October 19, 2005
Civil Forfeiture Act
Second Reading Debates

M. Polak: I guess I'm a little confused by the debate from the member opposite because on the one hand he begins by saying that, really, we should have done this before and we should be tougher, but on the other hand he's really concerned that this might be just a little bit too tough and that we might be catching people in this legislation that really shouldn't be caught.

           Let's be clear about this. This is about making it difficult for people to profit from unlawful activities. It's about making sure that if we have the kinds of people out there who feel that somehow they have a right to go around and take money from innocent people, take property from innocent people by various means, make their lives miserable, impact them through fires and damage to property, we're going to make sure that those who would make our communities unsafe are not profiting by that. There's something really wrong with the idea that they should profit from that, and there has been for a long time.

           I'm really glad to stand in this House and support this legislation. I'm really glad that we have a government that's willing to take the leadership on a matter like this. Is it difficult to craft legislation like this? Of course it is.

           I'm glad to see that the time was taken to consult with stakeholder groups. This is a government that's certainly proud to work with communities around the avenues of solving crime that are going to work for us. We know that where we have the best public safety initiatives is when we work together with communities. In that vein, we've done that by returning 100 percent of traffic fine revenues to municipalities and cities.

           I want to address something else that seems to be a myth out there. This is the government that made sure that women's crisis lines were there for women 24-7. They weren't calling up and getting a busy signal or having a multiplicity of agencies that didn't have that full coverage. This government did not close a single women's shelter. This government has been supportive of women, and as a single mother of an 18-year-old daughter, I can tell you I'm very proud of our record on that matter.

           The member does raise some points of concern that I'm sure the public would also be curious about. I'm pleased that the Solicitor General has provided legislation that I think does answer those. Some of these are concerns around Charter rights, Charter challenges. Certainly, we know that Ontario's legislation has already passed through some Charter challenges. At the end of the day, we know that our Charter in Canada is not there to protect criminals, not there to protect people who are engaged in unlawful activities.

           When it comes to evidence, I think the member opposite was confusing the issue of criminal law and civil law. Certainly, this is not a piece of legislation that is going to have someone roaming the street, deciding they want somebody's nice car and therefore accusing them of having gotten it unlawfully and it's going to be theirs. This is an issue where the director…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members.

M. Polak: …would have to seek evidence through the police and other agencies that would be collecting that data and would have to show that there is certainly a balance of probabilities that the proceeds were gained by unlawful means. At the point where there is a belief that that may be the case, it is then determined by the courts whether, in fact, those proceeds were gained through unlawful means. It's not something that's just open to the whim of government or any individual.

           This is something that is canvassed by the courts, and that's a standard of civil law. It's a balance of probabilities and not beyond a reasonable doubt. I think that's really important, because unfortunately, organized crime, gang activities and the people that engage in those have very often hidden behind the very high standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" that's apparent in criminal law. Thus, we have not seen the ability for those of us who would like to help victims. We haven't been able to take the profit out of it.

           That takes me to the member's concerns around gang activity, particularly in ethnic communities. One of the things I know, as a mother of a teenager, is how teenagers respond to what they see around them. It's very difficult to talk to young people, particularly young men, about the inadvisability of unlawful activity when they are watching other young men around them walking around with wonderful jewellery that's obviously expensive, with big rolls of cash in their pockets, with wonderful cars that probably cost more than a person's house in many cases. It's very difficult at that point to turn to your teenaged child and say, "You know what? Unlawful activity doesn't help you; it doesn't profit you," because they look at that other fellow across the road and they say: "Well, Mom, it looks like it's profiting them."

           One of the best ways that we can begin, and I agree it's only a beginning…. It's a huge problem, but one of the best ways in which we can begin to tackle the problem of youth becoming involved in gang activity in increasing numbers is to take the profit out of it, to make sure that our young people are growing up and seeing that when you engage in unlawful activity, it's going to be a negative. I really look forward to the moment when that young person who's considering getting involved in gang activity, instead of looking across the street and seeing the wild party that's going on at the fabulous house, looks across the street and sees the repo guy coming to take away that drug dealer's Porsche. That's what I want to see. That's the kind of message that's going to the hit home to our youth, and that's how we start to get a grip on this.

           Beyond that, I think about the residents in my own riding of Langley. I think about the frustration I hear in phone calls to my office when families who live next door to what they're quite sure — and are probably right — are operating meth labs or grow ops…. Right now, there's very little we can do to make sure that even if there's criminal prosecution, even if there are charges laid, the reaction from the residents around is: "You know what? It's not going to help." It's not going to help because there's so much money involved in this business that will get transferred on to the next person who's going to rent the house, that organized crime people engaged in these activities simply consider it a cost of business — that's it. Somebody goes to jail for a little while. Somebody pays for their bail. They go through the courts. They have another appeal. They're out on probation. It's not the deterrent we need.

           It's time to see legislation like this brought to bear to ensure that those who are living in communities that ought to be safe, ought to be quiet, ought to be great places to raise their children, remain so.

           I want to talk a little bit about what this does for victims as well. Certainly, we know that in Canada there's an awful lot of discussion — frequently, and has been for years — about how, despite our best efforts, it always seems that it's those who engage in unlawful activity who benefit and that the victim, even after court proceedings have completed, is still left with nothing — left with no compensation, left with nothing that gives them back even a part of what they've lost.

           I'm glad to see that there's a certain natural justice in this legislation that I love, which is that we're not just going to be compensating victims. We're going to be compensating them with the money that's taken from the sale, the liquidation, of assets that we've taken from the crooks. That's what I like. We're taking the money, the proceeds that they shouldn't have had anyway, and we're using that very fund from them to help those victims. It's time that there was a feeling of natural justice returned to our laws in that way.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

           In a bigger picture, that's what contributes to the culture we want to build. There are all sort of mechanisms that governments and courts use to try and assist in creating and maintaining a healthy and safe environment for all of us to live and grow and raise our families in, but at the very heart of it, there's a culture, an idea, a feeling that you have when you live in a certain place, live in a certain community. Part of government's role is building that culture.

           When we talk about the tragic effects of crime, the beatings that took place in Bear Creek Park…. What is it that brings us to a point where in our culture somehow that's okay, where somebody thinks that's all right? I think, at the heart of it, it's when we have people growing up and not seeing justice done, growing up and seeing that things are fundamentally unfair — that if I do something wrong, I'm going to benefit, and if I do something right, I'm not.

           This is a start of changing that. This is a start of showing that we really believe that if you do something wrong, you shouldn't benefit from it, and that if you're a law-abiding citizen, you ought to be assured that you are going to be the one who is protected and who is rewarded for your just and right behaviour. If we can create that kind of culture in our province, if we can rebuild that among our young people, that is what is truly going to change and direct our young people toward opportunity, toward prosperity, toward the kind of life that we want for all of our children.

           I am really proud to support this legislation. I'm glad it's before us, and I am looking forward to watching that big Porsche being taken from that drug dealer's house.