I understand. My apologies. I have submitted a copy of my speaking notes.
In our communities, criminal organizations pose a significant threat to the safety and security of our communities. One of the primary motivators of crime is profit. Depriving criminals of wealth acquired through crime and property, and utilized to facilitate crime, is an effective crime reduction strategy that has evolved as an essential element of police efforts to investigate, disrupt, and dismantle organizations.
The first proceeds of crime legislation was introduced in Canada in 1989. Since this inception, we have seen additional legislative amendments designed to combat organized crime by bolstering existing legislation and expanding our ability to seize and forfeit offence-related property or property that facilitates crime. In 2001 Ontario introduced a civil legislative regime that enabled the Attorney General to seek a civil order forfeiting the proceeds or instruments of unlawful activity to the crown.
Although operating at arm's length from the police, the civil remedies for illicit activities play a crucial role in the provincial asset forfeiture strategy. Strong partnerships among law enforcement, prosecutors, and supporting elements of the criminal justice network are key to successfully applying asset forfeiture legislative tools.
The OPP-led asset forfeiture unit is an integrated joint force operations model embedded within the Organized Crime Enforcement Bureau. With a vision of taking the motive out of crime, the asset forfeiture unit is mandated to aggressively and strategically apply available asset forfeiture legislative provisions and coordinate the provincial asset forfeiture within Ontario. The asset forfeiture unit comprises 53 officers, representing 21 different police services. The OPP also has four officers seconded to the RCMP-led integrated proceeds of crime program.
The officers assigned to the asset forfeiture unit provide specialized investigative support services to front-line officers, substantive units, and large-scale projects targeting organized crime groups. In the past five years, the asset forfeiture unit removed $155 million from the criminal economy and forfeited $25.8 million to the crown. It has been nationally recognized as an effective model for applying criminal and civil legislative provisions to remove proceeds of crime and property that facilitate crime from the criminal economy.
The asset forfeiture unit utilizes an all-encompassing philosophy in applying the legislative tools to accomplish one common goal: removal of proceeds of crime and/or offence-related property from criminals and criminal organizations. Adopting this strategic approach demands a firm understanding of the statutes related to asset forfeiture and being able to navigate through the various legislative regimes and processes. The success and the sustainability of the police having access to the asset forfeiture provisions to combat organized crime will depend on our ability to remain prudent and diligent in applying the legislative tools available.
The asset forfeiture unit relies on three legislative processes for removing and forfeiting proceeds of crime and property that facilitate crime. The traditional legislative provision related to the seizure and forfeiture of proceeds of crime is entrenched in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Criminal Code. This provision is applied when investigating the seizure and forfeiture of property that is the profit of crime. This method entails a complex financial investigation where the police must demonstrate, beyond reasonable doubt, that the property was acquired with profits derived from crime.
When we proceed under the CDSA, which is the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the seized property management directorate, a federal asset management agency, assumes the responsibilities related to the management and disposition of the property, subject to a management order issued by the courts. The Public Prosecution Service of Canada assumes responsibility for prosecuting the matter.
When we proceed under the Criminal Code, the provincial Ministry of the Attorney General assumes the responsibilities related to the management and disposition of the property as well as prosecuting the matter.
The legislative provision related to the seizure and forfeiture of offence-related property—that is, property that facilitates a crime, such as a marijuana grow house—is also entrenched in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Criminal Code. This provision is applied when investigating the seizure and forfeiture of property that was utilized to facilitate a criminal act. Applying this methodology is less onerous than the previous provision. In this instance, the police must demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the property was utilized to facilitate a crime. This method accounted for approximately 75% of the property seized and forfeited by the asset forfeiture unit in the past five years. As previously outlined, the legislative statute will dictate who assumes the responsibilities related to the management and disposition of the property and prosecuting the matter.
Civil remedies for illicit activities are the third and final provision relied upon by the asset forfeiture unit to remove proceeds of crime from enterprise criminals and criminal organizations. This arm's-length civil provision is accessed by the police by submitting cases that have faltered or lack the evidence to successfully achieve a criminal forfeiture. We submit the case to the reviewing authority, the gatekeeper, who is an independent crown counsel of the Ministry of the Attorney General. The gatekeeper will review the material and determine whether the statutory criteria of the Civil Remedies Act are met. Once satisfied, the case is submitted to the civil remedies for illicit activities office for consideration. The standard of proof required for civil forfeiture is the same as it is in all civil actions: balance of probabilities.
The achievements of the asset forfeiture unit are directly linked to the strong working relationships established with our partners and stakeholders. As indicated, the asset forfeiture unit works together with Ministry of the Attorney General programs, including the civil remedies for illicit activities office and the criminal asset forfeiture unit. For federally prosecuted matters, the asset forfeiture unit works together with Public Prosecution Service of Canada and the seized property management directorate. All of these programs work together in a coordinated approach to identify asset forfeiture cases and optimize the application of asset forfeiture provisions to reduce the criminal economy. The OPP acknowledges the complexity of funding numerous programs from separate governments, but it is recommended that all the stakeholders contributing to the overall asset forfeiture strategy be considered when funding investments are being considered for one or some of the stakeholders.
Accordingly, justice sector partners must recognize and appreciate that the motive for removing proceeds of crime and property that facilitates crime should not be profit by government or law enforcement agencies. The goal is to reduce crime, assist victims of crime, and ensure that criminals don't profit from crime. The cost of combatting crime in a community is directly related to the level of crime in that community. Removing illicit and offence-related property from the environment reduces crime and assists victims of crime. This reduction in crime translates into savings related to the future costs of mitigating crime in that community. For example, the $155 million extracted from the criminal economy by the asset forfeiture unit during the past five years is funding that is no longer available to criminals or their criminal organizations to finance their criminal activities and support their lavish lifestyles. It is a strong and tangible deterrent to commit crime, and above all, moneys are returned to victims or reinvested into safeguarding our communities.
Although it is never the motive, there is an added financial benefit to seizing and forfeiting illicit assets. Property or money that is not used to compensate victims or is not returnable to an innocent third party will be forfeited to the crown.
Pursuant to the applicable sharing regimes, these forfeited assets are converted to funds and can be reinvested in law enforcement activities. The following grant programs were established as the vehicles to reinvest forfeited moneys back into justice sector initiatives: the front-line policing grant program; the law enforcement grant program; and the civil remedies for illicit activities proceeds of crime grant program.
The OPP acknowledges there has been significant legislative progress and developments that support the asset forfeiture framework in Ontario and strengthen our ability to investigate, disrupt, and dismantle organized and serious crime. However, the OPP have identified the following priorities that would enhance the provincial asset forfeiture strategy.
The first priority deals with legislative amendments to the Seized Property Management Act and the forfeited property sharing regulations in order to: provide greater flexibility to the seized property management directorate in taking responsibility for managing assets that are seized by the police from the time the assets are seized as opposed to waiting for a management order to be issued; facilitate the disposal of rapidly depreciating assets, such as automobiles, in a timely manner to preserve the value of the assets; provide for the use of one management agency responsible to manage and dispose of all assets seized by the police pursuant to any forfeiture provisions, whether provincial or federal; and revise the current sharing regime to ensure an equitable and transparent process is in place that optimizes the overall benefits derived from the asset forfeiture regime. Also, dedicate Public Prosecution Service of Canada counsels to provide legal advice and support to the provincial asset forfeiture strategy; establish clear policies and guidelines that would identify and assign prosecutorial jurisdiction early in the planning stages of a large organized crime investigation; and invest adequate resources in all the stakeholders engaged in the provincial asset forfeiture strategy.
In conclusion, the asset forfeiture unit is a key contributor to law enforcement efforts to combat organized and serious crime. Entrenched in sound partnerships and relationships with municipal police services and justice sector stakeholders, the asset forfeiture unit is achieving remarkable success in depriving criminals of wealth acquired through crime and property used to facilitate crime. We believe that maintaining this momentum of reform and modernization, giving police and prosecutors the support and the tools to effectively combat organized crime, will achieve safer communities across the nation.
Thank you.