Skip to main content

Third reading of Bill 58 - The Criminal Property Forfeiture Amendment Act

On Thursday May 20 I spoke at third reading on Bill 58, the Criminal Property Forfeiture  Amendment Act.

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

Popular posts from this blog

Dougald Lamont speaks at Meth Forum last night to present positive ideas to address the epidemic, while exposing the lack of action by the Pallister Conservatives

Last night at the Notre Dame Recreation Centre in St. Boniface, at an Election Forum on the Meth Crisis in Manitoba, Dougald Lamont spoke eloquently about the severity of the meth epidemic and described the Liberal plan to address it.  The Liberal Plan will make sure that there is a single province-wide phone number for people, or friends of people, who need help dealing with meth to call (as there is in Alberta) and that there will be rapid access to a seamless series of steps - stabilization, detoxification, treatment, extended supportive housing etc so that people with meth addiction can be helped well and effectively and so that they can rebuild their lives.  The Liberal meth plan will be helped by our approach to mental health (putting psychological therapies under medicare), and to poverty (providing better support).  It will also be helped by our vigorous efforts to help young people understand the problems with meth in our education system and to provide alternative positive
3 comments
Read more

Manitoba Liberal accomplishments

  Examples of Manitoba Liberal accomplishments in the last three years Ensured that 2,000 Manitoba fishers were able to earn a living in 2020   (To see the full story click on this link ). Introduced a bill that includes retired teachers on the Pension Investment Board which governs their pension investments. Introduced amendments to ensure school aged children are included in childcare and early childhood education plans moving forward. Called for improvements in the management of the COVID pandemic: ·          We called for attention to personal care homes even before there was a single case in a personal care home. ·            We called for a rapid response team to address outbreaks in personal care homes months before the PCs acted.  ·          We called for a science-based approach to preparing schools to   improve ventilation and humidity long before the PCs acted. Helped hundreds of individuals with issues during the pandemic including those on social assistance
Post a Comment
Read more

The Indigenous Science Conference in Winnipeg June 14-16

  June 14 to 16, I spent three days at the Turtle Island Indigenous Science Conference.  It was very worthwhile.   Speaker after speaker talked of the benefits of using both western or mainstream science and Indigenous science.  There is much we can learn from both approaches.   With me above is Myrle Ballard, one of the principal organizers of the conference.  Myrle Ballard, from Lake St. Martin in Manitoba, worked closely with Roger Dube a professor emeritus at Rochester Institute of Technology, and many others to make this conference, the first of its kind, a success.  As Roger Dube, Mohawk and Abenaki, a physicist, commented "My feeling is that the fusion of traditional ecological knowledge and Western science methodology should rapidly lead the researchers to much more holistic solutions to problems."   Dr. Myrle Ballard was the first person from her community to get a PhD.  She is currently a professor at the University of Manitoba and the Director of Indigenous Science
Post a Comment
Read more