Evidence of meeting #25 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
Shall clause 2 as amended carry?
(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 3—Arrest by owner, etc., of property)
We are on clause 3 and amendment NDP-10.1.
Go ahead, Mr. Harris.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
NDP-10.1 is on the issue of citizen's arrest.
We had a fair amount of discussion from the witnesses. I know some of it has been discussed with the officials already. We are mindful of the suggestions made by the three panellists last week.
I move that clause 3 be amended by replacing line 38 with the following:
(b) they make the arrest at the first reasonable opportunity within a reasonable
This is to try to put a framework of time and place around an open-ended “reasonable time”. I think we've been persuaded by the arguments and the views proposed by the officials. What if 50 hours turned out to be reasonable, instead of 48? What if somebody showed up at the 47th hour with three buddies when there was nobody around? I'm not able to make the arrest, but I might be in 52 hours. That's an undue constraint.
We thought that we'd change that to this proposal, which is that the arrest will be made at the “first reasonable opportunity within a reasonable time”. We had three or four scenarios put forth at our committee. We are mindful of trying not to empower unintentionally the activities of third parties or private security groups or others who might want to turn themselves into special investigators and go beyond what this is intended to do.
The “first reasonable opportunity” seemed to be the best way to constrain the time so that it's not open-ended. You can't just wait around. You can't spend two weeks doing a big investigation and then show up at somebody's door and arrest him. It has to be as soon as it's reasonable, and the “first reasonable opportunity” is a good wording. That would be a further constraint on the “reasonable time” factor. That's the rationale.
I'd be interested in any other comments that you or the officials may have on this proposed wording.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
I will keep it brief, as Mr. Harris has covered everything.
We are indeed worried about this aspect, and we are not the only ones concerned about adding the idea of a reasonable time. We know it opens the door to many situations that are very difficult to define.
Initially, we agreed with including a time frame, but what it does is undermine the logic behind the new concept that we are trying to introduce. However, nothing is being taken away from the idea of making an arrest within a reasonable time. We simply need to specify that the person making the arrest must do so as soon as possible, in other words, at the first opportunity. That has to be clear in people's minds, when it comes to everything that will come after the passage of the bill.
In my view, this does not take anything away from what is there. It is a necessary clarification for those who will make these kinds of arrests.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Before I ask my question, may I have some clarification? I'm not sure whether we're speaking of NDP-10 or NDP-10.1.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you. I think I'm going to stop there, then, and think about my comments before I proceed.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
I understand what's attempting to be done here, perhaps for the sake of clear wording for the average citizen. However, the wording potentially puts a constraint on the concept of reasonableness.
It may well be in any one given situation that the first opportunity is what's reasonable, but the judges are highly qualified. They're able to assess every situation. I think it's best left in their hands to leave a wider breadth of possibilities in interpreting this aspect.
I understand what you're trying to do, but I think the wording is perhaps best left as is, if only to give a wider breadth of discretion to the judges on a case-by-case situation.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I think we'd have to respond by saying that we don't really want to see another whole series of cases before the courts to come to the conclusion that you can't hang around and arrest somebody. A reasonable time might be decided. Well, for a reasonable timeframe, the courts could decide 10 days, or they could decide 30 days.
What we're concerned about is what goes on in the meantime. When we had the scenarios laid out by the three witnesses last Thursday—a law professor, an adjunct professor, and another practitioner—they were laying out scenarios that they were convinced were within the provisions set forward. I didn't hear any real objection to that, and I sensed a concern by members on both sides of this committee to have some sort of constraint going forward, before we have to wait for the series of case law. I think it's up to us to try to limit the amount of case law that might come forward.
Reasonable is fairly...I won't say it's “elastic”, but it's uncertain in terms of interpretation, and you do have to have a series of cases to do that. To suggest that there has to be some constraint on the time.... The first suggestion was 48 hours; I think we've been persuaded that to have a particular number of hours might unduly constrain a judge, but I think the expectation that if we're talking about....
Let's face it: we're talking about a citizen's arrest that was regarded, first of all, as specifically contemporaneous with the event. We're broadening that to say “within a reasonable time”. We can't broaden it so much that time could be very elastic. They have to take action when the opportunity arises and not wait for sometime down the road. They can't say, “I'm going to get my posse together, and I'm going to do it at another time.”
I don't think that's right. I don't think that's the intention here. When we're expanding this right of citizen's arrest, I think we have to be careful that we don't make room for other types of unintended consequences, and I think this amendment will act to prevent that.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Often I hear opposition members, and witnesses called by them, pleading for greater judicial discretion in order to protect offenders. In this particular case, the existing section provides greater judicial discretion in order to protect victims. I see no reason to limit judicial discretion to protect victims in the manner that Mr. Harris is suggesting.
Thank you.
1 p.m.
Conservative
1 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
My point of order is that it's one o'clock. Is it the plan to keep going? I have House duty and I don't want to get in trouble one way or the other. If we're going to keep going, I'd like to be able to get somebody over here to....
1 p.m.
Conservative
1 p.m.
Conservative
1 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
It's clause-by-clause consideration. We should be able to get through this. The last clause is.... We're just going to vote on them.
1 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
The chair is in your hands. I suspect it wouldn't take long. We may be able to finish this bill. We are the most collegial group in the House.