Bill C-60 (Historical)

Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (citizen's arrest and the defences of property and persons)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to enable a person who owns or has lawful possession of property, or persons authorized by them, to arrest within a reasonable time a person whom they find committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property. It also amends the Criminal Code to simplify the provisions relating to the defences of property and persons.

Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at this stage, I will say that we plan on voting in favour of sending this bill to committee to be studied. It must at least be substantially amended, if not replaced by the bill that all legislators in this House wanted and that was much more simple than the one we have in front of us today.

The speaker before me mentioned some incidents in Toronto that have made people think. Two members from two different parties introduced much simpler bills to clarify things.

I will sum up the situation. A store owner who sees a shoplifter who has previously stolen from him return to his shop and act the same way, realizes that he will once again be robbed. He does not have time to call the police, who would not arrive in time. Therefore, he decides to arrest the individual himself and detain him until the police arrive. That is something that makes sense. I will talk about two cases I pleaded that show that this is useful, especially in a country as vast as ours, where sometimes the police are far away and may take 45 minutes to an hour to come arrest someone who is committing an offence on or in relation to property.

We should have been satisfied with these private members' bills. What is strange in this case is that the department is telling us that it is introducing this bill to clarify things, but the language it uses is far from clear. In a few moments I will read some excerpts. I think it will take a lot of thinking and explanations before we can truly understand the provisions of the bill.

I am told that people love to hear my speeches in the House. It feels as though we are talking to an empty room or to a completely disinterested group of people. Our debates are televised and some people are disappointed if I do not use examples from past cases of mine to illustrate my point. I will talk about two cases, if I have the time.

I would like to clarify our position from the outset. We recognize that this amendment to section 494 is exactly what members want right now. Subsection 494(2) of the Criminal Code states the following:

Any one who is

(a) the owner or a person in lawful possession of property, or

(b) a person authorized by the owner or by a person in lawful possession of property,

may arrest without warrant a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property.

It is important to take note of what is not said in this subsection. It says “finds committing”. But if the following day the owner sees the person who committed the offence to his property—such as breaking his car windows, for example—it is too late to make a citizen's arrest.

That is what happened to Mr. Chen, as was mentioned by the previous speaker. And it happens quite often. We agree with the amendment proposed in Bill C-60, which would change subsection 494(2) to the following:

The owner or a person in lawful possession of property, or a person authorized by the owner or by a person in lawful possession of property, may arrest a person without a warrant if they find them committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property and

(a) they make the arrest at that time;

Up until that point, there are only slight changes to the current law, but then the following is added:

(b) they make the arrest within a reasonable time after the offence is committed and they believe on reasonable grounds that it is not feasible in the circumstances for a peace officer to make the arrest.

This amendment, which is similar to two private members' bills previously introduced, would resolve the problem that we are all now aware of and provide the solution that we all want.

This government has a bad habit. Whenever it sees that the House is likely to reach unanimous consent on a given measure, it always has to add something. We in the Bloc Québécois are particularly concerned about the changes it is making to the principle of self-defence.

For instance, here are two situations that could become legal and—even worse—become widespread, if the bill passes in its entirety. After a dispute over a fence degenerates, one neighbour utters death threats against the other neighbour and his family. Incidentally, people do not usually really mean them when they utter death threats. They usually amount to nothing more than excessive language, not all that different from what is often heard here in this House, for example. The two are more or less on the same level.

One thing is certain: the neighbour who hears those threats should not feel truly threatened. However, say he does feel threatened and fears for his life, and wanting to defend his family, he will say, he goes after his neighbour and kills him, justifying his action by saying that the police could not guarantee his safety and that of his family in the long term. In such a case, no one would ever know if the deceased neighbour ever really intended to carry out his threats. Thus, if potentially deadly force is to be used, we want to ensure that the danger is real, that there is no other option besides violence to respond to those threats.

In the other scenario, imagine a young person shoplifting in a convenience store. The store clerk, outraged by this recurring act in his store that is eating up his profits, pulls a shotgun on the shoplifter, but it fires accidentally. At present, that is a criminal offence, because it deals with property and because it involves someone who is not a peace officer. He would be using force that is disproportionate to the crime committed and that caused someone's death.

This is why we want to carefully study the provisions of this bill that have to do with self-defence.

I have practised criminal law since 1966 and have always found the current provisions to be logical and rather self-explanatory and not requiring any radical changes. For example, without going into all the details, the current provisions on self-defence against unprovoked assault start out as follows:

(1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and

(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

No matter their education, jurors who carefully read this section, or if it is read by the judge—perhaps judges provide a copy of the Criminal Code section—are perfectly capable of understanding it. Now here is what they want to replace it with. Why? I do not know.

This is the proposed wording:

A person is not guilty of an offence if

(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;

(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force;...

I am not exaggerating when I say that I am certain that anyone hearing this for the first time will not understand the underlying principle. However, if they referred to the text I read earlier, the current Criminal Code section, they would have a much better understanding.

I do not understand when the government says that it wants to clarify an act, but then it uses such esoteric language to replace Criminal Code provisions that have stood the test of time.

As a lawyer, I have been involved in various cases. I remember a client who was accused of manslaughter. In fact, he might have been accused of murder, but the Crown was prepared to convict for manslaughter of a boat thief.

The defendant was living on an island east of Laval and he had several neighbours. Thieves would arrive by water. One night, the defendant, who was having prostate problems, got up and turned on the lights. He heard a noise, looked outside and saw people fleeing in a canoe. He realized that they were thieves. He finished what he was doing and went back to bed. Later, he heard the sound of boats knocking together even though the river was calm at that hour. He kept the light off and looked outside. What did he see? He saw two people in a canoe pulling his neighbour's motor boat behind them. He yelled out to them and told them to let go of the boat immediately, that they had been caught red-handed. The people kept paddling as though nothing were wrong and headed toward a nearby island to hide. The man found the shameless thieves and told them he had guns. He warned them to give up the boat or he would shoot.

At this point his wife was awake and he asked her to call the police. He could still see the two men paddling. Since he is a hunter, he has at least two guns: a rifle he uses for big game hunting and a .22 calibre gun.

He decided against using the moose hunting rifle because the shot could be fatal and the .22 calibre gun would make enough noise just to scare them. The man warned the thieves that he was aiming his gun at them, ready to shoot, but they kept on paddling. He decided to shoot in front of the canoe to scare them, but they kept on paddling. He warned them he was going to shoot again and he ordered them to let go of the boat. The thieves continued to paddle. The man took another shot in front of the canoe—or so he thought. Then one of the perpetrators seemed to be hiding in the canoe and the other raised his paddle and said they were surrendering. They came back toward him. The police were called to the scene.

One of the two thieves got out of the canoe, but the other one seemed to remain hidden inside. The man warned the thieves that he was armed and that they should not do anything foolish because the police were on their way. Finally, when the police arrived, the man handed over the rifle, trembling, and said that there was another person hiding in the canoe. The police went to look in the canoe and saw that the other person was dead.

Normally, a .22 calibre bullet fired at that range should not do that, but a .22 calibre bullet is still a bullet even though it is small and slow. In this case, the bullet entered the thief's side, passed between two of his ribs, through one of his lungs—where there was not much to stop it—and lodged at the base of his heart, which is what caused his death.

A police officer would have had the right to do what this man did, although admittedly a police officer would not have done it. Nevertheless, under the Criminal Code, a police officer has the right to behave like this. He used the only force available to make the arrest and it was deadly force. Individuals do not have the right to use deadly force simply to protect their property.

I told myself that the jurors would understand his position, so we decided to bring the case before a jury. We had an expert shooter come in, who told me to ask the police officers whether they had touched the weapon or made any changes to it. I asked him why and he said that he would tell me later. The police officers said that they had kept the weapon as they had found it. The expert shooter noticed that the sight was not calibrated for the range in question. He said that if the man in question had not wanted to hit the thieves, he should have aimed above their heads. Although a bullet travels several feet per second, a canoe also travels a certain distance in several seconds.

I thought that the judge would have to often reiterate that the force must be reasonable and proportional to the situation. If shouting was not enough to convince boat thieves who are on the water to stop, how else could they be stopped other than with a shot? The man had weapons at his disposal and he chose the less dangerous one. He aimed ahead of the boat so that the thieves would see the flash. His arguments convinced the jury and he was acquitted even though the judge told me that she would have found him guilty. She did not sentence him to time in prison since she understood his reasoning. This earned me some nice comments from the presiding juror, who knew Mr. Roy, Mr. Mulroney's former chief of staff. Mr. Roy was actually her nephew, and she told him that the lawyer was extraordinary. However, that has nothing to do with the application of the law, except that a law that is difficult to understand could lead to a sympathy verdict. This bill is ten times harder to understand.

I think that I have time to talk about another case, but it is about the ordinary arrest of an ordinary citizen after the fact. It is similar to the case of Mr. Chen, except that a security guard was involved. It is 17 years since I last practised criminal law. At the time, it was not popular for men to shave their heads, except maybe a few troublemakers. The individual in my case had no hair, no eyebrows, nothing. He had what is called alopecia universalis. He told me that he had no hair anywhere—yes, even where you are thinking. It is odd to see someone without any hair or eyebrows. This person told me that a few thousand people in Montreal have this condition, including the drummer of for the band Corbeau. He said that people always mistook him for someone else.

He had just moved and went into Steinberg's grocery to buy some bread and coffee for breakfast. When he got to the cash, he was arrested by the security guard who said that he had stolen something the day before. He responded that he had not been in the store the day before and that it was likely someone who looked like him. He said that he was often mistaken for the drummer from Corbeau, who had the same condition.

We explained his conditions and the effects of it, but when I tried his case, the security guard at the door of the court had the same condition. So we did not need an acquittal, but we filed a lawsuit. Steinberg went bankrupt and the security guard committed suicide. He had made a mistake by arresting him the following day. He did not have the right to arrest him because he had not caught him in the act.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, if the “H” government will allow me to speak in this “H” Parliament, in this “H” House of Commons, I would like to make a couple of comments.

The parliamentary secretary made two comments. One was on the witnesses brought to committee by the opposition. The other was about the time we spent deliberating in committee.

Like that member, I sat on justice committee in the past. I thought the opposition witnesses brought the expertise that was needed. Often the bills we saw in justice committee were not well thought out by the government. They were totally off track of what would have been useful.

The member implied that we spent too long discussing a bill without giving it thoughtful consideration. Yet in committee expert witnesses told us time and time again that they had not been consulted. Those witnesses could protect victims and make Canada safer.

Does the member think the witnesses brought to committee by his party and other opposition parties are not useful to the process? Does he think too much time is spent in thoughtful debate in committee, or is just part of the anti-democratic modus operandi of the Conservative government?

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the witnesses we call are useful, but I do not understand what the hon. member's comment has to do with Bill C-60. We have not yet reached committee stage. We might have a witness in mind to invite, but as far as I am concerned, there are certain observations we can already make ourselves. With a small amendment, the current bill would be improved and not so confusing.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc made some opening comments about this, but can he see any advantage at all in the proposed amendments in the first part of the bill, not those relating to section 494, but those relating to sections 34 to 42 of the code that deal with the right of self-defence, the right of defence of property, both residential and commercial, and the right of defence to protect one's other personal assets? Does he see anything in the proposed amendments in regard to those sections that would advance the law or protection for our communities?

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, not at all. I see it as a step backward to give less importance to self-defence with force likely to cause death. I also believe that the proposed amendments will make the bill much more confusing than it already is. What is more, in our experience over the years and in my experience as a lawyer, the current law has not caused much confusion, but there are sections in this bill that are absolutely illegible. The answer to the question is clear. I do not see any progress; I see a backward movement.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin is absolutely correct. For people who do not have a background in law, it is very helpful to be provided with real, concrete examples of what has happened in similar situations. At the beginning of his speech, he referred to certain private member's bills that have been introduced and that deal with these type of situations. For example, in the Toronto area, the owner of a convenience store had to use force to restrain a thief. As a result, members introduced bills.

The member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin brought up certain problems that exist in Bill C-60. I would like him to explain the difference between the bills introduced by private members and the bill introduced by the government so that people like me, who do not have a background in law, can understand. He has said that the private members' bills are simpler. I would like to know what specific problems he sees with Bill C-60.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the overall problem is that it will create confusion. The degree of force that can be used in self-defence is too subjective a concept. The legislation is good in that it extends the time within which an owner or his representative can arrest a repeat offender—that was already established in the law.

The example that I gave you, which was something I experienced during my time as a lawyer, demonstrated that someone should be arrested on the spot. If he is arrested the next day, a mistake could be made, even though there might be good reason for it, such as seeing a person with no hair or eyelashes. But it could be someone else.

Given the incident in Toronto, given the size of our country and given the time that it takes for police to arrive on the scene as they are often called to do, a little more time must be allowed after the offence is committed. As for the rest, why make the concept of potentially deadly force more subjective, especially if the owner does not fear for his life but simply fears the person who is attacking him?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the concerns the member raised and the concerns we have heard from other stakeholders in this matter raise the question about whether the bill should have been referred directly to committee before second reading. Members will be asked to vote on a bill that has some problematic areas in which expertise is necessary. This matter happened back in October of 2010. We are four to five months later and we are only at second reading debate.

The whole process seems to have been poorly thought out by the government. I hope the member would agree that the best approach is not to pass a bill at second reading, with approval in principle, when we could put it straight to the committee and make fundamental changes, about which I believe the member is talking.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are going to try to remove the useless passages in committee. In my opinion, the amendments to section 494 are the only really useful thing in this bill.

It is true that a number of situations are described, illustrating when the use of force is reasonable. I would point out that all these situations were drawn from case law. Judges do not require a detailed list of what is or what is not reasonable, especially when the list is not exhaustive. What is deemed reasonable has never posed a problem; jurors and judges are perfectly capable of discerning this in practice.

Even though this clause is clear, it is useless. I believe that we should only retain the useful part, that is the amendments to section 494.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add some commentary on Bill C-60.

Most Canadians will recall the incident where a shopkeeper observed someone stealing from his market in Toronto and then took off. Then the person came back and did it again. The shopkeeper saw him, ran him down and held him.

It is fairly straightforward in the eyes of the public. It is interesting to note that there are some very sensitive questions of law. Most Canadians would say that they have the right to protect their property or to hold a person until the police arrive. We have seen many stories like that.

The issue of civil liberties is very sensitive in the law. From some of the speeches given to date, there is a question about whether the proposed amendments in Bill C-60 will, in fact, be appropriate.

It is my view, where there are technical, legal matters and where the House has brought in a bill, we are asked, without the benefit of expert witnesses and legal opinions, et cetera, to debate it the best we can do. Without hearing from witnesses, we are at second reading.

The importance of that is at second reading we kind of get the mood of the House and whether we are prepared to approve, in principle, a bill to go forward to the next stage, which would be to go to committee.

In the question about what is actually affected by second reading, it is important for members to know and to remember that when we give approval in principle, it restricts the scope of amendments that can be made at committee. Certain things cannot be touched. We will not be able to go beyond the scope of the bill. For instance, if it deals with this universe, these items and we wanted to make it bigger than it was at second reading, it could not be done. If we wanted to change, substantively, the intent or the essence of the bill, it could not be done at committee. That is one of the reasons I asked the question of the hon. member earlier.

I am a little confused. This case took place in October 2010. I think it was tabled in the House February 10. We are now in the beginning of March and we are finally starting debate.

This is a matter where Parliament could have shown a bit more leadership in addressing a very serious question of law. The bill could have been put forward, certainly before the Christmas break, and referred to committee so it could prepare its work and at least arrange for witnesses during the Christmas break. Then we could have started the hearings in committee when we came back in January.

It is an important issue of law. It is an issue which I think Canadians would expect us to deal with in a responsible fashion so we could address the questions of the day.

I raise those points because I think it is important. There is always a good reason to send a bill straight to committee rather than having second reading.

The other part has to do with the whole concept of the civil liberties. The member who just spoke laid out the fact that many of the amendments were problematic and might be more harmful than helpful in this case. When I finish my comments after question period, I hope to lay some of those out.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I must interrupt the member at this time for statements by members. The hon. member for Mississauga South will have 15 minutes remaining when the House returns to this matter.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-60, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (citizen's arrest and the defences of property and persons), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before question period I had set out some arguments that reflected the concerns already raised by some hon. members that this bill may not be a good start in terms of the intent. There may be good reasons that this bill should have been referred to committee before second reading to allow some expert testimony from witnesses to assist in making whatever changes they felt necessary before it came to the House for debate.

I pulled up the minister's speech from Friday on this matter, and it strikes me that this has been going around for a long time. In fact, we are talking about an incident that took place in 2009. Mr. Chen was acquitted on February 17, 2011. It has taken a very long time for this bill to be received. I think it was only on February 17 that the bill was tabled at first reading, and here we are in March.

I wonder why the minister would not take the opportunity for a bill that includes, in the opinions of a number of hon. members, potentially some confusing areas that may be very problematic. The factors that would determine whether or not there was a reasonable amount of time, a reasonable expectation, et cetera, are very long and when these incidents occur on a snap basis, the public at large will not be familiar with them. This bill may encourage people to feel empowered that they can undertake a citizen's arrest without knowing that they may very well still be charged. Ultimately, it would be up to the courts to determine whether or not they met the test under the bill. This is not a black and white situation.

Given that is the case, the only explanation I can think for why the minister did not refer the bill directly to committee was that the justice committee right now, as usual, is bogged down with several pieces of legislation. Considering the average time it would take to discharge those pieces of legislation, it is likely that this particular bill would not come back to the House after committee until sometime in the fall. We may not see this bill go to the Senate until the Christmas break, and then the Senate will deal with it at some point.

That is an awfully long time, even though it still presumes that the bill would go through the process very expeditiously. However, I do not believe that would be the case. I much suspect there will be substantial amendments sought at committee, first of all, to delete a number of clauses and, second, to add others, which may be challenged as beyond the scope or intent of the bill. There may be other problems with it.

As much as I hate to admit it, this particular case has been used as a bit of a political football.

I was reminded by another member that the member for Eglinton—Lawrence introduced a private member's bill on June 16, 2010, after Mr. Chen was acquitted and when the government still had not taken action.

On September 27, 2009, the minister of immigration actually visited Chinatown for a photo op and made an empty promise to raise the issue of amending the Criminal Code with the government.

On June 16, 2010, after nine months of inaction, the member for Eglinton—Lawrence introduced his private member's bill.

On October 10, 2010, Mr. Chen was acquitted. I was in error when I said it was February 2010; it was actually October 2010.

On November 4, 2010, the member for Eglinton—Lawrence held a press conference calling on the government to adopt his bill, Bill C-547.

On January 21, 2011, the Prime Minister met with Mr. Chen and promised legislation would be introduced soon.

On February 15, the government put a notice on the notice paper by the Minister of Justice that there would be a bill. It was in fact tabled in February and debated in the House for the first time on Friday.

This was an important case of clarification necessary in the Criminal Code for Mr. Chen and for other citizens who are victims of robbery, but there are certain elements that have to be taken in the law.

For most Canadians, it is a slam dunk. They are going to protect their property even if they have to tackle the guy, whoever he might be, and hold him until the police come. They do not think about whether or not they are using unreasonable force. If they happen to see this person the next day and recognize him they will tackle him. They are not sure whether that is a reasonable period of time.

That is precisely what the bill deals with, the various factors on how the courts are going to be asked to interpret our intent for this legislation. From listening to a couple of the speakers, I think the conclusion is that it is going to add confusion. Let me give some examples.

When people think about the amendments they will understand that in a heated moment, in a snap decision they might not have considered some of the following.

First, a person is not guilty of an offence if he or she believes on reasonable grounds that force is being used against him or her, or another person, or that the threat of force is being made against him or her by another person, if the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting himself or herself from another person, and the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

That is where the problem starts. What constitutes being reasonable in the circumstances to use force to arrest someone? In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the bill suggests that the court may consider certain things. It is not that the individual should consider them, but I doubt that the public at large would be able to deal with it.

The court is going to have to consider the nature of the force or the threat being used and the extent to which the force was imminent or whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force. For example, were there any options. The court will have to consider the person's role and intent in the incident, what he or she was doing, was the person a party to it at some point in some way. The court will have to consider whether the party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon. Sometimes it is unknown and people are not sure what constitutes a weapon.

The court will have to consider the size, age and gender of the parties to the incident. I am not sure many people would even think about that. I suppose if the individual is a very large person and the other person is intimidated by that individual, it may have some influence on the person's judgment about whether or not the person is going to attempt to arrest the individual. The nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties becomes relevant, as does the nature and proportionality of the person's response to the threat of use of force, and whether the act committed was in response to the use of threat or force the person knew was lawful. That is part of it.

There is another whole part that goes into the whole aspect of defence of property, but there is a lot of parallel of what constitutes a defence of property. The point, without reading the various provisions, is that the bill does not propose a change in the Criminal Code, which is going to make a defence of property by apprehending or arresting someone because it is one's property.

I have a feeling that Canadians may not be comfortable understanding that we are balancing off the interests of defending and protecting our property and civil liberties. There are certain things that cannot be done to other people. Where is that balance?

When I looked at the speech the justice minister gave on Friday, he used terminology to say that the bill was balanced and necessary, but the speeches so far do not concur. The commentary so far is that although the amendments to sections 34 through 42 in the Criminal Code would cause some confusion, there seems to be some support for the amendments to section 495 and section 494.

Currently section 495 of the Criminal Code says that a peace officer may arrest without warrant a person who has committed an indictable offence or who, on reasonable grounds, the peace officer believes has committed or is about to commit an indictable offence; a person whom the peace officer finds committing a criminal offence; as well as any person whom the peace officer believes, on reasonable grounds, has committed or is about to commit an indictable offence.

What the courts have told us is that for an arrest to be valid on the basis of reasonable grounds, the grounds must be objectively established, in the sense that a reasonable person standing in the shoes of the officer would believe that there are reasonable and probable grounds to make the arrest.

Section 494 of the Criminal Code deals with a private citizen making an arrest. Currently section 494 of the code says that a private citizen may arrest those found committing indictable offences, those being pursued by others who have the authority to arrest, or those committing criminal offences in relation to property.

It is important to note, and the minister agrees, that there is a legal duty under section 494 to arrest and deliver the person to the police forthwith. This has been interpreted by the courts to mean as soon as reasonably practical under all the circumstances.

All of a sudden, “reasonable” and “interpretation” become a big part of the bill.

The bill would expand section 494(2) to permit the property owner or a person authorized by the property owner to arrest a person if he or she finds that the person who committed a criminal offence on or in relation to his or her property is just at the time when the offence is being committed or also within a reasonable time after the offence is committed.

Here again is the concept of a reasonable time and, all of a sudden, it is subject to interpretation, so caution has to be taken.

I think I have made my point with regard to the changes being made. I would like to briefly comment on a couple of other points.

We have had two private members' bills on this issue already. It is clear that the government has not taken this seriously. In fact, it has politicized it by having photo ops and saying that it is going to do things, which it did not do for almost a year. Then, when we look at the calendar and what is going on at the justice committee, it is very clear that the bill is a long time away from ever becoming law, if at all.

I also note that the very last clause of the bill says that the bill will come into force when it gets fixed by an order of Governor in Council.

After the legislation goes through the House and the Senate and receives royal assent, the provinces have to get involved. It becomes even more problematic because the provincial policing authorities are probably the ones which are going to have to enforce this law. The government has not done its homework. It should have been done already. I do not believe that the government is serious about this. I hope it does not stand in the way of getting the bill through the justice committee expeditiously.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague. I will have the opportunity to come back to this topic later, when I speak to Bill C-60.

My colleague is quite right. Incidentally, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is in session right now, and I will return to that meeting following my speech here in the House. There are 16 bills awaiting study by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and, among them, we are currently examining Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts—also known as the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Our examination of Bill C-4 is nowhere near complete.

That being said, my colleague is probably right to say that perhaps we will not be examining Bill C-60 anytime soon. I found that aspect of the member's position very interesting. The bill contains two series of clauses. One part has to do with the whole notion of self-defence. I will come back to that later. It has to do with section 34 and subsequent sections of the Criminal Code. The second part, regarding the defence of property, has to do with section 494.

Would his Liberal Party colleagues be willing to split the bill? We could drop the whole self-defence part, in other words, the amendments to section 34 and subsequent sections that are far more problematic than the request under section 494 of the Criminal Code. Would they agree that the bill should be split in two in order to study the changes to section 494 sooner, even if it means delaying the passage of the other amendments regarding self-defence, that is, regarding section 34 and subsequent sections?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member, who is on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, for confirming to the House that the committee is very bogged down with 16 bills. That is a story in itself. If we go back in history and find out how many of these bills have been before us previously, how many died on prorogation and had to be introduced, how many were dropped and put into a consolidation and how many were dropped altogether, we are on a merry-go-round.

With regard to his specific question, I agree with him. I have heard from others in the House and it seems that is the way the debate is going, with amendments to sections 34 through 42. These are the areas where there seems to be some confusion or concern about making the law even less clear than it is already. There does not seem to be much difficulty with the other amendments regarding police and public arrest under subsection 494(2).

The member has an important suggestion for the House to consider and it may even be dealt with at committee by simply making that change right off the bat.