Bill c9: what does Forfeited for Disposal really mean? Why am I concerned? How come the provision isn't consistent with regular forfeiture provisions? What kind of limits should be in the clause?

CAN YOU ALL HELP OUT?

I am ringing the Bell. I am sounding the Alarm. I am sending an SOS. I do not do that on bills often. If I see the right push back on the Bills I leave the discussion in the public domain.

However I am not seeing the important discussion getting done.

I am setting up for a real push back on this Bill. Let us look at ONE PROVISION ONLY

As you read the clause look for the word “property,” or “proceeds of crime”, or anything that says “object.”

INSTEAD you will notice “anything by means of.” Ask yourself why the clever verbiage. Why not just say property. Means of - action. Think as you read. Then i will get down to the legal interpretation.

“Forfeiture.

(4) If a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1), (2), (2.‍1) or Insertion start(2.‍2)Insertion end or section 318, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to His Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

So I asked myself why did this clause trouble me. Why did it flash at me like a Christmas tree?

It is an unlimited forfeiture clause. Anything by means of or in relation to. It does not LIST OBJECT. So I want to present this in a clear way.

“anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed”

technically includes the person - because the person was the means by which the offence was committed. Saying they would never, is not a response. Just ask them to word it differently and you’ve flushed them from the bushes.

Let’s put it this way. To make the clause a non-capital punishment clause they just need to add one word. PROPERTY. That’s it.

So let’s all ask them to do so. If they fidget about those 8 letters? After all if it is the Person, the next part of the clause says the person is forfeited to his majesty the king for DISPOSAL. it is straight up an awful Bill.

But let’s push back on this one item. It flushes out the intent. And besides the silence on this is deafening to me.

FORFEITURE: is the loss, surrender, or destruction of something. Clearly other Provisions of the Criminal Code have done forfeiture clauses before.

YES. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT IN THIS CLAUSE THEY BOTH:

OMMITTED THE WORD PROPERTY

—AND —

GAVE AN ACTION VERB TO THE LANGUAGE “BY MEANS OF WHICH THE OFFENSE WAS COMMITTED”

AND THE RESULT IS THAT THE PERSON

MAY BE ORDERED TO BE FOR FORFEITED FOR DISPOSAL”

They would never is not in my lexicon. My approach to analysis is to see what it says and then offer what a realistic clause should look like. Just because it says Forfeiture clause actually happens not guide the interpretation:

When Chatgpt and I discussed this Chat gave the government the generous interpretation that their intent was to seize only property. I have no such designation of innocence to any part of this bill. For instance the Bill says you get a defence of religious purpose. Yet Mark Miller who introduced the Bill clearly stated that the Bible is hate without good faith defence. (Acts, Romans, Leviticus and Deuteronomy he listed) Thus the Bill does not say the symbol they want is the Cross. But in the debate he signals just that.

I am not saying the Bill should be passed. It should be soundly defeated. However let’s ask our Conservative members to see if they will debate the forfeiture clause. Let us air it in bright light.

see how easy it is to draft the clause to limit it to property and exclude the interpretation I am worried about? Then consider this: what if the property is your house, bank account, means to earn a living. Have you noticed that too is not reigned in?? So I expanded the limit.

I hope I have demonstrated what a clear property forfeiture clause looks like. I hope I have showed you a clause can easily be drafted without ambiguity.

My ask from you Canada is to send a letter or email with this content to every single Conservative MP. And especially the following, who are on the Committee:

1. Andrew Lawton;

2. LarryBrock;

3. Amarjeet Gill;

4. Andrew Barber;

Additionally write your MP and Pierre Pollievre, and MP Rempel; In the letter say you are opposed to the Bill in its entirely and to vote against it.

But lay out that you are concerned with the Forfeiture provision because it is vaguely drafted to include the persons. It is easily remedied with words limiting the scope to the intent. They must change that and limit the property they can get. Ask them to circulate your letter with the rest of the committee and Parliament. Also send to media outlets like Blendr, Juno and Rebel. So far this aspect is not the main area of debate.

Here is a link to the Bill. https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-9/first-reading