SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 316

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 23, 2024 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 316 - May/23/24
Mr. Vance Badawey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.)
  • May/23/24 9:07:27 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-69 
Madam Chair, I appreciate the opportunity this evening to speak on an issue of major concern to the residents of Canada: the threats of organized crime and money laundering and the measures that the Government of Canada is taking to respond to these serious problems. Specifically, I am going to share with everyone how the government proposes to strengthen the robust framework that is in place in the Criminal Code to address these serious crimes. The government has been listening to the concerns of communities in Canada and is acting to ensure that law enforcement and prosecutors have the laws and tools they need to combat these serious crimes. Organized criminal groups are increasingly sophisticated and mobile. Their activities extend beyond the illegal drug trade to include the trafficking of human beings, cross-border smuggling, counterfeit goods, natural resource crimes and money laundering. As we have seen in recent years, organized crime has also expanded its focus to auto theft. Organized crime has devastating impacts on our health, safety and economic security. These impacts include the harms of substance use and the tragedy associated with overdose; the loss of financial security due to crimes such as auto theft and frauds; and the erosion of our communities' sense of safety and security. However, I am pleased to speak today about some of the considerable tools that police and prosecutors have to assist them in the investigation and prosecution of organized crime offences and money laundering. The Criminal Code defines a criminal organization broadly. It refers to “a group, however organized...of three or more persons in or outside Canada” that “has as one of its main purposes or main activities” to commit or facilitate a serious offence that would “result in...a material benefit” for anyone in the group. A serious offence is one that is punishable by at least five years' imprisonment or that is otherwise prescribed by regulation. As well, there are four specific criminal organization offences in the Criminal Code. These consist of participating in the activities of a criminal organization, recruiting members for a criminal organization, committing an indictable offence for a criminal organization and instructing the commission of an offence for a criminal organization. These offences are punishable by significant penalties, including up to life imprisonment for instructing the commission of an offence for a criminal organization. The involvement of organized crime in an offence has further implications under the Criminal Code, both prior to a trial and following a conviction. These include the availability of enhanced tools to enable police to investigate offences involving organized crime. They also include the requirement for a person charged with an offence involving organized crime to justify why their release from custody pending trial is, in fact, warranted. There are significant implications for an offender who is convicted of a criminal organization offence. They include that the courts must consider, as an aggravating factor for sentencing, that a crime was committed for the benefit of a criminal organization. All murders connected to an organized crime are automatically treated as first-degree murder, regardless of whether or not they were planned and deliberate. There are increased maximum and mandatory minimum penalties of imprisonment for certain offences committed in connection with organized crime, and the offender may face forfeiture of the proceeds of their crime unless they can demonstrate that the property was not obtained or derived from organized crime activity. Although the Criminal Code has a comprehensive framework to address organized crime in all its forms, the government has in recent months considered how best to update our criminal law as organized crime shifts its strategies. That is why I am pleased to outline the measures included in Bill C-69, the budget implementation act. To respond to the rise in motor vehicle theft, particularly where violence and organized crime are involved, the proposed amendments include the following: new offences targeting auto theft and its links to violence and organized crime, which would carry a maximum penalty of 14 years of imprisonment; new offences for possession and distribution of a device suitable for committing auto theft, which would carry a maximum penalty of 10 years of imprisonment; a new aggravating factor at sentencing if an offender involved a young person in committing a crime; and, lastly, a new offence for laundering proceeds of crime for the benefit of a criminal organization, which would carry a maximum penalty of 14 years of imprisonment. However, this is not all the government has been doing to provide law enforcement and prosecutors with tools in the Criminal Code to respond to the serious crimes of money laundering and terrorist financing. In recent years, the Government of Canada has introduced legislative reforms to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, the Income Tax Act and the Criminal Code to better respond to money laundering and terrorist financing. Having said all that, I have a question for the minister with respect to the notwithstanding clause. We have often heard from the leader of the new Reform Party across the way about the notwithstanding clause. However, zero is the number of times that any federal government from any party has ever used the notwithstanding clause, as this would negate enshrined freedoms of Canadians. Furthermore, it has only rarely been used by provinces. However, two weeks ago, the Leader of the Opposition, the new Reform Party, said that he would trample on our charter and use the notwithstanding clause to knowingly violate Canadians' rights. This is very serious. Can the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada talk to this chamber about the notwithstanding clause and why it should not be used to attack the rights and freedoms of Canadians as proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, the new Reform Party?
974 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 316 - May/23/24
Hon. Arif Virani (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)
  • May/23/24 9:50:33 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, what I appreciate from the member's comments is that he obviously delves into his experience as a past minister of finance in Ontario. He understands, as law enforcement has continuously explained to me, that gone are the days of a teenager off on a joyride, stealing a car from someone's home. This is an organized effort that is very profitable for international crime ranks. That is what we are dealing with here. In order to address auto theft, we need to address the path of the money. How are we doing that? There are six measures, and some of them were touched upon by my colleague. We are addressing challenges with prosecuting third party money launderers by amending the money-laundering offence. That is in the fall economic statement that, unfortunately, the members opposite have been obstructing. Second, we are responding to the rapidly evolving nature of financial crime by adapting the production order for financial data so that it more effectively applies to accounts associated with digital assets. We know what that party thinks about digital assets, because at one point the Conservative leader opined that crypto was the way out of inflation. Thankfully, the Bank of Canada was not listening. Third, we also know that modernizing provisions related to the search, seizure and restraint of proceeds of crime is critical, which is also in the fall economic statement. Fourth, there is a provision in the current budget implementation bill that deals with issuing an order to require a financial institution to keep an account open to assist in the investigation of a suspected criminal offence. Fifth, there is a provision that would allow for issuing a repeat production order to authorize law enforcement to obtain ongoing specified information on activity in an account or multiple accounts. The members opposite love to listen to law enforcement. I would urge them to do this, at least on this one occasion, because law enforcement is asking for these tools that they are actively voting against. The last piece is an offence that would explicitly criminalize operating a money service business that is not registered with FINTRAC. That is really critical because that is something that again helps us to track the money. With the learned knowledge of my friend, in terms of his background in finance, he has applied a critical lens to what we are doing on auto theft. If members think that we can tackle this one at a time, by targeting adolescents who have been deployed by an organized crime ring, and solve the auto theft crisis, the members are sorely mistaken. In order to do this, we need to operate on multiple fronts, including tracking the money. That is what these auto theft provisions would do. That is why we are behind them and are proceeding with them with pace. We just wish the Conservatives would get on board.
486 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border