I have before me section 462.33 of the Criminal Code, which deals with seizure and restraint orders. I wonder if it is used appropriately. Restraint orders are discussed in subsection 462.32(4). It even says that this can be done in ways other than sending a notice to the accused. If the situation is becoming dangerous, the assets can be seized and detained even in the absence of the accused or of the person who is the subject of presumptions. It seems to me that it was designed to be sufficiently broad, so that it would have enough oomph, if I can put it that way, to be able to seize the money but particularly to seize the goods.
In Quebec, for example, when there is a significant search warrant issued, they seize motorcycles, cars, houses, cottages, in a nutshell everything. Afterwards, the accused may argue before the courts that these goods were not obtained through proceeds of crime. I am wondering if in fact, things work backwards in Quebec. In Ontario, things work differently. As we say—and I apologize to the gentlemen from the police—we shoot first and ask questions later. It is up to the accused to demonstrate that these goods were not obtained with money from criminal activity.
I do not know if sections 462.33 and the following are misunderstood.