STRENGTHENING FIGHT AGAINST ORGANIZED CRIME

The Bloc Quebecois has been fighting for several years to persuade the
federal government to implement legislative measures that would be
effective in fighting organized crime. During the 2000 election
campaign, the Bloc kept up the pressure and called on the government
to amend the Criminal Code to give police and Crown attorneys more
efficient tools to combat and eliminate organized crime.

Eventually, the government met some of the Bloc's demands with Bill
C-24, which amended organized crime provisions in the Criminal Code.
However, we believe that further amendments are needed to strengthen
the current grip on organized crime in Quebec and in Canada.

On Oct. 28, as justice critic for the Bloc Quebecois, I introduced in
the House of Commons a bill, seconded by Vic Toews of the Conservative
party and Joe Comartin of the NDP, to reverse the burden of proof and
require a person convicted of an offence related to organized crime to
prove that his or her assets were legally and honestly acquired. This
proof will be based on the so-called balance of probabilities.

The Bloc did not come up with this idea on its own, but no other
Canadian political party has taken the idea as far as this. Our
proposal is based largely on a number of legal precedents from around
the world.

Among its 40 recommendations to fight money laundering, the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development's Financial
Action Task Force on Money Laundering proposes the adoption of
measures to enable authorities to confiscate property. It suggests
that countries adopt measures requiring an offender found guilty of
gangsterism to demonstrate the lawful origin of property alleged to be
liable to confiscation, to the extent that such a requirement is
consistent with the principles of their domestic law.

ALREADY LEGISLATED

Many countries - including Australia, Austria, France, Italy, New
Zealand, Switzerland and Great Britain - have already legislated and
provided for a reversal of the burden of proof relating to proceeds of
crime.

To make it easier to prove that some property is actually the result
of gangsterism, a reversal of the burden of proof must be considered,
as is currently the case in a number of countries. Once certain
criminal activities have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt, the
accused has to demonstrate to the court that the source of his or her
assets is legitimate.

Some people will no doubt argue forcefully that this proposal violates
the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We firmly believe this is not the case. At least two key sections of
the Criminal Code are based on the same reasoning: section 515(6) and,
especially, section 351(1), which states:

"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 regard to section 351(1), it is interesting to note that the
Supreme Court of Canada ruled, in R. v. Holmes, 1/81988 3/8 1 S.C.R.
914, that these grounds do not violate the presumption of innocence
enshrined in the Charter. Additionally, both of the above noted
sections create a reverse onus of proof prior to a finding of guilt;
our proposal would only create a reversal of the onus after a finding
of guilt, at the time of sentencing.

Given all of the negative social and economic impacts of organized
crime, we are fully justified in strengthening our laws. From an
economic point of view, organized crime generates substantial
proceeds, which are often reinvested into the legitimate financial
system without necessarily having a positive contribution.

AVOIDING JUDICIAL REVIEW

The resulting tax evasion robs governments of a considerable amount of
money, and every day gangsters are getting better at avoiding the
judicial review of their assets.

Simply stated, it is especially frustrating for the ordinary taxpayer
to see convicted criminals flaunting the proceeds of their illegal
activities.

By amending the Criminal Code to include a reversal of the burden of
proof with respect to the acquisition of goods by a person convicted
of an organized crime offence, we would be giving police and the
courts an additional tool to eradicate the problem. A convicted
criminal would face an additional hurdle because he or she would have
to demonstrate to the court that assets were legitimately acquired.

Criminals would therefore have a much harder time showing how their
luxury homes, sports cars - in short, their entire lifestyles -
correspond to their declared income, which is more often than not at
the poverty level.

This legal initiative could also significantly complicate the common
practice of criminals using false names. It is known that individuals
register their assets in their spouses', parents' or friends' names.

The Bloc Quebecois's initiative is bold and demonstrates not only a
true political will to curb organized crime but also strong social
considerations aimed at sending the message that crime does not pay.

Following the remarkable outcomes of the mega-trials in Quebec these
past few years, it is high time to take concrete action and deal a
fatal blow to criminal organizations.