CamBay residents like Nunavut’s proposed anti-dope and bootleg law

Steve Shaddock, a lawyer with the Government of Nunavut’s justice department, and Archie Angnakak, a senior policy analyst, at an Oct. 2 consultation in Cambridge Bay on the GN’s proposed new civil forfeiture law. (PHOTO BY JANE GEORGE)

CAMBRIDGE BAY — Tired of seeing bootleggers and drug traffickers openly operate in town, about 30 Cambridge Bay residents passed up the community’s regular Friday bingo and Elks social night to attend a Government of Nunavut meeting that didn’t end until 10 p.m.

The GN’s justice department wanted input on its proposed civil forfeiture legislation, which will be a tool to target crime end other illegal activities, GN lawyer Steve Shaddock told the gathering.

The future legislation’s goal: to quash one of Nunavut’s most lucrative industries — the estimated $10-million-a-year market in bootlegging and the similarly valuable market for drugs so “crime does not pay” and people think twice before breaking the law, Shaddock said.

The proposed law, that’s “still a work-in-progress,” he said, will do this by using the civil court system to confiscate property that has been illegally gained, like cash, a vehicle and building, or used to commit illegal acts.

The idea is that Nunavummiut who get property illegally or use it to commit illegal acts, in Nunavut or another jurisdiction, should not be allowed to keep that property, Shaddock said in his Oct. 2 presentation to the group at the Elders Palace.

Civil forfeiture would allow the GN to seize that property through a civil court order and use that property to help prevent illegal activities or to help victims of crime.

The GN wants to target the big guys, the “kingpins” of alcohol and drugs, not the small “go-fers,” Shaddock said.

The RCMP now only manages to seize about $150,000 of bootleggers’ booze a year (no dollar figure was offered for the value of drug seizures made.)

And, because it’s often difficult to get bootlegging and trafficking charges to stick, the proposed law might be a more effective way to stop their activities, Shaddock suggested.

That’s because the civil standard of proof in civil court is less strict than in criminal court. The GN would have to only prove that “it is more likely than not that the property was gained by illegal activities” — not “beyond a reasonable doubt,” as in criminal court.

The new law would also create a Forfeiture Office to manage the property which could be auctioned off, sold or given away,

It would also set up a “tip line” where people could offer tips about bootlegging and drug trafficking.

Shaddock and justice department senior policy analyst Archie Angnakak also asked for feedback on nine questions from those at the meeting, the only consultation planned for the Kitikmeot region.

Some said they had concerns about the tip line, how it would work and whether it would be effective and remain truly anonymous. Others wanted the new law to go further —  to target gamblers, money launderers and people selling cigarettes to youth.

They also suggested that a list of people whose property has been taken be publicized, “loud and clear and in black and white,” to serve as a deterrent.

“We want Nunavut to be a safe place, to be a good place without it continuing to deteriorate” was one man’s comment.

Another said he was concerned that the proposed law would be similar to “breaking the branch” off a tree, when what you really need to do is “get the root out.”

Several at the consultation said they want to see more screening at airport and at the post office to keep the booze and drugs out of their community.

And they suggested more addictions prevention could also curb the demand and, in that way, make the illegal activities less profitable.

They also described Cambridge Bay as a hub of bootlegging to other communities in western Nunavut because you can easily and legally order in large quantities of hard liquor or beer with a permit.

Many mentioned the frustration and fear in dealing with crime in their community of 2,000 where relatives and neighbours are often the ones selling booze or drugs. “Scary” was the word they used.

Consultations on the forfeiture law have already taken place in Rankin Inlet and Baker Lake. More are planned for Iqaluit, Pond Inlet and Pangnirtung.

Forfeiture orders through the criminal court system have already taken place in Nunavut: in 1999 Iqaluit resident Claude Caza, a convicted hash dealer and arson fraudster, was ordered to forfeit $400,000 in real estate he owned in Apex and Iqaluit to the Crown because he used drug trafficking profits and proceeds from the fraud to invest in his restaurant business and other properties.

Forensic accounting found Caza had about $400,000 in unexplained income. But due to federal proceeds of crime legislation, Caza wasn’t allowed to keep the money he made from drug dealing and fraud.