SOUND LAW IS NEEDED TO SEIZE CRIME ASSETS

There's nothing we'd like more than to see organized crime in this country
take a financial kick in the teeth. It's difficult to take to heart the
adage that crime doesn't pay when bikers drive $80,000 Lincoln Navigators,
lowlife hoods sport luxurious jewelry and mansions, and vast amounts of cash
flow through the drug trade like a river.

For those reasons alone, we'd love to endorse Ontario Attorney-General James
Flaherty's announcement at a summit in Toronto this week on fighting
organized crime that the province will go after proceeds of crime - even
without criminal charges being laid.

We'd really like to jump on Flaherty's bandwagon. But until he can provide
some details - and some assurances - we have to be skeptical. The precept is
laudable, but legislation that aims to circumvent the proper process of law
has to be, in the end, judged bad law. While property rights are not
guaranteed by the constitution, due process is. Legislation that will not
withstand the scrutiny of the courts is not worth the paper on which it is
printed. Will the province use the civil courts, with its assurances of due
process, to sue for cash and property?

That seems a safe and cautionary route, but may be too cumbersome and slow
to get hold of fast-disappearing assets. Will it seek court warrants to
seize property, then be prepared to defend the seizure in court? That's
fast, but with accountability. Or will this government, whose respect for
individual rights is sometimes outweighed by its disdain for following the
rules, simply seize and be damned? The public would probably be delighted,
until the courts threw the legislation into the trash can.

This provincial government has a serious addiction to cash flow.
Proceeds-of-crime legislation should be a deterrent and can be punitive. But
if it's just another cash cow for the government, there's an increased
potential for abuse in order to keep the cash flowing in.

But we are not completely cynical and we believe Flaherty's heart is in the
right place. We like the idea of a crackdown. We applaud the intent. Yes, it
may force criminal organizations to hide their assets, but that wouldn't
necessarily be a bad thing. The critically important thing, however, has to
be in the execution. It has to be in line with democratic and constitutional
principles because, as this country's highest courts have repeatedly ruled,
good intentions mean nothing if the law is bad.

This is an excerpt from an editorial first published in the Hamilton
Spectator.