Debates of March 10th, 2005

Question No. 73

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was not here at the allotted time to present committee reports. I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to revert to committee reports so I may present my report from the government operations and estimates committee.

[The Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to revert to presenting reports from committees?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Committees of the House

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

The committee has studied the supplementary estimates B for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2005, and has agreed to report them without amendments.

The committee does intend to present a separate report to make some recommendations on the timeframe that was allowed for the study of the supplementary estimates and to express some concerns about the timeframe allowed. That will be forthcoming.

Supply

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, in order to better fight crime, the government should introduce a bill by April 30, 2005, to amend the Criminal Code by reversing the burden of proof as regards the proceeds of crime, requiring the accused, once found guilty, to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that their assets were not obtained using the proceeds of their criminal activities.

--Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I believe that you would find unanimous consent for the following amendment:

That the text of the motion to be debated in the course of this supply day be amended in the following way:

That the words “April 30, 2005” be replaced by “May 31, 2005” and that the words “of a serious offense” be added after the word “guilty”.

[The Speaker]

Does the House give unanimous consent for amending the motion before debate?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Amendment agreed to.)

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure as well as an honour for me to start the debate on this Bloc Québécois motion to reverse the burden of proof as regards the proceeds of crime for individuals convicted of specific offences.

For the benefit of my colleagues and those listening today, I want to clarify that the motion before the House today reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, in order to better fight crime, the government should introduce a bill by May 31, 2005, to amend the Criminal Code by reversing the burden of proof as regards the proceeds of crime, requiring the accused, once found guilty of a serious offence, to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that their assets were not obtained using the proceeds of their criminal activities.

Organized crime is one of the most serious social issues facing our society, and this is even more so given that, since 1994, there has been a bloody war in Quebec among the rival criminal motorcycle gangs. Over 160 people have died as a result of this war, including innocent bystanders who had the misfortune of getting in the way of these criminals.

There is a direct link between this motion and the deadly circumstances surrounding this motorcycle gang war in Quebec, as elsewhere in Canada. In the name of public safety, but also and above all to support police efforts to fight organized crime, substantive changes to the legal framework must be made to better equip the Crown.

Amending the Criminal Code as proposed in this Bloc Québécois motion would constitute a very big step forward and I know already that our efforts are welcome, both by police forces and crown prosecutors in general.

For a number of years, the Bloc Québécois has lobbied the federal government to put forward effective legislation to fight organized crime. During the 2000 election campaign, the Bloc Québécois continued such efforts and called for Ottawa to amend the Criminal Code to give police and crown prosecutors more effective tools with which to fight and stamp out organized crime.

The Canadian government eventually responded to some of our demands by introducing the antigang legislation, which amended the Criminal Code provisions applicable to organized crime. The Bloc believes, however, that further reform is needed to tighten the noose currently around organized crime in Quebec and Canada.

Hon. members will remember that, on October 28, I tabled in the House of Commons, with the support of the Conservative member for Provencher and the NDP member for Windsor—Tecumseh, Bill C-242, to reverse the burden of proof and require an accused, once convicted of an offence in association with a criminal organization, to demonstrate that the goods that he owns were obtained in an honest and legitimate fashion. I suggested then that we should use what is called the balance of probabilities.

The media coverage on this legislation—which, everyone will agree, is as bold as it is tough—revived the whole debate on the conviction of individuals associated with the underworld, particularly in the case of the megatrials that were held in Quebec following opération printemps 2001.

In that context, I am very pleased to see that a strong consensus is being achieved on the issue, from coast to coast. The repeated pressures exerted by the Bloc Québécois over the years have convinced several governments of the merits of this amendment to the Criminal Code.

In this regard, it is important to note that, at the recent federal-provincial-territorial meeting of justice ministers, held here in Ottawa on January 24 and 25, the justice ministers agreed on a series of measures that should be taken to improve Canada's justice system.

As regards these measures, the news release issued at the conclusion of the meeting read as follows:

Ministers discussed proposals to change the Criminal Code to create a reverse onus for the proceeds of crime regime. Offenders would have to prove on a balance of probabilities that their property is not the proceeds of crime. All ministers agreed that the ability to obtain the forfeiture of proceeds of crime is needed and the federal justice minister said he intends to move forward as quickly as possible with changes that meet charter requirements.

In addition, in an open letter sent to the Quebec major newspapers at the beginning of February, while he was still Quebec's attorney general and minister of justice, Jacques Dupuis spoke out on behalf of his counterparts and embraced the principle of Bill C-242, which I introduced last fall.

In this regard, he made a further commitment by saying that:

The current subsection 462.37(1) of the Criminal Code places on the Crown prosecutor the burden of proving that the property to be forfeited is proceeds of crime related to the offence committed. Once an accused person has been convicted, the Crown must prove that the property was illegally acquired in order to obtain its forfeiture. My colleague Attorneys General in the other provinces and territories have supported the proposal we have put forward to shift the burden of proof onto the accused after a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We have therefore asked the Minister of Justice of Canada to amend the Criminal Code accordingly.

If the proposed amendment is enacted, an accused who is convicted of an indictable offence will be required to satisfy the court, on a balance of probabilities, that the property in respect of which the Attorney General is seeking forfeiture is not proceeds of crime related to the offence of which the accused has been convicted.

Our proposed amendment goes further than the amendment in Billin the House of C 242 recently tabled Commons in that it applies to all indictable offences, not only criminal organization offences.

Despite the expertise Québec has developed and our success in offence-related property forfeiture (since 1996, property worth a total of $32 million has been forfeited), it remains difficult to prove that a particular item of property is in fact proceeds of crime. Establishing that proof is a lengthy and painstaking process. Our proposed amendment to reverse the burden of proof will further enhance the claim that crime does not pay.

So what Jacques Dupuis was calling for, with the agreement of the Bloc Québécois, was a kind of Bill C-242 plus.

The motion we are debating today is along the same lines and has as its main objective to remind the government of its commitment to this and primarily to accelerate the process by which it plans to act. With the May 31 deadline for the government to being in a bill with such a commitment, the Bloc Québécois is stepping up the pressure on the government to do more than talk, finally.

I would also point out to my hon. colleagues that adoption of such a measure is central to the Bloc Québécois' commitments to Quebeckers, and particular focus was placed on it in the Bloc Québécois election platform. That platform became a kind of plebiscite, as can be seen by the exceptional results of the June 28, 2004 election.

I want to mention the contribution by my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot to the drafting of that platform. This colleague's work on the platform, and his whole battle against organized crime, deserves our recognition. His position , which we share, was reflected in the last campaign platform for which he was responsible.

This idea is certainly not a Bloc original. No Canadian political party has ever dared take it as far before, however. The motion is in large part inspired by certain international legislative precedents.

In its 40 recommendations relating to property laundering, the OECD financial action task force, generally called FATF, proposes the adoption of measures to permit property to be confiscated.

It could not make its stand on this any clearer. It says the following in connection with improvements to justice systems:

Countries should adopt measures similar to those set forth in the Vienna and Palermo Conventions, including legislative measures, to enable their competent authorities to confiscate property laundered, proceeds from money laundering or predicate offences, instrumentalities used in or intended for use in the commission of these offences, instrumentalities used in or intended for use in the commission of these offences, or property of corresponding value, without prejudicing the rights of bona fide third parties.

The quote continues:

Such measures should include the authority to: (a) identify, trace and evaluate property which is subject to confiscation; (b) carry out provisional measures, such as freeing and seizing, to prevent any dealing, transfer or disposal of such property; (c) take steps that will prevent or void actions that prejudice that State's ability to recover property that is subject to confiscation; and (d) take any appropriate investigative measures.

FATF goes still further by suggesting that:

Countries may consider adopting measures that allow such proceeds or instrumentalities to be confiscated without requiring a criminal conviction, or which require an offender to demonstrate the lawful origin of the property alleged to be liable to confiscation, to the extent that such a requirement is consistent with the principles of their domestic law.

Since it is important to put the international legal situation clearly on the table, FATF recommendation 27 states clearly that:

Countries should consider taking measures, including legislative ones, at the national level, to allow their competent authorities investigating money laundering cases to postpone or waive the arrest of suspected persons and/or the seizure of the money for the purpose of identifying persons involved in such activities or for evidence gathering. Without such measures the use of procedures such as controlled deliveries and undercover operations are precluded.

Simply put, the financial action task force suggests strongly that countries adopt measures that would create an obligation for the presumed perpetrator of an organized crime offence to prove the legitimate origin of goods subject to confiscation, insofar as such an obligation is consistent with their domestic laws.

A number of countries, including Australia, Austria, France, Italy, New Zealand, Switzerland and Great Britain have already passed legislation and made statutory provision that the burden of proof may be reversed when it concerns the proceeds of crime.

In order to facilitate proof that certain goods are indeed the proceeds of illegal activities, reversing the burden of proof must therefore be considered, as is currently the case in many countries. Thus, once someone's criminal activities are proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the offender must explain the legitimate source of his property to the court.

Simply put, members of a criminal organization or any other offender would have to justify their lifestyle and explain how they acquired so many luxury goods, totally legitimately. I would be willing to bet that the tax authorities would also be grateful to Parliament for the opportunity to fight the scourges of tax evasion and money laundering more effectively.

Certainly, members will agree that this is an audacious legislative step and some will certainly point out—and loudly so—that this proposal would be contrary to the spirit and the letter of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

But we firmly believe that this is not true. We already see at least two key elements in our Criminal Code based on the same reasoning. One of them is section 515(6) and the other is 351(1), which says:

Every one who, without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies on him, has in his possession any instrument suitable for the purpose of breaking into any place, motor vehicle, vault or safe under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the instrument has been used or is or was intended to be used for any such purpose, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

With respect to the offence referred to in the latter section, it is interesting to note, first, that the burden of proof is reversed even before the offender is convicted, which is clearly not what we are proposing, and second, that this reversal of the burden of proof was declared legal by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1988, in the case of R. v. Holmes [1988] 1 S.C.R. 914. In this case, the court ruled that this presumption does not violate the presumption of innocence under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The reversal of the burden of proof following conviction, as proposed in this motion and in Bill C-242, will no doubt be considered constitutionally valid.

Given the many negative effects of organized crime, 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 often need to be reinvested in the legitimate world, but without making a positive contribution to it.

The resulting tax evasion deprives governments from considerable revenues, and gangsters refine every day their techniques to avoid having their assets reviewed judicially. 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 or present get convicted of a crime and then resume their jet-set lifestyles as if nothing had happened, because they know full well that these people have not earned an honest living for a single day in their life?

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 luxurious 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 to be tabled must take into account this particular reality whereby these front men are often forced to obey the criminals.

In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois initiative is highly courageous and expresses a true political will to curb organized crime and a deep social consideration to reiterate the adage crime does not pay.

In light of the megatrials held in Quebec over the past few years, it is high time to take concrete action to deal a fatal blow to criminal organizations.

In our opinion, this is a matter of common sense.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to commend the member for bringing forth the motion. I am pleased with it. My colleague who just spoke sits with me on the justice committee. He is a very valuable member of that committee.

I would like ask him what I think is a tough question and if he is unable to answer it today, that is quite understandable. However, I would like him to take the question under consideration.

I believe we have needed this law for a long time, not just in Quebec but across Canada. I too believe that criminals convicted of crime should have their proceeds from crime confiscated. It is too difficult now to prove in a court of law that what they have in their possession has been obtained dishonestly.

However, my question is this. What if someone in a charitable organization such as a church based organization possibly, for example the Mennonite Central Committee, or an organization like the Canadian Foodgrains Bank, which is very strong in my riding, or Samaritan's Purse, which operates across Canada, is a bad apple and is found dealing in drugs, or money laundering or some other such criminal activity?

Sometimes we hastily pass a law that may have a serious flaw in it. What assurance do we have that this law may not be used against organizations that have honourable goals but that may be disliked by someone? Can we ensure that another huge loophole is not created so criminals can use to keep their illegally obtained possessions? That is my main question.

The other question I have is this. In passing this law in Canada, can the proceeds if transferred out of the country be recovered by a law here within our country? As we know, criminals can easily transfer their assets elsewhere. Will this law help in recovering those assets if we pass the law in Canada?

In any event, my first question is the more important one.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, and for his kind words.

The saying that crime does not pay should apply to everybody, including the organizations that benefit from crime. Charities as I know them would not want to benefit from the proceeds of crime either.

The hon. member mentioned a Mennonite group. Although my knowledge of Mennonite philosophy is certainly superficial, I do not believe any organization of this branch of Christianity would want to benefit from crimes that victimized people. That is my answer to the first question.

As to the second one, I hope the bill the government will have to introduce by May 31, 2005, if this motion is passed, will take into account the context of globalization and the possibility transfers of capital throughout this globalized world and will make sure that transferring one's assets out of the country is not a way to avoid our objective, that is, to prevent criminals from enjoying the proceeds of their criminal activities.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among all parties, and I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That at the conclusion of the present debate on today's opposition motion, all questions necessary to dispose of this motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until the end of government orders on Tuesday, March 22, 2005.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, this motion intrigues and fascinates me. I am trying to think of some scenarios to which it may apply.

Let us imagine a government, through its powers and political operations, receives kickbacks from an advertising program, and I use that as an example, and we discover that much of the money flows back into the political operations of that party. Let us also say that the main players on both sides are convicted of a criminal offence.

Let us say it was the Liberal Party of Canada, just as a hypothetical. In effect, would it mean that the law would seize all the moneys and property of the Liberal Party of Canada and put a reverse onus on the Prime Minister of Canada to show that these moneys were not proceeds of crime?

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Madam Speaker, I understand of course that my colleague's question is entirely hypothetical.

In a hypothetical situation where public money has been criminally redirected to certain individuals or organizations, I would want the police to conduct the necessary investigations and lay the necessary criminal charges, and I would want those people, in such a hypothetical situation, convicted if crimes have been committed.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for this motion. It is an excellent one. It gets to the heart of an issue that affects every province from coast to coast. The issue is, how do we deal with organized crime in a rational fashion?

We know much of the organized crime is rooted in illegal activities and the best way to deal with organized crime and criminals is to cut the financial underpinnings. The motion would do that. I want to congratulate the member for the Bloc Québécois for bringing this forward. It will go a long way in helping RCMP officers deal with this cancer within our midst.

To put it in context, in my province of British Columbia grow ops have become a very big thing. We saw this with the profound tragedy which occurred a week ago involving the RCMP. In my province, 85% of grow ops are attached to organized crime, in particular motorcycle gangs and Vietnamese organized crime gangs.

The organized crime gangs trade high grade marijuana for cocaine. The profits from the marijuana are massive considering it is only a weed. The profits are so high because of the existing prohibition. Prohibition of the weed and massive profits are too seductive to organized crime. As a result, these moneys have destabilized vast swathes of our Canadian society because it is intimately involved in prostitution, embezzlement, extortion and in the trafficking of other elements of contraband.

I will cite a couple of examples that are very important to the security of Canadians, particularly the trafficking of weapons, illegal immigrants, alcohol, cigarettes and other drugs. My province of British Columbia alone tragically has become a major conduit of heroine, cocaine and pot, not only within Canada but also in and out of the United States of America.

I want to congratulate the member for the motion. It will help the RCMP and courts to do the most effective thing we have within our powers, which is to address the financial underpinnings of organized crime. The Americans did this with their RICO amendments or racketeering influence corruption organization amendments. Those amendments are along the lines of what the member is proposing and enable the courts to go after organized crime.

If the major purpose of the member's motion is to address the parasites that are attached to organize crime, particularly as they affect the province of Quebec where this is a massive problem, what other suggestions does he recommend to the House that could be used to assist police forces across the country to address this problem? It does not only affect the province of Quebec but it a affects my province of British of Columbia and the whole of Canada as well.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his comments on this motion.

I think that Parliament has a golden opportunity, today and in the vote to be held next March 22, to say loud and clear that, if we have our way, crime will no longer pay, that we parliamentarians, of all political stripes, say to organized crime: “Enough is enough! You organized criminals are no longer going to have the resources to support your activities. And what you are most fond of, apart obviously from your freedom, your assets, the proceeds of crime, will be sought out and seized and we will cut off your livelihood”.

I think that the adoption of this motion, and eventually the passage of the bill which the government must table before May 31, 2005, will be an extraordinary step in the battle we and society must wage against these organized criminals, against these people, who victimize too many segments of our respective societies.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, along the lines of this issue, we have a rather large problem in aboriginal communities in Ontario and in Quebec, in Kanesatake and Kahnawake, where trafficking of contraband exists between the United States and Canada within the boundaries of these aboriginal reserves.

Law-abiding aboriginal people who live on these reserves are subject to these criminal elements of organized crime gangs and basic thuggery. The RCMP is having a difficult time trying to deal with this issue within the context of those reserves.

Canada pays a price, but those who pay a much larger price are the law-abiding aboriginal people who live in fear of their lives and their families lives and of their livelihoods. Organized crime gangs often are attached to members outside of reserves, but sometimes with aboriginal crime gangs within reserves, and they exercise their activities with impunity.

Does the member have any suggestions on what the House could do to help the police address the massive problem of trafficking of contraband and the thuggery within aboriginal reserves, which circumscribe the boundaries between the United States and Canada? How can we help and protect the aboriginal people on those reserves who live in fear of their lives?

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Madam Speaker, as the hon. members of the House and all Canadians know, the Bloc Québécois has been an unfailing ally of the aboriginal cause and aboriginal claims in an effort to achieve a nation to nation relationship with our Native brothers and sisters. The work has been done, particularly in Quebec with the Peace of the Braves. My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot has done good work on this subject. My colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent is also a recognized advocate of the aboriginal cause.

I believe that all aboriginal people, like society as a whole, will acknowledge that a crime is a crime, a criminal is a criminal and a criminal organization is a criminal organization; that the national or ethnic origin of a criminal organization must not provide safe conduct around thee requirements of the law, law enforcement and the police.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate the motion introduced by the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles concerning the proceeds of crime.

In this motion, we are asked to consider the introduction of potential government legislation that would reverse the burden of proof regarding the proceeds of crime, requiring persons who have been found guilty to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that their assets are not proceeds of their criminal activities. This motion follows up on a bill introduced in this session by the same member—Bill C-242—which in fact proposes such a reverse onus provision be added to the Criminal Code.

I am pleased to be able to agree with the impetus behind this opposition motion. Indeed, it is a principle already of Canadian law that persons convicted of offences should not be permitted to keep the proceeds of their crime.

The reasoning behind this principle is clear. If property, benefits or advantages have been gained by convicted persons from their crime, this is considered to be illicit property, benefits or gains and is not legitimately in that person's ownership or control. It should be forfeited.

The principle is clear. As a result, we have had provisions in our law for some time now that follow up on those principles. I would refer hon. members to an entire part of the Criminal Code, part XII.2, which deals extensively with this very subject.

The potential legislation we are being asked to contemplate today is not a new matter. It is already the subject of previous government initiatives and extensive legislative provisions.

What we are being asked to consider in the motion before the House today are potential improvements to the current legislative provisions, ones which would build upon our current capacity to forfeit the proceeds of crime.

The government is very willing to consider improvements in this area of the law. The bill which the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles introduced was noted with interest by the government. I can assure the House that government policy review in the area of proceeds of crime has taken place with a specific focus on what legislative changes consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms would be advisable.

Further, this issue was discussed during a meeting of federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for Justice in January 2005. At that meeting, the Minister of Justice Canada indicated his receptiveness to reviewing the current proceeds of crime provisions. The following public news release was made at the conclusion of discussions of federal, provincial and territorial ministers.

Ministers discussed proposals to change the Criminal Code to create a reverse onus for the proceeds of crime regime. Offenders would have to prove on a balance of probabilities that their property is not the proceeds of crime.

All ministers agreed that the ability to obtain the forfeiture of proceeds of crime is needed and the federal justice minister said he intends to move forward as quickly as possible with changes that meet charter requirements.

Changes in this area are clearly something that the Minister of Justice is interested in pursuing. It may be asked why legislative provisions are in place currently in the law and why we need to consider additional legislation. The background and reasoning underlying this is clear and is referred to directly in the bill that has already been introduced by the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

The main impetus is organized crime. Organized crime is behind a substantial portion of serious crime in Canada, including drug trafficking, human trafficking, illegal trafficking in firearms, smuggling of contraband tobacco, exploitation of women in organized prostitution, money laundering, credit card fraud, and other criminal activities as well. As a result, organized crime continues to have a substantial negative impact on our communities and our country as a whole.

Canada has specific and strong laws in place to deal with organized crime of which the proceeds of crime provisions currently in the Criminal Code are an important element.

In addition to proceeds of crime sections of the code, I would remind hon. members that legislation such as Bill C-95 enacted in 1997 introduced the definition of criminal organization into the Criminal Code and introduced a specific criminal organization offence.

Among its measures the 1997 legislation also provided special rules regarding wiretap authorizations for investigations relating to criminal organizations. It created the power to order the forfeiture of offence related property in respect of criminal organization offences. It created a power to order a person to enter into a recognizance to keep the peace and be of good behaviour where there is a fear on reasonable grounds that the person will commit a criminal organization offence.

The government did not stop there in its efforts to address organized crime. There have been a number of additional new initiatives, specifically for example in areas directly related to proceeds of crime.

The government introduced and Parliament enacted the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act in 2000. This legislation requires financial institutions such as banks, credit unions, life insurance companies, money service businesses and so forth to report certain types of transactions to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, commonly known as FINTRAC. Additional measures to combat money laundering related to terrorism were introduced in 2002 when this act was renamed the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to advise the House that Tuesday, March 22, 2005 shall be an allotted day.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always important that the work of the government continue.

As I was saying, that legislation and the activities of FINTRAC that are undertaken pursuant to it are a key part of Canada's response to the problem of money laundering.

FINTRAC collects, assesses and discloses information to the law enforcement to assist in detecting, preventing and deterring money laundering and the financing of terrorist activities in Canada and abroad. This legislation is very important to our work against proceeds of crime and organized crime, as well as terrorism.

In addition, I note that the government has committed substantial money to fund the integrated proceeds of crime initiative, which is sometimes referred to as IPOC. These initiatives fund IPOC units across the country which take a strategic approach to finding, seizing and forfeiting proceeds of crime.

Proceeds of crime can be concealed in numerous ways. These IPOC units bring together federal, provincial and municipal police, Justice Canada crown counsel, customs officers, federal tax investigators, forensic accountants and asset managers as part of an integrated team effort to attack proceeds of crime.

I am pleased that the recent federal budget announced a renewal of the funding for this initiative.

I would be remiss in not also mentioning major new organized crime legislation that was introduced and passed by this House in 2001.

That legislation introduced major new amendments in four categories.

First, the act created new criminal organization offences that comprehensively target a full range of activities undertaken for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization. This includes provisions allowing for the imposition of tough penalties, including provision for consecutive sentences and reduced parole eligibility.

Second, the act included measures to improve the protection from intimidation of people who play a role in the justice system.

Third, the act created a process to protect designated law enforcement officers from liability for offences for certain otherwise illegal acts committed in the course of investigations, provided that their actions are reasonable and proportional in the circumstances.

Fourth—and most pertinently with respect to the subject matter before the House today—the act broadened the powers of law enforcement officers to seize and forfeit property that was used in a crime. In particular, in this last regard, the new legislation passed in 2001 broadened the application of the proceeds of crime provisions in the Criminal Code to almost all federal indictable offences and expanded the ability to obtain the forfeiture of offence-related property.

Since the various provisions of this new organized crime and law enforcement legislation came into force in early 2002, implementation of the new measures has been ongoing. This has been aided by a substantial investment of federal money that was made in association with these new measures.

As can be seen, the government has done much to target organized crime and, in particular, to go after the proceeds of crime. That does not mean, however, that improvements cannot be made. It must be recognized that realizing on the proceeds of crime can be an arduous task. Criminals and those in organized crime in particular can be experts in defeating attempts to go after their ill-gotten gains.

We recognize that we have to do better, including making legislative improvements as necessary. The area of proceeds of crime is not the only one where we are looking at potential changes.

We recognize that there are challenges associated with prosecuting large and complex criminal cases and that certain especially great challenges have arisen in organized crime megatrials. Some of the challenges in megatrials include high costs, burdens on judges and juries, procedural difficulties, and the need for special training, facilities and security measures.

At their meeting in January of this year, federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for justice agreed with recommendations concerning megatrials from a steering committee on justice efficiencies and access to the justice system. Recommended changes include both the practical steps on the management of megatrials and the legislative changes as well. These recommendations have been referred to the Department of Justice for additional policy work needed to move them forward.

Closely related is a government initiative with respect to disclosure reform. Of course the right of an accused person to the disclosure of relevant information in the possession or control of the Crown is protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, in recent years difficulties in making the required disclosure have arisen, particularly in large and complex criminal prosecutions such as those against organized crime.

Justice Canada has developed proposals for amendments to assist in ensuring that disclosure obligations are fulfilled more efficiently and effectively. A public consultation paper was released on this subject.

Closely related is a government initiative with respect to disclosure reform. Of course, the right of an accused person to disclosure of relevant information in the possession or control of the Crown is protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

However, in recent years, difficulties in making the required disclosure have arisen, in particular in large and complex criminal prosecutions, such as those against organized crime. Justice Canada has developed proposals for amendments to assist in ensuring that disclosure obligations are fulfilled more efficiently and effectively and a public consultation paper was released on this subject.

All of these previous changes and new measures being contemplated—including changes in the area of proceeds of crime—are designed to make the justice system more effective in the way it handles serious crime. Of course, we must recognize that proposed new measures being contemplated are significant and complex and will not happen overnight.

At the same time we must also recognize that any changes we make must be consistent with the charter. Respect for the charter is not a mere incidental aspect of legislation introduced by the government but is core to what the government is committed to respect.

In this respect we must ensure that any presumptions put into legislation must make sense in what they presume in law. Further, we must ensure that legislation, however noble in its intention, must not be abusive or over-reaching in its effect. I think all parliamentarians can agree on that.

Reverse onus provisions in our criminal law are not impossible to achieve within these bounds; however, they are ones that do inherently raise concerns and must be very carefully considered before they are put in place. In this regard the government would very closely review any such legislation before it is put forward. I can assure the House that this is now taking place.

In line with the commitment already made by the Minister of Justice at a meeting of his federal, provincial and territorial counterparts, I feel that I can support the thrust of this amendment. Of course the exact timing and introduction will be of the government's prerogative.