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

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely prevention is key when we look at crime. Another with respect to public safety is fire prevention, which is critical for fire departments. If the situation is prevented from happening to start with, there are no subsequent costs, loss of lives or injuries.

It is the same with crime. Right now most Canadians are interested in finding a decent job and doing better next year than they did the previous year so they can move on with their lives. There are some who will always be a problem, which is an aspect we will have to deal with, but the vast majority of people want at decent life, decent accommodations and a decent job. That is what they are seeking. We need a jobs plan so people can move out of poverty and have hope and opportunities. We have not seen that with the government. That is a real problem. We have continued corporate tax cut reductions for the oil companies and the banks and that money is not being reinvested into the economy. We know that statistically from the audits. That is why we need to have investment on those issues.

Youth at risk, in particular, are a worthy investment. The programs that we have had in the past are very well-run. It is a shame that the government has cut some of these and is considering cutting more of them.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-26. I have heard a number of my colleagues speak on both sides of the House. At the risk of repeating some of the things we have heard today, I want to highlight the things that are unique to this bill and that would be great for Canadians.

From the perspective of a person who represents a vast rural riding, the Yukon Territory, there are geographical gaps in terms of the ability to police to have appropriate numbers of officers in such a vast riding. That is no different across rural Canada in general. When crimes occur and there are citizens available to act on them, it is a tremendous shame that people who do so find themselves on the opposite side of the law. As one of my colleagues pointed out, these heroes have stepped forward to protect Canadians and property and to what is right. This bill seeks to clarify that when people act as heroes, people who step forward and do what is right to prevent crimes, we ensure they are not punished for those responsible steps they take as Canadian citizens.

A number of programs across Canada already celebrate the role citizens play in crime prevention, programs like Crime Stoppers, Neighbourhood Watch and Citizens on Patrol. These programs are examples of encouraging average citizens to become the eyes and ears for police. Without their assistance, police officers have a very difficult time doing their jobs and completing their required tasks, given the responsibilities they have, the vast distances they need to travel and the limited resources they have in certain regions of our country. They rely heavily on these exceptional programs.

We see advertisements in Canadian newspapers that provide Crime Stoppers tips and ask for the help of Canadians. They publish pictures of people who are wanted for various offences. When they do that, they are obviously asking for the public's assistance from the perspective of not necessarily looking for these people, but to observe, record and report what they see to try to get police to situations as quickly as possible. That is certainly something our government is continuing to promote.

I have definitely heard the word “vigilante” on both sides of the House today and the fear that people will all of a sudden, with this new-found authority, engage in vigilantism, as if Canadians do not have better things to do than run around the streets and pretend they are police officers. I do not think any expanded authority or protection, which might be the more appropriate term for people who act as heroes versus expanded authority for them to go out on Canadian streets and act as police officers, is not the intention of this bill. We are encouraging all Canadians to utilize police as the first line of protection, the agency that is mandated to protect Canadian streets and deal with crime in our country, and that Canadians observe, record and report to police when they see crimes occurring.

Whether it is during statements by members or in debate on other bills and issues, I hear members on both sides of the House say that they want to stand up against bullying and impaired driving in our country, that they denounce violence against women and domestic assault and that we cannot tolerate this. The bill would allow the protection for people who have the skills, knowledge, ability and at times just the courage to step forward to stop that. It would prevent them from becoming victims of an unclear legislation.

Can anyone imagine any of us walking along our community streets and hearing a cry for help and, in this current day, being concerned that our intervention, if physical intervention were required, could get us arrested when we were merely trying to do the right thing and help somebody?

We know today that one of the most effective ways to prevent bullying from occurring is to step up and speak out. However, imagine if we stepped up and spoke out and then ended up having to use a reasonable level of force for intervention to protect a fellow citizen, but then being arrested and charged for it. This has happened in our country, which is a shame because it discourages Canadians from doing the right thing. It discourages them from stepping forward, not just to be a hero but to do what is right, what is expected and what we should do as Canadians.

It is a little ironic that we are brave and courageous here in the House to say that we will not tolerate bullying, impaired driving, domestic abuse or violence against women but we allow laws to exist on our books that criminalize Canadians who do have the courage, skill, knowledge and ability to step forward.

I draw the House's attention to a marvellous book written by Amanda Ripley called, The Unthinkable. In her book she talks about the first person most likely to be involved in saving another person's life. She says that, whether in an urban or a rural setting, the first person will be one's fellow citizen, the average Joe walking the streets. It does not matter if one is in a big city or rural Canada.

We heard a member on this side of the House talk about fire prevention as an example. It does not matter if one's house is burning, if one is injured and requires ambulance services or if there is a crime, the first person most likely to intervene or be there to do or say anything about it will not be the fireman, will not be the paramedics and will not be the police. The first responders will be average Canadian citizens who are, day in and day out, the heroes saving lives, whether it is a fire, a medical emergency or a criminal offence. We want to ensure that we have a body of legislation that reflects the role we expect, want and hope Canadians to play without making them a criminal in the situation.

I recognize the concern on both sides of this House that this may encourage vigilantism but I do not necessarily see that being the case. I do not think people will read into the legislation that they have an expanded authority. As I said, I do not necessarily see this as being an expanded authority for Canadians. I see it as being an important level of protection that we need to provide Canadians.

We already have sections under the Criminal Code that talk about the use of force and where force is justified. Under section 37, everyone is justified in using force to defend themselves or anyone under their protection from assault if they use no more force than is necessary to prevent that assault or repetition of it. That exists now but we need to ensure that it is clear so that we do not see vigilantism and abuse of that authority. I believe the bill would allow us to do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the presentation by the distinguished member. I noted with pleasure that, with this bill, he wants to protect the good Samaritan, which is all well and good, and that he wants to avoid what is commonly known as lynch law, or lynching. In this regard, we have concerns that are justified.

We pointed this out and we did note that the member said he does not condone this kind of parallel justice system. If the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights were to hear expert witnesses say that there is a problem with the bill, a risk, a hint that the bill would foster this type of parallel justice system, I believe that I have understood from my distinguished colleague that he would amend the bill in order to eliminate this risk.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, several of our colleagues have answered similar questions. I do not sit on the justice committee but we are certainly willing to hear input from the opposition. As some of our colleagues have pointed out, we do not want to be in a position where we fear-monger to any degree. We know the reality of what sections could mean to us and any input that could tighten up that legislation would obviously be most welcome.

However, we should not try to predict that vigilantism will occur without substantiation. If there is substantiation for that, all my colleagues on this side of the House have indicated that they would be more than willing to hear witness testimony when the bill goes to committee.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not at all remember the terms used, but I did listen carefully to my colleague from Yukon.

In fact, this bill sheds light on another aspect of the fight against crime. I am wondering if the member believes in the importance of prevention when fighting crime and if he believes that there is more work to be done to improve crime prevention.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, without straying too far from the specific bill we are here to debate, I will say that the work we are doing in crime prevention is exceptional.

I have talked in this House in the past about not operating in silos, not just focusing on crime bills, but looking at what we do across all streams of government.

Our investment in the health portfolio, for example, $565 million that goes toward education programs, anti-gang prevention programs and health initiatives. We make investments in education and in sport and recreation. All those things combined are crime prevention strategies: healthy communities, healthy neighbourhoods, healthy people. I always say that in sport and fitness, healthy mind, healthy body. Those are all strategies designed to reduced crime.

I am very proud of some of the investments our government has made across departments, not just focused on what the Department of Justice does, but what all departments do in an effort to make strong and health communities that ultimately lead to positive interaction with one another and a reduction in crime rates.

I certainly agree that any efforts we make, as long as we do not fixate in silos, across these departments to reduce crime are excellent initiatives. I know our government is taking tremendous steps across our departments to do that.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise here in the House today to support Bill C-26 at second reading.

This bill comes as a result of the events that took place at the Lucky Moose grocery store. I am sure that all members are aware of what happened, but I will briefly go over the events anyway. Mr. Bennett stole a plant from Mr. Chen's grocery store. Mr. Chen had already been the victim of several thefts from his business. Using a camera, he was able to identify Mr. Bennett. An hour later, Mr. Bennett returned to the Lucky Moose. At that time, Mr. Chen and two of his relatives arrested Mr. Bennett with a knife and tied him up in the back of a truck, if I am not mistaken. It is important to emphasize that during the trial that ensued, Mr. Bennett admitted that he had returned to Mr. Chen's grocery store with the intention of stealing something else.

After detaining Mr. Bennett, Mr. Chen called the police so that officers could come and take the thief into custody. However, when the police arrived, they arrested not only Mr. Bennett, but Mr. Chen and his family members, too. They were charged with the kidnapping, assault and forcible confinement of Mr. Bennett, given that, according to the police officers, Mr. Bennett was not in the process of stealing from him when Mr. Chen arrested him. This arrest drew a great deal of media attention and people felt that Mr. Chen was being treated unfairly. I would like to repeat that this was a case of a small business owner who arrested a thief who was stealing from him and taking away his livelihood.

The idea for this bill arose out of the feelings of injustice shared by the entire country. The hon. member for Trinity—Spadina was the first to react with her private member's bill, a bill that was introduced in this House in the last Parliament.

I would like to express my sense of solidarity with Mr. Chen and small business owners across the country. They work hard to provide essential services to their community and to earn a living. Small businesses and the families who run them are particularly vulnerable to the type of theft committed by Mr. Bennett. They have to resign themselves to the small profit they earn since they have far fewer goods and much less capital than corporations, which can afford to be more competitive. These small businesses are at the heart of the communities in our country. We must give them the means to survive.

My riding of Terrebonne—Blainville has many small businesses similar to Mr. Chen's, and much of our economic wealth comes from the work of the small business owners. It is important to me to listen to them and understand their needs, their fears and the difficulties they are facing. I can understand how any theft, no matter how minor, can affect the modest income of Mr. Chen and his family and how important it was for them to stop Mr. Bennett when no police officer was there.

The reason I support this bill at second reading is based on this sense of solidarity with small businesses. The current legislation did not successfully defend the interests of Mr. Chen. He was the victim of repeated thefts and then the victim of our legal system since the law was insensitive to his case.

In cases like this, where we recognize that the status quo is unbalanced, it is our responsibility as politicians to do something about it. We have an obligation to think this through and strike a new legitimate and fair balance. That is why I support the principle of this bill at second reading.

That being said, I am eager to examine this bill more closely in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. It is imperative to focus on some aspects of this bill that merit further discussion.

First, we must recognize that this bill must not become an invitation for small business owners to use this type of arrest because that is not their job. In this regard, we must be very careful about the message this bill sends. When we talk about citizen's arrest and establishing flexibility regarding the time when the arrest becomes legal—something that is introduced in this bill—we must emphasize that this right must be exercised only in exceptional and extreme cases.

I repeat that this bill must not be an incentive or public invitation for just anyone under any circumstances to exercise the right to arrest someone who is suspected of theft. This bill is simply a response to the double injustice experienced by Mr. Chen and that could be experienced by other small business owners who may find themselves in a similar situation.

We do not want to put the grocery store owners, such as Mr. Chen, into risky situations. We must, therefore, do more to encourage other types of community policing and other measures that could help to reduce the proclivity some people have to steal.

I would also like to emphasize that this bill absolutely must not open the door for a person who makes a citizen's arrest to treat the person he arrested in any manner he chooses while he waits for the police to arrive. I hope that the committee will examine this issue in greater depth.

I would like to make one last point in closing. I am not really familiar with Mr. Bennett's life story, but I would truly like to emphasize the fact that, in order to protect people like Mr. Chen, it is our duty as politicians to examine the human and social factors and determinants that drive people like Mr. Bennett to commit crimes. I am not saying that there will never be thieves in our society, and we must ensure that we have laws to protect Canadians from theft. I am simply saying that the unfortunate incident that occurred at Mr. Chen's grocery store should not give us carte blanche to categorize people as good or bad.

We need to remember that reality is much more complex. In order to make our streets safer for our families and for businesses like Mr. Chen's, we must think about the reasons behind Mr. Bennett's actions. We must protect all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, does my hon. colleague think that there are safeguards in this bill to ensure that responses to crimes are commensurate with the seriousness of the crimes?

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I am not sure if I fully understood the question, but I think that there are some potential problems with this bill. We do not want citizen's arrest to be the first response or the only response. There are other ways to prevent crime and to ensure that SMEs and small businesses, like Mr. Chen's, are protected.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague for her critique of this bill.

I have a question on the nature of the crimes people will be facing. Unfortunately, we have noticed that, because people with mental health problems are being removed from institutions, we often see petty crimes happening more frequently. We are talking about people committing petty theft or shoplifting. All of this crime happens systematically. We have to wonder about the government's reaction. I absolutely want to protect good Samaritans, but the problem is that if we systematically continue to arrest the same people at different times for the same crimes, how does this solve anything?

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I think the answer is that we must look at the root causes. Why are these people forced to turn to a life of crime? It may be because of poverty or family problems during their youth. As a society, we must look at these root causes and why certain people are more inclined to commit crimes and to reoffend. That is my answer to my colleague's question.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege for me to rise in the House today to speak to this issue, one that is taken very seriously by my constituents. It arises from an incident that happened a few years ago near the small rural community of Tees, Alberta. That community is located approximately a 45-minute drive from the nearest RCMP detachment. That particular RCMP detachment would be involved.

On that particular evening, the resident who lives there was awoken in the middle of the night, one o'clock in the morning roughly. I do not know all the details as I was not there, but based on the various media reports and information that I have, he was awoken. I believe his spouse was outside checking on the farm. He has young children present and he noticed three individuals trying to steal a quad from his yard. They were actually using his own truck to do so.

Being at a remote farmhouse, the individual in question grabbed some tools and went outside, and started pursuing these individuals down the road. He ended up using his own car to knock the truck off the road and, of course, knocked the quad into the ditch. There were some ensuing calls to neighbours and a roundup began to catch these individuals. They had been captured and then took off again inside one of the vehicles. Without going into too much detail about all that happened, it ended up that some force was used.

The individual who was defending his own property ended up having more charges laid against him than those who conspired to go out and steal his private, personal property that he worked hard for. As a law-abiding citizen he paid his taxes and used his after-tax dollars to buy this property. He did everything by the rules, played by the rules. He is actually one of these individuals who, if an RCMP or police officer needed help or support, would come to the aid of a police officer. Yet, because of the confusion surrounding citizen's arrest and the levels of force that could be applied, more charges were laid against the individual in the defence of his property.

This is outrageous. This has outraged so many people in the community that so much money was raised, and I have never seen a better reason for fundraising to happen in a particular community. A defence fund was set up for this individual. Tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars was donated by concerned property owners, law-abiding citizens who thought it was an egregious miscarriage of the interpretation of the rules of justice that the individual in question would have more charges laid against him than those who perpetrated the crime. After dispensing some of the trials, the three individuals who conspired to go out there and steal his property faced a grand total, among the three of them, of 45 days in jail and $400 in fines.

The individual who was defending his own property went through the process of plea bargaining and so on with his defence fund and his lawyers, looked at the situation, and made his own determination. I am not going to presuppose what the rationale was, but he pleaded guilty to one charge and the other charges were dropped. This particular individual was then sentenced to a total of 90 days in jail. So, for the defence of his own property, the individual, who did not follow or there was not clarity in the rules of the defence of property and in the laying of citizen's arrest and so on, ended up getting a greater charge than those who conspired to go out and steal the property from this individual in the first place.

This offends the sensibilities of the voters I represent in the constituency of Wetaskiwin to no end. Without going into the details, were there mistakes made on both sides? Absolutely, there were some mistakes that were made. However, I want to put no doubt into anybody's mind that some serious changes needed to be made when it came to these charges

In a previous career, prior to becoming a member of Parliament, I had the honour and privilege of serving as a law enforcement officer. I was not a police office. I was a conservation officer, a national park warden, for a short time, so I do understand some of the nuances surrounding some of the difficulties that law enforcement officers face. We cannot be everywhere all the time. We cannot be there to serve the needs or to prevent all crimes all the time.

However, what has happened in our society and even though those who purport to say that crime rates are on the decrease, the reality is there is so much minor property crime going on, which I hear all the time in my constituency, that it simply becomes a matter that is more civil than criminal.

What normally would have happened is the individual, instead of taking matters into his own hands and pursuing the thief, doing what a good Canadian citizen should have done, and by the way, as a law enforcement officer, most of the serious charges that I laid did not come about as a result of any on the ground policing or patrols I was doing, they came as a result of information that I received from citizens reporting crimes, poachers and so on.

Police officers rely on the general public to have that information so that they can respond. They rely on the testimony of these individuals in order to lay charges because police cannot be everywhere all the time.

In this case, the individual responded and took the matters into his own hands, as a good citizen would do, knowing that the alternative would be to phone and wait for the police, knowing it would take 45 minutes to an hour at best, to respond if they had someone who could actually go to the scene.

All that would have happened is they would have filled out a report. The property owner would have then taken the report to his insurance company which would have taken off the deductible, and the individual would then be responsible for replacing the property out of his own tax dollars. The thieves would likely not have been caught and everyone's insurance premiums would have gone up slightly in order to compensate for this seemingly revolving situation of minor property theft. I hear this story all too often. It happens all of the time particularly when it comes to things like quads and recreational vehicles.

Being the good citizen that he was, my constituent pursued these individuals and as a result ended up in more trouble. What I really want to stress is the offence of the sensibilities of my constituents, but the clarification that we needed in this legislation. That is what happens in this case.

This legislation proposes several changes. One change is rather than, as the existing law states, a private citizen having to actually catch someone during the commission of the offence, he or she cannot lose touch with them. It means that if I am going to lay a citizen's arrest, I have to follow in hot pursuit. I cannot, under the current legislation, do anything other than catch someone in the commission of an offence or in pursuit of that person after witnessing a particular offence.

This leads us to the case where Mr. Chen knew that a person had come into his store several times and committed offences. It was great that he was acquitted, but the offence of the sensibilities of the Canadian citizens was that he was charged in the first place. That is what this legislation seeks to change and I believe there is support around the House to do that. That is a great thing.

The other change in the legislation is to clarify the defence of property which is now spread out over three or four sections in the Criminal Code. This change seeks to consolidate that information into something that is more clear.

I cannot stress enough how important it is that members of the House get behind this piece of legislation. I said it before and I will say it again, as a former law enforcement officer, I know all too well how much I depended, needed and relied upon information from the public. We rely on the public to serve law enforcement officers with the ability to have the information, to lay complaints, to lay charges with the extension of the protection of property and the clarification of the rules when it comes to individuals laying charges as private citizens for people who they know have committed an offence within recent history.

That is the language that will have to be tested, but it would only seem to make sense that it would be a natural extension of the vast majority of law-abiding Canadian citizens who would be comfortable assisting the RCMP, their local police department, or whatever local law enforcement agency they would happen to be working with by getting actively involved beyond just phoning the police or phoning Crime Stoppers, but actively engaging in that and assisting police. We know that the job is hard enough. We know there is enough out there that police officers face on a day to day basis. It only makes sense for society to have a more active and participative role in that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to ask this question previously.

Without question, the issue of crime and safety is really important to my constituents in Winnipeg North. People want to feel safe in the communities in which they live. I made a commitment to bring my constituents' message to the floor of the House and to the Prime Minister and the government as a whole.

Bill C-26 has some merits. It has the potential to have a real impact on our streets.

The question I have is in regard to reasoned amendments. We believe that the bill needs some changes in order to make it a better bill that could ultimately receive support. Does the member believe that reasoned amendments would be a positive step and should be allowed to pass when the bill reaches committee stage?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was a member of the justice and human rights committee at one point in time. I would simply suggest to my hon. colleague to put forward his suggestions if he has an opportunity to be present at committee, or if he is not a member of committee, then he could tell his colleagues. That is the stage in the legislative process where an amendment could be looked at and witnesses could be brought in to discuss the bill. I would encourage him to do that if he feels it is necessary.

However, looking at the original draft of the legislation, as I said earlier, there is some language in there that will likely face some tests should the bill pass, which I fully expect it will. If amendments are about reasonable limits on time or whatever the case might be, they should be made at committee stage. I encourage members to bring positive amendments forward if those amendments will serve the broader interests of the community at large and keep our streets and communities safer.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I represent rural areas but, as has been said today, the bill is not just about rural areas, it is about Canada.

Rural areas are likely to experience longer timelines when it comes to law enforcement officers showing up after a crime has been committed.

I want to thank my colleague for his involvement as a former law enforcement officer prior to becoming a member of Parliament.

Some of the debate today has indicated that the bill would instigate vigilantism. I wonder if my colleague has any comments to make about whether the bill is really about driving vigilantism or about protecting our property wherever we live.