Bill
58–The Criminal Property Forfeiture Amendment Act
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River
Heights): First of all, I think it's important to
point out that the NDP brought in this law in the first place. And I know that
the Justice critic for the NDP has a lot of complaints about the law, but she
should probably start by looking at where it came from and why it didn't then
just fund community organizations.
Next, I want to address the Minister of Justice ridiculous assertion that a
person who votes against this bill votes against the organizations listed. The
minister obviously has never studied basic elements of logical thinking; his
logic is fallacious. We are not so much against recouping the proceeds of crime
as we are against the measures in this bill, which would have property being
taken from people prematurely before they have even been committed and
convicted of a crime.
When you take property from people who have not been convicted of a crime,
there is a big problem. You may make mistakes. We have to acknowledge that
mistakes can and do happen. We have had people come to us who have told us
about their property being unjustly seized because there was some alleged link
to the crime that was going on, which turned out to be completely false.
Now, this is where we have to be very careful; and I think the bill falls short
in the due diligence that must be achieved. When you are dealing with taking
property away from people who have been alleged to have convicted–committed a
crime but have not been convicted of being–of having committed the crime, and
when we're talking about taking away a car or a house from people, then this is
very serious matter.
The
justice system should be fair, it should treat people equally, but it should
also be very careful about taking major property away from somebody who
has not been convicted of a crime. And there should be much better
safeguards to protect people until such conviction occurs. Certainly, this
is the biggest problem; the law should be fair and just. The law, as it is
being applied, should not cause more problems than it solves by taking property
from people who have not been convicted without having the adequate safeguards
in place.
I
think it is also true that the way the funds are distributed may need to be
looked at. But I want to say that organizations like Candace House, there
is just no question that they do an amazing job, and they are to be
complimented for that. It may be that the government really should be funding
them directly rather than having to rely on the proceeds of crime to fund them.
But
be that as it may, the important thing is that we do ensure that organizations
like Candace House and other organizations which are doing a great job do get
the financial support they need to continue their efforts helping make this
place a more just and fair place for victims of crime and to decrease crime in
the first place.
So
with those few comments, I will stop. But I will just sum up once more that the
minister's assertion that a person who votes against this bill votes against
the organizations listed–that is ridiculous; we are concerned first and
foremost that property should not be taken prematurely from people before they
have been convicted of a crime.
Let
us not do more damage in the cause–in the course of trying to provide justice,
and then–and we should not be hurting innocent people in the course of trying
to provide justice. And let us remember that some of the property that can be
taken away is–can be major property, including a car, a house, and that is
should be very carefully done and it should not be done prematurely before
people have been convicted of a crime.
Thank you.
Comments
Post a Comment