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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to add my comments on Bill C-60, a bill that I believe does have considerable support in the chamber. It is only a question of time before the bill passes second reading. I suspect there will be a number of speakers and we look forward to that happening.

However, as much as there is principle and thought behind putting the bill together as something that receives considerable support, there is a need for us to review the bill and be very diligent in having discussions with some of the stakeholders in regard to the bill at committee stage. There is a great deal of concern in terms of some of the details, but the principle is something that is very good. I understand why the idea of extending the amount of time it takes in order to make an arrest has come about, in particular in reference to an incident that occurred in Toronto in 2010.

I want to pick up on the point that was just talked about by my New Democratic colleague. That is the issue of why it is we have the bill before us today. My understanding is the government wants to come across as being tough on crime and this is going to be one of those tough on crime bills that the government is no doubt going to talk about whenever the next election occurs. It is appropriate to raise the issue of the timing of this particular bill. The idea of extending the amount of time is not new. It has now been talked about for virtually a year as the New Democrats and the Liberal Party each have a bill to address the issue in part. The Liberal Party has been talking about it for a long time now. I believe it was in June 2010 when the member for Eglinton—Lawrence brought forward a bill that in part addressed this issue.

It is interesting in terms of the government's response to private member's bills. It wants to try to give the impression to the public that it is bringing in legislation that is going to have an impact on the issue of crime. At the same time, when opposition parties, in particular when the Liberal Party brings forward a bill that would go a long way toward providing assurances and improve our system so that victims and their concerns are addressed, the government sits back and does nothing. Instead of adopting a good idea from the Liberal Party, the government chooses to sit back, do nothing and wait until it feels it is time to bring forward the same type of legislation. One could question the government's motives in terms of why it has decided to wait so long in responding to what was a very sensitive issue. It is something that is not just sensitive to the city of Toronto.

In my constituency, an incident occurred in 2010 where there was no citizen's arrest per se, but it spoke volumes in terms of police availability. The incident happened right beside my constituency office, where there is a small retail store. A couple of youths, both under age 14, and one of them might have been only eight or nine years old, walked into the store. The clerk was asked if there was ice cream. She went to the front of the store into the freezer where she was jumped from behind by the child. The child had, I believe, scissors and stabbed her in the neck. Because of the screaming that followed, the children were scared and fled the store. The clerk had to go to the hospital to get stitches.

At the end of the day, in the discussions that I have since had with the clerk, there is a sense of frustration with some of the crimes that take place and the need to take action. There were some individuals not too far from the scene who were not too sure as to exactly what they could have done. There is a general lack of knowledge with regard to citizen's arrest.

Only a number of days later there was a young individual on the top of the roof of my building threatening to stab or kill someone with scissors, a violent act. The landlord was quite concerned and did not know what he could do in terms of a citizen's arrest. The youth left the building and made a run for it. We knew who the child was and could ultimately make an identification.

We need to have confidence that the police are going to be there for us when we need them. It is an issue of resources. In many situations we find that individuals, shop owners, or concerned citizens find themselves in a position where they are able to take some form of action in the form of a citizen's arrest. If done appropriately, it is a wonderful thing.

At times, a citizen's arrest can be very dangerous. We have to make sure there is proper legislation to support it and yet not necessarily encourage individuals to be overly abusive physically with someone who is stealing a chocolate bar or something of that nature. There has to be a common sense component to it. That is why I say sending the bill to committee would be a good thing. I look forward to that happening.

I found it interesting when I read some of the quotes from Mr. Chen and what had taken place in Toronto. It reinforces a couple of the points that I want to emphasize.

In a report by the CBC, flower store owner Hamid Kheiry stated with regard to the availability of police that even if he calls, nothing happens. This is the prevailing opinion the public has. It is one of the reasons there is a great deal of frustration and people look at ways to be more directly involved. As we all know, the police cannot be everywhere. There is a role for citizens to play with regard to issues of this nature.

In terms of the courts, in his remarks, Justice Ramez Khawly, who presided over this case, stated there was, in part, perceived police inaction. The last thing I would want to imply is that this problem exists today because of our police forces. Our police are most capable and do a phenomenal job with the resources they have.

In the federal byelection in Winnipeg North a great emphasis was put on the issue of crime. The Conservative government said it wanted to address the issue head on. The biggest commitment the Conservatives made with regard to the issue of policing that could have an impact on legislation such as this was to increase the number of police officers.

This has been a hotly debated issue in Winnipeg. It resurfaced the other day in a debate at city council. It was reported in the Winnipeg Free Press. Let there be no doubt, police resources are of critical importance in dealing with issues of this nature. I am suggesting that the case in Toronto is not an exception. I believe there are a good number of citizen's arrests carried out across Canada.

For every citizen's arrest, I truly believe there are many more incidents of frustration. That frustration is because there is a sense that there is no consequence to some of the actions being taken in stores and homes across Canada. As a whole, people want to ensure there is a consequence to these actions.

I believe that if the public were canvassed we would find there is a great deal of support in terms of providing additional resources to our police agencies. I suspect the Conservatives are aware of that. That is the reason they made a commitment for 2,500 more police officers across Canada.

In looking at the Winnipeg Free Press print edition of February 26, there are three specific parts I would like to emphasize. It reads as follows:

Winnipeg officials want to know what happened to their portion of $14 million in federal money to hire 15 more police officers for city streets.

The money was made available in 2008 under the...government's $400 million Police Officers Recruitment Fund, intended to put 2,500 more police officers on the street nationally over the five years.

It states further:

Three years later, city officials say they haven't received the money to hire the additional officers.

I do believe that the legislation we have before us and the type of actions we see from the government speak of two different things. One, the government recognizes the value of trying to be perceived as being tough on crime, so it wants to bring forward legislation. Two, the government wants to be able to recognize the value of having additional police resources, so it talks a great deal about that. The government has suggested it has brought forward the necessary funds.

I would question the government on those two issues.

I started off my comments by talking about the government not recognizing the Liberal Party's bill on the issue of citizen's arrest. A member from the New Democratic Party also brought forward a bill, but it became an issue of timing.

The Conservative government ignored those bills and did nothing, in favour of waiting until the timing was right for it to bring in its own bill. It did not care in terms of the other bills being proposed. The government wanted to take the credit. That is what it was about. It wants the credit for trying to look as if it is tough on the crime front.

On the second issue of policing, the government recognized the value in the public wanting to ensure there are adequate police resources in our communities. It said it was going to provide more policing. Then there is the question in terms of the follow-through on it. Why is it that years after the government made that commitment, the city of Winnipeg has not seen those additional police officers on the street?

Money can be transferred over, but, at the end of the day, if those police officers are not materializing, a promise has been broken. When the government says that it is tough on crime, we can review not only this legislation, but other legislation that the government has failed on in this measure. It has not delivered, in a timely fashion, on many pieces of legislation that have been put forward, even from the opposition benches.

Sometimes the government throws in other complications to legislation to try to prevent or slow down legislation from ultimately passing. For example, if the government really wanted to get legislation such as Bill C-60 passed quickly, then to what degree did the government work with the official opposition, the Liberal Party, the New Democrats and to a certain degree the Bloc Party to address Mr. Chen's story, which is duplicated by many other shopkeepers across the country? How can we pass the legislation in a more timely fashion?

The Liberal Party was prepared to take action on this issue before the summer break in July 2010. It could have been done prior to the summer of 2010 if the government had the same interest it claims to have today in wanting to pass Bill C-60. However, it did not meet the government's agenda, which is not necessarily in the best interest of the public. Ultimately, that is what I would argue.

Associated with this bill is the issue of policing. It is referenced in the courts in terms of the shopkeepers and the perception of the public has a whole. The government said that it recognized that and would make a commitment, but it failed to follow through on that commitment.

A very high percentage of the population in Winnipeg North is overwhelmingly concerned about the issue of crime and safety, more so than most constituencies across Canada. Members will excuse me if I am sensitive on the issue of having more police on our streets and in our community police offices. Winnipeg North has seen community policing and police in community police offices go down. Over the same period of time that the Conservatives have been in office, community policing has gone down in service stations.

The Conservatives have done nothing to support those community police offices. The federal government does have a role to play. Through community police offices, we are able to better educate the population in regards to prevention.

There is a wonderful website that I went to when I had some public safety meetings a few weeks ago. It is about crime and safety in Winnipeg North. There is one at St. John's High School and one at Northwood Community Club on how to prevent crime from taking place. Individuals I had a chance to chat with talked about the issue of citizen arrests and how that could occur. Community policing and education play a role in making our communities safer.

As much as it is great to see the bill today, I look forward to it going to committee. I think Canadians as a whole would support the principle of extending the amount of time for arrest.

(The House resumed at 12 p.m.)

The House resumed from March 4 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.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues have said, now they get to ask me the grilling questions.

First, I have to recognize and honour the work of the member for Trinity—Spadina. I know she is watching now. She has been engaged in this from day one. Nobody in the House has done more than the member for Trinity—Spadina.

It is of value to all of us to recognize that there is an important role we all play as members of Parliament in responding to our constituents, particularly at a time like this. A shopkeeper in her part of the world was unduly charged with some pretty serious offences, like kidnapping, for having made a citizen's arrest, but not in the time that the law prescribes.

Her reaction was twofold. One was to meet with the citizen and find out exactly what had happened, speak with police and prosecutors and, more than that, start to design the solutions. It is one thing in opposition to criticize. It is an even more important role when we are able to provide proposals to the government, which is what she did. The government has taken that acorn of a good idea and put it into Bill C-60.

The NDP has suggested to the government that if it were truly serious about this issue, it could work with us. It could talk with us now and we could fast track the element that is most critical to the question of citizen's arrest, which is timeliness. When something happens, how much time does a citizen have to make the arrest or must the arrest be made only in the act and commission of the alleged crime?

It is important for people watching to understand that the situation. That person had in fact stolen from Mr. Chen at the Lucky Moose and then ran down the street. The individual came back several hours later, quite audaciously, and attempted to steal again. If he had in fact stolen something the second time and had been grabbed by Mr. Chen, everything would have been fine and we would not even be talking about this. However, the man failed in his second attempt at theft.

Mr. Chen, recognizing it was the same fellow trying to do the same thing he had done just a few hours earlier, made a citizen's arrest, which under our Criminal Code is permissible. The problem was he had waited too long. Some number of hours had passed since the first crime.

When all of this came to light and went to the crown prosecutor, Mr. Chen was charged with a whole series of crimes. I believe assault was one, as well as confinement, which is essentially kidnapping. He was charged with kidnapping in a situation like that. When Canadians read this story or watch it on the evening news, they were offended that he was made a criminal. Somebody was attempting to defend his property and to do right, which was to arrest the individual because police officers were not available. The last thing members want to do with any legislation, guidance and laws that we establish in this place is to make somebody who started as a victim into a criminal, especially if something the person did was not criminal.

This is the point where we have to pause, following all of our discourse in this place and after talking to Canadians, and not give in to the temptation of oversimplifying what we talk about or suggest that a citizen's arrest is easy, safe and should be done on a daily basis. Any police officer will say that arresting somebody in the commission of a crime or after the fact is a dangerous thing to do. The criminals that people try to arrest could be violent or armed. For a citizen to do this is a very risky thing.

We saw the tragedy recently in the southern United States, where a lunatic with a gun shot a bunch of citizens, one of them a congresswoman. In the end, a citizen made the arrest. Along with friends, he was able to tackle the gunman to the ground. The only reason they were able to stop the guy was because he had to reload his gun, which is legal to have. Thankfully, the clip is not legal here. There had been a proposition in Congress earlier to allow guns with even bigger clips. One can imagine that if that law had passed, that fellow could have shot a lot more people that day. I digress, but in that moment a citizen's arrest was made, a highly risky thing to do.

It has been said a number of times by my colleagues in the House that we should not create an environment that promotes anything that looks, smells, tastes or gives the appearance of vigilantism. We have national, provincial and municipal police forces in our country. They do a good job for us. They do a dangerous job for us as citizens. This is how we come together as a society and determine that we will not police ourselves, that we will not have vigilante forces. We will have professional police forces, and that cannot be emphasized enough.

One of the concerns I have with the government is that in its tendency to oversimplify sometimes complicated questions, it wants to put them in eight second sound bytes, thirty second commercials with lots of dark images. On an issue like this, we cannot ever send out a message to Canadians that it is somehow now permissible to start seeking out criminals and forming our own little forces to do what police do because that is what we pay them and train them to do. It is an important consideration.

Some of my colleagues in the Conservative Party think this is not real, but we have incidences of this actually happening in society, so let us just be careful with it. Let us be thoughtful about it. Let us not be jingoistic. Let us not oversimplify the situation. That is what we are calling for in the New Democratic Party and I think it is a reasonable request, because oftentimes when making laws, one of the things we must be cautious about is making a law that applies to everybody based on somebody, one person guiding an entire law. That is a dangerous precedent.

The Conservatives love to hold up a particular case and then run politically on that case and make a sweep of laws, but it also runs the risk of unintended consequences. We make a law for one particular situation and it actually applies quite well, but the discipline of this place is that our laws apply to everybody in all circumstances and all moments.

If the Conservatives were truly serious about changing the situation that happened at the Lucky Moose store and some other situations, which is to allow a greater amount of time for a citizen to make an arrest, the New Democrats have offered to fast-track that. We said that we should get it done today. They could walk across the aisle, meet us halfway and we will do it. We are ready to change the law for the better.

The justice minister did not answer the question when I put that offer to him earlier. We are doing it explicitly publicly and we are doing it privately. We are willing and able to do this if what we are trying to do is make the laws better for Canadians.

The member for Trinity—Spadina made a suggestion to the government, the government took that suggested and added a bunch of other things to it. We are saying that we need to go back to the first principle of this, which is changing the period in which a citizen's arrest can be made. If that were done, the New Democrats would be on side and we would be ready to move. The government has said no to that so far. Perhaps with some quiet sober reflection over the weekend, hopefully sober, the government will decide that it is a sincere and legitimate offer on which it can meet New Democrats and actually get its so-called crime agenda, at least in some part, moved through.

It is also important to recognize that in Bill C-60, which is not a large bill, but the implications of at least two of the pieces, clauses 1 and 2, are things we need to very seriously consider as legislators, and that will require committee work and it will require witnesses. I would hope that the justice minister would also agree that we need to hear from people who understand the implications of law. We need to hear from our police forces. We need to hear from victims groups to ensure all pieces of the bill, as drafted, are right and in order.

I hope the government does not have the arrogance to say that its first draft of this is perfect. I would suggest that it is not. There are some things in the bill that we want to look at, get some research on and actually, for once, get some evidence. Would it not be nice to deal with evidence when dealing with a crime law as proposed by government? We have seen that in this place time and time again when the government has brought forward its crime agenda.

One of the question we have asked is about effectiveness. Do the Conservatives believe the law will be effective in reducing crime? They say yes but when we ask to be shown the proof, they tell us to get lost.

The second question we have asked is about cost. We would think the Conservatives would be preoccupied by cost, that they would be worried that, as they are running the largest deficits in Canadian history, they would also be concerned with the idea of what any proposed legislation would cost.

When we dealt with issues of the environment, they were obsessed with the idea of cost. Every second question from the Conservatives was about the costs, so we costed our bills. They refused to accept those numbers and kept going on about costs. Fair enough, they can ask questions like that, but when the tables were reversed, as they are now and we are asking what their crime agenda costs, they plead ignorance. They plead cabinet confidentiality, that the cost of a piece of legislation is so secretive and so important to national security that Canadians cannot be trusted with that kind of knowledge.

Who is paying for this little show? It is Canadians of course. With any piece of legislation, there should be an attempt to prove two things: Is it effective in getting done what we want to get done; and, what does it cost to implement. That seems reasonable to us.

The government, which is admittedly going to spend billions of dollars on its crime agenda, would cut programs that prevent crime. This is an offence to the sensibilities of Canadians to say that the only crime reduction program is a jail cell.

We know the importance of jails and prison time in a system of justice, but it is one component of the system and not the whole. The best crime program we could have is where crimes are not created in the first place. We would not hear from those victimized by crime because the crimes would not have happened. We have seen in this country, as well as in many others, that there are programs that work to reduce crime and we should be funding them.

Because Bill C-60 is addressing the needs of victims, the government in its most recent budget, cut grants for victims of crime by more than 30%. That seems strange. The government talks about victims all the time and how it is standing up for victims, but the same government cut the funding for victims by 30%. This is also a government that cut the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime by 98%. I guess they were not doing a good job, but we have no idea, the government has not justified that.

Government members commercials, ads and question period time and again say how the Conservatives are meant to be victims' great protectors, but when they get down to actual spending priorities, the Conservatives cut programs that are meant to support victims.

I am dealing with someone right now in my riding outside of Fraser Lake who tragically lost his daughter to a terrible crime. She was murdered just before Christmas and he is desperately trying to access some kind of funding to get out on the road to talk to parents about what happened in the case of his young daughter so families could avoid that happening to them. This began with Facebook, which was how the initial connection was made with her and the murderer. There is nothing that the government is offering; it is a tin ear, a tragedy and hypocrisy.

I grow weary of the government time and again pretending that it wrote the book and is the sole protectors of victims. However, when we look at budgets and real situations, its interest in victims is purely political and so much less on the moral and ethical side of the question which is of deep interest to New Democrats and has always been.

As a social justice party, we believe that to deter crime takes more than just minimum mandatory sentencing. There is more to the conversation. To become overly fixated on one solution, so that if all one has is a hammer, then every problem would look like a nail. All the government has is the same answer and it needs to expand. It has to mature this conversation.

With Bill C-60, we have offered a solution that the government, to this point, has refused. We hope it reconsiders over the weekend because time is pressing. The member for Trinity—Spadina worked on her legislation months ago.

This bill is not enormous at ten pages, French and English. It is not as if the government had to write some massive document, that is it, but it took months. We are on the eve of an election threat and the government is not willing to fast track or move at all. Again, it is as if the Conservative government is the sole owner of justice and rightness in this country, and that is offensive to Canadians.

At committee we need to talk about what is permissible in defence when making a citizen's arrest. How can we assure that so-called proportionality in the use of force in a citizen's arrest matches the threat of the crime? That is absolutely critical. Otherwise, we could create a situation in which Canadians believe they can use twice or ten times the amount of force to prevent a crime and the courts will refuse them. The government bears a certain responsibility to make sure that impression is not put out into the public because people will end up going to jail and will get hurt.

We must remind folks as often as we can that the citizen's arrest is not meant to be the first option. The bill, thankfully, does not change the order of law in Canada that says if one has a reasonable expectation that a police officer can make the arrest, then one must seek that first because they are better at it. They have guns, handcuffs, a badge and the law. These are important things to have when making a citizen's arrest.

Seeking help of a police officer is first and foremost, and that cannot be pushed to the side, forgiven or dismissed. We need to understand that it continues under Bill C-60. We need to have it confirmed because the government has written more than we have offered.

We believe that offering solutions is what this place should be about for Canadians. We are concerned that some of the standards used in this bill are subjective. They are not hard and fast. We need to understand what “reasonable force” is. We need to understand what “a reasonable amount of time” is. This is critical for us to understand.

Is the government imagining that several hours after a crime someone can still legally make a citizen's arrest? Is it a day later? Is it several days? Are we going to allow the judges and juries to decide what “reasonable” is? These are important things for us to understand.

As the minister noted earlier, some of the laws that we are affecting here are more than 100 years old, and some of them have not seen any substantive changes in 100 years. If we are going to modernize this thing, let us modernize it properly. What will the effects be on the day to day lives of our citizens?

There is a potential for prosecutorial over-reaction, as it is sometimes called. We get a very enthusiastic public prosecutor coming forward, as we saw in the case of the Lucky Moose, ringing up a whole raft of charges that had little or nothing to do with the actual citizen's arrest in the case in Toronto. That is something that we also need to be concerned about. Government courts often give prosecutorial direction. They give some inclination and direction to those lawyers who work on behalf of Canadians, for the crown, as to what the guidelines for prosecuting a case are. That is important. We do not see those here and those are not meant to be in legislation, but it is certainly something government has to be cognizant of. What kinds of directions will be given to prosecutors to ensure we do not have folks out there hoping to make a name for themselves or who are just reading the law in such a limited and circumspect way that we end up with charges that to Canadians seem out of control and disproportionate to what is going on? We want to ensure that the reasonable time is offered in a succinct way.

We have seen, with the latest budget and, I expect, we will see it in the next budget, how much out of balance the government is by dealing with crime only after it has happened versus trying to prevent it in the first place. I attention is due. It has been so out of whack that billions of dollars have gone into more prisons and prison guards, which is very expensive. A prisoner in maximum security will cost $138,000 per year on average. A female prisoner in the same system will be as much as $178,000 per year. That is a lot of money and this is billions of dollars to build this, much of which is being dropped on the backs of the provinces that had no hand in crafting many of these laws. These are provinces that are not exactly flush with cash.

To not have been properly consulted on the raft of laws the Conservatives have brought forward, but to have a bill attached that the provinces also have to buck up to, for a government that wishes to have peace in the federation, wishes to have some sort of respect for our colleagues who work at the provincial level, it sure is making it difficult on them, straining relations because it is straining the budget. Some provinces have come out and said that they are directly opposed to some of these laws because they will be forced to build more penitentiaries. This is something we need to be careful about when we bring legislation forward.

The New Democrats have offered the government an olive branch. We have said that we are willing to move forward today, particularly on clause 3, all the way through committee and back here because it is something we believe in.

The member for Trinity—Spadina has been front and foremost on this from day one looking for some sort of justice for some of the citizens she represents. It seems incumbent upon the government to listen and entertain a reasonable offer, one that will make positive change in the country, and leave those parts of the bill that need further study to the study they need. However, to leave the entire bill in jeopardy and not listen to the offer made by the New Democrats today, on behalf of the member for Trinity—Spadina, is a mistake. It is hubris, it is arrogance and it is something the government has too much of an inclination toward. If the government wants to make something positive happen, we can do that. We are willing to meet the government half way and hope it will meet us the other half.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-60. I have been watching this issue, like the rest of us have, for some time now. In fact, my colleague, the member for Trinity—Spadina, took the initiative and presented Bill C-565 in the House, which was a private member's bill designed to deal with this issue. I give her full credit for responding to her constituent. I suggest that this man is not alone in what he went through. There are many similar cases across the country every year. It is serious and important that this Parliament respond to these situations.

Mr. David Chen, as many of us now know, is the owner of the Lucky Moose Food Mart. He caught a thief who had repeatedly stolen from his store. Mr. Chen was charged with forcible confinement, assault and kidnapping because he caught the criminal an hour later outside he store and held him until the police arrived.

As was indicated by the member for Trinity—Spadina, many store owners in her constituency have had a similar experience as the Lucky Moose owner. She also mentioned at least nine other similar examples. The amendment in her bill would allow the owners to arrest criminals without warrant so that they could be turned over to the police. I believe she presented a petition signed by 10,000 people.

We need to consider what the store owner has gone through. My notes indicate that he has 20 to 40 cameras in the store, which is certainly a large expense for his small business. It sounds to me like he is constantly under attack by people stealing from his store. When Mr. Chen apprehended the thief, he had to go through at least nine months, perhaps longer, of stress and legal bills. I think the prosecution perhaps over-reacted, which is why we have this bill before us in the first place. If the prosecution had been reasonable and not charged him with all of these offences, I do not think we would see the bill we have in front of us today. However, that is the genesis of why this bill has come to the fore.

The government, never wanting to miss an opportunity given an election may be forthcoming, charged onto the scene. The Prime Minister, with the Minister of Justice and the press in tow, rolled into Mr. Chen's store and announced that he would adopt the provisions of the bill.

I believe the Liberal member for Eglinton—Lawrence has a similar bill that was later produced. The government was going to incorporate these bills into his bill. Of course, as we have seen from the government, when its bills come out they do not exactly mirror 100% what the other bills do. There are some considerations and concerns that we have with respect to Bill C-60, which is why we are interested in seeing this bill proceed to committee where some amendments can be made at that time.

As indicated, our party is recommending support for splitting the bill. We want to pass the amendments to section 494 of the Criminal Code at all stages without additional debate. Then we would like to refer the additional changes to the committee for a detailed study. The minister this morning and other members have indicated that we are dealing with five sections from the original Criminal Code of 1892. These five separate provisions create distinct defences and they all depend on the type of property and severity of the offences. So we are talking about something here that is going to need more detailed study at committee.

If we could split the bill, pass the amendments to section 494 of the Criminal Code at all stages without additional debate, and then refer the additional changes to the committee for study, that would be the way to proceed.

In terms of the amendments to section 494(2) of the Criminal Code, dealing with citizen's arrest, to permit arrest without warrant within a reasonable period, we would want to change the present wording. This change was originally proposed by the NDP and by the member for Trinity—Spadina in her private member's bill, Bill C-565, as a result of the “Lucky Moose” situation, which I have explained.

The amendment to section 494 of the Criminal Code has been supported in principle by the chiefs of police and the prosecutors and defence counsels. However, there has been no significant call for the additional changes by those who enforce and prosecute the law. That is why we would like to have this looked at further in terms of those provisions.

We would also recommend splitting the bill because Bill C-60 proposes compressing sections 34-42 of the Criminal Code which deal with: the defence of the person, sections 34-37; and property, sections 38-42 into two new parts. The stated rationale being:

--to clarify the laws on self-defence and defence of property so that Canadians--including the police, prosecutors and the courts–can more easily understand and apply the law.

We also have serious concerns about the overreaching nature of these changes and the possible unintended consequences that may result. There are already press reports concerning this bill and this incident which would give rise to some of the concerns mentioned by my colleagues. The members for Nanaimo—Cowichan; Skeena—Bulkley Valley; and the Western Arctic have all indicated concerns about how far things could develop in terms of vigilantism and how this would be communicated through the press.

As I said, we barely have the bill before Parliament and I have numerous press clippings indicating those very concerns, and perhaps exaggerating the case, because that is how we sell newspapers in this country. This could be misinterpreted by certain people who might feel that somehow the law has been changed and there is no limitation on what they can do to arrest a person.

The reality is we are simply providing that the person will have the power of arrest but on the basis that should there be a police officer available or if one can be reached then he or she must turn that person over to the police in short order. This is not designed to let people become vigilantes and mete out their own justice when and where they like. They will have to deal with the situation as it exists right now.

Another reality is that the bill has come about because of prosecution misjudgments. There is no other way to describe it. We have had prosecutions, such as this case, where a person has been charged with kidnapping. When the prosecution overreacts like that, then it is reasonable to have a law in place to specify that there is some leeway. However, on the other side of the coin, how far do we take this? These are some of the concerns that our colleagues and other members have indicated in their questions.

In terms of Bill C-60 itself, the legislation would:

--expand the legal authority for a private citizen to make an arrest within a reasonable period of time after they find that person committing a criminal offence either on or in relation to their property, ensuring the proper balance between the powers of citizens and those of the police. It would also bring much-needed reforms to simplify the complex Criminal Code provisions on self-defence and defence of property, and clarify where reasonable use of force is permitted in relation to the above.

I did mention that the Criminal Code was promulgated in 1892. The original Criminal Code has these five separate provisions from 1892. They are all in separate sections and vary depending on the distinct defences. However, those depend on the type of property and severity of the offences.

It sounds like a very confusing mess to try to sort out. Pulling these things together in one area is probably the way that we should resolve the issue. But as I had indicated, we want to ensure that we spend some time looking at that and the fact that particular aspect of it is not something that has been the subject of a lot of concern to the police forces and those applying the law. It gives us more reason to want to take a closer look at it. Perhaps it is something that had not been considered.

The proposed amendments to section 494(2) of the Criminal Code on citizen's arrest would:

--authorize a private citizen to make an arrest within a reasonable period of time after he or she finds someone committing a criminal offence that occurs on or in relation to property. This power of arrest would only be authorized when there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is not feasible in the circumstances for the arrest to be made by a peace officer--

That deals with the concern that somehow people would just simply ignore the police. They would still have to contact the police and turn the person over to the police as quickly as possible.

In terms of reasonable use of force, the legislation will make it clear by a cross-reference to the Criminal Code that the use of force is authorized in the citizen's arrest, but there are limits placed on how much force can be used. One cannot arrest a shoplifter and take him out back and beat him unrecognizable. That is unacceptable and would get one into a lot of trouble. However, one would be able to simply make the arrest using reasonable force knowing that he or she would not be charged with kidnapping or have to defend themselves in court for a couple of years and run up huge legal fees as a result.

In essence, the laws permit the reasonable use of force taking into account all of the circumstances of a particular case. That is how the courts look at it. They look at all of the circumstances, not just one.

That is why reading press reports is not always a very accurate way of understanding what really happened. The press view is simply one person trying to fit the story into two or three columns, once again, wanting to sell newspapers, there could be a sensational element thrown into the case. People should not believe everything they read in the press.

A person is not entitled to use excessive force in a citizen's arrest. That is very clear. I want to repeat that, a person is not entitled to use excessive force in a citizen's arrest. It can only be reasonable force.

In terms of other important considerations, a citizen's arrest is a very serious and potentially dangerous undertaking. Unlike a peace officer, a private citizen is neither tasked with the duty to preserve and maintain the public peace nor, generally speaking, properly trained to apprehend suspected criminals.

We do not want people who may be watching too many movies thinking that somehow they are going to be able to go out there and take on knife-wielding criminals, trying to stop them. We want people to do exactly what they are doing right now, reporting incidents to the police and getting them on the scene as quickly as possible.

In most cases an arrest consists of either actually seizing or touching a person's body with a view to detaining them, or by using words whereby the person submits to the arrest. Citizen's arrests made without careful consideration of the risk factors may have serious unintended physical or legal consequences for those involved.

When deciding if a citizen's arrest is appropriate, a person should consider whether a peace officer is available to intervene at that time. If their personal safety or that of others will be compromised by attempting an arrest, they should report information about the crime to the police instead of taking action on their own. If they have the reasonable belief regarding the suspect's criminal conduct and identity, then they can turn over the suspect to the police without delay once an arrest is made.

I have been in the insurance business for 32 years and we have had instances of robbery. Many other agencies have as well. Our staff has been instructed by the police force to just simply give up the money. We do not want people being heroes. We do not want people trying to attack the person who is holding up the office. Whether they can see a gun, or a knife, or whether it is just a fake gun, the fact of the matter is the police do not want staff in businesses or offices taking action against these people because of the possibility that things could go wrong. It is not worth losing one's life over $100 out of a till. We instruct our staff to simply turn over whatever money they have to the thief, then phone the police afterwards and let things develop as they might.

In some ways things will not change. The practices we have will simply continue as they have before. The police will be called, the police will do the arrests. In those few cases where the store owners, shop owners or homeowners take action on their own, at least they are not going to be faced with kidnapping or confinement charges and all the other ridiculous charges that this man was charged with, as well as the cost and stress of having to fight it.

I have quite a number of other points to make. I will simply defer to questioners and perhaps will answer some more points there.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

My colleague from Elmwood—Transcona just said that the Criminal Code was passed in 1892. It is a complex code.

Over the last couple of years, we have seen a series of so-called law and order bills amending various aspects of the Criminal Code. Bill C-60 is another example of amending the Criminal Code. It is a piecemeal approach. We are trying to amend one section after another.

It would seem to me that a responsible way to approach this would be to look at the various provisions in the Criminal Code that need to be amended and do it in an omnibus bill. I know the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, our justice critic, called for that. He does an incredible job of managing the various bills that come before the House.

I wonder if the member could comment on the fact that we have this ad hoc, piecemeal, ill-considered approach to looking at this complex piece of legislation, the Criminal Code.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that this bill originated from the private member's bill that the member for Trinity—Spadina had proposed as a result of an incident that occurred in her own riding where a store owner was arrested as a result of attempting to apprehend somebody for his alleged criminal activity a couple of hours after the event.

What we have before us now is a bill that is much broader in scope than the original private member's bill proposed by the member for Trinity—Spadina.

For those of us who have been in this House long enough, we have seen a number of pieces of legislation that the Conservatives have proposed that later on needed some sort of amendment or some sort of repair because of the fact that a piece of legislation was jammed through without due consideration for all of the consequences.

Bill C-60 expands the scope of the initial proposal, and now we are hearing that there will be some need to clarify the laws on self-defence and defence of property.

I wonder if the member could comment on the process in terms of getting these bills before the House. There is an opportunity to study it more fully at committee, but I would argue that we should ensure that when legislation comes before the House for debate, the work to look at potential consequences or unintended consequences has actually been done. I wonder if the member could comment on that.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to Bill C-60, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (citizen's arrest and the defences of property and persons).

This is an important bill. The Conservatives have used news stories to score political points. When the Conservatives introduce bills that are tough on crime or that amend the Criminal Code, we must always consider why and whether we want our society to go in that direction.

I will read the summary of Bill C-60.

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.

The bill significantly broadens the notion of self-defence and slightly broadens that of citizen's arrest.

It is evident that the Bloc Québécois would like to study this bill in committee. The bill touches on a very sensitive and important matter: the right to defend oneself. For the Bloc Québécois, defending oneself and one's property, within reasonable limits, is a fundamental right. It is already permitted by law, but the law is too restrictive. Therefore, we support legislative amendments that would enable an honest citizen to defend himself and his property, as well as others.

However, the amount of violence used must not increase in our societies. It is important to understand that we want citizens to be able to protect themselves and their property, but that the objective must not be to increase violence in Quebec and the rest of Canada.

Quebec must not become a wild west, in which case everyone would lose. Some provisions of this bill are worrisome and could, in the short to medium term, give rise to undesirable situations. For that reason, we will conscientiously do all the necessary work to thoroughly study the bill and to ensure that we are all winners in the end.

This bill was introduced on February 17, and it broadens the concept of self-defence and citizen's arrest, particularly in terms of protecting property. This is in response to an incident in Toronto, where a business owner was arrested and taken to court for catching and detaining a man who had robbed him. This arrest of an honest citizen, who had repeatedly asked for police help without any response, outraged the public, which is completely understandable. It is terrible to think that a business owner was charged for taking justice into his own hands after being robbed repeatedly and not getting help from the police.

In Toronto, and in Quebec too, a significant portion of the public feels that criminals are too well protected and that the law does more to protect the criminal than the victim. So it is not surprising that the members of the NDP and the Liberal Party have introduced bills to broaden the concept of citizen's arrest. However, these private members' bills only slightly broadened the notion of citizen's arrest. The bill before us today substantially broadens the notion of self-defence. That is obviously the Conservative way. The Conservatives are taking advantage of a current event to push their ideology.We need to take these factors into consideration and try to strike a balance, because the Conservative stance is too dogmatic and society needs to move in the right direction.

As for citizen's arrest, Bill C-60 would amend the law to allow a property owner to make an arrest. Basically, a property owner would be given the right to arrest, within a reasonable time, a criminal who committed an offence, if the property owner has reasonable grounds to believe that it would not be possible for a peace officer to make an arrest under the circumstances.

Under the Criminal Code, a citizen already has the right to arrest a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence. This bill would prolong that right within a reasonable time after the offence is committed.

Subsection 494(2) of the Criminal Code currently states:

...(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.

Bill C-60 amends subsection 494(2) as follows:

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; or

(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.

The goal is to prolong the reasonable time after the offence is committed in which the individual or criminal can be arrested.

Bill C-60 addresses two aspects: citizen's arrest and self-defence. It amends only very slightly the notion of citizen's arrest, the mechanism at the core of the problem.

Regarding citizen's arrest, we all more or less agree on adding the words “within a reasonable time after the offence is committed”. In fact, previous bills introduced by NDP and Liberal members already addressed this aspect of Bill C-60.

The Conservatives want to introduce sweeping changes with regard to self-defence. In fact, the Conservatives' bill removes the requirement of need in the use of force in self-defence.

In clear terms, the bill eliminates a very important guideline, namely that we are not allowed to use force that could result in the death of the attacker unless absolutely necessary. Under current legislation, one has to be able to prove the need for force in self-defence. Bill C-60 adds the possibility to defend oneself in reaction to a threat without defining what type of threat is likely to lead to legal violence. This smacks of Conservative ideology, whereby citizens have the right to defend themselves by using whatever force necessary. This could be translated to mean that a person could go so far as to commit irreparable harm and kill another human being. We have to wonder.

Bill C-60 proposes a major change that is easy to see by comparing the current provisions to those desired by the Conservatives. I will read the current subsection 34(1) on self-defence:

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.

In the current section, it is clear that when we react to an attack, we can use no more force than necessary to repel the attack, and we must not have any intention of causing death, unless the person wanted to kill us. That is different. This is a very important guideline in the current legislation that the Conservatives are changing.

Section 34(1) of the Criminal Code currently states: “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.” This has been replaced by the new section 34(1), which states:

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...

The words “not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm” have been removed. That means that individuals do not really first have to consider whether they are using enough force to cause death. What section 34(1) of the Criminal Code says is that the person who is using the force really must not intend to cause death, unless such force is required to repel the assault.

Clearly, there will be many legal debates but we can certainly see the Conservatives' ideology: people may do everything necessary to protect themselves, including killing, and they do not need to determine whether their attacker is trying to kill them before reacting in the same way.

This is disturbing. We will have to see what effects this will have. It is true that there are situations in which individuals must be able to defend themselves. Self-defence exists in the Criminal Code. However, if this bill passes, we do not want people to say that, if they are attacked, they can defend themselves and it is no big deal if they kill their attacker because the Criminal Code was amended and they are no longer required to first consider whether committing an irreparable harm and taking a human life is necessary, because the attacker was trying to take their life.

We must pay close attention to the Conservatives' philosophy and ideology. The Republicans in the United States have this unfortunate tendency. The Conservatives, who are no longer “progressive”, have the same unfortunate tendency: anything can be done in self-defence, even killing, because, in any case, an attacker does not deserve to live.

That is not the kind of society we want. In the House, we can try to use words, legislation, a text, commas and other devices to make things easier by amending the Criminal Code after seeing an incident on television. Perhaps in the future, someone might kill a human being in self-defence because he was attacked and no longer needed to determine beforehand whether his life was in danger. Suppose a neighbour came onto his property and harangued him, and since this individual felt attacked, he might react by getting out a rifle and shooting the neighbour. In that case, we would have to do the opposite: make the Criminal Code more strict and bring back the section that we are trying to amend today.

It is a fine line when bills like these are introduced by the Conservatives. According to their right-wing ideology, they think that people who pay taxes can do whatever they want. But that is not how society works. That is not the society that our ancestors have handed down to us. That is a right-wing society. Yes, criminals must be punished and we must be able to use self-defence. Subsection 34(1) of the Criminal Code stipulates that, “...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.” A person would have to think twice before shooting an attacking neighbour.

We will have to see. That is why the Bloc Québécois is in favour of sending Bill C-60 to be studied in committee. There, we will be able to discuss it and hear from witnesses.

We need to work with the Quebec and Canadian bar associations to determine what kind of a bill would make our society more enjoyable to live in. But we cannot go overboard and allow a person to take another's life in self-defence unless he feels his own life is in danger.

One potential concern about citizens' arrests is that the amendment could be misunderstood and things could get out of hand. In fact, Halifax's deputy chief of police suggested that the federal government urge caution in the use of citizens' arrest. This is not only to ensure that a well-intentioned person does not commit a crime, but also to remind people that an arrest involves risks and that an ordinary person is not as likely as a police officer to be able to get control of someone who has committed a crime. We cannot forget that police officers are trained to handle situations where there is a high risk of error, and they have the techniques and equipment to be able to adapt to different situations.

If this bill is passed, a citizen's arrest could be used to arrest a person after the crime has been committed. That means the arrest could take place far from where the crime was committed. It could happen on the street. We have the statement from Halifax's deputy chief of police, but the committee would also need to hear from police officers. If we allow this, if we open it up, are we putting business people's lives in danger? It is very frustrating and maddening to be robbed over and over, and if the robber can be arrested, so much the better.

However, if this results in more business people being seriously injured by criminals, I am not sure that we have improved the situation. Well-intentioned people, those in business and others, could even be putting their lives in danger if they decide to pursue a criminal. We need to be careful. Even if the intention is good and commendable, the bill still needs to be studied in committee.

That is the work that needs to be done. For the people watching at home, I would like to reiterate the fact that bills are introduced in Parliament but that the work is done in committee. Bills are examined in committee so that witnesses can be called to try to explain to us whether the bill would help our society to progress. When the witnesses have reservations, we listen to them. In the case of a bill such as this one, it is normal for police representatives to be invited to appear before the committee to tell us whether the bill would help our society progress.

With regard to self-defence, some amendments are well founded, for example, the right to defend someone who is not under our protection. However, the expansion of this regime is worrisome. It is true that many of the provisions of the Criminal Code are archaic and it is important and worthwhile to make amendments because society is changing. That is the perspective from which the Bloc Québécois has always considered bills amending the Criminal Code. We try to see whether the amendments to the Criminal Code would help society to change for the better and would be beneficial to society.

As far as self-defence is concerned, introducing the fact that we can defend someone who is not under our protection can be worthwhile because the population is growing more and more and we know each other less and less. If someone sees a crime being committed, they might want to step in and defend someone else. Being able to adjust the Criminal Code accordingly is a good idea. We have to look into that.

I have two examples of situations that could become legal and could occur more and more. These are hypothetical cases, but they could happen if we pass Bill C-60 as currently worded. In the first scenario, a dispute over a fence degenerates and one neighbour utters death threats against the other and his family. The threatened neighbour, fearing for his life and wanting to defend his property, lunges toward the offender and kills him. He justifies his action by saying the police could not get involved and that neither his safety nor that of his family could be protected for the long term. In that type of case, we would never really know whether the deceased neighbour really intended to make good on his threats. We have to be careful.

In another scenario, a young person shoplifts at a convenience store. The cashier, outraged at this repeated offence in his store, shoves a rifle in the offender's face and kills him, or fires a shot as the young person is fleeing the scene, fatally wounding him.

We have to consider how society will benefit from this bill.

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.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not a lawyer, and since Bill C-60 seems complex, I would like my colleague to help me understand by answering a question that came to my mind this morning.

Would this bill allow me, as a private citizen, to arrest one or more individuals suspected of committing election fraud?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I take note of your admonishment. I will make every effort to respect that admonishment and to adhere to the rules of the House of Commons in terms of use of sitting members' family names or first names when taking part in debates or rising to speak in the House.

I do, however, warn that it may be difficult if I am citing from an official government document and that document adheres to the written instructions of the sitting Prime Minister that the term “Government of Canada” should no longer be used; it should be his last name in front of the word “government”. It might be difficult, but I will make every effort to adhere to the rules of the House.

When I talk about Government of Canada in my debate, I will make every effort not to use the Prime Minister's name, although he has requested all public civil servants that it is no longer the Government of Canada, it is his government.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chen had to incur significant legal costs in order to defend himself under the current provisions of the Criminal Code. Thankfully, he was acquitted, as were the two other individuals who worked for him in October of 2010.

If we heed the words of the Minister of Justice, did the government at that time bring forth amendments to the Criminal Code provisions which deal with citizens' arrests? No, it did not. It had months and months in which to do so. It had two private members' bills, both sitting members, who had tabled their respective private members' bills and had offered the government to take them over, table them in the government's name and they and their caucuses would be supportive.

It is yet another example of how the government under the sitting Prime Minister, who now wants the Government of Canada to be called his government, uses real issues that can have a real impact, sometimes devastating, on citizens' lives as a political football. The Conservatives are now worried about possibly the vote in that particular section of Toronto and perhaps in other areas of Canada, so now all of a sudden the issue has become important to the them and a priority.

The Liberals will not stand in the way of getting Bill C-60 to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights quickly. If any member of the government were to stand in future debate and make that insinuation, they would be wrong and they would be making that false insinuation knowingly, because it has been stated here by the justice critic of the official opposition.

My colleague from British Columbia rose and asked a question of the minister. The minister brushed off his question. I wonder why the minister and his colleagues, whose party forms the Government of Canada--I am getting too close to violating again, I was tempted to use the sitting Prime Minister's preferred term--brushed it off.

At committee we wish to make clear and certain that there are no unintended consequences with this legislation and with the proposed amendments, so we need to ensure that the term “reasonable grounds” is clear and the reasonable time after the commission of a criminal offence or reasonable grounds that there was the commission or the attempt to commit a criminal offence and the time in which the citizen's arrest is effected is also well defined.

The other issue is we want to make sure it appears that if a citizen has reasonable grounds to believe that another individual is either committing an offence against the owner's property or the person who has legal possession of that property and effects a citizen's arrest, in some cases using reasonable force, and it turns out the person was mistaken, the individual who was presumed to be a culprit and committing a criminal offence or to have committed a criminal offence in a reasonable timeframe wherein the citizen's arrest could be effected, the person effecting the arrest is protected.

I believe it is clear that individuals are protected. If they are in fact the owners of the property or duly authorized to be in possession of the property and had reasonable grounds to believe another individual was attempting to commit a criminal offence against that property and within a reasonable time effected a citizen's arrest using reasonable force, then that person is protected.

However, clearly there is nothing in the provisions for the individual who is the subject of the suspicions and ultimately the citizen's arrest if it turns out he or she was not committing an offence. Individuals who may have been subjected to damages to their reputation or their own belongings may have civil remedies available and it will be interesting to hear the minister speak to that when he appears before committee.

I have been pretty good so far. I have avoided using the sitting Prime Minister's surname in front of the word “government”, as he has requested be done by all public servants and in any official communication going out from any government department or agency. I have been good about that, however difficult and tempting it has been.

My colleague asked the question about what, if any, protections there are for citizens who become the object of suspicion by another and placed under citizen's arrest, which turns out to be a false arrest because the individual thought to be a criminal is not and has every right to the property in question. Those are issues that need to be dealt with because we do not want to create another category of victims.

We want citizens in lawful possession of property to be able, in reasonable circumstances with reasonable grounds, to protect it. However, we also do not wish to create a category of new victims where people do not understand because we have not done the work.

It is not just the opposition. The Government of Canada will have to conduct clear educational advertising, and not like it did with its economic plan which was disguised political partisan advertising. This needs to be clear educational advertising so that everybody in Canada understands what these new provisions mean, what they allow and do not allow, and what can be lawfully done in different circumstances. Hopefully these provisions will provide very clear limits.

I will conclude by saying that Liberals have been calling for this bill for months, if not over a year, since the time that Mr. Chen was originally arrested by the police for trying to defend his property. We are pleased that the government has finally brought forth a piece of legislation. We are anxious to see it in committee so that we can ensure that it does not go beyond what it should and that it does not, in any way, shape, or form create the unintended consequence of vigilantism.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-60 as official opposition critic.

I managed to hear most of the speech by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and I noticed that he was calling for this bill to be fast-tracked through the House. The Liberals agree with quickly sending this bill to committee to be studied.

The bill seeks to amend the Criminal Code to allow private citizens who own or have lawful possession of property to arrest a person whom they find committing a criminal offence, or in relation to that criminal offence on or in relation to that property within a reasonable amount of time. This power of arrest is permitted only in circumstances where there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is not feasible for the person to call in law enforcement to make the arrest.

All of this stems from a very high-profile case, that of a shopkeeper in the Toronto area, David Chen. There was a thief, a repeat offender, a small-time petty thief, who had been arrested and convicted on at least one previous occasion and who had charges of theft pending against him. He was victimizing shopkeepers in Chinatown. This particular shopkeeper had been the victim of a theft by this petty thief, whom the police patrolling the area were well aware of.

On this occasion, the person came into his shop and Mr. Chen effected a citizen's arrest with the assistance of a family member and an employee. When law enforcement actually showed up, Mr. Chen, his family member and his employee were the ones who were arrested and charged. I believe some of the charges brought against Mr. Chen were unlawful, forcible confinement, the use of force, et cetera. That is because under the current provisions of the Criminal Code, a citizen may make an arrest only when a criminal offence is being committed, or has been committed and the alleged criminal is in the process of fleeing, for instance.

However, if a citizen is aware that he or she has been a victim of theft, perhaps destruction of their property, and knows there are reasonable grounds to suspect a specific person and then sees that person at a later time when it is not feasible to call law enforcement, or when law enforcement would not arrive in time before the person flees from the premises or location, that citizen effects an arrest.

Under the current provision, if time has passed and it is the next day, that citizen cannot legally effect a citizen's arrest and cannot use force to restrain the alleged culprit.

Mr. Chen was charged.

A Liberal member called on the government, in the name of all Liberals, to immediately enact provisions to protect citizens in those circumstances. It is unfortunate that the government did not move at that time. That Liberal member tabled a private member's bill that would, in fact, have made those changes and ensured the protection of citizens.

An NDP member, on behalf of the NDP, also called on the government at that time to move to act. When the government did not do so, that NDP member also tabled a private member's bill.

Mr. Chen had to hire legal counsel and appear in court, as did the two other people charged alongside him. He incurred legal fees. He had to take time away from his business. He is a small business owner who has created some employment, including for members of his family and other residents of Canada. He pays taxes to the municipal government, to the provincial government and to the Government of Canada, or should I use the term that the Prime Minister has now instructed government employees to use, the “Harper Government”--

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved 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.

Mr. Speaker, I am excited to get going on Bill C-60, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (citizen's arrest and the defences of property and persons). Bill C-60 represents a responsible expansion of a citizen's power of arrest as well as the simplification of the self-defence and defence of property provisions in the Criminal Code.

I want to thank the initiatives of a number of people and one of them is certainly the member for Mississauga—Erindale who is also my parliamentary secretary. He has been a champion of the reform in this law. I am pleased to join with my colleague, the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. I thank him and my colleagues who are in the House with me. They have been very supportive of our justice legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that all Canadians are grateful for all the support that you have given us on these bills.

The bill before us today is balanced and necessary. In describing the particular amendments contained in this bill, the bill will focus on three main areas: first, what the law currently provides for; second, the policy rationale for reform; and third, most important for statutory interpretation purposes, the legislative intent behind the elements of the reforms.

On this last point, it is crucial for colleagues to be reminded that the debate in this place and the other provides guidance to our courts in finding the legislative intent of the laws we pass and is often cited by our courts in coming to a decision.

I will first deal with citizen's arrest reforms, followed by the defence of property and then self-defence.

With regard to citizen's arrest, it is important to recall that an arrest consists of the actual seizure or touching of a person's body with a view to detention. The pronouncing of words alone can constitute an arrest if the person submits to the request. A power of arrest is found in a range of federal and provincial law but for our purposes we are focused on the power that exists in the Criminal Code.

As members can imagine, there are substantial differences between the power of police and that of a citizen to make an arrest under the Criminal Code.

Currently, under section 495, a peace officer may arrest without a warrant any person whom he or she finds committing a criminal offence, as well as any person whom he or she 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 arresting officer must personally believe that he or she possesses the required grounds to arrest, and those grounds must be objectively established in the sense that a reasonable person standing in the shoes of the officer would believe that they are reasonable and probable grounds to make that arrest.

In comparison, currently under section 494 of the Criminal Code, the private citizen may arrest those found committing indictable offences, those being pursued by others who have authority to arrest and those committing criminal offences in relation to property.

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

As members can see, there is a clear distinction between the power of arrest for the police and the power given to citizens. There are good reasons for these differences. The focus of Bill C-60 relates to the power of arrest of persons found committing a criminal offence on or in relation to property.

In this regard, the bill would expand 494(2) of the Criminal Code to permit a property owner or a person authorized by the property owner to arrest a person if he or she finds the person committing a criminal offence on or in relation to his or her property, not just at the time when the offence is being committed, which is the current law, but also within a reasonable time after the offence is committed.

It is essential to ensure that the proper balance is maintained between citizen involvement in law enforcement and the role of the police as our primary law enforcers.

To this end, the new measures will include the requirement that before an arrest can be made at some time after the offence is committed, which is the expansion the bill provides for, the arresting person must believe on reasonable grounds that it is not feasible in the circumstances for a peace officer to make the arrest instead.

The intention behind this last requirement is to ensure that citizens use this expanded power of arrest in cases of urgency. Citizens must turn their mind to whether the police are able to make the arrest, which is a far preferable circumstance. However, if people reasonably believe that the police will not be able to respond in time and make the arrest, property owners would be authorized to do it themselves.

The courts are familiar and comfortable with assessing the reasonableness of beliefs and would consider each case on its merits. In practical terms, the court may choose to look at such factors as the urgency of the situation, the safety of the people involved and the location of the incident, whether adequate information to identify the suspect was available and perhaps even the past conduct of the suspect.

In a nutshell, what is the change in the law? I would summarize the essence of the reform in the following way. Under the current law, if people find someone committing a criminal offence, they are only allowed to arrest him or her at that time. Under the proposed change, the arrest can take place later, within a reasonable time of finding the person committing the offence, as long as there are reasonable grounds to believe a police officer cannot make the arrest.

Members may ask what a reasonable period of time is. The phrase is not defined in the bill. The intention behind the phrase is to allow the courts, on a case by case basis, as they have done in so many instances, to examine the facts and circumstances and to make a determination on whether the time was reasonable in that particular case. The courts would likely turn to such factors as the length of delay, the conduct of the suspect and the conduct of the arrester, among other things. Imposing a rigid time limit on an arrest, for example an authority arrest within 12 hours would not be sound policy. The law must provide flexibility, but at the same time, build in safeguards, as Bill C-60 does.

Some may argue that this reform encourages vigilantism. I would completely disagree with that. The bill requires that a person witnesses an offence being committed and provides a degree of flexibility in terms of when an arrest can be effected for that offence. The bill does not change the amount of force that can be used in making an arrest. In short, people must continue to act responsibly.

This reform is being advanced because we have been hearing clearly from Canadians that limitations on citizen's arrests require change. There have been well publicized cases of individuals being charged and prosecuted for citizen's arrests that occurred shortly after an offence was witnessed. The government's goal is, therefore, to provide a balanced extension of the period of time to make an arrest.

Finally, for greater certainty, the reforms specify that the existing requirements in relation to the use of force in effecting arrests, which are provided for under section 25 of the Criminal Code, apply to citizen's arrests. I think that is only reasonable. There is no change to the rules regarding how much force can be used to make a citizen's arrest. An individual who makes a citizen's arrest is, if he or she acts on reasonable grounds, justified in using as much force as necessary for that purpose.

It is important to highlight that a person making an arrest is never justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm unless he or she believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary for self-preservation or for anyone under his or her protection from death or grievous bodily harm.

These legal standards have been in place for a long time and continue to reflect appropriate policy today. This reform and our discussions of it in this place give us an opportunity to speak directly to Canadians. In this regard, I would like to say that citizen's arrests made without careful consideration of the risk factors may have serious unintended physical consequences, as well as legal consequences for those involved.

When deciding if a citizen's arrest is appropriate, people should consider whether a peace officer is available to intervene, whether their personal safety or that of others would be compromised by attempting the arrest, whether they have reasonable belief regarding the suspect's criminal conduct and identity, and whether they can turn over the suspect to the police without delay once an arrest is made.

In developing these citizen's arrest reforms, we consider a number of options. We examine private members' bills currently before this place as well as the laws of other jurisdictions and certainly the representations that are made to me and to the government on this issue. I submit that we have taken the elements of all these efforts and have developed a proposal which makes sense to Canadians.

I would now like to turn the defence of property contained in the bill. The government decided to couple reform with the defence of property with citizen's arrest reforms because there is a logical and factual connection between the two.

Consider the example of a property owner who sees a theft taking place on his or her property. In this situation, he or she could attempt a citizen's arrest if the desire was to capture the thief so he or she could be charged and prosecuted. However, the person could also desire to get the suspected intruder off the property, without intending to make the arrest. In the latter case, the use of force by the property owner could be justified by a claim of defence of property.

The defence of property, like any defence, is a claim made by a person who is alleged to have committed a criminal offence and who asserts that he or she should not be held responsible for that alleged offence because of some countervailing policy. Defending one's property from a threat is just the kind of circumstance that might justify otherwise criminal conduct, such as the use of force against a would-be thief.

Our Criminal Code, since its inception in 1892, provided a defence for the use of force to protect one's possession of property. However, one of the unfortunate realities about the defence is the way it is worded in the code. There are five separate provisions, sections 38 to 42, of the code that could potentially apply to a defence of property circumstance. The provisions create a distinct defence depending on the precise circumstances, differentiating between types of property and the hierarchy of claims to the property as between the possessor and the person seeking to interfere with the property. They are extremely detailed and, in many cases, overlap with each other. This approach to the Criminal Code is well over a century old and does not meet the needs of Canadians today.

The idea behind the defence of property is simple. A person should not be held criminally responsible for the reasonable use of force to protect property in his or her possession from being taken, destroyed, or trespassed upon.

We cannot find many of these words in the law itself. However, we can find many other words which, rather than help to set out this idea, describe narrow subsets of it. This means that Canadians, including police, prosecutors, judges and ultimately juries, must consider too many words and words which overlap with each other to arrive at what, in essence, is a rather simple idea.

Bill C-60 will demystify and clarify these waters.

The defence of property reforms contained in the bill would replace five separate provisions with one simplified provision that captures the essence of the defence, while providing the same level of protection as the existing law and with some modest enhancements.

There are some essential property-related concepts that must be retained, such as the idea of peaceable possession of property. Because different people can have independent claims to property and because the defence must, to some degree, incorporate notions borrowed from property law, the defence must have some technical components.

One enhancement is that a defence could be raised as a defence to any type of act that otherwise would be criminal. The law justifies the use of force in defence of property, which is basically assaultive behaviour against the property trespasser.

In recognition of the fact that people might engage in other forms of otherwise criminal activity to defend their property, such as discharging a weapon into the air to scare away the trespassers, Bill C-60 would allow the defence to apply so long as the actions are reasonable in the circumstances.

Finally, the reform on defence would clearly deny its application in the cases of lawful police action, such as the execution of a search warrant.

The new law of property, like the current law, does not put any express limits on what can be done to defend property. However, it is absolutely essential to note that courts have unequivocally rejected the use of intentional deadly force in defence of property alone and have stated many times that deadly force cannot ever be justified where human life is in jeopardy.

Some property-related conflicts do pose a risk to human life, such as home invasions, and deadly force may be justified in these circumstances.

This brings me to the law of self-defence.

Like the defence of property, the self-defence provisions were enacted in Canada's first Criminal Code in 1892 and have remained largely unchanged since that time. Like the defence of property, the law governing self-defence is set out over several separate provisions that describe situation-specific defences which overlap or conflict with each other, depending on the facts of a particular case.

I would submit that this complexity in the law cannot remain, especially when we are delineating the legal tests to be used for people using force in self-defence.

The complexity of the law makes it extremely difficult for the police to assess whether charges should be laid, causes trial counsel to have to devote time and energy to making arguments about which version of the defence should apply and poses challenges for judges on instructing juries how to apply the law. We can only imagine what juries think when the law is read to them.

Described in a general way, the proposed reforms would replace all of the existing defences with a single, general test for the defence of the person. In essence, people would be protected from criminal responsibility if they reasonably believe that they or another person are being threatened with force and they act reasonably for the purpose of defending themselves or another person from that force.

The reforms would also include a list of factors the court could consider in determining whether the person's actions were reasonable, such as a pre-existing relationship between the parties, including any history of violence, and the proportionality between the harm threatened and the response.

The list of factors codifies well-recognized features of many self-defence situations and will help guide judges and juries in applying the new law.

Consistent with the present law and for sound policy reasons, the defence would not be available where the person would be responding to a peace officer or other person who would be acting lawfully for a law enforcement purpose, such as when a person is arrested.

I am pleased to report that the proposed reforms on self-defence are consistent with those agreed to in 2009 by federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for justice based on the collective work of their officials. These reforms also respond to calls for simplification by many criminal justice stakeholders.

The citizen's arrest reforms extend the time in which an arrest can be made for an offence committed on or in relation to property. There is a real need in doing so to keep a clear distinction between the powers of the police and those of citizens. Police officers are rightly cloaked in the duty to preserve and maintain the public peace. They are our first and foremost criminal law enforcement body and with this reform, they continue to be so.

With regard to the defence reforms, at a practical level, very few Canadians would be able to read the many existing provisions and understand what the law allows. The law should be accessible to Canadians, and these reforms will help accomplish that goal.

Bill C-60 represents a responsible expansion of the citizen's power of arrest as well as a simplification of the law relating to the defence of persons and property. I urge all members to support this law and, in doing so, support the calls for reform made by law-abiding Canadians.

Business of the House

[John Baird, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, before I respond to the member's question, I would like to, on behalf of the government, add my voice to the voices of the member for Toronto Centre and the member for Winnipeg Centre who spoke about the passing of a distinguished member of the parliamentary press gallery, Jim Travers of The Toronto Star. He was a long-time member of the parliamentary press gallery and a former editor of the Ottawa Citizen. Jim would have been just 63 years old next month. His passing in the hospital was completely shocking and unexpected.

Jim was a top national journalist and a columnist who never was afraid to make his views known on the printed page and on the airwaves as a frequent guest on panel shows and talk radio. He was a passionate Canadian. He loved this country and he was incredibly committed to his craft. Canada has certainly lost a legend.

On behalf of all of us in this place, I offer our sincere condolences to Jim's wife Joan, his sons Patrick and Ben, and to the rest of his family and friends, and his colleagues especially from The Toronto Star who, I know, are deeply saddened by this loss, and, indeed, all of his colleagues in the parliamentary press gallery at this very difficult time. The thoughts and prayers of all Canadians are with Jim's family and many friends.

In terms of parliamentary business for the coming week, today we will continue debate on the NDP opposition motion. I thank my NDP counterpart, the member for Vancouver East, after our difference of opinion. We have worked to make Parliament work and we have come to an agreement that has been satisfactory to both sides. I also thank my opposition colleagues from Ottawa South and Joliette for their assistance and agreement in this matter.

Tomorrow, we will resume and hope to complete debate on Bill C-55, the enhanced new veterans charter that our colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, has introduced. Following Bill C-55, we will move to call Bill C-60, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (citizen's arrest and the defences of property and persons).

Next week, we will continue with the business on Friday and, in addition, we will call Bill C-20, the action plan for the National Capital Commission; Bill C-54, the child sexual offences; Bill C-8, the Canada–Jordan free trade agreement; Bill C-12, the democratic representation; Bill C-46, the Canada–Panama free trade agreement; Bill C-57, improving trade within Canada, brought forward by the Minister for Small Business; and Bill C-50, improving access to investigative tools for serious crimes, which is an important bill sponsored by our colleague, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

My friend from Ottawa South and the member for Vancouver East mentioned a solicitation for financial funds on parliamentary letterhead.

Mr. Speaker, as the chair of the Board of Internal Economy, I think it would be wise for you to place this issue before the Board of Internal Economy. There have been several complaints about opposition members soliciting campaign funds on government websites and perhaps the board could discuss that at the same time.

With respect to Bill S-10 and Bill C-49, we continue to make our case to Canadians and are working hard to convince the Liberal Party of the wrong decision it has made on these important piece of legislation. We will call for further debate in due course.

Business of Supply

[John Baird, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week we had a bit of a disagreement with our friends in the New Democratic Party. I am happy to say that we have worked very constructively with the New Democratic Party, the House leader, the Liberal House leader and the Bloc Québécois House leader and I am pleased to say that I would like to advise that the allotted day designated for today be instead designated for tomorrow. I would like to advise that it is the intention of the government to call Bill C-55 and Bill C-60 today.

Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-60, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (citizen's arrest and the defences of property and persons).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)