Fact from fiction

We can’t be blamed for thinking Mitch Tweel has watched one too many episodes of Breaking Bad.

The Charlottetown city councillor was at it again this week leading the charge to put pressure on the provincial government to adopt civil forfeiture legislation.

This time, council unanimously passed a motion on Monday to ask the Federation of P.E.I. Municipalities to help persuade the province. Summerside has passed similar legislation.

Charlottetown council has also been in touch with P.E.I. Attorney General Bloyce Thompson, who is considering the request.

Here’s why we need this legislation, according to Tweel. So we can finally deal with the 70 active drug houses in Charlottetown. Really? Are there even 70 active drug houses on P.E.I.? And, if so, where are they? In fact, we’re not even clear what Tweel’s definition of a drug house is.

At Monday’s meeting, Tweel ramped up the rhetoric again by saying that “neighbourhoods are being held hostage by drug dealers.” Once again, which neighbourhoods, and how are they being held hostage?

And, since all councillors supported this motion, let’s hear from them as well.

Of course, we do find drug needles on the street, and there is illegal drug activity in Charlottetown, as Tweel also argues. We know this because we also hear reports of needles on the street and people charged by police with illegal drug activity go through the courts all the time. Even so, Charlottetown and Summerside police say they support the legislation, largely because it provides them with another tool.

There is another side to this story.

The Canadian Constitution Foundation has cited several concerns about this legislation. It argues that the legislation is a “supplement or alternative” to criminal law, and allows provincial governments to seize property from criminals as well as individuals never charged or convicted with a crime. The government only has to show that the property was used as an “instrument of crime” or the proceeds of a crime. In these cases, the government isn’t required to offer compensation for seized property. Examples of seized property include cars and apartment buildings in cases when the owner was innocent but tenants were involved in criminal activity.

If we’re going to move forward with this legislation, we need to distinguish between facts and fantasy and have a rational discussion about the pros and cons. Even though every other province has this legislation (except for us and Newfoundland and Labrador), that isn’t a good enough reason for us to adopt it as well.

We need to scrutinize arguments from organizations like the Canadian Constitution Foundation and Tweel. So far, all we’ve heard is unverified claims from Tweel that are closer to embellishments and rhetoric than facts. If these claims about drug houses and neighbourhoods being held hostage are true, then let’s see some proof.

Given the seriousness of this issue, is that too much to ask?