ORGANIZED-CRIME BILL CALLED 'BULL IN CHINA SHOP'

Activist Says Similar Laws In U.S. Have Led To Civil-Rights Horrors

From Canadian Press -- A bill that would allow Ontario to seize the
property of suspected organized criminals even in the absence of
criminal charges is overkill that threatens people's rights, a civil
liberties activist warned Tuesday.

In a submission to the legislature's justice committee, Alan Borovoy
of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association attacked the bill as
poorly thought out, too sweeping and likely unnecessary in the first
place.

''This bill here is very much a bull in a china shop,'' said Borovoy.
''It's just a crude response to the whole problem.''

The proposed bill, trumpeted by Ontario's Conservatives as an
important weapon in the fight against organized crime, allows the use
of civil law in seizing assets that flow from crime syndicates.

The Crown would only have to prove on the ''balance of
probabilities'' that the assets in question are the proceeds of
organized crime or could be used for such activity.

''We know that the life blood of organized crime is profit,'' said
rookie Attorney General David Young.

''That's why this bill aims to take the profit out of organized crime.''

The bill, the first of its kind in Canada, is modelled after similar
statutes in the U.S., which the province says have been enormously
successful in the war against mobsters and gangs.

But Borovoy told the committee that American laws have led to a
litany of civil-rights horrors and the Americans have had to look at
severely restricting their scope.

Seizure should only take place, he said, where a criminal court has
already convicted someone of a crime and it can be shown that the
person owned the property.

But Young said civil rights would be protected under the bill.

''No property can be seized unless and until a judge has considered
the matter and decided that it is reasonable to do so,'' Young said.

Even so, said Borovoy, the bill defines unlawful activity as any
offence against any federal or provincial law, meaning a merchant who
violates Sunday closing laws, for example, could have all his
property seized.

''There is no excuse for an overbroad definition of that kind,'' he said.

Instead, the rights association believes the legislation should be
clearly confined to the most serious offences associated with
organized crime.

Borovoy also noted that the Criminal Code already has finely tuned
and elaborate provisions for seizing organized crime assets without
trampling on civil liberties.

''There are real questions as to the need for the whole thing.''

But Young argued the federal laws aren't doing the job and pointed to
the recent influx of biker gangs into the province as an example of
why the bill is needed.

''This is a parallel approach,'' he said.

He also said the government has taken into account privacy concerns
related to the seizure of health records and has proposed an
amendment to require court involvement before that can happen.

Those records might be needed to fight criminal activity in the
health-service field, Young said.

Toronto police chief Julian Fantino applauded the initiative.

''It's a much-needed and long overdue measure which I believe has
been neglected at the federal level,'' Fantino said.

But Liberal Mike Bryant attacked the bill as a ''paper tiger'' and a
Tory ''public relations stunt.''