Rob Moore

[Natural Resources, May 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the transparent attempt by the Liberals to buy votes around the country is spinning out of control. This week the Prime Minister confirmed that he gave the political minister for New Brunswick instructions to deliver a one-off deal for the province of New Brunswick to offset the Atlantic accord.

Now we find that the minister is backtracking and that he had not even consulted the finance minister on what political operatives were saying was another billion dollar deal. No details were given on the plan to spend money that the finance minister claims we do not have.

Will the minister admit that this has nothing to do with New Brunswick's needs and everything to do with an upcoming election?

[Civil Marriage Act, May 2nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today and speak on behalf of my constituents of Fundy Royal and speak to this very important issue.

I have listened with interest to members' speeches on both sides of this issue over the course of the debate on Bill C-38. One thing that has become increasingly clear is that we would not even be having this debate if the majority of those on the other side had kept their word to Canadians, the word that they gave just a few years ago to take all steps necessary to preserve the traditional definition of marriage in Canada.

I believe that oftentimes we have a short memory. I know I do sometimes, but when they are matters of great importance, it is constructive to remind Canadians what their elected representatives have said, what they have done, and how they have voted. We elect members of Parliament based on what they have said and what they have done in the past, and we would be remiss to forget what they have done when we head into debate on this issue.

We know that a few years ago the majority on that side, the current Prime Minister, the current Deputy Prime Minister, many cabinet ministers and the list goes on, because of the importance of marriage in all societies, in all religions, across the country, and across the globe, voted and told Canadians they would take all necessary steps to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. What we have seen now, as is so often the case, is a promise made and a promise broken. It is a shame that Canadians have been led down this path because Canadians of good will voted for their members based on those statements that were made.

One thing has become increasingly clear. Canadians are divided on this issue. The last speaker went through the scenario of religious freedom and we have heard from respected constitutional experts that religious freedom can be under attack when we change the definition of marriage. We have seen it already. Bishop Fred Henry in Calgary has already been brought before a Human Rights Commission. He has had two complaints lodged against him for speaking out on an issue that is so important to his faith, the issue of marriage. That is just the beginning. The ink has not even dried on this particular bill and we have seen attacks on freedom of religion.

One thing that has become increasingly clear, when we look at Canada in the world context, is that the Liberals have taken an intolerant and divisive approach to an issue that Canadians feel very strongly about. As we have seen with this recent sponsorship scandal, the hardline approach taken by the Liberals, rather than unite Canadians, has divided Canadians.

It is the job of members of Parliament in a country such as ours, when we are debating these issues, to take an approach that can unite Canadians, an approach that can bring Canadians together in an inclusive manner. As parliamentarians we should be looking for win-win solutions to issues facing Canadians rather than focusing on an approach that splits Canadians. If we look at the polls, and I know those on the other side do, Canadians overwhelmingly support the current definition of marriage.

Canadians are telling us increasingly and overwhelmingly that they support equal rights, benefits and obligations under the law for all Canadians. That is clear. We are a fair people. We support equality for all Canadians. They also tell us that they support marriage continuing to mean the union of one man and one woman, as it does incidentally on the rest of planet Earth. This is why I believe that Canadians overwhelmingly support the approach taken by my leader to continue to recognize the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

His proposal also provides that those in same sex relationships would have equal rights benefits and obligations under federal law. This is an approach that is fair. It is a Canadian approach to this issue.

We believe this approach will meet the needs of Canadians who believe that marriage is and should remain an institution. Justice La Forest, a Supreme Court of Canada justice, in the Egan decision said that it is a heterosexual institution. This also satisfies those who seek recognition and equality under the federal law of Canada.

This approach is not only consistent with the beliefs of the vast majority of Canadians, it is also instructive to learn, as we research this, it is consistent, as we heard in the recent opinion, with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is certainly consistent with the emerging practice of countries across the globe. In the entire industrialized world, this is the approach that modern countries are taking.

Around the world there are only two countries that have legislated same sex marriage. They are Belgium and the Netherlands. Those are the only two. By far, the vast majority of jurisdictions have gone the route that Canadians prefer, endorse and are calling on members of Parliament to take, and that is recognizing civil unions and domestic partnerships, benefits and obligations but not abolishing in law what the word “marriage” means.

Countries such as France, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Finland, Germany, Portugal and New Zealand have all maintained the traditional definition of marriage. Recently, Australia also specifically acted to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.

As well, it is important to know that no national or international court, including for that matter our own Supreme Court of Canada, has ruled that changing the definition of marriage is required to accommodate equality rights. As we know, the only thing our Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court in the land, ruled was unconstitutional in Bill C-38 was for the Liberals to state that they could protect religious freedoms. That in fact is what is unconstitutional. That is the great irony.

The court did not say the traditional definition of marriage was unconstitutional. It did not say the federal government had to change the definition of marriage. It said that if that definition is changed, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the House to protect religious freedoms. We have seen that already. We have seen those freedoms encroached by this win-lose approach that the Liberals have taken, rather than a win-win solution favoured by Canadians.

It strikes me as being a perfectly reasonable compromise for Canadian society to accept exactly the same position as the countries I just enumerated. This will satisfy the vast majority of Canadians who are seeking common ground on this issue and a Canadian solution. I do not believe that most Canadians are looking to be more radical than some of the most left leaning governments in the world. They are looking for a reasonable, moderate compromise that respects the rights of those who are in a same sex relationship while preserving the time honoured institution of marriage that is so fundamental to our society and all societies in the world.

This approach is the Canadian way. It is the only option being offered as an alternative and it is being offered by my party. The polls tell us that if the government squarely and honestly put the option forward of preserving marriage while recognizing the rights of those in other relationships, this is the option that Canadians would overwhelmingly choose.

Marriage and the family based on marriage are the basic institutions of society. We should not change these kinds of foundational institutions lightly or easily and I do not believe the government has demonstrated that there is any compelling reason to alter this central, social institution.

A few years ago the Deputy Prime Minister spoke to this. Canadians relied on what she said to support that side. She said:

We on this side agree that the institution of marriage is...central and important...[and it] has been consistently applied in Canada....

What the minister said next is important:

Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage....

Those are the words of the Deputy Prime Minister, who was speaking for the government. Canadians made the mistake of trusting the Liberals once. I hope they will not do it again.

[Canadian Guernsey Association, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate three very talented dairy farmers in my riding of Fundy Royal.

For more than 50 years, brothers Ted and Bill Wanamaker have been producing milk for New Brunswickers. Their nephew Blair continues this family tradition from their Cedar Rock farm in the Kennebecasis Valley.

The Wanamaker family is renowned for its top quality guernseys. Their breeding program has produced all-Canadian champions and has won numerous awards from the Royal Winter Fair.

Just recently the Wanamakers have been nominated for an honorary lifetime membership with the Canadian Guernsey Association in recognition of their outstanding farming knowledge and experience. This prestigious award is given to individuals who have been of extreme value to the Canadian Guernsey Association over the years. In fact, there are only 20 living honorary members across the country.

Again, congratulations to the Wanamaker family of Nauwigewauk, New Brunswick on this exceptional nomination.

[World Trade Organization, April 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion. As a new member of Parliament, I have had the opportunity to travel around my riding and meet with farmers from different agricultural sectors. One thing they have in common right now is that agriculture has been hard hit.

We know what we have seen as a focus of late. We have seen how taxpayer money in the past has been squandered in such an irresponsible fashion, and perhaps illegal fashion, when hard-working families and farmers, those in the agricultural sectors, have seen very little support for an industry currently in crisis.

Farmers need our support now more than ever. Strong leadership is needed on the agricultural files. I would suggest that is exactly what has been lacking from the government.

I met informally with a group of farmers in my riding, representing the different agricultural sectors. They shared with me how Liberal inaction and lack of leadership had hurt them and their families. We spoke about the grand announcement of programs and billions of dollars announced, or perhaps re-announced. We spoke about the millions of dollars thrown about here and there and how often times they were perplexed because none of that money reached them on their farms. Perhaps it is because the forms they need to access those funds have been so terrifically complicated that one must hire a lawyer or an accountant to find out what exactly they have to do to qualify. In many cases the programs that are out there are not enough and farmers do not qualify. In the end, they are left in a desperate situation.

I spoke to many farmers who have lost their farms as of late and many who have considered getting out of the family farm, Many have children, who wanted to follow in the footsteps of their parents, are now questioning whether that is a viable reality.

We talked about plunging beef prices. We talked about a lack of slaughter capacity. We talked about the new budget and in particular the news for Atlantic Canada about the closure of research centres in Atlantic Canada. That is terrible news. We are a vast country and every region has unique needs. These Atlantic centres were providing research that was applicable in that area. To announce something like that in a budget is just another kick when so many are down.

I am please to say that the Conservative Party has been listening to farmers and we are working hard to ensure that they have a better future.

I was pleased to attend and participate in our Conservative Party of Canada's first policy convention this past March. This was an opportunity for Conservatives from coast to coast to put forward policies for our party as we headed into the future. Due to the great importance of agriculture to our country, agricultural issues were at the forefront of our meetings.

Under the leadership from our agricultural critic, the member for Haldimand—Norfolk, our party passed strong resolutions to support Canadian farmers.

Agriculture plays a very important role in my riding of Fundy Royal. In fact over 50% of New Brunswick's dairy production comes from my riding alone. Therefore, I was pleased particularly with our party's strong support for industries under the protection of supply management.

As a matter of fact, at our policy convention we passed a resolution specifically on supply/management which I would like to read. It states:

The Conservative Party of Canada believes it is in the best interest of Canada and Canadian agriculture that the industries under the protection of supply management remain viable. A Conservative government will support the goal of supply management to deliver a high quality product to consumers for a fair price with a reasonable return to the producer.

Further to that, we also passed a resolution that forms our party's guiding principles when dealing with agricultural issues, forms the foundation for how we deal with agriculture in the future. I will read from that also:

The Conservative Party views the agriculture industry to be a key strategic economic sector of Canada. We recognize that various regions of Canada and sectors of the industry hold competitive advantages in agricultural production. National agricultural policy will reflect our belief that one size does not fit all.

Agriculture policy must be developed only in consultation with the agricultural producers. Our farmers today are business operators and to dictate policy which might have an adverse effect on this business community would have negative consequences and go against Conservative Party principles. Balancing financial responsibility with support programs that actually work is a major priority of this party.

As can be seen, one fundamental difference between our party and others is the high value we place on Canadian agriculture. We put farmers first when we deal on the international stage and when we deal with domestic support for agricultural communities. It is for that reason that the principles I read form part of our policy of going into the future.

Canada's agricultural sectors are as diverse as Canada itself. I believe our policy reflects that. It is in light of that diversity that we proposed to the Bloc, who moved this motion we are debating today, a friendly amendment to the motion we are now debating. Our friendly amendment read:

That in the opinion of this House, in the current World Trade Organization negotiations, the government should seek an agreement that strengthens the international marketing position of Canada's agricultural exporters while at the same time does not weaken the supply management system and collective marketing strategies.

Unfortunately, the Bloc have chosen not to support our amendment.

For the record, the Conservative Party of Canada and myself fully support supply management. Our policy reflects this support. In fact, both our leader and our agricultural critic are on the record as supporting the three pillars of supply management. Our party supports as well the 90% of Canadian and the 66%, I might add, of Quebec producers who are not under supply management.

Therefore, our amendment seeks protection for supply management and also seeks the enhancement of agricultural exports that is so needed by many sectors in our country.

We know that no one agricultural sector wants to profit at the expense of another and our friendly amendment to this motion reflects that reality.

I am pleased to speak to this motion brought forward by the Bloc and I also wish to call on the government to honour the commitments it has made to Canadian producers and to negotiate in good faith at the World Trade Organization.

Too often our farmers are let down by a Liberal government that will not negotiate in their best interest on the international stage and on agricultural issues. We need to look no further than the current BSE crisis which is also having a tremendous impact on many sectors of agriculture across the country in every region, including sectors under supply management.

The Liberals have failed time and time again to negotiate an open border with our largest trading partner and we know that Canada's farmers have suffered greatly for that failure. We have also seen Liberals pit one agricultural sector against another in international negotiations.

All sectors of agriculture in the country deserve our support. I am pleased to be part of a caucus that is determined and committed to supporting and defending all Canadian farmers.

The Conservative Party will continue to support Canada's farmers. We will continue to stand by dairy, poultry and egg producers. Unlike our current government, a Conservative government will protect Canada's farmers in international negotiations.

All Canadians deserve nothing less than a government that will always act in their best interest. I look forward to working with all members of this House to see that interests of our farmers are defended in international negotiations.

[Marriage, April 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, despite a Supreme Court of Canada decision that clearly said otherwise, the Liberal government continues to falsely claim that it can change the definition of marriage and also protect freedom of religion and freedom of expression.

Now Bishop Henry of Calgary is facing complaints before a human rights commission for speaking out on marriage.

The government and the Prime Minister have been a total failure at protecting Canadian freedoms. Will the Prime Minister simply admit that he will not and cannot protect Canadian freedoms?

[Supply, March 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this could have a positive impact for many provinces, including New Brunswick. At the moment it would not have the same impact as in Nova Scotia or Newfoundland and Labrador or potentially even in Saskatchewan.

In New Brunswick there is mining, gases and other non-renewable resources. In the case of non-renewable resources sometimes it is unpredictable. We do not know the totality of what is available. We know there is a resource. We also know that in most instances if a province uses that resource, mines that produce, or it uses that oil, the revenues will be clawed back. It is a major disincentive.

In my own riding there are opportunities to use non-renewable resources for the benefit of the province and the people of New Brunswick. If going into it we know there will be a clawback, there will be what I feel is a disincentive to invest, a disincentive to put people in New Brunswick to work, it will be a major impediment to the development of the economy in New Brunswick. This would apply to Saskatchewan and other provinces as well.

[Supply, March 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to the motion before us today.

I want to provide a bit of perspective not from Saskatchewan, but from Atlantic Canada as I represent a riding in New Brunswick. It is interesting how this discussion developed.

The Conservative Party has been consistently proposing that provinces need more access to their non-renewable resources. We have to remember that there is a finite opportunity to exploit these resources. These resource revenues can best be utilized at a level closer to the Canadian people.

In the last election we saw nothing short of a deathbed conversion. At the very last minute going into an election when seats were up for grabs, the current Prime Minister was in a rather desperate situation. There was a last minute promise to give access to the revenues from non-renewable resources to Newfoundland and Labrador as well as Nova Scotia.

Those provinces were rightly pleased because under the current situation, it is hard to believe but of every dollar of revenue that was earned on offshore and non-renewable resources, approximately 70¢ was clawed back. That is a major disincentive to invest in offshore resources. It is a major disincentive to provide the infrastructure required to advance operations that could bring a province's economy up. It could provide employment.

I have talked to many of my colleagues and friends from school, people with whom I graduated. Some of them have moved to other parts of Canada. Some of them have moved to the United States. Some of them have moved overseas. Overwhelmingly they would have liked to have stayed in Atlantic Canada but they were unable to find gainful employment in their field.

We know there is a need. We also know there is a problem. The problem is that these provinces are not being given the opportunity to reach their full potential. That is exactly what the old formula did. By clawing back resource revenue, we were denying those provinces the opportunity to move forward. Our leader and our party recognized that. The Prime Minister was loath to ever contemplate something like that. That is why on the eve of the election in a knee-jerk reaction he made a desperate promise, but he made a promise nonetheless.

We found that the devil is in the details. The Prime Minister wanted to put caps and conditions and clauses in place that would have basically undermined the promise he had made to Atlantic Canada. It was through the hard work of the provincial leadership and the population of those provinces, as well as the hard work of members in the opposition and the Leader of the Opposition that a deal was realized. Thanks should also go to our party's Atlantic caucus as well as our national caucus. It was only through the efforts of all these individuals that a deal was realized. We saw a deal more in keeping with what we felt the Prime Minister's promise would have accorded.

We now see across the country provinces that are in a similar situation. I would like to turn to the situation in Saskatchewan. I want to commend the member for Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre for his hard work in bringing this issue forward. I also want to commend the entire Saskatchewan caucus.

We recognize the situation in Saskatchewan where more than 100% of its royalties are being clawed back. This creates a situation where Saskatchewan cannot move ahead. It creates an inequitable situation.

What we are seeking are opportunities for provinces to put in place programs that best reflect the wishes of the individuals who live in those provinces. For example, the agreement that was reached with Newfoundland and Labrador amounts to $2.6 billion. That is a significant number. In Nova Scotia it amounts to $1.1 billion.

The attitude that was taken in the past by the Liberal government was senseless and selfish. It is a big brother knows best type of attitude which says that the federal government is going to take all the revenue it can and then decide exactly how it is disbursed. The Liberals would do that instead of leaving that crucial non-renewable resource revenue in place within the province so the revenue could go toward programs within the province that would allow for economic development, sustainability, employment, and young people to stay in their home province.

It reminds us of the situation in Alberta. Alberta discovered its oil and gas in the 1940s and 1950s. It is hard for us to believe in the current context, but at the time Alberta was a have not province. From 1957 to 1965 it received transfers from the equalization program. Alberta was allowed to keep 100% of its oil royalties with no federal clawback some time after that. This has allowed Alberta to kick-start its own economy to become a have province and to become one of the economic powerhouses of North America.

The problem goes to the very way that different sides would choose to govern this country. Liberals being Liberals, they feel it always has to be the federal government that ultimately controls the purse strings. If they cannot be the ones to collect the money, then they cannot take the credit for distributing it back to the people who should rightfully have it.

We saw that in the dealings with the Atlantic provinces. There was absolute reluctance to ever enter into a deal and then once a promise was made, every effort was expended to undermine and limit that promise, to cap it, to put clauses in it to claw back. It was only through the hard work of opposition members and those provinces that we saw this realized.

Whether we live in Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Alberta, New Brunswick as I do, Saskatchewan, or anywhere else, we all have the right to a better future. The future is not for members of one party or another to decide. Provinces must have more control over their own resources and destinies so that Canadians within those provinces can realize their full potential.

In my home province of New Brunswick this has been raised as an issue. We have mining and other non-renewable resources. New Brunswickers are just like the people in Saskatchewan and Canadians across the country. They are hard working. Their number one goal is to support their families and their province. It only makes sense that revenues generated in a province from these non-renewable resources should stay within that province to support the local economy.

The debate we are having today is an important one. It is important for the future of Atlantic Canada. It is important for Saskatchewan and the whole country. It is in everyone's best interest that those closest to the need are able to best utilize these non-renewable resources.

I once again congratulate my colleagues on bringing this issue forward. I ask that the Prime Minister and the finance minister consider doing what is equitable and right and allow the have not provinces that have access to non-renewable resources to use them. Allow the provinces to use them to better their economies. Allow the provinces to use them to create opportunity.

We have to get away from this mindset that Ottawa knows best and that everything must be centralized. We have to allow the local regions in the individual provinces to have better control over their own destinies. That is why I am in full support of this motion.

[Supply, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen efforts in the past to assist the police. The police have been calling for the tools necessary to track the proceeds of crime. Money laundering is a terrific problem. With technology being what it is today and the international markets as they are, it is becoming increasingly difficult to oftentimes track laundered money.

There is money and there are other assets that are proceeds of crime. I feel that the bill, which hopefully the justice minister will come forward with, if it is in keeping with the motion that my colleague has put forward, would go a long way toward achieving that. It would enable police and our justice system to better track and be aware of the assets. It would give them more of a reason to keep track of the assets, whether money or physical assets, that are purchased through criminal activities. In doing so and in having this reverse onus, we would be able to put in the Crown's hands these proceeds of crime, take the wind out of the sails and take away the motivating factor for organized crime. In doing so, we will cut the support planks out of organized crime.

[Supply, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen strong opposition support for this motion. We know that Canadians are supportive of us, as federal government, as the legislature at the level that controls criminal law in the country. There is support for rooting out organized crime.

Although I have not seen the bill yet, and I do not know if anyone has, the justice minister assures us that legislation will be forthcoming. If that legislation is in keeping with the nature for which the motion calls, then it should have speedy passage through the House. I certainly would work for that because it is necessary. All too often we have seen important bills delayed. I am thinking of the efforts we are trying to make to protect children. We have seen bills come forward, which may be faulty, that end up being delayed.

I am hopeful the bill the justice minister puts in place will have the very effect that the hon. member intends with his motion.

[Supply, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary East.

I am pleased to rise today in support of the motion brought forward by my colleague, the hon. justice critic for the Bloc. I have had an opportunity to work with him on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. He is a tireless advocate on behalf of his constituents. He also has a keen interest in this topic.

The motion, which calls on the government to take some action to help combat organized crime, I think is an excellent one. It is one which makes a lot of sense. It will have a real impact on criminal organizations' ability to conduct and to continue to sustain themselves after one of their members has been convicted of a serious criminal offence.

All too often we have seen with the theft of automobiles, with large grow operations, and with other illicit criminal activities that individuals are arrested for their offences, are tried and are convicted in a court of law, but our Charter of Rights and Freedoms requires that we prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the persons are guilty of their offences. We have a system that I feel is too lax. We do not have truth in sentencing. Our statutory release system allows people back on to the streets far too easily. Oftentimes criminals, even those convicted of serious offences, do not serve their time in prison but receive conditional sentences where they serve their time in the community. They are back on the street and back in action quite quickly.

The only way to really impact on people's livelihood and to curb their activities is to hit them in the wallet. This is what the motion would do if the government acts. Our party has consistently called for measures to crack down on organized crime. This motion will go a long way toward doing that.

It is important to note the extent of collaboration now within and among criminal groups. It has broadened greatly in recent years. We hear about the networking that takes place in prison for example between members of the traditional Mafia and the Hell's Angels. Organized crime is a serious problem in Canada. Oftentimes Canadians going about their everyday lives do not realize the extent of the problem.

The main motivator for organized criminals is to raise money to fund their lifestyle. They take money from Canadian citizens illicitly to fund their own criminal activities and their illegal lifestyle. Organized crime has expanded so broadly and has enabled criminal organizations to fund themselves. Our police cannot keep up with the situation.

Antonio Nicaso, a well-known organized crime specialist and author, has said that Canada has become one of the world's most important centres for global crime syndicates in part because our federal regulations and laws do not give the police the tools they need to fight them. This is an all too often recurring theme. Our frontline police officers struggle to maintain existing technology and are unable to adapt to new and emerging technologies because of insufficient funding and weak laws.

It is funding and weak laws that enable organized crime to flourish and to have the very best of technology, state of the art technology and access to millions of dollars derived from illegal activities. I might add that people involved in organized crime are able to bankroll the very best legal defence to keep themselves out of jail and put themselves back on the street as soon as possible.

Canadians are justifiably upset to see criminals treated with kid gloves and to see convicted criminals avoiding real consequences for their illicit activities.

As I mentioned before, when it comes to organized crime, the only way to really make an impact and to curb this activity is to hit individuals in their wallets.

My colleague from the Bloc is proposing a motion that would require the government to introduce a bill by May 3, 2005 to amend the Criminal Code by reversing the burden of proof as regards proceeds of crime. This change would require the accused, once found guilty, and we are talking about a convicted individual, to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that his or her assets were not obtained using the proceeds of his or her criminal activities.

This motion, someone said to me, would break the kneecaps, so to speak, on the legs of organized crime. That is what we want to do. We want to prevent organized crime from flourishing and from continuing to carry on even after some of its members are convicted. There are numerous legal precedents for such a provision in other jurisdictions, for example, Australia, Austria, France, Italy, New Zealand, Switzerland and Great Britain.

In 2003 the OECD's financial action task force on money laundering made 40 recommendations to fight money laundering and organized crime. I will quote one suggestion:

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.

On the issue of these provisions being consistent with Canadian domestic law, that is, their constitutionality, I believe there are no significant concerns that cannot be addressed by this Parliament.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms outlines the right to a presumption of innocence. This has been interpreted by the courts as requiring the burden of proof in a criminal case to rest with the crown.

The courts have established a test to determine the constitutionality of any given reverse onus provision that states that where an impugned reversed onus provision makes it possible to convict, despite the existence of a reasonable doubt, the courts will find a violation of the charter. However, there are often other factors that balance that violation, such as the overriding importance of curbing the crime at stake.

For example, in the Downey case, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a provision that automatically assumes that a person living with a prostitute is guilty of living on the avails of prostitution unless he or she can prove otherwise. The objective of ending the problem of pimping was of sufficient importance to override the violation.

Similarly in the Peck case, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal held that a provision which automatically deems it to be an offence to refuse to provide a breath sample without reasonable excuse was acceptable because of the overriding importance of maintaining highway safety and eliminating impaired driving.

Clearly the importance of combating organized crime would be a significant factor in upholding the law that this motion proposes.

Most important, the fact is the reverse onus clause suggested here does not touch on an essential element of the offence, but rather is part of the sentencing. Therefore, the reverse onus provision does not impinge on the individual's liberty rights, but rather his or her property rights once the individual has already been convicted of a serious criminal offence.

The constitutionality of these provisions should be upheld by the courts. We have every reason to move forward with the legislation that this motion calls for. Certainly opposition parties agree that this should happen. Indeed, this issue has been a fine example of cross-party cooperation in order to further the interest of justice.

It is interesting to note the timing of this debate today with an announcement by the Minister of Justice. In typical Liberal fashion, the minister has just announced that he will be introducing a bill similar to what is called for in today's motion. It is an all too familiar theme, I feel, of poaching good ideas and the Liberals selling them perhaps as their own. Nonetheless, my colleague in the Bloc is to be commended. There is no doubt in my mind that it is only due to Canadians' overwhelming support for this tougher and more comprehensive approach to organized crime that the party across the way will be following suit.

I am thankful for the time to address this important issue. I encourage my colleagues on all sides of the House to help do what we can to combat organized crime and to make Canada a safer place for all Canadians.