GRITS WILL TARGET ILL-GOTTEN GAINS, COTLER SAYS

Planned Bill Would Simplify Seizure Of Proceeds Of Crime

Justice Minister Irwin Cotler says he'll "soon" table a bill in
Parliament that would make it easier for the government to seize and
forfeit the illicit property of people convicted of organized crimes,
and possibly other serious offences.

In an interview yesterday, Mr. Cotler confirmed he'll introduce
legislation that could be even broader than a sweeping private
member's proceeds of crime bill that was jointly endorsed last October
by the Bloc Quebecois, Conservatives and NDP.

Mr. Cotler disclosed his plans one day before the Commons was
scheduled to debate an opposition motion demanding the Liberals table
a proceeds of crime bill by April 30, 2005.

The opposition's proposed joint bill, introduced by Richard Marceau,
the Bloc Quebecois justice critic, would force people convicted of
serious gang-related offences to prove to a court "that every item of
property owned by that person is not proceeds of crime," failing
which, the convicted person's property would be forfeited to the Crown.

"We are working on our proposed legislation," Mr. Cotler told CanWest
News Service.

We "are going to be tabling legislation on this account ... which
arguably might be broader than even what Mr. Marceau has proposed and
which also seeks to ensure that we comport with any charter
obligations in that regard."

Mr. Marceau has warned the Liberals will pay a heavy political price
if they fail to pass a law that not only has the unanimous backing of
the opposition parties, but which all provincial justice ministers
demanded last January when they met with their federal
counterpart.

The Marceau bill has attracted controversy because it reverses the
normal burden of proof -- which requires the prosecution to prove its
case -- by forcing people to prove that none of their property was
obtained through organized crime.

Ottawa criminal lawyer Michael Edelson warned that if the government's
legislation looks anything like the opposition bill, it will be
challenged by defence attorneys under the Charter and could be struck
down as unconstitutional.

"It's an abomination," said Mr. Edelson.

"When you look at (the Marceau bill) from every perspective of
evidentiary, procedural and constitutional fairness, it's an abject
failure. Consider the practical implications and cost of trying to
prove ... every single item you have in your house was obtained
legitimately.

"You are trying to prove you didn't use illegitimate funds to purchase
these items -- how do you prove a negative?"

But University of Ottawa law professor David Paciocco suggested a bid
by the government to seize property after a person has been found
guilty of a serious crime may not be open to a successful Charter
challenge because the right to be presumed innocent applies only
before a person is convicted.

"But the basic idea of a reverse onus raises issues of fundamental
fairness," Mr. Paciocco said.