MAKING SURE THAT CRIME DOESN'T PAY

But In Seizing The Proceeds Of Crime, Province Risks Trampling Civil
Liberties

So who's toughest on crime? The Conservatives or the
Liberals?

Alberta's Justice Minister Alison Redford and Liberal justice critic
Kent Hehr spent the better part of Monday trying to one-up each other
on just that question.

Redford fired the first round Monday morning, when she held a press
conference to tout the merits of her government's new Victims
Restitution and Compensation Payment Act. The law, which came into
full effect this January, allows the police and the province to seize
the proceeds and instruments of crime, sell them off and use the money
to fund programs that compensate crime victims.

In just two months, Redford boasted, Alberta's new Civil Forfeiture
Office has already seized seven vehicles under the act, as well as a
rural acreage near Wetaskiwin, used as an alleged illegal marijuana
grow-op, and taken $4.6 million in profits from criminals.

Her press conference left the opposition Liberals fuming -- but not
for the reasons you might expect.

Redford's event began at 10:45 a.m.

But the Liberals had previously booked the media room for 11 a.m., so
that Liberal justice critic Kent Hehr could hold a press conference
about his own private members bill, Bill 201, which received second
reading on Monday. The bill would give the province the power to
suspend the licence of anyone driving a car that had an illegal weapon
in it, seize the vehicle, and to impose fines of up to $25,000 on the
driver.

The Liberals say they weren't told of the double booking until 10:24
Monday morning, when their press conference was officially bumped.

The end result? Redford stole Hehr's thunder -- forcing him to respond
to her announcement, instead of the other way round -- and putting him
at a distinct disadvantage, since Hehr, who was paralyzed in a
drive-by shooting, and uses a wheelchair, could not reach the high
podium microphone set up for Redford's event.

Alberta Justice insisted the double booking wasn't made on purpose to
undermine Hehr's efforts, that they reserved the media room weeks ago.

The furious Liberals weren't buying it -- and rescheduled their event
until late afternoon, when Hehr lambasted the Tories for playing
partisan politics with his bill.

But while the Liberals and Tories duke it out, allow me to suggest
that it's the whole strategy of seizing the property of those who
haven't been found guilty of a crime that we need to question.

The idea of seizing the assets of criminals isn't new.

In 2001, the Klein government first passed legislation authorizing the
government to make civil forfeitures of the proceeds of crime and of
property used in the commission of illegal acts. But the law was never
enacted, in part because Alberta was waiting to see how the Ontario
courts would rule on a constitutional challenge to similar legislation
in Ontario.

That Ontario test case is still wending its way through the courts.
The Ontario government won at trial and on appeal, but the case was
further appealed to the Supreme Court, which only heard the arguments
this past November.

Nonetheless, this fall the Alberta government amended its 2001 act,
and proclaimed it into law in December, with the unanimous support of
all parties.

Now, it's easy to understand the political appeal of such a law, to
politicians across the ideological spectrum. Public fear about crime,
especially the violent crime committed by today's audacious drug
gangs, is acute. What politician doesn't want to look tough on crime?
There is a natural, visceral appeal in the idea of seizing loot from
bad guys. If you can teach gangsters that crime doesn't pay, by
seizing their cars and houses, and turning the money over to worthy
crime victims, why not do it?

Well, first, there's the issue of the division of powers. The federal
government has jurisdiction over criminal law. The provinces do not.
It's arguable that what the provinces are doing is levying and
collecting a de facto fine. By seizing and selling off their valuable
assets, they are punishing alleged criminals -- a federal
responsibility.

The larger question, though, is one of civil liberties and the
presumption of innocence. Under Alberta's law, your property can be
seized and sold even if you've never been convicted of a crime -- and
even if you've never been charged with one.

The onus is on Alberta Justice to go before a judge to establish that
the seized or restrained property is "an instrument of illegal
activity." But the threshold in a civil case is far lower than it
would be in a criminal court. In a criminal trial, the accused must be
found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil proceeding, the
test is a simple preponderence of evidence.

Sure, it's more convenient for the state to be able to seize the
profits of a criminal enterprise, or sell off properties used by
criminals, without waiting for a pesky formality like a criminal
conviction. But no matter how frightened and frustrated we may be by
gang crime, are we sure we did the right thing, to sacrifice one of
our most basic civil rights in the name of public safety?

"Sentence first, verdict afterwards!" cries the Queen of Hearts in
Alice in Wonderland. That fine logic down the rabbit hole, but not
here.

Sure, I'm worried by drug gangs. But I'm just as worried that none of
our provincial political parties seems ready to stand up for the
Constitution, civil liberties and the rule of law. By all means, let's
give our criminal justice system the resources it needs to catch and
convict criminals. But shouldn't we convict, before we punish?