Bill C-53 · 38th Parliament · Paul Martin
An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (proceeds of crime) and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMay 30, 2005
- Debated in principleNov. 21, 2005
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberNov. 21, 2005
- Passed the second chamberNov. 24, 2005
- Became lawNov. 25, 2005
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Paul MartinPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
74% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (5,021 words introduced, 3,111 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill kept its core reverse-onus forfeiture rules for designated offences but completed an unfinished subsection on proving a pattern of criminal activity. Minor wording and structure were adjusted between introduction and royal assent.
- Subsection 462.37(2.05) was finished with the full test a court must apply.
Before: “(2.05) A court shall not determine that an offender has engaged in a pattern of criminal activity unl”
After: “(2.05) A court shall not determine that an offender has engaged in a pattern of criminal activity unless the court is satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the offender committed, within the period referred to in paragraph (2.01)(a), Conditions — pattern of criminal acti”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The text mixes objective tests such as balance of probabilities and fixed time periods with repeated subjective phrases that turn on judicial opinion. This creates pockets of clarity alongside broad discretion that invites argument over application.
Open to argument
“in the opinion of the judge”
This subjective standard lets the judge decide notice and hearing without an objective checklist.“if the court considers it in the interests of justice”
The phrase supplies no defined criteria, leaving forfeiture decisions open to case-by-case value judgments.“any other factor that the court considers relevant”
An open-ended catch-all expands the pattern-of-activity test beyond listed elements.
Clear-cut
“within 10 years before the proceedings were commenced”
A fixed numerical window supplies a clear temporal limit.“on a balance of probabilities”
The civil standard of proof is stated repeatedly and anchors factual findings.“at least two serious offences or one criminal organization offence”
Numeric thresholds and defined offence categories limit what counts as a pattern.
Discretion. Judges retain wide latitude to withhold forfeiture orders, dispense with notice, and weigh unlisted factors, with only limited direction to ministers or regulations.
Challenging the law itself. The combination of reverse onus, broad pattern language, and 'interests of justice' discretion could support a vagueness or overbreadth claim under Charter s. 7 or s. 8.
Disputing a charge under it. An offender can contest the pattern finding or prove property is not proceeds on the balance of probabilities, but the many opinion-based clauses give room to dispute whether the statutory triggers are met.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.