Bill C-26 (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

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I take my colleague's question very seriously. I would be willing to entertain any measures that actually had the desired results. We know from empirical evidence that the best results to give us safer streets come from more money spent on crime prevention and rehabilitation, and substance abuse treatment centres.

I will give one example. A young woman, a sex trade worker, walked into my office not two months ago. She plies her trade right in front of my office in Winnipeg and she is clearly addicted to crack cocaine. She said she wanted to get off the street, she wanted to change her life. So we started phoning around and finally found a treatment centre that could take her in six weeks. We cannot tell a junky to come back in six weeks. When people are willing to make a change in their life, they need those supports and that help now.

I do not say this in criticism of this government or the provincial government. I am just saying that more attention needs to be put to crime prevention than to crime punishment and we would have safer streets.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-26, 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.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased today to rise to speak to Bill C-26 .

However, before I do that, I want to wish my constituents a happy and merry Christmas and a safe holiday season. I also want to relay those best wishes to my colleagues here in the House. It is great to work with them. It has been a privilege and an honour to discuss and debate things like this bill.

I think Canadians are very happy. In fact, the latest polls show that they think this government is going in the right direction and they applaud us for the work we are doing.

I trust we will all have a good time back in our ridings and will be able to talk to our constituents about pieces of legislation such as this one, Bill C-26.

This piece of legislation is one of balance. I think balance has always been the key around this piece of legislation. It is trying to get the balance right.

If we get the balance right in this legislation, I think a lot of radio talk show hosts would be out of work or would not have the old safety net of, “What do I talk about today? Let's talk about victims of crime. Let's talk about people who make citizen's arrests and then become the person who is convicted”.

That is what constituents are asking. If I were to go back to the riding of Prince Albert, which I represent, and talk to constituents, that is how they would instruct me when it comes to looking at victims of crime or balancing--or, in this case, rebalancing--the right of citizens to defend themselves or their property.

It is interesting that when we talk about public security and the ability to defend ourselves, those terms have different connotations depending upon where we are in the world. If we go down to the States and talk about the right to protect ourselves and our property, we envision somebody stepping inside the door and meeting a nasty end. That is not what we are doing here in Canada. That is not even close.

If we go to some other parts of the world, such as Central or South America, where public security is always an issue, they would like to see what we are doing here today. They would think this would be a reasonable and balanced approach and they would like to see their police forces up to the level of our forces here Canada.

I also want to remind members that we are not proposing to remove the police force. We understand the role of the police force. If someone is in an unfortunate situation and is going to be a potential victim of crime or if someone sees a crime taking place, we would recommend that the first response should be to dial 9-1-1. I do not think anybody is debating that. I think everybody is saying that we should involve the police as quickly as possible.

However, there are always circumstances in which that is just not possible. There are always situations in which people just cannot get a speedy response. I am not blaming the police; it is just the reality of the vast geography of our country.

In my hometown of Canwood, Saskatchewan, if the police officer on duty that night is at the far end of his area and something is going on at the farm or we see somebody stealing gas, we can call 9-1-1. However, the reality is that it is going to take him probably 15, 20 or 25 minutes to get to my farm just because of geography. It does not matter how fast he drives; that is what it is going to take.

When we talk to farmers or people in rural Canada, they are not talking about revenge. They are not talking forming a posse and tracking down people who commit crimes. The John Wayne scenario of the westerns of the 1800s is not what we are talking about here either. Nobody would accept that. What we are talking about is just balance, simple balance.

When that farmer comes across a guy stealing a quad out of his shop and is able to apprehend him and hold him, he should not be charged with kidnapping. He should not be charged with assault. He should not be charged at all, especially when we look at the situation and the facts around the situation. That is all we are doing: trying to clarify for the courts and the police when they should lay a charge and when they should not. We are trying to balance that out.

I know the opposition members talk about amendments that they want to bring forward. I would encourage them to bring them forward in committee. That is how we end up with good pieces of legislation. I trust these amendments are ones that their constituents want to see in the bill. When those amendments come forward in committee, the committee will look at them. I trust the committee will study all those amendments and make suggestions back to this House. Then we will stand to vote, based upon what our constituents want. That is how our government works.

Therefore, when it comes to amendments, I would encourage members to take their amendments forward at committee. I would encourage members to bring them forward, make their passionate arguments, state their case and then let the committee members and members of Parliament decide their fate at that point in time.

The different types of crime that go on in ridings represent a very sad state. Nobody ever wants to be a victim of crime. Nobody ever asks for that. If a farmer in rural Saskatchewan has somebody drive into the yard at two o'clock in the morning, go up to his gas tank and proceed to break the valve and steal gas, the farmer did not ask for that. That farmer should not be penalized when he goes out and apprehends that person. That farmer should not be penalized when he confines that person.

That is what happening in the courts today. As the member for Winnipeg Centre said earlier, people who go about their day-to-day lives are put in a situation they did not create, and then all of a sudden, they end up in the courts. They have to defend themselves in court. They did not bring this on themselves; they did not ask for that person to come to their farm and steal gas. Why should these people have to go through a six-month legal battle?

That is all we are looking for in this piece of legislation. That is what this legislation does. The word is balance.

The legislation proposes a clarifications of the law. We are basically providing the police with some clarification about when they should or should not lay a charge. We are basically clarifying for the courts when it would be appropriate to pursue a charge or not.

If a person is using excessive force to restrain somebody or is being vindictive, or is planning to be, we expect that person to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. This legislation will not be a licence to blow somebody away because he showed up on your property. That is not what we are doing here. What we are doing is finding a balance, and people will not have a licence or a blank cheque to do whatever they want if somebody enters their land. They will not have that. What is acceptable and what is not acceptable is very clear in the legislation. Again, balance is the word.

That is the theme in this piece of legislation. The word “balance” should be repeated over and over again. If we get the balance right on this legislation, I think Canadians will be very happy with the government and with Parliament because we will have tackled an issue that has annoyed Canadians for years.

That is one thing my constituents will say when I go back to the riding during the break. They will say, “At least the Conservative government did stuff. You went to Ottawa, you made promises and you kept your promises. You did what we wanted. The Conservative government delivered on what Canadian constituents wanted”. They will respect and thank us for that.

As we go back to our ridings on the break and as this piece of legislation moves forward, I would encourage all members to talk about this piece of legislation with their constituents. What we are trying to do should be properly explained.

Members who want to can distort it or rile people up if they want to. Anybody can do that. However, we should sit down and explain that we do not want another situation like the one we saw with Mr. Chen. How do we properly balance that so that it does not happen again? How do we make sure that a farmer who is wakened in the middle of the night by somebody stealing his gas is not in front of the courts for eight months just because he stopped that person from stealing it?

That is the balance our constituents want; that is the balance Canadians need, and that is what we are doing in this piece of legislation. If constituents have suggestions to make this bill better, then members should bring those suggestions to committee as amendments. They should trust the committee to come forward with what they think is the best work to develop this piece of legislation.

I do know one thing: what we have today is not working. When we have people who are the victims of crime being convicted or being pursued harder than the guy who actually commits the crime, then we know something is out of balance. We know something is not correct.

I will close with that comment, and just remind my colleagues as they go back to their ridings that they should talk to their constituents about balance and about appropriate levels of security for public safety. It will be interesting to see the response that members get.

If we get this right, as I said when I started, a lot of talk show radio hosts will suddenly lose a topic to talk about over the next two or three years.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his speech.

He obviously wants to bring us together. He is inviting us to make amendments. I would like to remind him that it is his government that has invoked closure nine times and so far has not accepted any amendments to any bill that has been passed here.

Let me get this straight. Is the member opposite promising, on behalf of the government, to accept reasonable amendments that this side of the House might make? I would like to know whether for once we could improve a bill, as we should be able to at all times in the House or in committee, because that is the purpose of a debate, to improve things.

Could we on this side of the House have the chance to improve a bill for once?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Committees do work, Madam Speaker, and I said that four or five times in my presentation. If members have amendments, they should bring them forward at committee. There is a process involved in the development of legislation, and it is through committee. If amendments are based on politics and are not in the best interests of Canadians, then it is true that they will not go far, but if they are true, legitimate amendments that Canadians want, then the House would consider them closely.

The opposition complained about Bill C-10, for example. My colleague who spoke before me was very clear. That piece of legislation was made up of five pieces of legislation, and it was debated for four years in the House. It had had a great deal of debate, so there was no reason to delay. Canadians were asking us to get the bill passed and get it done. They told us that we did not need to hack away at it again. They said they had heard all the debates and all the arguments and they asked us to make a decision, and that is what we did: we made a decision. We moved forward.

If my colleague has some thoughtful amendments that are based on the best interests of Canadians, then I would ask him to please bring them forward, and we will consider them seriously.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, it seems that the word of the day from the Conservative Party is “balance”.

The word of the day is “balance”. I am sure we will be hearing a lot of that from the other side of the floor, but I want to talk about democratic balance.

When the committee considers this legislation, can the member guarantee that the traditions of committee work will be followed and that things will be discussed in the open, not in secret? Will committee work related to this bill be done in public or will it be done in secret, as the government seems to be doing a lot?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I take exception to that question, because committees follow a process that is perceived to be balanced and fair. I do not see that process changing with respect to this piece of legislation. It will come through the House and go to committee, and there will be a chance to do a report or a study on it. Recommendations will be made; based on those recommendations, the bill will come back to the House, and we will vote on it again.

I do not understand why the member is so concerned. This is a simple piece of legislation. If he has amendments, then he should bring them to committee. They will be heard there, and then the bill can move forward.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

In secret?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I ask members to make their comments after they have been recognized, rather than shout from one part of the room.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I both represent rural ridings. He mentioned farmers. A young farmer in my constituency had perpetrators who had conspired to steal his property come into his yard. This young farmer, with some neighbours and friends, tracked the guys down and retrieved his property. In the process, however, the police laid charges against the farmer who was defending his property.

I wonder if my colleague could add anything to this debate that would--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I will have to give the hon. member for Prince Albert 30 seconds to respond.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's intelligent question. It was actually one of substance.

We have to look at the situation, and I am not familiar with the entire situation. Clearly we are not going to allow a group of farmers to get together the next day and form a posse to go after somebody. That would not be allowed, and that is clear in the legislation. However, if they are in the process of committing the act and others are reacting to it, what should happen is again laid out pretty clearly in the legislation.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Madam Speaker, the bill before us, Bill C-26, epitomizes the old adage “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”.

Although the intention of the bill is valid, questions remain about its application and, unfortunately, its results. We are talking about allowing people to arrest wrongdoers who commit crimes against property, which in and of itself is commendable. In the absence of police officers, it is almost a civic duty to uphold the spirit of the law and to ensure that people who commit crime are held accountable and brought to justice. We accept allowing citizens to uphold justice. However, things start to get a little complicated when we allow a person to use physical force or commit an act of violence against another person to make an arrest. Everything else flows from that. What is reasonable and what is not?

With regard to self-defence, there is a great deal of expertise contained in the Criminal Code itself and in the relevant case law to ensure that a person who was assaulted and took action truly acted in self-defence and that his actions were measured, proportionate and acceptable from a legal perspective. There is a reason the legal system takes into consideration criteria such as the aggressor's age, health and size, as well as whether the aggressor was armed and whether he clearly indicated his intentions to physically assault the victim or simply insulted the victim. All of these factors are taken into consideration in determining whether the victim had a legitimate right to self-defence.

Then, a second question is asked: was the response proportionate? If a five year old threatens someone with a stick and the person responds by firing a shotgun, we cannot expect the law to turn a blind eye. It is crystal clear that the person will have serious problems with the law.

I think that everyone, no matter what their political affiliation, can agree that this would be a serious breach of the law. That case does not involve an act of justice but, rather, an act of disproportionate violence. That is the problem we are facing with regard to people who commit property crimes. No life is in danger in such cases. I would even go so far as to say that, by making an arrest, the person is putting his health at risk. The person is even risking his life in the unfortunate situation where the aggressor is better armed.

There is a reason why my distinguished government colleagues have insisted on the fact that an honest citizen's initial reaction should be to call the police and not to risk his life to protect his property. However, sometimes it can be done, which raises the question: what is considered reasonable violence leading to an arrest?

Must the members be reminded that people can commit crimes without being criminals? There is the defence of necessity. We have all heard of someone who got stuck in a snowstorm and committed a break and enter to take shelter from the storm and avoid freezing to death. We have all heard of someone who stole a car to drive a person who was seriously ill to the hospital. These types of situations involve the defence of necessity, which is accepted in our legal system.

We can understand that, in Canada, many people with mental health issues, who are no longer receiving the proper care, find themselves living in the streets and committing crimes. Unfortunately, this situation is becoming increasingly common. These people are not responsible for their actions. They do not belong in prison or on the streets. They need health care.

Unfortunately, these people commit crimes. Do they deserve to suffer a serious injury when they are arrested or questioned about the situation? No one wants that.

Everyone knows that when police officers make an arrest, they do not have the right to use unreasonable force. Police officers are trained to use a minimum of force. They are not the judge or the executioner. Their job is to make arrests and to tell people that they must appear before a judge to explain themselves. That is quite reasonable.

We do not find reasonableness or proportionality in this bill. Many stakeholders came to tell the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that there was a problem in that regard and that the bill really should be amended. In its current form, this bill has serious problems and if enacted would not stand up in court.

The intention is to protect people who make arrests. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to find ourselves passing a bill that, when first applied, would be considered ultra vires because it violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There can be no just and reasonable sentence when there is violence. We would find ourselves in exactly the same situation, as if the law did not exist. This requires legislation. It is important for people who make an arrest to be protected to some extent by the law, and they should be permitted to help police.

Sometimes, police officers patrol alone in their cruisers and have to arrest two or three suspects. They may call for backup, but it may not get there quickly, especially in rural areas. In such cases, it would be helpful for honest citizens to be good Samaritans and help these police officers. Therefore, it is reasonable that they be protected by legislation.

What is unreasonable is that we are basically permitting any type of violence, especially in the defence of property. Earlier members said that we must not replicate what happens in the United States. The member for Prince Albert expressed a very sensible reservation in this regard, a reservation that is quite warranted.

I want to remind members of a very unfortunate case of defence of property in Arizona, with no criteria for reason or proportionality. A young man who was going to meet friends got the wrong address. He showed up at the wrong place and the owner of the property shot him in the back when the young man was walking away. The American justice system found this man not guilty because it determined that the man was defending his property and that the young man had not been invited onto that property. We do not want to see similar incidents happening in Canada.

In addition, I do not want to see us applying Judge Lynch's principle. Lynch was an administrative law judge in Virginia during the American Revolution in 1776. He established the principle that if a number of individuals decide to enforce justice, this act becomes justice. The term “lynching” was named after this sorry individual. These kinds of things are now prohibited. Now, individuals generally cannot spontaneously declare that they will enforce justice. Any members of the public who want to enforce justice must do so in accordance with the law and not in accordance with a tradition or tolerance by the legal system. Therein lies the problem, since the text of this bill seems to indicate some tolerance for violence by the legal system, when this violence is disproportionate.

These things are important. We will soon have a law about the national flag. That bill must not enable people to use this legal right to violence in an inappropriate way.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the sophistication of his speech. We learned many interesting things. He was able to recognize certain nuances within the bill. He pointed out that disproportionate force cannot be used. He suggested establishing certain legislative safeguards. I wonder if he could elaborate on the idea that the bill should clearly state that the end does not always justify the means and that only such force as is reasonable and necessary must be used.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Madam Speaker, all police forces have been trained on proper legal restraints in order to ensure that arrests are carried out without violence. The only constraint placed on police officers is that reasonable force is used. If they go too far, police officers can be prosecuted for police brutality. Unfortunately, this does happen sometimes.

In the present situation, we want to avoid that above all. We must protect honest citizens who decide to uphold justice without allowing them to exercise all the violence that they possibly could. In cases of self-defence, we must assess the criteria based on the real threat that a person faces and the appropriate response. A person cannot kill someone simply because he or she uttered threats or made a rude gesture. That is what must be included in the defence of property.