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

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to an order made earlier today, the motion for second reading of Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (citizen's arrest and the defences of property and persons), is deemed adopted on division.

Accordingly, this bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

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.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to give my last Thursday statement of 2011. The fall has been a productive, hard-working and orderly session. It has been capped by results that we have seen in the House during delivering results month since we returned from the Remembrance Day constituency week.

Of particular note, this fall the House passed Bill C-13, the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act; Bill C-20, the fair representation act; Bill C-18, the marketing freedom for grain farmers act; and Bill C-10, the safe streets and communities act.

Other things were also accomplished, from the appointment of two officers of Parliament to the passing at second reading of Bill C-26, the Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act. I would like to thank the opposition parties who made these accomplishments possible. Nevertheless, the House has a lot of work to do when it returns in 2012.

The things I am looking forward to in 2012 include, after 48 speeches so far, returning to Bill C-19, the ending the long-gun registry act; after 75 speeches so far, continuing debate on second reading of Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act; after 73 speeches so far, continuing debating the opposition motion to block Bill C-4, the preventing human smugglers from abusing Canada's immigration system act from proceeding to committee; and, after 47 speeches so far, continuing debate on second reading of Bill C-7, the Senate reform act.

This winter, the government's priority will continue to be economic growth and job creation. We will thus continue to move forward with our economic agenda by debating legislative measures such as Bill C-23 on the implementation of a Canada-Jordan free trade agreement; Bill C-24 on the implementation of a Canada-Panama free trade agreement; Bill C-25, which is designed to give Canadians another way to plan for retirement through pooled registered pension plans; and Bill C-28 on the appointment of a financial literacy leader.

Needless to say, I am looking forward to the 2012 budget, the next phase of Canada's economic recovery, from the Minister of Finance, and I am looking forward to what I am sure it will deliver for the Canadian economy. This will be the cornerstone of the upcoming session.

With respect to the precise business of the House for the week of January 30, 2012, I will advise my counterparts in the usual fashion in advance of the House returning.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, please let me wish you, my fellow house leaders, all hon. members and our table officers and support staff a very merry Christmas.

In particular, I want to thank the pages, many of whom, as we know, spent their first significant amount of time away from home with us this fall. I wish them a pleasant time back home with family over Christmas. Perhaps we have provided some good stories for them to tell around the dinner table.

Merry Christmas, happy new year and all the best for the break. Here is to a productive, orderly and hard-working 2012.

Merry Christmas and happy new year. May the members of the House rest up in preparation for the hard work to come in a productive and orderly 2012.

Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the member speak to Bill C-10, for which he has not much respect and which we in the Liberal Party call the “more crime, less justice and spiralling costs” law. There is much I would say in agreement with the NDP member.

I want to return to Bill C-26 with my question. The member is probably well aware that on Tuesday a 30-year-old man in a Tim Hortons restaurant in Vancouver was shot on the spot but managed to survive. It is possible that someone might have intervened to protect the person in that situation.

One of the controversial parts of Bill C-26 is the broadening of the allowance from just protecting one's own life to intervening to protect another person's life. In the situation I mentioned, we can see that it would have been a positive thing if someone had disarmed and held the shooter, but there is also a concern that it could lead to vigilantism.

I would like to hear the member's comments on that provision in the new law.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, after that intervention, we should start pumping more oxygen into the opposition lobby because something has the member clearly dazed and confused.

It is interesting, on a bill about citizen's arrest, the member has used the same speech as he has used on the last seven or eight bills. I think it was the same speech.

Does the member see the merit in the bill that is before the House, Bill C-26? Does he understand how citizens have a right to protect themselves and their businesses and why there is a need for justice in this case? Does he support the government measure?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Hamilton Centre, for bridging the gap between some of the other comments we have had in the House and my speech. Given the events of today, there are a lot of things going on, so I was a few minutes late and I apologize for that.

I appreciate my colleague across the way stating that he wanted to continue to hear the member for Hamilton Centre. He made that offer not just because the member for Hamilton Centre is very eloquent but also because he is well aware that I have risen in the House before, and will do so now, to comment very critically on the Conservative Party's so-called justice platform.

We have heard the member for St. John's East speak very eloquently to this particular bill. Its origin comes from the work of the member of Parliament for Trinity—Spadina. We need to pay tribute to her work, because she put in place many of the aspects of the legislation before us now. It was her constituent at the Lucky Moose Food Mart who was originally charged, so she raised the issue in an effort to clarify how owners of small businesses can protect themselves in this kind of circumstance. It is the member for Trinity—Spadina who put together the foundation of the bill.

The problem arises when we look beyond the bill itself. Although we will be supporting it at second reading, we see that many clauses have been inserted in addition to the work of the member for Trinity—Spadina. As the House knows, NDP members always do their homework. I am sure members have seen the figures showing that 71% of all of the bills before the House come from this caucus of very experienced veterans and very dynamic newcomers. It is by far the strongest caucus in the House. That is why the member for Trinity—Spadina was able to put forward this bill.

Unfortunately, because the Conservatives often write their justice policy on the back of a napkin, at committee we now have to look at the additional clauses that have been inserted, as we always do. We will be doing our homework. We will look at the impact of each one of these additional clauses thrown in by the Conservative government and make the practical and positive suggestions that we always have.

The question is whether the Conservatives will accept those positive suggestions. Time will tell.

However, when we get to the overall thrust of the so-called justice agenda of the Conservative government, we can see that we have very valid reasons to not have confidence in the government.

The Conservatives have put in place a massive unbudgeted prison program. They do not know where the money will come from. The provinces do not know where the money will come from. They wrote the bill out on the back of a napkin with no due regard for the consequences and brought forth one of the most expensive bills in Canadian history.

In addition, the Conservative government has cut back on crime prevention funding. It has to be completely disconnected from communities across this land to gut crime prevention programs that are actually the heart of investing in a smart foundation for building safer communities. That has always been something that the NDP has strongly advocated. The government cut away crime prevention and addiction programs at a time when those are exactly the tools that are needed to ensure that we do not have victims and that we continue to reduce the crime rate. Those are the kinds of measures that need to be taken.

Instead, the Conservative government has thrown in $10 billion or $12 billion--no one on that side even knows--toward building prisons, while gutting crime prevention and addiction programs. What is wrong with this picture? When we look at it, we cannot have confidence in the government to do what is right.

The Speaker well knows, because he has studied this issue even if his colleagues on the other side of the House have not, that from a fiscal point of view, every dollar invested in crime prevention and addiction programs saves the taxpayer $6 in policing costs, prison costs and court costs. It is $1 for $6.

Colleagues on the other side say, “We do not care; we just want to spend money on prisons”, but it cannot be an emotional thing. The Conservatives cannot be emotional. They have accept that they have to think practically. They have to realize that gutting crime prevention and addiction programs is the worst possible thing they could do.

What else have the Conservatives done? Of course, they refused to keep their promise about hiring front-line police officers across the country. We are seeing all kinds of complications in pushing provinces away from agreements with the RCMP. Perhaps most egregious--and this is something I am going to take a moment to talk about, because I feel it very intensely, as do all colleagues on this side of the House--they have refused for five long years to put in place a public safety officer compensation fund.

It is true that was an NDP initiative. It was brought to the House by the NDP, and Conservative members voted for the public safety officer compensation fund. Since 2005, when they made the commitment to establish it, they have pushed off police officers and firefighters who have asked every single year, as their number one request of parliamentarians and government, for such a fund to be established. Why do they make that request? It is because when firefighters and police officers pass away, as they do every year, in some cases they are protected by existing insurance schemes or collective municipal or provincial legislation, but in many cases they are not.

I have spoken to families and I have seen what happens when insurance such as a public safety officer compensation fund is not in place. We are talking about the widows and widowers of firefighters and police officers potentially having to sell their homes. We are talking about children who were getting post-secondary education, but because their firefighter parent passed away saving lives—

Conservatives are laughing at what happens to the children of deceased firefighters and police officers. It is not a laughing matter. The sons and daughters of firefighters and police officers often have to stop their studies because when there is no insurance in place. Widows and widowers have to make sure somehow that food is kept on the table and the mortgage is paid.

For five long years they have been waiting. For five long years they have been telling Parliament the public safety officer compensation program needs to be put in place.

New Democrats are reiterating today that we stand 102 strong in favour of immediately putting in place a public safety officer compensation fund and ensuring that compensation exists when firefighters and police officers pass away in the line of duty. That is a commitment that we will continue to keep. It is a commitment that we stand for. We will continue to push the government to do the right thing.

We are not talking about something that is incredibly complicated. We are talking about a program that can be established for about $3 million a year. As we know, there is a similar program in the United States already in place to provide that compensation.

Because the government has treated firefighters and police officers with such disrespect, New Democrats do not trust them on their legislation. As I said earlier, the fact is that Conservatives are willing to spend billions of dollars on a prison program, yet they refuse to provide firefighters and police officers with compensatory insurance and they have cut back on crime prevention and addiction programs. What is wrong with this picture?

When it comes to Bill C-26, there is a component that New Democrats support. I am willing to continue to speak if my Conservative colleagues want to continue to hear from me. This conversation has been good. I think they are finally learning that their justice policy is wrong and that they should be following the lead of the NDP. That is a good thing, and that is why New Democrats will support the bill at second reading. However, we are going to be doing our homework, and if these poison pills are put in the bill again, there will be fighting at committee.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the personal stories shared during the debate were very interesting and very meaningful, and they illustrate various aspects of the bill. I would like to thank the hon. member for sharing his experience.

I have a specific issue. The member just noted that he would look forward to a variety of witnesses and a thorough discussion. I know he is aware that many members feel it is important that there could be amendments that would be respected and included.

One of the concerns that we in the Liberal Party have was laid out by the member for Mount Royal in his initial speech. It is that contrary to the earlier version of the bill, Bill C-26 adds the phrase “threat of force” to this part of the Criminal Code as being a legitimate basis for civilian action. “Threat of force” could be seen as quite subjective. It could be that this term overbroadens the bill to the point that we could have people putting themselves in harm's way.

I would like the member's comment on where his party stands on this issue of threat of force and what they may be proposing in that regard.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as this is the last occasion I am going to have to speak in the House before the break, I would like to wish you, the pages, my colleagues at both ends of the House and on the other side of the House a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.

I would like to wish the people of Nickel Belt a very merry Christmas and happy new year.

I would like to summarize Bill C-26. Bill C-26 amends subsection 494(2) of the Criminal Code dealing with citizen's arrest to provide greater flexibility. The changes would permit citizen's arrest without a warrant within a reasonable period. The key words are “reasonable period”. Currently subsection 494(2) requires a citizen's arrest to occur while the offence is being committed. Sometimes that is impossible.

Bill C-26 also includes changes to the sections of the Criminal Code related to self-defence and defence of property. According to the government, these changes would bring much needed reforms to simplify the complex Criminal Code provisions on self-defence and defence of property. They would also clarify where reasonable use of force is permitted.

Since half of the bill proposes measures that the NDP member for Trinity—Spadina had previously called for, it follows that we would support this bill at least at second reading. This part of the bill amends subsection 494(2) of the Criminal Code dealing with citizen's arrest to permit arrest without warrants within a reasonable period. Again there is that term “a reasonable period”.

The other half of the bill seeks to clarify sections of the Criminal Code pertaining to self-defence and defence of property. We support in principle improving language in legislation for the purpose of clarity, especially since the courts have indicated a problem with the lack of clarity. Further study will be needed to see if the bill does in fact clarify these sections, and the consequences of the clarifications are acceptable to us. This is the type of work we can do at committee stage.

Also, we would not be supportive of anything that would encourage vigilante justice or that would encourage people to put their own personal safety at risk. While that does not appear to be the purpose of this bill, we understand there are concerns about these matters in relation to citizen's arrest, self-defence and defence of property. Again, this is why we need to carefully study this bill at the committee stage.

I will provide some background on this bill. On May 23, 2009, David Chen, owner of the Lucky Moose Food Mart in Toronto, apprehended a man, Anthony Bennett, who had stolen from his store. Bennett was initially caught on security footage stealing from the store, and he returned an hour later. At that time, Chen, who was 36, and two employees tied up the man and locked him in the back of a delivery van.

When the police arrived, they charged Chen with kidnapping. It is hard to believe, but that is what they did. He was charged with kidnapping, carrying a dangerous weapon, a box cutter which most grocery store workers would normally have on their person, assault and forcible confinement.

Most of the members who have spoken today have talked about an event that has happened to them personally. I would like to relate one of my own experiences. Someone stole two items from my shed. One of those items was my toolbox. I am not Tim the tool man by any stretch of the imagination, but I like to put up things in my house and to do some work. One of the jobs that I hate the most, and I do not know why I hate it, is putting up curtains.

When I went to my shed to get my power tools to put up curtains for my wife, my drill was gone. That could be good and that could be bad. It could be devastating because I had lost my power tool, but it could also be good because I hate putting up curtains. There is give and take. In this case I was kind of relieved, because I really do not like putting up curtains.

The other thing that was stolen was my golf bag. That can be devastating. I do not get the chance to golf very much any more, but I am sure everyone can imagine how I felt when I noticed that my golf bag was gone. That can hurt, especially when the golf clubs are in the bag. That is really bad, especially when it is 75° on a Saturday morning and my chums are going golfing and my golf bag and clubs are gone. That can be really painful, more painful than losing the power tools, although golf clubs are a tool also, a tool for enjoyment.

Returning to the case of Mr. Chen, the crown prosecutors dropped the kidnapping and weapons charges but proceeded with the charges of forceable confinement and assault.

According to the Criminal Code as it is currently written, a property owner can only make a citizen's arrest when the alleged wrongdoer is caught in the act.

In some cases that is okay, if it is a Walmart store, where there are security guards who can arrest people. However, the owners of corner stores cannot afford security guards. If they see somebody stealing their property, they have to take action.

On October 29, 2010, Mr. Chen and his two co-accused were found not guiltily of the charges of forceable confinement and assault. Anthony Bennett pleaded guilty in August 2009 to stealing from the store and was sentenced to 30 days in jail, and rightfully so.

That case caused a lot of controversy. Some of it had to do with whether there was sufficient policing in the area.

My riding of Nickel Belt is huge. To go from Foleyet which is in the west to Garden Village which is in the east could take seven hours, and to go from Killarney in the south to Capreol in the north could take another four or five hours. We do not have policemen readily available 24/7, although we do have a fine police station and police officers. Because the territory is so big, it is difficult for a police officer to be at the scene of a crime within a few minutes. We have to take that into consideration.

I have only one minute left, so I will conclude by saying that we will support the bill at second reading. We want it to have careful consideration, which is code for not rushing it through. We want to hear from people who have practised criminal law. We want to hear from experts from the Department of Justice, the Canadian Bar Association and others. We need to examine the bill very carefully. Also, we should rely not just on ourselves but on the expertise of people who have analyzed these provisions, studied all the cases, and who can help us ensure that we are doing the right thing.

Having said that, we will support the bill at second reading, but we want it to be given extremely careful consideration at committee.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and talk about Bill C-26. This legislature has been preoccupied with a lot of crime initiatives over the last part of the session. The Conservatives have been pushing a whole crime agenda. There is some consensus around this one though. It is nice to see the issue from the member for Trinity--Spadina addressed in this particular bill. I will get into the Lucky Moose Food Mart story later.

This is an amendment to the Criminal Code to deal with modern situations that are taking place and to clarify for the courts not only apprehension of individuals by citizen's arrest, but also protection of private property.

It is important to back up a little though and talk about the overall issue of crime in Canada. We know that crime in Canada is actually down right now. I know that the government's official position is that unreported crime is up. I do not know how unreported crime can be up, but apparently that is the government's position. It seems to know the unreported crime rate. However, we know through statistics that it is not the case. In fact, sometimes when we hear the rhetoric coming from the other side of the House we would be concerned to let our kids out at night. The reality is that Canada is a relatively safe nation and we have good police forces with well-trained men and women who serve the community.

In this particular case we are looking at amending the Criminal Code to deal with some issues that have emerged. The case of David Chen and the Lucky Moose Food Mart is an important one. For those who are not familiar, he was being robbed again by a routine thug. He decided to apprehend the individual to stop the theft because it was too difficult to have that type of atmosphere in his store. Because he detained the individual, he was later charged by the police. Because he had box cutters, which is often the case in a grocery store, he was also charged with a weapons offence.

This was a sad situation that was finally resolved many months later and the case dropped. However, it brought to light the real problem that some people face with restraints on some of our public services, where those services often do not have the capability to respond. I am a former city councillor. I can say that there is not unlimited support to provide our police with the proper time and availability. It becomes challenging, so often some people feel they have no other choice. This is why we saw the apprehension take place and we saw the unfortunate result. This bill would amend the Criminal Code to deal with that.

We have to be careful about whether we want to create a vigilante society. This is one of the things we need to hear from witnesses about at committee. Often, we have seen instances where the replacement of law enforcement by citizens has been a negative thing.

One such case is the Minutemen. The Minutemen have taken over different areas of jurisdiction on the Canada-U.S. border because they feel there is not enough law enforcement and not enough policing of the border. They have organized themselves. I have had debates with Congress officials about these groups because often they are actually armed. Because they are in the United States, they arm themselves. They are looking for people up and down the Canada-U.S. border. They are also on the southern border. There has been quite a lot of talk about what they do and how they do it. There is a lot of concern among law enforcement officials on the U.S. side because the Minutemen are not well trained and they use extreme tactics. Just for crossing illegally or crossing at an area where one is not supposed to cross, there has been violence. We have to be careful about those situations. The Minutemen are a good example of vigilantism going too far.

We have also seen in North America, and even in my constituency of Windsor West at one point, the Guardian Angels patrolling the streets. There were issues with the way some of them apprehended people. Not all of them, there is no doubt about that, but there have been situations where these chapters have come and gone.

A bill like this can feed into the frenzy of the idea that we do not have a safe community or that crime is rampant in Canada. The government has done that with its crime omnibus bill, which will not pass in this session of Parliament, ironically because the government refused to move the necessary amendments for it to be legal. Now we have consequences as well with the upcoming budgetary allocation for the bill.

We need to recognize that resources will be stretched. This goes back to groups like the Guardian Angels. They were formed in Los Angeles. They went across the United States and then chapters came to Canada. However, they have not sustained themselves, and there are lots of reasons for that.

This bill would amend the Criminal Code in a way that would provide some clarity for specific situations. That is the big difference. I look at this bill, and maybe other members do as well, as being able to help people like David Chen. It will help representatives, like the member for Trinity—Spadina, to address issues such as those that took place at the Lucky Moose.

As well, there is the protection and private property. That is an important factor. There have been a number of cases that have come forward under the Criminal Code. Chief Justice Lamer stated that sections 34 and 35 were unclear with regard to private property. We want to see greater clarity about what will happen and who is responsible. At the same time, we want to know if there will be some reciprocity to the individual when that takes place.

When we move this bill forward, it will be interesting to listen to witnesses who come forward. In my opinion, it will be important for the government to be open to the consideration of amendments. We want to ensure that there will be balance in this. The bill proposed by the member for Trinity—Spadina is balanced. There is some more clarity required on the private property element.

However, to be realistic, we need to ensure that we do not make people feel they are no longer safe in Canada, that rampant crime has taken place across the country. It is just not the truth. The truth is that crime is down in Canada, but we need to modernize some tools. This is one thing we can do, which will not be at a cost to the Criminal Code.

Interestingly there are no mandatory minimums in the bill. There are no automatic penalties. However, the bill does give clarity. That is an important difference with this bill versus the government's current omnibus bill, which will come with a hefty price tag. There are lots of issues with it.

As a former coordinator at the multicultural council, I worked with youth at risk. We found that if they were given an opportunity, they looked forward to a job or an education rather than repeating an offence. It is critical that we have those types of programs in place. We had 16 youth at risk, 8 who were new to the country and 8 who were long-term Canadians. The eight who were long-term Canadians had made bad mistakes, whether it was shoplifting, assault, some small crime, maybe a charge related to drugs or some other small theft. We mixed them with new Canadians and put them in programs to fight racism issues and to promote community programs.

With that program, we had a success rate of over 90%. We have found that those kids with problems understood that the new Canadians just needed to learn the process to advance in their lives. They knew the system and they would teach new Canadians about a number of different things. There would be a program with resume writing, skills development, life skills and a whole series of things. That was much more progressive, and we had a 90% success rate. We found that people did want to get jobs.

I will conclude by thanking the member for Trinity—Spadina for raising this issue in the House of Commons. It is important to note that, for a change, we will see the government working in consensus, trying to improve the system, as opposed to conflict.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-26. The bill would amend subsection 494(2) of the Criminal Code to enable private citizens who own or have lawful possession of property, or persons authorized by them, to arrest within a reasonable time a person who they find committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property.

As the Liberal critic said, the Liberals support the bill in principle, but we have some concerns about the scope of the self-defence provisions. They need to be further examined in committee.

I note that in this debate some Conservative members have assured the House that potential amendments will be discussed and considered and maybe incorporated. I want to point out that has certainly not happened in this 41st Parliament so far. All of the bills that have come forward have been rushed through, including Bill C-10, a very substantive bill that needed amendments. Even the minister recognized that amendments were necessary. He tried to put them in later and failed because they were rejected out of hand at committee where they should have been accepted.

We are optimistic that the Conservative government will shift its process of unilaterally pushing through its bills. We are optimistic that the government will start listening to the opposition parties and the diverse voices from different parts of the country.

Bill C-26 does not contain any new powers or concepts, as I noted previously in a question in this debate and as was said by the member for Northumberland—Quinte West.

However, Canada's self-defence laws are complex and out of date. This bill would bring provisions with respect to self-defence that are spread over four sections of the Criminal Code into one defence provision.

The Liberals have some concerns about the bill which we feel need to be thoroughly explored in committee. Our critic, the member for Mount Royal, has laid out those concerns clearly. They boil down to what could be seen as gender discrimination in the bill. The reasonableness of someone's self-defence action refers to size, age and gender of the parties to the incident. We contend that size and age may be critical factors, but gender could reinforce the concept of “the weaker sex”, which is an anachronism in today's world. It is not appropriate. Women are just as capable of wading in as anyone is.

I have a personal incident with respect to a property crime. The member for Winnipeg Centre described his difficult situation, but mine was resolved much easier.

I returned to my company's office late at night, which many parents of young children do after the children are in bed and everything has settled down. This is a large building of 5,000 square feet and contains a number of offices. Clearly it had not been properly alarmed. When I went into the office I encountered a hefty individual probably in his late twenties. He did not belong there. He had been rifling through the petty cash and the drawers and personal effects of my staff. Alone at night in my office, I was completely shocked to encounter this individual. I used a very potent weapon to deal with this situation, my tongue. I reacted by telling him all of the reasons he should leave right away. I told him he had no right to be there as it is a family business where we work hard to provide a good service. Essentially, I succeeded in shaming the individual and he left.

However, I later realized he might have had a gun or a knife. He might have decided he did not want to leave because he had not completed his efforts to secure funds for whatever purpose. He might have resisted and I would have had to take a different measure, which I would have done in defence of my property.

I appreciate that the laws should be clear and that people, who are in situations where they are defending property or persons, should not have to worry that they may be charged under the Criminal Code because of confusion. I support this.

Many of the members on the Conservative benches have talked about their broader approach to crime. I have deep concerns about the Conservative government's broader approach to crime. It is partly because it does absolutely nothing to help prevent these very incidents of property and personal crime for which Bill C-26 provides citizens with a recourse.

Why are we not finding ways to reduce crime? Why is the government actually committing billions of taxpayers' dollars to a crime agenda or regime that goes completely contrary to the evidence and advice from states like Texas and California that have experimented with the kinds of provisions built into the Conservative government's approach to crime? They have failed, they have been costly, they have reduced justice, and they have actually increased crime. The government is going down that road.

As the member for Northumberland—Quinte West has already said, there are no new concepts or new powers in this bill. It clarifies an existing law that protects citizens in situations where they must defend their lives, and so forth. Furthermore, we are being given the same amount of time to debate this bill as we were given to debate Bill C-10, which included nine bills. Bill C-10 has very serious ramifications that would radically alter how youth are treated by the law. A number of professionals said that it was a bad bill, but we did not have time to debate it in this House, in this 41st Parliament, with the new MPs. Bill C-26 is much smaller than Bill C-10 and yet we were allocated the same amount of time for debate in each case.

I want to know why we are not seeing prevention but the warehousing of mentally-ill Canadians and Canadians struggling with drug addictions, who should be provided funding for treatment and prevention. In Vancouver, the youth skills connect program has been cut, so prevention programs for youth are being cut. The balance is completely out of whack and will be tipping over Canada's justice system in a very negative direction.

Liberals support this bill, but certainly not the overall approach to crime by the Conservative government.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is what we are doing right now. We are exchanging views and we are talking about it. If we want to score political points and talk about other things rather than just Bill C-26, we can do so.

However, the member brought up another important point. She said that she had personal experience with a break and enter. She came home and found people in her house. Thank goodness, I have never had a break and enter at my residence, but I have had close friends and fellow police officers who have.

I recall one police officer telling me that when he came home, the thieves had urinated and defecated in his house, once they found out it belonged to a policeman. They took things that were not of great value to other people, such as grandma's old ring that she had given to his daughter. His daughters were unable to sleep at night because they were afraid the bad man would come.

I understand the tremendous psychological issues that go along with the perpetration of crime and how we continue to be—

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think all members of the House have a lot of sympathy with the intention behind Bill C-26. People have been sharing personal stories. I will not forget the time that our gift shop on Cape Breton Island was being robbed. We called the RCMP and they said to stay out of the guy's way and they would see when they could get there. We were not able to do anything about the fact that we were robbed. This is a typical story on Cape Breton Island, and nothing against the RCMP, but they tend to take hours to show up.

My own sense of how we respond to this now is that, given technology, the most useful thing in apprehending criminals is the advent of things like cell phone videos. There is an ability to get the evidence and give that to the Mounties later.

I agree that we must provide a statutory defence so that people who try to protect their business or their life and limb are not charged with a criminal offence. The concern I have is that it goes beyond prosecutorial discretion here and, by providing the idea of citizen's arrest, no matter how much we say there is caution, how do we avoid people putting themselves at risk, feeling empowered to make a citizen's arrest without the training to know how to handle a dangerous situation?