. The Bloc leader has asked me to be the status of women critic for the next session. I am also the social development critic. This is an important job as well because it is a matter of poverty, equity and quality of life.

Bill C-49 has to do with trafficking in persons. It is an alarming and revolting subject in some regards. It could also be said that the life story of abused people is deeply upsetting and morally unacceptable.

We know that some people profit from human misery—from the misery of certain people and cultures. Faced with these human tragedies, we as legislators must also do what we can and make our contribution toward a better understanding of how this Mafia-like crime works.

Today we offer our raised awareness and our understanding of this matter and the extent of the problem.

This is a complex subject with a number of aspects. Various people are involved. First there are those who are exploited: the women, children and men. Then there are the exploiters. Who are these people who profit from the situation? We know that there is a whole chain of activities from which a number of people benefit.

Today the Bloc Québécois considers Bill C-49 a step in the right direction, not just because it will provide a better framework for the drafters of the Criminal Code but also because it will make it possible to prosecute the people who benefit. There is a better definition of recruitment. It says, for example, how individuals are transported and how their housing makes it possible for the victims to be abused. This includes exploitation in the sex trade. That cannot be denied.

We were speaking earlier about trafficking in women. When a connection is drawn with prostitution, trafficking in women and children for the purposes of prostitution, we can see that we must be very vigilant about taking action with the Criminal Code. We must be better able to meet the needs of the people who are being exploited.

The purpose of this bill is to ban trafficking in persons. This means that those profiting from such trafficking will be doubly penalized. People have gone so far as to destroy or conceal I.D. in order to facilitate trafficking in persons.

All those who are involved in trafficking of persons will be prosecuted: those who are engaged in trafficking, those who receive financial gain from it, those who destroy or conceal identity documents in order to facilitate the offence of trafficking in persons. These are the ones who will be penalized the most heavily under the Criminal Code.

Under Bill C-49, anyone found guilty of trafficking in persons will receive a life sentence. There are also provisions for accomplices to a kidnapping, aggravated assault or sexual assault, or the death of a victim during the commission of the offence. They will be liable to a prison sentence of 10 years.

Any person who takes financial advantage of forced labour, which is another thing imposed on the victims of trafficking of persons, would be liable to a maximum 10 year sentence. Five years would also be a possibility for those taking possession of identity or travel documents belonging to a victim. Those destroying identity documents would also be liable to a prison sentence.

With this bill, a whole chain of individuals linked to the human trafficking trade will be far more heavily punished.

We know that the Minister of Justice tabled eight clauses on May 12, 2005. These very brief clauses will amend the law and create three new offences:

(a) create an offence of trafficking in persons that prohibits a person from engaging in specified acts for the purpose of exploiting or facilitating the exploitation of another person;

(b) create an offence that prohibits a person from receiving a financial or other material benefit that they know results from the commission of the offence of trafficking in persons;

(c) create an offence that prohibits concealing, removing, withholding or destroying travel documents—

The foregoing is part of the summary of the bill, which will amend the Criminal Code and create three new offences.

The bill also defines the concept of exploitation as it relates to human trafficking, for instance forcing a person to work or provide services, including services of a sexual nature, causing a victim to believe that their safety or that of a person close to them would be threatened if they failed to do what is required of them. The same goes for causing a person, by means of deception or the use or threat of force or of any other form of coercion, to have an organ or tissue removed.

These are the changes contained in the bill with respect to exploitation as it relates to trafficking in persons.

Human trafficking could be described as modern slavery. As we know, the first to be exploited are women and children, the most vulnerable in society. Also, on certain continents, the victims are individuals living in minimal conditions for survival.

Everyone involved in trafficking, be it to recruit, transport or house for the purpose of sexual or other exploitation, has to be punished. The victims are first deceived, and often coerced. This is taking place here, in Canada. It is reported that 800 persons are the victims of this kind of abuse in Canada every year. We thought this could not happen in our country, that it only happened in developing countries or in countries that turn a blind eye to trafficking in women, children and men. Such trafficking exists for all sorts of purposes; it may be for purposes of sexual exploitation or for labour purposes.

In 2000, the United Nations published a report on trafficking in women. Canada is said to be among the 30 top destinations. The countries involved are divided into countries of origin, transit and destination for this type of trafficking. We must therefore be extremely vigilant.

I am pleased to see the Criminal Code further strengthened today, so that something can be done about this. We are aiming for zero tolerance in terms of violence against women, but also with respect to human trafficking.

This also allows us to raise public awareness. This is modern-day slavery. Many might think that slavery existed in another century and that we celebrated the 150th anniversary of the end of racial exploitation. However, this type of slavery still exists today.

We know there were a number of events to celebrate the abolition of slavery, but this type of slavery still goes on today. In the context of globalization, the transfer of individuals takes place much more quickly and we know this type of trade is in demand.

Without a stringent Criminal Code, there is permissiveness. This allows traffickers or the mafia to set up in countries that are more lax.

In addition, the 2000 United Nations report on trafficking in women recommends that countries review their overly restrictive, even anti-immigration, approaches, as I was saying. Earlier someone asked what we could do to be more understanding with respect to this type of trafficking. Some people want to emigrate to other countries where living conditions seem better. We could stop granting so many temporary visas to tourists, instead of putting the brakes on real immigration possibilities for some.

This is a recommendation from the 2000 United Nations report on trafficking in women. It is a question of responsible immigration policies.

There is fertile ground for the growth and perpetuation of the exploitation of women. Victims should not be treated as illegal immigrants. This is an area that could be addressed much more proactively. It is a matter of having policies on illegal immigrants, not treating victims as illegal immigrants or criminals, but as women, children, even men who have been abused by people who are part of a mafia, who want to exploit them and who take all human dignity away from those who have suffered this abuse.

A 2005 report by the International Labour Organization estimated that at least 2.4 billion people in the world are victims of abuse, threatened physically or psychologically by their attackers. Their labour is also exploited.

Some of these people are threatened physically, are forced into prostitution or jobs in various sectors that are poorly paid, if at all. There is the construction sector, for instance, but also agriculture, in which some people from other countries work. Here too there are abuses in regard to working conditions and pay.

This entire work-related sector represents US$32 billion on a global scale. That is a lot of money. Who benefits? It is the companies that may pay a little less for clothing and all kinds of services and materials. At the same time, other people suffer the effects of reducing the cost of clothing or other things we use in our daily lives.

The report also emphasizes that forced labour can be abolished if governments and various national institutions take persistent, meaningful, political action. Bill C-49 can therefore be seen as part of a slightly more determined demonstration of their commitment to the abolition of certain conditions in which people live.

In addition, the legislation must be strengthened. The report states as well that governments should become involved in eradicating this kind of treatment of human beings. This concerns not just a country but the entire international community. According to the 2005 report of the International Labour Organization, we need to do more than simply encourage governments to change their laws and adopt policies to eradicate such treatment of human beings.

The report also calls for the creation of a global alliance. We cannot do this in isolation, each of us in our own corner. A global alliance is needed, involving all levels of government, employer and employee organizations, development agencies, financial institutions, civil society, research institutions and academics. It would be a grand coalition that could be much more vigilant on a number of social levels.

It is to be hoped that this scourge can be relegated to the past and ancient history. We hear that some countries have taken certain initiatives. For instance, the United States passed the Trafficking Victims Protection Act in 2000, which created new offences so that crimes in the criminal code could be punished more severely, as is now being done.

Moreover, the victims who cooperate with American authorities during the investigations are protected from deportation. The United Kingdom, France and Japan have also amended their legislation to include harsher provisions.

The fight against organized crime is also a step in the right direction. My colleague, the hon. member for Hochelaga, has worked very hard to get the government to come up with better targeted provisions against organized crime.

So, Bill C-49 is a good tool to prosecute those individuals involved in human trafficking. It is said that the fight against exploitation goes hand in hand with the fight against organized crime. Bill C-49 pursues that objective and it has the great virtue of broadening the scope of the tools available to prosecute individuals.

Criminal organizations engaged in human trafficking are first and foremost motivated by profit. The reversal of the burden of proof will facilitate the work of authorities and allow them to seize the property of individuals who are members of criminal organizations and who profit financially from the trafficking in persons.

The Bloc Quebecois has long been asking for the implementation of measures to fight organized crime more effectively. Last year, the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles introduced Bill C-242 to allow for the reversal of the burden of proof, which would compel an offender who is found guilty of an offence related to organized crime to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that his assets were obtained in an honest and legitimate fashion.

That is one way to go a little further than the bill before us does. We must also target organized crime. Indeed, based on all the reading that I have done, organized crime is a pillar of this trafficking of children and women. There is money to be made in it.

On March 11, 2005, an opposition day, the Bloc Québécois went a step further by presenting a motion forcing the government to table a bill to amend the Criminal Code reversing the burden of proof as regards the proceeds of crime. In response to this motion, which the House passed unanimously, the federal government tabled Bill C-53. It is essential to waging real war on organized crime and money laundering and to righting the injustice that has too long allowed criminals to profit from trafficking in humans.

Therefore, the Bloc Québécois urges the government to keep its promises and allow Bill C-53 to quickly become a reality. This bill was introduced by my Bloc colleague, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

As I said earlier, it is alarming and loathsome to see so many men, women and children being exploited. The theme of the 2000 World March of Women was poverty and violence, which are not too far removed from the consequences of human trafficking.

There was a committee on prostitution. Like the other parties, the Bloc will submit a report in committee about whether to decriminalize or legalize prostitution. I am not passing judgment on this important issue today. My colleague from Trois-Rivières has worked on this issue. She will tell the House about the various directions she would like to see taken with regard to this report. First, it will be subject to consideration in committee.

We must be careful when we talk about decriminalizing prostitution or drugs. It may encourage the prostitution of children, women and men. After the fall of the Soviet Union, for example, sex industry dealers engaged in the serious trafficking of women and girls from Russia and Poland to Germany and Western Europe.

Women, too often still minors, are terrorized, stripped of their papers and drugged. When they regain consciousness, they do not even know what city they are in. They are shipped from country to country like cattle. How can we ignore the many women and children all over the world who have disappeared? It is very troubling.

Today it is not only important to talk about the meaning of Bill C-49 but also to speak of all these victims and all these human dramas. I have seen a number of reports and programs on this. Very often families are affected. People go out in to the countryside telling young women they can get work in the textile industry or as hairdressers and promising them jobs. Not only are there no jobs, but they very often end up being sexually exploited.

Today there is a lot of misleading language being used. People often try to conceal the fact that this is slavery and not sexual freedom. There is a debate going on at present as to whether prostitution is a matter of free choice or nothing more than slavery. The committee that will study the report on the sexual exploitation of women will have to decide that.

There are 54 western countries, Canada among them, engaged in sex tourism and therefore controlling most of the “commodification” of women and children. So this is an issue of concern to all of us today.

I would have liked to have given more examples of these human dramas, but my time is up. I await my colleagues' comments and questions. I was very pleased to speak on this important matter.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, our principal legislative objectives continue to be Bill C-43, the third reading vote of which will take place after question period, and Bill C-48. The government believes these bills reflect public interest and the enactment of both of these bills is required before the House adjourns for the summer. As the hon. member mentioned, if the House does not pass Bill C-48, we will be here in July and August. Consequently, we will continue to give these bills priority until they are disposed of.

We will then consider report stage of Bill C-38, the civil marriage bill; Bill C-25; Bill C-28; Bill C-52, the Fisheries Act; Bill C-47; Bill C-53; Bill C-55, the bankruptcy bill; and Bill C-37, the do not call legislation.

Supply

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place between all parties and I believe you would find consent for a motion that Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act, be deemed to have been concurred in at the report stage, read a second time, read a third time and passed on division; and, that 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, be deemed to have been read a second time, referred to a committee and reported to the House without amendment, concurred in at report stage, read a third time and passed.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with the opposition motion. I wish to designate Tuesday, June 14 as an allotted day, which means that the main estimates shall be dealt with that day.

Tomorrow we will begin report stage of Bill C-43, which is the first budget bill. This bill will be our priority until it is disposed of. When Bill C-48, the second budget bill, is reported from committee, it, too, shall be given our top priority.

There are discussions among the parties concerning the early disposal of Bill C-2, the child protection legislation; Bill C-53, the bill respecting proceeds of crime; and possibly Bill C-56, the Labrador-Inuit legislation.

The other pieces of legislation that we can anticipate debating in the next week are: Bill C-26, the border services bill; Bill S-18, the census legislation; Bill C-25, RADARSAT; Bill C-52, the Fisheries Act amendment; Bill C-28, the Food and Drugs Act amendments; Bill C-37, the do not call legislation; Bill C-44, the transport legislation; and Bill C-47, the Air Canada bill.

Criminal Code

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved for leave to introduce 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.

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