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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (citizen's arrest and the defences of property and persons), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

There being no motions to propose at report stage on this bill, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question of the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

moved that Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (citizen's arrest and the defences of property and persons), be read the third time and passed.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak once again to Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (citizen's arrest and the defences of property and persons).

I would like to begin by thanking the justice and human rights committee for its work in studying the bill. The committee held six sessions that heard more than 15 witnesses from outside government. The committee heard from a number of associations such as several pan-Canadian groups including, among others, the Canadian Bar Association, the Barreau du Québec, the Canadian Convenience Stores Association, the Canadian Police Association, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Criminal Lawyers' Association and the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies. The committee also heard from a number of individuals including David Chen, a local criminal defence lawyer and several law professors.

The diversity of witnesses who appeared at committee reflects the fact that the proposals in Bill C-26, though only a few pages long, touched a long range of issues that are important to Canadians. The committee no doubt benefited immensely from hearing the perspectives of specific populations such as police officers, small-business owners and their families, private security interests and victims of domestic violence. The committee undertook a thorough and profound analysis of the legislation, which has implications not just for special populations but for all Canadians.

I would especially like to thank the committee and the witnesses who testified for their commitment to balancing the needs of victims of crime to respond to emergency situations on the one hand and ensuring on the other hand that the law discourages vigilante responses to crime and the escalation of violence and the abusive exercise of arrest powers. This is always difficult to balance, but at the same time we believe that members on all sides of the House should wish to see this balance struck appropriately.

The committee made several modifications to the legislation, which I will address shortly. I believe these modifications improved the legislation, and I would like to once again express my appreciation for the serious and professional manner in which all committee members approached these important and sensitive issues.

Members will recall that Bill C-26 proposes a responsible expansion of the citizen's arrest power and also includes a long-overdue simplification and clarification of the law of self-defence and defence of property.

With respect to the power of citizen's arrest, the expansion proposed in Bill C-26 is modest and limited. No one disputes the fact that arrests are primarily the responsibility of the police. However, in recognition of the fact that police are not always present when a crime is committed, the Criminal Code has long authorized citizens to arrest other citizens in certain specifically defined situations including in relation to a property offence. The critical aspect of the existing law is that citizens may only arrest a person they find committing a property-related offence at that very moment. An arrest made at a point later is not a lawful arrest and the arresting persons are therefore potentially liable to be criminally prosecuted for any of their actions that otherwise constitute an offence, such as an assault against the suspect. We know that sometimes this is not possible and so to avoid the unfairness of the law in treating as criminal the citizen who arrests another shortly after the crime was observed, Bill C-26 would modify the current law to allow the arrest within a reasonable time of that offence.

I know the committee did consider several motions to amend the bill to add additional limitations intended to prevent this sort of conduct. The committee did not agree to these proposals. This does not mean our government does not share the concern. Rather, it means we are confident that the proposals and the bill would not be construed or applied in this manner. The extended time in which arrest can be made would not be unlimited. It must be reasonable. This would allow, and indeed require, the court to inquire into the many relevant considerations. Most important among these would be the reason for the delay. The court could also inquire as to whether the delay had any particular detrimental impact on the arrested person.

Another relevant consideration would be the purpose of the law itself. In this context, the courts would be mindful that this would be a novel extension of an arrest power that is currently very limited. In interpreting it contextually, the courts would be in a position to constrain the extension in a manner that accords with its purpose. Whenever the court would find that the reason for a delay in making an arrest was inappropriate or otherwise unreasonable or that the delay caused an injustice to the arrested person or that it did not accord with the purpose of the law, the arrest could be found to be unlawful.

Furthermore, our government's confidence is bolstered by a safeguard that accompanies the expanded arrest power, which will further serve to limit the potential for abuse. This safeguard is a requirement that before the citizen makes the arrest he or she must reasonably believe that it is not feasible in the circumstances for a peace officer to make the arrest instead.

In other words, if an arrest is intentionally delayed for some particular purpose, it will be much more likely that the police should be called to the scene and make the arrest. If the police are not called and the arrest is made later, that arrest may be found to be unlawful on the basis that the arresting person could not reasonably have believed that the police were not able to respond. Taken together, our government is confident that these are reasonable and responsible amendments and that they should not unduly jeopardize the safety of Canadians. We urge all members to support them.

I will now speak briefly on the issue of the defence of person and property.

While the citizen's arrest reforms are fairly straightforward, even if they are somewhat controversial, the changes to the defences of person and property are more fundamental in that they completely replace the existing legal provisions with new and simpler ones.

The necessity to reform these defences stems from the fact that they are currently worded in an extremely complex and convoluted manner. In particular, our self-defence laws have been subject to decades of criticism by the judiciary, including the Supreme Court of Canada, trial counsel, criminal law academics, bar associations and the law reform bodies. Criticism has focused on the fact that the existing law is confusing and difficult to apply in practice. It is fair to say that the reform in this area is long overdue.

When the laws that set out the rules for emergency defensive action are confusing, we fail in our responsibility to adequately inform Canadians of their rights. Unclear laws can obviously complicate and frustrate the charging decisions of the police, who themselves may have difficulty reading the Criminal Code and understanding what is permitted. It is also extremely important. Self-defence can be raised by a person charged with murder. Self-preservation is perhaps the most fundamental entitlement any citizen may have, even more fundamental than the protection of one's property. It is essential that Parliament gets law reform in this area right.

Bill C-26 proposes a single new self-defence and defence of property provision that would be much simpler than the existing law, which provides for multiple variations of each defence depending on slightly different circumstances. The proposed new defences would reduce the existing law into its most fundamental elements, which are consistent no matter what the particularities of the situation are. We no longer need different rules for different circumstances. We only need one rule that is capable of being understood and applied in all situations.

I will now speak briefly to the issue of the defence of the person.

According to the proposed new law for defence of the person, people would be protected from criminal responsibility if the following three conditions are met: they have reason to believe that they or another person are being threatened with force; they act for the purpose of defending themselves or other persons from that force; and their actions are reasonable in the circumstances.

These are clearly appropriate elements for a new self-defence law. First, to be exonerated from a crime, people should have a reasonable apprehension of some kind of force. Second, their actions should be motivated by a defensive purpose. Self-defence is not a disguise for what is really revenge, for instance. Third, whatever actions are taken, if they are taken for a defensive purpose and in response to a reasonable apprehension of force, those actions should be judged to fall within the range of what a reasonable person would have done.

Most cases likely succeed or fail on the question of whether the actions were reasonable in the circumstances. This determination would be guided by the unique facts and circumstances of each individual case.

However, without limiting the nature and scope of factors that could be taken into account, the legislation does try to set out some of the more familiar and important considerations in a non-exhaustive list of factors. This list accomplishes several purposes. It is intended to signal to the judges that existing jurisprudence should continue to apply even though the elements of self-defence have been simplified. It should also assist judges in their duty to instruct juries about how to apply the law in a given case.

One of the most important types of factors has to do with an abusive intimate relationship between the parties to a confrontation. The watershed Supreme Court of Canada decision in Lavallee in 1990 acknowledged the difficulties juries can have in finding the behaviour of a battered spouse to be reasonable.

In particular, juries may not understand how battered partners might stay in abusive relationships or how they might come to predict future violence based on past experiences. If the jury does not understand how people in abusive situations can come to view their options, the jury is more likely to find their actions unreasonable and deny them a defence.

However, in the Lavallee case, the Supreme Court of Canada held that expert evidence can be called to provide an explanation as to why an accused did not flee when he or she perceived his or her life to be in danger. In this way the evidence can also assist the jury in assessing the reasonableness of the accused's belief about both the danger that he or she faced and the need to act as he or she did.

This type of case does not arrive often, but sensitivity to these situations is crucial. For this reason the history of the relationship between the parties, including whether there were prior acts of violence, is specified in the law as a relevant factor in the determination of whether the accused's actions were reasonable.

Other critical relevant factors include the nature of the threat and the response to it. For instance, whether the attacker threatened to break a finger or to kill; whether any weapons were present; and the relative physical abilities of the parties, such as their age, size and gender. So naturally, a petite elderly women and a fit young man may have different options available to them to respond to the same threat.

As part of its comprehensive study of the bill, the justice and human rights committee found that the list of factors could be improved in certain ways. It agreed to several amendments to the subsection of the legislation, all of which our government is in agreement with.

The first change was to the opening words of the provision. The original words read, “In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court may consider, among other factors...”. The committee agreed to changes to these opening words to say, “In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors”.

This change has several effects. First, it makes it clear that it is obligatory, rather than permissible, for the court to consider all relevant circumstances. This is an improvement in clarity. Second, it highlights critical factors, namely the circumstances of the accused who is claiming self-defence, the other party and the act itself. Our government appreciates the additional clarity.

The committee made a change to the wording of one of the factors. Factor (e) originally identified the size, age and gender of the parties to the incident. The committee agreed that the relative size, age and gender of the parties may often be relevant in determining whether a person's actions in self-defence were reasonable. However, based on representations from the Canadian Bar Association, the committee concluded that these factors will not always be determinative of physical ability. In an effort to be more clear, it amended this factor so that it now reads: (e) the size, age and gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident. Once again, the government agrees with this additional clarity.

The committee made one final change to the list of factors. It agreed to add a new factor, namely, any history of interaction or communication between the parties to that incident. I have already spoken to the factor that refers to the history of any relationship between the parties. The committee felt that this factor could well be interpreted narrowly to apply to longstanding, intimate relationships and so might not capture interactions that are more casual or infrequent, or involve any single incident, such as a single threatening email. The committee added the new factor to address this type of situation.

On the issue of defence of property, the proposed new defence of property would adopt the same basic structure as self-defence. All of the existing provisions would be replaced with a single, general test for defence of property that captures its essential components, while maintaining the same level of protection as the current law.

There would be three essential elements of the defence of property. First, the defender must really perceive that someone else is about to do, or has just done, one of the following: enter the property without being legally entitled to; or take, damage, or destroy property. Second, the defender must act for the purpose of preventing or stopping the interference with property. Third, the actions taken must be reasonable in the circumstances.

A precondition for the defence is that the property must be in the peaceful possession of the person when the interference takes place.

This term is part of the current law and will be maintained in the new law. It has been interpreted by our courts to mean that the defender of the property must be in actual physical possession of, or have control over, the property at the time of the threat or interference, and that the possession itself must be unlikely to lead to a breach of the peace and is not contested by others. This is the way in which possession must be peaceful. It must not be contested or risk violence or public disorder.

In closing, Bill C-26 clarifies and expands certain provisions which authorize Canadian citizens to undertake actions that would otherwise be prohibited where there is a real emergency involving either threat to property they possess or to the safety of persons.

It strikes the right balance between discouraging crime and confrontation on the one hand and permitting Canadians to defend their basic interest where no other options are available.

I urge all members to support the bill. The reforms are long overdue and represent a principled and measured response to complex situations.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.

I sit on the same committee as he does, and I must say that I have appreciated the way the various committee members work together.

I would like to ask this question. The Canadian Bar Association, the Barreau du Québec and various other stakeholders had some concerns about the balance between the objective and subjective criteria. Does the member believe that the amendments made and the current wording of the bill address the issues raised by the various legal experts who testified at committee?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question, which is quite relevant since she participated in the debate in committee.

On this side of the House, we are convinced that there is a good balance between the objective and subjective criteria. Clearly, no scenario is perfect.

The Canadian justice system is probably the most recognized and effective in the entire world. That is why we are convinced that the legal interpretation that will be done in these cases will ensure that good decisions are made and that the parties involved are protected.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I believe the bill has fairly good support from members of the House, with the exception of a few.

There was some concern raised about the potential cost of implementation of the bill. In particular, I understand there was some concern from provinces. Could the member comment on the degree to which provincial jurisdictions were involved in discussions when the government brought forward the bill?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, the issue of costs is always close to the government, obviously. However, it is our position that the costs with regard to the bill, if anything, will be diminished because, based on clear instructions to the jury, the number of possible prosecutions may be limited.

As the law now stands, many of the prosecutors and police officers who lay the charges are uncertain whether there should be charges. Rather than taking a chance on the law as it stands, they put the case before the court, and of course, this clogs the dockets. With the new amendments to the law, there will be much more clarity. For that reason, there will probably be fewer cases that go before the court as a result of uncertainty of the rules. The amendments help not only the citizens, but also prosecutors and the police. It is our feeling that, if anything, costs will be diminished because clarity of the law will unclog the dockets.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his presentation of Bill C-26.

Some members of the House will know that I had hoped to present an amendment to the bill this morning to deal with the section dealing with citizen's arrest and creating the new possibility of arrest within a reasonable time. This is section 35.3 of Bill C-26, which would seek to amend the existing Criminal Code subsection 494(2).

My question is on this specific point. The concern shared by many, but particularly put forward to committee from the Canadian Bar Association, is that this opens the door to a potentially greater role for private security forces instead of the police and that it creates the opportunity for people to go after someone long after the event. How is the average citizen to know what a reasonable time is? This opens Bill C-26 to considerable abuse.

I would ask my hon. friend why it was that we could not have deleted this one section that opens the door to some mischief that is not necessary for the overall purpose of the act?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, there has always been a concern with vigilantism.

The issue of reasonable time is there because in certain circumstances the police cannot react rapidly, because of distance or where the incidents happen or possibly because they are responding to other emergency situations. One has to remember the number one responder to crime situations will remain the police. No citizen's arrest will be deemed reasonable unless in the person's mind it was not possible for the police to respond in a timely fashion.

As I said before, we have probably the best judiciary in the world. It will certainly not struggle with the issue of what is reasonable time given the circumstances of one particular event.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, before beginning my speech on Bill C-26, I would like to mention that this is my first debate as the official opposition's new justice critic. I would therefore like to thank the leader of our party, the hon. member for Outremont, for the confidence he has placed in me.

I would particularly like to thank the hon. member for St. John's East, who has done absolutely extraordinary work on this file, as well as his entire team. Over the past few months, we examined Bill C-26 as a team.

I would also like to thank the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina. Those who have been following this issue know that she is behind Bill C-26. This bill addresses the famous Lucky Moose Food Mart case, which served as a wake-up call for members of Parliament who are now trying to determine how to resolve this problem.

I also extend my thanks to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, where we studied many bills, including Bill C-10 on law and order, which was very thick and had many amendments. I use the term “thick” in reference to the size of the bill and not the content. We also studied Bill C-19 on the registry. We looked at many files, but this was the first time, since I was elected on May 2, that I felt that there was co-operation and that the two parties and all the people around the table, no matter their political stripe, were truly trying to find intelligent solutions to the problems and serious issues raised.

This bill involves amending the Criminal Code, which has been in existence for quite some time and has been interpreted by the courts and the Supreme Court. It is not necessarily an easy task. The member from the Green Party pointed out a problem with citizen's arrest that was raised at the committee hearings. I will come back to that later in my speech.

Having said that, I hope that the members opposite will adopt this new way of doing things because the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights does not meet to engage in petty politics. We meet because we know that these laws will have a direct effect on the lives of Canadians. We discuss criminal acts that have an impact on the lives of people, whether they are the victims or the accused, who benefit from the presumption of innocence. As guardians of the charter, we must ensure that the legal provisions and amendments to such laws are made properly.

Let us come back to Bill C-26. What is it all about? This bill amends a few sections of the Criminal Code, especially on self-defence, whether in relation to people or their personal or real property. It is the main purpose of this bill. The other part concerns citizen's arrest in a very specific context, which was the starting point for the private member's bill introduced by my colleague from Trinity—Spadina.

The first part on the lawful defence of property and persons, especially self-defence of persons, had been requested by the courts for a very long time. Finding a way to amend the Criminal Code was not easy. Earlier, I asked the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice a question about balancing the objective and subjective criteria with regard to the reasonable nature of the force that is used in self-defence. I think people understand what self-defence is. When we think we are being attacked and our lives are in danger or we are going to be seriously injured, we defend ourselves. That being said, it must be determined whether the act of self-defence was lawful or not, what the provocation was, whether necessary force was used and whether the context was appropriate.

It is not obvious. Over the years and decades, since the Criminal Code of Canada was created, the courts have realized that it is not always obvious. Over time, as things have developed, in certain cases defences based on scientific or medical reasons have been used. Take the battered woman syndrome for example.

I remember when I was hosting a radio show some years ago and there was a murder in my region, in Aylmer. A woman had killed her husband with a gun. The entire region was outraged simply because for most people a murder is a murder. We finally learned the facts in the case and found out what had happened. The woman had been terrorized day after day by an abusive husband who beat her and sometimes held a gun to her head. It was atrocious. Nevertheless, people said that did not matter. To them, all the woman had to do was leave home, get out of there and her life would not be in danger, but can we really judge another person's circumstances?

The courts began to develop certain plausible, allowable defences and to extrapolate the criteria mentioned in the Criminal Code, but every time, they came back to us and said that it was up to us as legislators to clarify and tidy this up a bit. This has not always been easy, especially when talking about defence and provocation.

I practised a little criminal law early in my career. One day, a man walked into my office. I am not revealing anything, since no one could ever guess his identity. He was a rather short man and he had been beaten by a woman who was taller than him. He pleaded self-defence, while she maintained that he had provoked her. This gives you some idea of the cases that go before criminal courts. In that particular context, only the gender criterion might have been considered. Basically, we sometimes have an impression, a preconceived notion, that because he is a man, he cannot be abused, or that because a woman is very tall, she cannot be abused by someone shorter than her, and so on.

The courts were often frustrated by these kinds of situations. It was important that the criteria not be too stringent. That is more or less what the Canadian Bar Association and the Barreau du Québec said in committee. As the parliamentary secretary said, we heard from several groups, such as the Barreau du Québec, the Canadian Convenience Stores Association, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, the Association of Professional Security Agencies—I will come back to this group, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Police Association, as well as universities, lawyers and other groups.

What came up again and again, especially concerning self-defence and the criteria mentioned in section 34 of the Criminal Code, was the importance of striking a balance. There was some concern about the government's wording of some of the clauses and amendments to Bill C-26 concerning a better balance between these subjective and objective elements. For example, the Canadian Bar Association agreed with me in committee that this balance appeared to be lacking, which is dangerous. The bill seemed to emphasize the objective criteria, which could jeopardize defences such as self-defence based on battered woman syndrome, for example.

I want to point out right away that the official opposition did propose seven amendments to ensure a balanced approach. We proposed objective and subjective criteria to enable the trial judge who hears the facts of the case to determine whether actions were provoked, assess what happened between the two parties and analyze the whole thing.

We did not succeed in getting all of the amendments included even though they would have made the provisions much clearer. But we will see. People will have to adjust. We are hearing that a lot these days, particularly in Quebec. We will see how the courts interpret all of this and whether the bill is balanced. I am reasonably confident that the amendments my colleague talked about earlier will ensure that balance.

I want to make it clear that section 34 of the Criminal Code, as amended by the bill, starts out by saying that a person is not guilty:

34. (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if

[This means that all of the criteria must apply.]

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

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

(c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

[This one, (c), is often problematic.]

(2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:

A list of factors follows. We appreciate that the government agreed to include our amendment. We want to ensure that offences are analyzed based on the perspective of the person directly involved rather than on that of someone who was not involved at all. Sometimes, it is by putting ourselves in someone else's shoes that we come to know what that person saw and we can really understand the impact of his action.

The physical capabilities of the parties to the incident were added. As I mentioned earlier, to look only at size, age and gender could cause confusion. I know people who are only 5' 2'' who have black belts in karate and, let me tell you, they could do some damage to someone who is a sturdy 6' 4'' but who has never played a sport in his life. We therefore wanted to avoid this type of prejudice.

Paragraph 34(2)(f.1) refers to the history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident. Some people have difficulty understanding what that means, but those who are very active users of social networking sites, who are involved in blogging and who talk to different people understand what this means.

I once had a written conversation with people I did not know. I did not even know where they lived. I must say that, at the end of that conversation, I had the willies. I hoped that those people did not live nearby because I was seriously concerned.

Since we have new technologies, we have to adapt to this type of situation. Sometimes, people can be terrorized by means of written messages or threats delivered in other ways.

Given the amendments that were made in this regard, I am confident that we have managed to find a balance. The courts will still have access to the committee's work and to the report, and they will be able to make informed decisions when they are called upon to interpret the new clauses on the protection of property, clauses 34 and 35. At least that is what I hope.

As I told my clients, those who came to see me, if we had a perfect knowledge of law and wrote perfect legal provisions, there would be no need for lawyers. Since laws are often drafted by lawyers, to date, I have yet to see a provision that is so clear and straightforward that there is no room for any interpretation. Likely, down the line, we will discover additional factors that should be added to clause 34.

With regard to the legitimate defence of property, as was expected by the legal community and the courts, no distinction is made between personal and real property. An attack on real property was always considered to be of greater consequence. If a person suffered an assault in their home or something like that, the courts tended to be a bit more strict in their assessment of the factors, when the person claimed self-defence.

In the case of the theft of a cassette from a car, we might say that self-defence was not necessary. We must always look at the concept of necessity.

I would now like to examine the most difficult part of the bill to understand: the amendments proposed by the government. I would like to point out that what I find the most worrisome is that the government has not accepted any suggested amendments at all.

The comment or the point I would like to make is as follows. Section 494(2) of the Criminal Code deals with citizen's arrest, which was the reason for Bill C-26. That is why we cannot withdraw clause 3 of Bill C-26, because it would completely gut the bill.

I am fully aware of the fact that there was the political will to amend the bill because of what Mr. Chen went through in Toronto.

These are the facts as we heard them. Mr. Chen was working at his convenience store when the store was robbed. A short time later, the shoplifter had the nerve to return to Mr. Chen's store. However, Mr. Chen recognized the shoplifter and stopped him before he had a chance to commit a second theft. The store owner, Mr. Chen, tied up the shoplifter and put him in a van—the only place he could keep him until the police arrived. Believe it or not, it was the store owner who was charged with forcible confinement, among other things. The justice system amazes me sometimes.

I worked in the media long enough to know how sensational this type of story can become across the country. The story made it all the way to Gatineau. That being said, legal experts have told us that notwithstanding Mr. Chen's case, the Criminal Code, as currently drafted, should have given plenty of latitude to the police, who could have chosen not to arrest Mr. Chen. This could have been resolved without charges being laid against Mr. Chen.

To ensure that this does not happen again, the government introduced Bill C-26. At the time, my colleague from Trinity—Spadina also introduced a very similar bill. I will read the proposed subclause 3(2):

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

(a) they make the arrest at that time; or

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

I am sure that the infamous reasonable grounds are going to be interpreted in all kinds of ways.

I have a few problems with this clause because when it says “or a person authorized by the owner”, it obviously refers to security guards, and that bothers me.

In committee, we heard from witnesses from security agencies. An entire sector of the economy collectively jumped for joy over this new opportunity. The guards said it was finally their turn to shine.

To their credit, I must say, they are already working in stores, but not in small convenience stores. It is not the Mr. Chens of the world who will benefit from this, but rather superstores like Walmart and Target.

What worries me is that some of them like to pretend they are police officers, as though they are replacing the police. However, the defendant must be able to demonstrate that no peace officer was available to make the arrest. We were told that, quite often, it was hard for police officers to respond immediately to a call concerning shoplifting, because it was not necessarily a priority for them.

We also need to think about rural communities. Personally, I am a city girl. We often forget that many people live in rural settings, where there is not necessarily a police officer posted on every street corner.

That is all I have to say about the notion of a reasonable time.

However, we were definitely convinced that defining the notion of a reasonable time would prevent the court or the judge from using their own judgment in that regard. With that in mind, even though we have some reservations and we are anxious to see what will happen with all of that, the NDP plans to support Bill C-26. In its current state, it already answers many questions people had, which the courts often referred back to us as legislators. In that context, we hope this will do what it is meant to do.

In closing, regarding section 494 and citizen's arrest, one thing is clear: the government committed to ensuring that convenience store managers know that it is not open season for them to start making arrests left, right and centre, without thinking carefully first. No one is asking or recommending that they do so. We must leave this up to the professionals, the people who have been trained to do so. Otherwise, there could be serious consequences, especially if someone makes an illegal arrest. That is all I have to say, and I now welcome questions.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, my colleague raises some excellent points, and we heard this in previous debate, about Canadian corporations and people working in the security industries, perhaps wanting to take advantage of what they might view as expanded authority under this legislation and ending up with some unintended consequences or doing things that we as legislators do not want them to do.

Would my colleague comment on whether she sees it as our role, as members of Parliament and the people who create legislation, to send the message to Canadians that this is expanded protection instead of expanded authority and that we differentiate between the two so we do not have the concerns that she highlighted in her speech?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question and the comment. I agree that that is the message we need to send. My concern is mainly that a representative of the association of security agencies lobbied the committee. I found that somewhat inappropriate, because it was not specifically about powers mentioned in section 494 of the Criminal Code. It was about increasing those powers because there is a shortage of police officers. If I could say one thing to the government, I would suggest that if it really wants to stand up for victims and justice and the rule of law, maybe there should be more police officers instead of more penalties.

That is what the police association told us. The police would like to respond to calls about shoplifting and so on. But they do not have the resources, so they have to decide which crime is more serious. That sometimes puts individuals in the position of having to arrest people themselves, which should not be recommended. I hope that this will not be a growth industry because the government decides to leave it to individuals instead of trained police officers who receive ongoing training, who know what do to in such situations, who know the laws and the charters and who know how to carry out arrests.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Gatineau for her excellent speech. I share all of her concerns. I cannot support this bill because I find that it creates a system with serious problems with respect to citizen's arrest.

However, I do agree that the amendments improve things. The bill as it is now is better than it was at first reading, but I now have more concerns. I cannot support this bill because of citizen's arrest.

Why does my colleague now think that she can agree to this bill?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I had this thought: it is perhaps because I have had the benefit of participating in all the committee meetings, listening to all the witnesses, thinking things through, knowing what the Criminal Code looked like before, and seeing what has become of subsection 494(2). When I say that I am reasonably satisfied, it is because the bill does not make things worse.

If I had one comment to make to my colleague, who is also a lawyer, it would be to tell her to think of the bill in this light: it does not make section 494(2) worse in terms of citizen's arrest. It creates a number of criteria to which I have no fundamental objection. I do not think that it is awful; it is simply a little vague.

What does the bill mean where it says, “make the arrest within a reasonable time”? For a government that wants to replace judges more often than not, it is again a case of leaving it up to the court to decide what a reasonable time is and believing, on reasonable grounds, that arrest by a peace officer was not possible.

The wording is, notwithstanding, sufficiently serious given the types of cases that will arise and considering the fact that it has been confirmed that these are not situations that occur frequently. The fact that the bill also refers to “a person authorized by the owner” indicates that it cannot be just any old person. Once again, the other criteria must be met.

If we vote against Bill C–26 because it is not perfect, we will be depriving ourselves of an extremely important tool. I would like my colleague to think about that before it comes time to vote.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is an interesting debate. I have looked at the provisions and I wonder if the hon. member could speak to the kinds of issues I see.

The first one would be how the government will convey these new provisions to the public. If we look at the recent sad incident in the United States, where a youth was killed and late in the day, only because of public pressure, charges were brought against the person, presumably on reasonable grounds, for attacking somebody for going on the person's property. It will be very important to convey this to the public. Would the member agree with me that this is not a provision that would now specifically empowers ordinary citizens to intervene? It simply would provide additional defences for people who were charged for supposedly using inappropriate undue force and for detaining someone too long.

I also wonder what implications these provisions might have for good Samaritans. There was an incident in my riding recently where one of my constituents was attacked by a man. She went into a shop and the shop owner and others then managed to remove the man and called the police. The police did not come until several days later. She does not know if the guy is still at large and is suffering psychologically. Both may have implications for potential civil actions against others who do not detain or intervene.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, those are excellent questions. Indeed, these are the kinds of debates that occur when it comes to amending the Criminal Code.

On the first point, it comes back to what I said in committee. The government members who sit on the committee have assured us that steps will be taken—I do hope that we will see this soon, once the bill is passed—to ensure that people understand that it is not open season and that they cannot make arrests willy-nilly, for example, in the corner store, if they come across somebody who looks a bit suspicious and may have stolen from them yesterday, or something along those lines.

There is still a charter and rights that apply. You cannot detain someone without due cause in just any old way. It is not something that we are recommending that people do. Instead of putting advertisements on television every half an hour about Canada, Action Plan Canada on TV, the government should perhaps screen some public service announcements like these.

The impact when it comes to good Samaritans has not really been addressed here. Could this have an impact? Once again, it might be more likely to have an impact in the case of self-defence, for example, if something happened when someone helped someone else. My colleague referred specifically to something that I often heard when I was on the radio, which is that people no longer even want to stop when there is an accident because they are too worried about the consequences. This will not have any impact on that type of situation. This is still a problem that is not clear in the context of the existing legislation, and this bill will not change things overnight.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the member for Gatineau as justice critic for the New Democratic Party. We have worked together in committee on this bill and on other matters of common concern. I welcome her expertise and experience in this regard.

I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-26 at third reading. While I have often taken issue with the government's approach to criminal justice, I do support the principle behind the bill, which would simplify and update the Criminal Code both with respect to self-defence and defence of property.

As I noted during debate on the bill previously, the current Criminal Code provisions on these matters are complex and judges have noted that the law at present is as confusing as it is confounding.

In particular, the Criminal Code contains four provisions on the issue of self-defence and six defence of property provisions. The legislation we are debating today would simplify these provisions into two Criminal Code sections, one on self-defence and one with respect to defence of property.

I am a long-time supporter of law reform, and during the period that I was minister of justice and attorney general I called for a comprehensive and principled approach to law reform in our country. We need a comprehensive review and simplification of the entire Criminal Code, which is long overdue, and I have stood in this place before to regret the fact that we have yet to embark on such a comprehensive and principled approach to law reform.

Some of the government's actions have taken us away from an approach to principled and comprehensive law reform. I refer, among other things, to doing away with the Law Commission of Canada, which was a principled instrument that assisted the House and me when I was minister of justice and attorney general of Canada with regard to a principled approach to criminal law reform, as well as, regrettably, the elimination of the court challenges program. That program supported access to justice and representation on matters, including those that dealt with principled approaches to criminal law reform. We are missing that instrumentality as well.

Therefore, I hope the bill signals a perspective shift in the government's approach to criminal law, namely that it will support sensible approaches to criminal law reform and to the simplification of the criminal law and move us away from what has been an ill-founded focus not only on punitive and incarcerative approaches to criminal justice, but in a legislative approach that is organized around an ad hoc response to the criminal justice case du jour rather than, as I said, a comprehensive and principled approach to the overall issues of criminal law reform. This would allow us to revisit the notion of the introduction of newer mandatory minimums or enhancing existing mandatory minimums, notwithstanding the fact that the evidence has been clear with respect to the fact that such mandatory minimums do not serve as a deterrent, are ineffective, end up being prejudicial and have a disproportionate prejudicial impact on vulnerable groups in our country, let alone the manner in which they may end up prospectively in breach of rights protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the 30th anniversary of which we celebrated just last week.

Bill C-26 would be a useful addition to the criminal law in the manner in which I indicated before, and will proceed again to elaborate upon. It would provide greater clarity for prosecutors, judges and juries presented with cases that involve self-defence or defence of property. It would also help private citizens understand the situation in which they may defend their person or property. In this regard, I look forward to the government's plan to educate citizens on this area of the law in an effort to ensure that vigilantism, of which concern has been expressed in debate this morning and heretofore, is not encouraged by the passage of this legislation.

Certainly there might be some who may see this bill as an opportunity to take the law into their own hands. Again, I reiterate that citizens should always seek the assistance of our trained and uniformed emergency services personnel when possible, rather than risk their own personal safety or engage in ill-advised approaches in vigilantism.

One thing that should be made clear to Canadians is that it is not as though without this bill there would be no right of self-defence or the right to make a citizen's arrest. Both exist as a matter of the common law. Self-defence has existed in that regard for centuries. Both have now been codified as statute. Indeed, even if we did not have a statutory basis for these elements of our criminal law, we could nonetheless embark upon the legislative reforms before us today.

As we are now at third reading, I would like to address three particular issues with respect to this bill. The first is that of private security firms, which took up a good deal of necessary discussion and debate before our Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The second is with respect to the bill's use of “gender”. The third is the amendment proposed by my colleague, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Simply put, with respect to the first issue, that of private security firms, the concern is that these individuals are private citizens who by virtue of their employment often take on police-like functions. Arguably, the bill can serve to enhance their powers and this may not necessarily have positive consequences in that regard.

As the Canadian Bar Association stated in its submission:

We believe that anything which could unnecessarily expand the (perceived) mandate of private security officers and ordinary citizens to make arrests should be avoided.

Indeed, the CBA goes on to express its concern that the legislation might “encourage unjustified arrest by private security personnel, not subject to public oversight”, noting that:

Such personnel often lack the necessary range of equipment or adequate training to safely and lawfully make arrests in a manner proportionate to the circumstances, in the regular course of their duties.

This was a recurring issue during our committee hearing. I do believe the government should be quite mindful of this issue, both in terms of its efforts to educate individuals about the ramifications of this bill but also with respect to the potential introduction of legislation specific to security personnel, such as to ensure proper training and understanding of the law.

I noted earlier in my remarks with respect to the anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that we must ensure that these security personnel are well-versed in the protections inherent in the charter and court pronouncements in relation to such protections, such as to minimize the risk of their violation in respect of persons believed to have engaged in criminal acts.

As a final point in this regard, the concern was raised by two law professors who appeared before the committee that a consequence of the bill would be to make security guards, to use their words, “de facto police officers” by allowing them to delay before making an arrest. This too is a point that I will address more specifically in a moment within this context and the related context in matters of delay.

The second issue I want to address briefly is that of gender, which has been addressed as well in debate this morning, which this bill lists as a factor that can be considered by a judge in assessing the reasonableness of a self-defence action.

At committee it became clear that one of the things this legislation was meant to address was the problem of battered spouses syndrome, a defence linked to the current provisions of the Criminal Code. In this regard, I am pleased that all parties joined in accepting my amendment before committee to create a specific factor “any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident”, which, as my colleague for Gatineau pointed out, may also help victims of cyberstalking and cyberbullying.

While I am hopeful this will be enough to ensure that battered spouses are protected, I must reiterate what I said during previous debate about the inclusion of gender in criminal law legislation, namely that it opens the door to the resurgence of a series of myths and stereotypes, which have, regrettably, sometimes undermined our criminal law in areas such as sexual assault. Simply put, I am hopeful that no attorney or judge will advance any arguments that rely on inappropriate or prejudicial gender stereotypes, be it the weak, defenceless woman or the overpowering man, to determine the reasonableness of an action thereby suggesting that a woman should not have fought back or that a man should have fought back harder. Put another way, its continued presence in the statute implies that there is some fundamental difference between capacities of men and women to protect themselves, and I am not persuaded that gender is the determinative factor as opposed to other factors in the statute such as physical capacity or whether the person was armed.

The final issue I would like to address, and with this I draw to a close in the matter of substantive critique of this legislation, is the issue of allowing for a delay before an arrest is made. This point is indeed problematic, as evidenced by the many proposed NDP amendments at committee and indeed the proposed amendment by the Green Party this morning. I sincerely hope this issue can and will be taken up by the Senate as it is not immediately evident that the current language of the bill that one “make the arrest within a reasonable time after the offence is committed” is sufficient to guard against arbitrary detention or other situations whereby, for example, someone is followed across town by a security guard attempting to effectuate an arrest.

As Professor George Rigakos of Carleton University put it:

Bill C-26 therefore will create de facto private police officers, not in name, but in function, as they will use discretion, investigate, and build a case based on their new-found authority to delay arrest. I'm quite confident that this is not the intent of the committee.

Certainly this would not reflect my own intent and I am hopeful that this will be addressed in the other place. Indeed, the Barreau du Québec's submission on this point was quite instructive. It noted:

...the fact that a citizen's arrest must be made “within a reasonable time” after the commission of the alleged offence leaves the way open for a possible abuse of power. Any arrest includes elements of unforeseeability arising from the use of the force that is needed in order to make an arrest, peaceful though it may be. By definition, an arrest implies the use of force: a person who makes an arrest must physically control the person and restrict their movements and, if necessary, may use reasonable force to compel the person to submit to their authority. When the police make an arrest, they are identified by their uniform or otherwise, and persons arrested by police know that the police are entitled to make arrests, even if they believe the police are in error in their case, and police are required to inform the person arrested of the grounds for the arrest and of their rights. The police are trained to make arrests, and even with their training and skills, arrests sometimes go wrong, even where the persons involved are not criminals. A member of the public does not have the training and resources available to police forces. The power of arrest is an important power that must be exercised in accordance with the law, and the rights of a person who is arrested must be respected.

Again here we see the issue of constitutional rights, potentially and prospectively violated by those making use of this section without being fully aware of the juridical context in which citizen's arrest properly operates. I hope this matter will be addressed in the other place.

Another issue that can be addressed in the other place, and with which the committee had difficulty as well, was how to balance objective and subjective factors in the determination of the reasonableness of a self-defence action. Certainly in the circumstances of a criminal act, one may perceive the situation differently from the clarity that is afforded by hindsight. I am not persuaded that this bill often strikes the right balance in this regard. I appreciate the submissions from numerous groups that raised this concern. I trust that needed refinements can be made in the other House.

While I have not addressed much of the defence of property provisions in this legislation, I do support the principles behind them. We are all aware of the Toronto incident, to which reference has been made during the debate this morning, that gave rise to this bill. Generally, while it is not advisable to legislate on one particular case, and we have sometimes burdened our criminal law by legislating only as a result of one particular case, the overall principles behind this bill are reasonably acceptable and serve the overall aims of prospective law reform.

While I do still have some reservations, as I have outlined in the course of the discussion and my remarks this morning, and while I still hope some modifications may be made in the other place, I look forward to the simplification and reform of what are now overly complex and cumbersome Criminal Code provisions, with respect to both self-defence and defence of property. I hope that this might herald a comprehensive approach to a principled criminal law reform of other cumbersome and complex provisions in our Criminal Code, which we continue to amend on an ad hoc basis in response to a particular cause du jour, but which need a comprehensive and principled approach, not only for the simplification of our criminal law but to making it into a more principled approach that could be better understood by all actors in the criminal justice system.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his very thoughtful review of the piece of legislation that lies before us today. I share some of his concerns around the issue of what is reasonable.

What kind of checks and balances could the member see that the other place might make that would address his concerns in this legislation?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, the amendment that was proposed by the Green Party, which did not move forward in the House, should be addressed in the other place. I might add that both the Canadian Bar Association and the Quebec Bar Association supported the proposed amendment. While we did not move forward with it in this House, we should address in the other chamber.

A citizen's arrest is a very serious and potentially dangerous undertaking. Unlike a police officer, a private citizen is neither tasked with the duty to preserve and maintain the public peace, nor properly trained to apprehend suspected criminals. In most cases an arrest consists of either seizing or touching a person's body in an effort to detain them, or the person submitting to the arrest. A citizen's arrest that is made without careful consideration of the risk factors may have serious unintended consequences for those involved. When deciding whether to make a citizen's arrest, a person should be aware of the current law and consider the following: the person's safety, or the safety of others; reporting the information to the police, which is usually the best course of action instead of taking action on one's own; and ensuring that the person has correctly identified the suspect and the suspect's criminal conduct.

These and other considerations need to be properly communicated and understood so they can be properly acted upon. Another consideration that we might look at in the House is an educational campaign to have a full appreciation of the law.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his, as ever, cogent speech on this matter.

He raised the issue of the education of the public on this provision. Most of the examples that have been given on this bill have related to incidents where people are coming into someone's shop, or stealing things from someone's shop, or perhaps entering someone's farm property and stealing equipment. However, in the province I come from, Alberta, there have been a number of incidents where there could arise difficulties with the interpretation of these provisions. Those include where leases are issued for oil and gas activity in the wild land areas of Alberta. Gates are put up, thereby leaseholders think they can prohibit public who simply want to go hike, look at wildlife and birds, and so forth. Also, there are areas where there are grazing leases. There have been a lot of confrontations between people who want to make recreational use of the land and those who think they have much broader entitlements because they have a lease for a specific purpose.

I wonder if the member could speak to that? With the changing of these provisions, it will be all the more important that we clarify to the leaseholders of lands the limitation of their rights to stop people, or take any kind of action when people enter those lands.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, the question reflects a broader concern that needs to be addressed. We will have to take it up in the other place. However, it reflects the broader concern that sometimes we legislate in response to a particular ad hoc situation. This legislation grew out of a particular ad hoc situation. The legislation is warranted. We have been able to take that ad hoc situation and address legislation which is problematic in the complexity and the cumbersome nature of its provision with respect to property and self-defence.

However, because we had that particular frame in mind when we approached the legislation we did not take up the different possibilities and contingencies in the matters of leaseholders and the like that have just been referred to by my hon. colleague. Those will have to be addressed.

I still believe that the action of private security firms may be one of the more difficult concerns to address. While that was not the phenomenon that gave rise to the legislation, it will very much be addressed in and by this legislation.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Portage—Lisgar.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (citizen's arrest and the defences of property and persons). Bill C-26 addresses a number of distinct but interrelated measures that give Canadians the power to respond to immediate threats to property and to persons, where the police are not able to be there.

In urgent situations where property or the safety of persons is being deliberately threatened, citizens may act to defeat the threat, including by resorting to actions that might otherwise amount to criminal conduct. The criminal law must recognize the ability of Canadians to take reasonable and measured actions to defend against criminal threats. More specifically, Bill C-26 addresses the law of citizen's arrest and the defence of person and property.

These three measures already exist in our law, depending on the circumstances and motivations of the person in any given case. They operate to shield individuals from liability for any of their actions that are otherwise criminal, precisely because in the particular context those actions are aimed at defending vital interests or apprehending wrongdoers.

However, all three sets of laws are in an imperfect state. Bill C-26 aims to improve each of the powers to ensure that Canadians and the justice system itself can more easily and more fairly assess the appropriateness of defensive emergency actions. The better the law sets out the conditions for legal emergency action, the fewer Canadians will find themselves charged and prosecuted for defending themselves against true criminals.

Today the defences of self-defence and defence of property are set out over nine provisions, with each defence having multiple variations that apply in slightly different circumstances. There is no need for variations covering different cases when they are all based on the same general principles. Further, the variations cause immense problems in court. Even before that, they complicate the ability of police who arrive at the scene to determine whether charges should be laid.

Parliament's duty is to ensure that laws are clear and simple. That is what Bill C-26 does for self-defence and defence of property. The new laws can be summarized quite simply. In the case of defence of property, a person should not be held responsible for a criminal offence he or she commits if it is a reasonable response taken for the purpose of protecting property in his or her possession from a reasonably perceived threat of it being taken, damaged, destroyed or trespassed upon. In the case of self-defence, a person should not be held responsible for a criminal offence her or she commits if it was a reasonable action taken for the purpose of protecting himself or herself or another person from a reasonably perceived attack by another person.

The proposed new defences in Bill C-26 will capture the essence of the current laws but in a much simpler way. The new laws will clearly and simply set out the conditions for defensive action. Self-defence is particularly important. It arises much more frequently than the defence of property, and it can provide a defence to murder. Because of the central place of self-defence in our criminal laws and reduction in the detail that is now present in the law, Bill C-26 goes an extra step. It proposes a list of factors that the courts must consider in determining whether the actions a person took, assuming that he or she reasonably feared an attack and acted for defensive purposes, were reasonable in the circumstances.

What is reasonable in one case may not be reasonable in another. Everything comes down to the facts and circumstances of each case. For instance, shooting someone in the leg may be a reasonable reaction if the person were threatening to kill someone, but it would not be reasonable if the person were threatening only to step on someone's toe. This criteria must therefore be determined flexibly.

However, a number of factors are common to many self-defence cases. The bill refers to some of these in a non-exhaustive list which is designed both to provide guidance to judges and juries, and to signal to the courts that they should continue to apply existing case law.

Factors on the list include whether any party had a weapon, the nature of the threat the person was facing, and whether the individuals involved had a pre-existing relationship, especially one that involved violence or threats. Proportionality between the threat that was averted and the harm that was caused is always going to be a relevant factor, and so is also on the list.

Following the testimony of a number of witnesses, the committee made several changes to enhance and expand the list. One such change modified the opening words of the clause to make it clear that the judge “shall”, not simply “may”, consider all relevant factors. The committee also clarified the factor that speaks to the size, age and gender of the parties by adding a more general idea of physical capabilities.

Finally, a new factor was added that refers to any previous communication or interaction between the parties, which is broader than the factor that speaks about a relationship between the parties.

The new defences are drafted so as to be easy for Canadians to understand, and so they should also be relatively easy for police to assess and juries as well, if charges are in fact appropriate. Canadians would understand that they would only be protected from liability where they genuinely act to protect property or person. Taking revenge against someone for past actions would not be excused.

They appreciate that they are not free to cause unlimited harm just because there is a threat. On the contrary, they must stick within socially acceptable standards of behaviour. With the passage of Bill C-26, the law would finally come to reflect these fundamental rules that Canadians already know.

Bill C-26 also would make a modest extension of the existing power of citizen's arrest in cases of property crime. Right now people can only arrest others if they find them committing an offence. This means that an arrest would be unlawful if it were committed just a few hours after the crime was witnessed, even where arrest at the time the crime was committed was not possible or was unsuccessful, for instance, because the suspect successfully got away.

The current law is too limited. Allowing people to arrest within a reasonable time of having witnessed the crime seems more practical. Law-abiding citizens and business owners should not become criminals just because their attempt to bring someone to justice was a little bit late.

To address this problem, Bill C-26 allows for arrest to be made not just when the crime is found in progress but also within a reasonable time afterwards. It would still be necessary for the arresting person to have observed enough of the crime to be confidant that it was committed. In addition, if the arrest were made later, the arresting person would have to turn his or her mind to the possibility of the police making the arrest instead. In every citizen's arrest situation, the arrested person must be turned over to the police as soon as possible.

All these requirements give our government confidence that this modest extension would not result in vigilante or other inappropriate or abusive behaviour.

Those who commit crimes against property should know that they are at risk of arrest, not just on the spot but also within a reasonable time of their offence, and those who have property stolen from them or have been otherwise criminally damaged should know they are entitled to participate in bringing those who wronged them to justice where the police are not able to do so.

I urge all members to support these important law reforms.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-26, which amends the Criminal Code to address the issues of citizen's arrest, defence of property and defence of persons.

In relation to the power of a citizen to arrest a person found committing a property-related offence, Bill C-26 would expand the permitted time frame for making an arrest. The existing power of arrest for the private citizen arises where the citizen finds someone committing an offence on or in relation to property. In other words, the person must be found actually in the process of committing an offence for a private arrest to be lawful. This is a limited power. The law does not permit an arrest even a short while after the offence was detected.

Business owners and other Canadians are right to be concerned with the narrowness of the power, the result of which is that citizens face prosecution for arrests they made even just shortly after they witnessed the crimes taking place. Bill C-26 addresses the limited nature of the power by expanding the existing rule to permit property owners or their agents to arrest persons they have observed committing property offences within a reasonable time after the offences were committed. The government is confident that the expansion of the citizen's arrest power would be interpreted and applied fairly and with due consideration for the various competing interests at play in an arrest situation.

Bill C-26 would also simplify the law relating to defence of property and defence of persons, which are in need of clarification. It is not the case that the law fails to give Canadians the authority they need to protect themselves. Rather, the problem is with the way the law is written. It is terribly confusing and difficult to understand what the parameters are for acting in defence of person or property. Briefly, Bill C-26 would simplify both defences so that Canadians could understand the rules that govern their ability to defend themselves, their families and their property. The police would also be better able to understand and apply the law at the scene of the crime and, as a result, would be better able to judge whether charges are warranted or not.

Canadians are rightly concerned about many reported incidents of charges being laid against Canadians who were doing nothing other than trying to defend themselves, their homes and their property. Our government is equally concerned. However, charging and prosecuting decisions are a matter of responsibility for provincial governments, not the federal government. The most Parliament can do is simplify and clarify the law of these defences, so the police and provincial crown attorneys can more easily and fairly apply them, and that is precisely what Bill C-26 would do.

The main component of the proposed new defences can be simply stated. In the case of defence of a person, did the defender reasonably perceive that he or she or another person was being threatened with force or actually being assaulted? In the case of defence of property, did the defender reasonably perceive the property he or she peaceably possessed was or was about to be interfered with, such as by someone taking, damaging, destroying or entering property without legal entitlement? In both types of cases, did the defender respond for the purpose of protecting him or herself or another person from force or for the purpose of protecting the property in question from interference? Finally, in both types of cases, did the defender act reasonably in the circumstance?

The justice and human rights committee passed a number of amendments to the self-defence provision. All the amendments modified the subsection of the defence that provides a list of factors for the court or jury to take into account in determining whether the actions of the accused were reasonable in the circumstance. One amendment clarifies and expands the opening words of the subsection. Another adds the notion of physical capabilities to the factor that speaks of the relative age, size and gender of the parties. The third adds a new factor that concerns any history of communication or interaction between the parties. Overall, each of these changes improves the proposed new defence.

I trust that all members will support this bill, which makes the defences more simple and clear and modestly expands the citizen's arrest law to provide flexibility for variations in the circumstances. Where a situation calls upon Canadians to take necessary and reasonable steps to stop crime and protect people and property, the law must clearly protect them from a liability.

I also want to note that, for instance, the expanded power we are talking about would come with its own special safeguards. For the arrest to be lawful, the person making the arrest must reasonably believe it was not feasible for the police to make the arrest themselves. This limitation would prevent what some may think are instances of private security agents deliberately delaying an arrest for illegitimate purposes, such as to collect additional evidence against a suspect. The existing duty upon any citizen who arrests another person to deliver that person as soon as possible to the police will also prevent vigilantism and abuse.

The concept of reasonable time also contains its own internal limitations. Whether an arrest was made in a reasonable time after an offence would be determined based on all the relevant facts and circumstances in each case. From case law that interprets similar phrases in other criminal law contexts, we can safely anticipate that these facts and circumstances are likely to be relevant to such a determination, including the length of delay, the reason for the delay, and whether the delay resulted in some kind of unfairness to the arrested person.

Again, this is a necessary bill that would clarify the act and make it a positive step forward for all Canadians. Therefore I urge all members to support this important legislation.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. When this bill is studied in committee, will citizen's arrests, self-defence and defence of property really be studied in depth to make sure things do not get out of hand?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as this bill was drafted, we wanted to make sure it was a clear bill and that necessary changes were made so Canadians could protect themselves and their property. So far we have all been trying to work together on all sides to make sure this is a bill that would not only close loopholes that need to be closed but also cover all the necessary angles.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the hon. member could expand on her comments. She made reference to the conditions in which an arrest could be made. I believe she used the example that one could not make an arrest if in fact there were reasonable grounds to believe there was a possibility of a police agency getting involved in order to make that arrest.

Could the hon. member pick up on that point? I think it is an important point to get across.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, yes, there are safeguards that would be in place.

As I said, in order for the arrest to be lawful, the person making the arrest must reasonably believe that it was not feasible for the police to make the arrest themselves. Again, that would be in the context of the timing, of when the offence happened. The short period of time has been the limitation for individuals. Now they would have an expanded time, but also at the same time not believe that the police were imminent and able to make that arrest themselves.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that we are going to support this bill, as most of my colleagues stated earlier.

I would like to know what my colleague opposite thinks. There are a number of observers of criminal activities who believe that this kind of bill is rather lacking in clarity in certain places, with regard to individuals, necessary force and all that.

Some observers believe that there might be an increase in the number of vigilantes, people who want to take justice into their own hands for reasons that are not always acceptable, and that there may also be an increase in the use of firearms. What does she think about that?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think all hon. members share the concern that we would never want something like this to lead to vigilantism. Instead, we want Canadians to know they would be able to protect themselves against criminal acts and that the justice system would be behind them.

It is good to know that the NDP will be supporting this. As we continue to work together on this bill, we need to make sure it is working most effectively for law-abiding Canadians, who are not interested in anything other than being able to protect their property.

Ideally, police do their job to help enforce laws, but law-abiding Canadians need to know we and the justice system are behind them.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to speak in support of this legislation.

I want to acknowledge the work done on this file because it was originally introduced by my colleague from Trinity—Spadina as a result of events that happened in her riding. I know it is not the only cause but sometimes we, as legislators, need an event to make us aware of issues that we need to address here in the hallowed Houses of Parliament. It was as a result of a break-in at a general store. Somebody tried to steal something, the consequent holding of or keeping the person detained until the police could get there and the charges that ensued against the shopkeeper. All of that led to the need for us, as legislators, to clarify existing language so that the judicial system, when it proceeds, can actually follow that. I thank my colleague from Trinity—Spadina for spearheading this and for giving us all an opportunity to address this area. Whatever she takes on, whether it is in her riding or in her transportation critic role, she does it with all the passion, vim and vigour that she can bring to that task.

I was looking through the legislation and listening to the people who had concerns about the words that exist. I will read a quote from Regina v. McIntosh. Chief Justice Lamer stated:

...ss. 34 and 35 of the Criminal Code are highly technical, excessively detailed provisions deserving of much criticism. These provisions overlap, and are internally inconsistent in certain respects.

I am sure it is with some sense of relief that the judicial system is looking at all of this and is pleased to see that we are trying to address that language. As we said earlier, we are pleased that at least some of the amendments put forward by the official opposition were adopted. We would have been happier if a few more had been but there is always a chance for other people to address these at a later time.

When we look at what is being addressed in this legislation, it is really not the right of citizens to make a citizen's arrest based on a huge number of issues. It only applies to one's own property and one's personal safety. Sometimes we can go to the far extreme. I can remember when I first started teaching the kind of discretion that existed for teachers as loco parentis. If a parent could not be accessed, I could get a phone call at 10 o'clock at night to say that a young person who happened to be one of my students had been picked up by the police and I would be asked if I would like to pick him or her up. As much as members may think that was a bit unreasonable, there was a certain amount of common sense in that. Whenever I did that, it was always with a great deal of respect for the role of the parent but also the need not to see the young person having to stay overnight in detention. There are some things in our society that are common sense issues and sometimes we take them to the extreme.

In the case that happened in Trinity—Spadina, it concerned David Chen, the owner of the Lucky Moose Food Mart in Toronto. When he apprehended the guy who tried to steal from his store, it was all the charges that ensued. On the other hand, did he do the right thing? I was not there so I do not really want to comment on that or the lawsuit itself.

However, I urge that we clarify that if someone is on our property trying to steal from us that we can make a citizen's arrest but not mete out punishment. This is not vigilante behaviour. This is not to beat the person up or use any weapons. It is simply to make an arrest. When we are making that arrest, we also hope that the person who we are arresting will have enough respect for the citizen's arrest concept that he or she will actually honour that.

I am not that naive to not accept the fact that some people will not stick around to be subjected to a citizen's arrest. Some will take off. In those cases, we would never tell people to chase them down or wrestle them to the ground. When I talk about a citizen's arrest, I would ask the person to stop doing what he or she is doing. I would then say whatever it is one would say when making a citizen's arrest. We need some education with respect to this as well. One of the niggling doubts in my mind is whether people will realize it is an arrest, not a punishment, and that once the person has been arrested the police come and then it is in the hands of our judiciary and our enforcement officers.

When we clarify language like this, there is always the headlines and then the educating of our citizenry. I am hoping the government will give some consideration to educating citizens about the changes that we are making, because we would not want people to misread the intent of this legislation.

I was looking at self-defence issues. Members may not know this but I have a black belt in judo. I have taught judo and have accidentally hurt a person very close to me because he insisted that I show him how it is done. He did not have the sense to fall when I asked him to fall. During a citizen's arrest, people need to know that they must be very careful. I would not want us to be in a position where everyday citizens turn to using undue force that could lead to escalations of violence, which then becomes more like vigilante behaviour than a citizen's arrest. All of these issues become very important.

I am proud that one of the things we teach our children is to not hit back if they are hit. We teach them to use words and find other ways to communicate. In the same way, when this legislation goes through, we need to take the time to stress that when people make a citizen's arrest, they are not to use violence. We are talking about a citizen's arrest in a common sense way. It is an arrest, not a punishment or a judgment.

The many legal experts who presented at committee were very supportive of the proposed changes to the self-defence and defence of property sections of the Criminal Code. They all acknowledged that this clarification was necessary.

As parliamentarians, when we hear those who practise law and the judiciary that there is a problem with the legislation or with what it is that we are asking them to act upon, it behooves us to examine it and make the necessary changes. Also, once we have made the necessary changes, we need to ensure we do our homework to ensure that citizens understand what it means.

When I first looked at the legislation I was a bit worried about some aspects of it. I kept thinking that I would hate for people to think that, if they have a gun at home or something like that, it is okay to use it. That is not what this legislation is about. It is about carrying out a citizen's arrest when the police are not around. Now there is the latitude to do a citizen's arrest if it is 10 minutes later.

I often wonder how many citizen's arrests are actually made across the country under the current rules. I only want to know this out of curiosity because I do not have this information. From the kind of publicity it gets, I would say that it is probably not too many. I do not see that this change in wording to give clarity will lead to a huge number of people chasing criminals and wrestling them to the ground in order to make a citizen's arrest. Most citizens are peace-loving people. They will not want to do this. My tendency would be to pick up the phone and dial for help as quickly as possible. Despite the fact that I have a black belt in judo, I still would not want to be tackling any of these situations myself.

Thankfully, nowadays almost everybody has a cellphone on them which makes it much quicker and easier to contact the police and call for help. I would tell people who might contemplate making a citizen's arrest to have their phone on and ensure they connect with people straightaway. I would tell them not to use any kind of violence, either verbal or physical, to make the arrest. They should not put their own safety at risk. That is not the intent of this legislation.

Just as we teach our children not to hit back, in the same way the role of our citizens when they make arrest is to use normal language, make the arrest and do not get into anything else. If someone tries to run away, people should take a quick picture with a cell phone. They should not try to chase the person down the street but should try to talk to the person instead.

I have heard in the debate today that there are some other amendments that would narrow the self-defence actions that some people have had concerns about. I am sure that when the bill hits the other chamber those people may want to take a look at those.

I support this legislation as it is right now for the simple reason that we need to give some rights to individuals when it comes to self-defence and defence of property. We do not want to tell people to just stand there if they are being physically attacked. If people are watching that, then we want them to have the authority to do an arrest, which t might be enough to stop whatever altercation is happening.

I do agree with my esteemed colleague down the way who said that we need to take a look at the Criminal Code in a more comprehensive way. We have been debating a number of bills in the House that would protect our communities.

I had a meeting with a mayor in my riding. People there are pleased that the crime rate is actually going down. However, I would say that we have a lot of work to do when it comes to proactive prevention work. Our best attack to fighting many of the small level crimes that happen in our communities is to have preventive programs from a very early age.

I love the programs that exist, or that used to exist before all the budget cuts, in some of our elementary schools. They worked on self-esteem and communication skills and would also teach students how to use words instead of hitting back, how to take on bullies and how to speak out when they saw something happening that was not right.

Also, we need to invest. We need to work with our provincial partners to invest quite heavily in secondary education to make sure we have the kind of proactive preventative programs that will raise awareness among youth, give them other tools, work on their self-esteem, work on their communication skills and work on major social challenges facing them so that they are not tempted to look at other ways or to turn to crime in order to make a quick buck or feed a habit.

All of those kinds of prevention programs are really important. In our communities, even for those who have left school, proactive prevention programs are still the best way to go.

Often people say that if we could spend just one dollar on prevention, we could save about $100 on punishment later. This is another area to consider when we are looking at crime in our communities and how to take it on. Instead of a huge prison-building agenda or putting more people in prison, we could put more money into proactive preventative programs that actually get to the root causes of crime. I think that is really critical.

We have to look at some of the social impacts of poverty. We have a very high child poverty rate; how do we address that? How do we address some of the addiction issues that exist in our community that lead to more violence in our communities and the use of guns?

As a high school counsellor, one of the things I learned is that making really strict laws does very little to reduce crime. It actually pushes a lot of stuff underground, and everybody becomes more sophisticated. What actually does reduce crime is a proactive prevention program that tackles the root causes.

One of the biggest things I found when I worked with high school students was the area of self-esteem. Another was finding productive activities in the communities that youth can participate in, activities that give them a sense of belonging and allow them to work on those issues instead of being tempted into some other arenas.

When it comes to self-defence, I noticed at the committee stage that there was a lot of discussion about victims of abuse and how they will react in a situation.

I have worked with refugee students, students who have come here from very violent countries and from refugee camps where they even have to fight for food. I was called into a classroom where a student had hit a teacher and literally knocked him out. That was totally unacceptable, but working with the student, what we found out when we looked at how he had lived his life—how he had had to fight for food—was that when the teacher made a certain movement, the student thought he was going to be hit. He went back to being a refugee on the run and was in self-defence mode. Once the teacher understood that, it led to reconciliation between the two. They developed a really good working relationship.

In the same way, when we are looking at some of the abuse against women in our communities, let us take a look at prevention programs and education programs.

One of the key issues I want to stress once again is that this is citizen's arrest, not citizen's punishment or citizens passing judgment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for Newton—North Delta. I think she put very well the concerns one would have in looking at a bill that expands the access to citizen's arrest. As a matter of fact, she made a point that I had previously made at second reading, which was that the most appropriate response in our technological society to most events when one feels at risk or sees a criminal event is to take pictures or videos on cellphones and get them to law enforcement authorities, but not try to intervene in a situation that could become violent. We have too many innocent bystanders who have intervened in criminal activities and have ended up injured or worse.

Although some amendments were accepted, I think we have to be mindful that earlier in this session of Parliament, the routine for bills from first reading to third reading was that no amendments were acceptable. However, we have certainly seen a maturing in the committee process for some amendments, such as the one from the hon. member for Mount Royal, which significantly improves the criteria on the self-defence side of the act.

With regard to the acceptability of Bill C-26, I would ask if the hon. member for Newton—North Delta agrees that it would have been preferable to follow the advice of the Canadian Bar Association and leave subsection 494(2) of the Criminal Code alone.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as legislators in Parliament, whenever we see legislation before us, we want to tweak it or change it totally, and sometimes we oppose things from one side of the room or the other. However, at this time the NDP is supporting this legislation. We feel that it goes a long way in giving clarity to our judiciary and will help in the process.

As my esteemed colleague has said, she did want one particular element left out. I would be hesitant to comment on that at this stage, simply because I have not had the opportunity to examine it in detail.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.

Self-defence has been mentioned. We know that this element most frequently involves very subjective criteria. In the current bill, we worked, we put emphasis on a balance between subjective criteria and more objective criteria.

As we seek this balance, could my colleague give us her opinion about the impact that this will have on the judicial interpretation?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that we have to take a common sense approach with a lot of the stuff that we look at. To say that citizens could not protect themselves at all would be the other extreme, but is one just supposed to stand there and watch a person being harmed physically and not say anything?

This is a little step. It is a kind of compromise and balance. It leaves us able to make a citizen's arrest to stop what is happening for a moment until police officers get there. To deny this right to any group and further restrict it would not be acceptable. I think that within this piece of legislation there is a balancing of both the crime being committed and the role the everyday citizen can play when it comes to addressing violence.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Newton—North Delta on her speech. I thought it was great. Her focus on education and prevention was fantastic. I am also impressed and intrigued by the fact that she has a black belt in judo and would like to invite her to join me in the mixed martial arts caucus, which has a fundamental focus on education, youth communication, self-esteem development and positive relationships.

From that point of view, she called upon the government to do a little more on this legislation in terms of education, and I agree that is a step we could take. However, I am wondering if she could comment on her feelings—because I know what mine are—in terms of the role we need to play as members of Parliament when we speak to the media about this kind of legislation and when we address the concerns we have and how we could deal with it appropriately with our communities. I would see this legislation as expanded protection for Canadians versus expanded authority. If we message it like that, in my opinion we will move away from any fear of the vigilantism that has been raised as an issue.

Could she comment on the role we can play when we talk to the media of what we can do in our own communities? In her speech she talked about roles that need to be played in educating people in communities. In a vast and rural riding like the Yukon, one thing I do as a member of Parliament is promote positive relationships and the kind of education vein that she was going down, which I congratulate her for.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rather intrigued by the caucus that he just informed me about, so I will do some exploration.

Absolutely, we have a role as parliamentarians. When I am in my riding, such as in January when school was in session, I visit schools. I have community meetings. I am always having town hall meetings and I send out emails. We as parliamentarians have a huge role to play in our communities when it comes to education and prevention, but also in engaging people in the democratic process.

Last week I had the pleasure of visiting elementary schools. I met with students in grades 4, 5, 6 and 7, and they are very smart. They asked questions that would have floored most parliamentarians. They had done their homework before I got to my meetings with them. One little girl had a book with questions written down in it. They asked really smart questions. They asked questions about crime and what they can do.

Young people are very willing to be engaged, and that is where the prevention and proactive stuff starts. We would be foolish if we did not take advantage of whatever we can do as parliamentarians to give our own communities more security and knowledge, engage them in what is happening and build strong communities where they live.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to provide a bit of background before I ask my question.

On May 23, 2009, David Chen, the owner of the Lucky Moose Food Mart in Toronto, apprehended Anthony Bennett, who stole from the store. After Bennett was initially caught on security footage stealing from the store, he returned to the store an hour later, at which time Chen, the owner, and two employees tied the man up and locked him up in the back of a delivery van.

When the police arrived, they charged Chen with kidnapping and carrying a dangerous weapon—which was a box cutter that most grocery store workers would normally have on their persons—assault and forcible confinement. The crown prosecutors later dropped the kidnapping and weapons charges, but proceeded with the charges of forcible confinement and assault.

According to the Criminal Code as it is currently written, a property owner can only make a citizen's arrest if the alleged wrongdoer is caught in the act. Chen and his two co-accused were found not guilty of the charges of forcible confinement and assault in October 2010. Anthony Bennett pleaded guilty in August 2009 to stealing from the store and was sentenced to 30 days in jail.

This bill seeks to clarify sections of the Criminal Code pertaining to self-defence and defence of property. After careful review of the bill and after hearing from expert witnesses at committee, it was determined that the changes do in fact provide legislation—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. I am sorry the time is limited here. We need to give time for the hon. member for Newton—North Delta to answer the question.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as my esteemed colleague did such a wonderful job of giving us a backdrop of what led to the legislation, I will keep my answer very brief.

Yes, the judiciary was concerned. It raised it, and parliamentarians are trying to address it.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, hard-working store owners trying to protect their own property should never be punished as criminals and the Criminal Code should not provide opportunities for that.

Since the David Chen Lucky Moose case, which I will go into a bit more, there was another instance in my riding. On Bloor Street, close to Euclid Avenue, there is a very nice restaurant called Maroli, which is owned by Mr. Naveen Polapady. Recently he faced multiple assault charges after confronting an apparent thief trying to steal his property.

I will not go into long detail as to what occurred during this incident, but his restaurant had been repeatedly broken into. He had called police. That did not have much impact. He felt the police had not been able to protect him. In the instance there was a struggle between he and the apparent thief and a noxious substance was thrown at the thief. It was a spice called masala. Some of my colleagues may know this noxious substance. It makes very good chicken. It is quite unbelievable that this spice could be called a noxious substance. Mr. Polapady was charged with assault.

Obviously, the law needs to be clarified and changed. Hard-working restaurant owners, such as in this case, should not be punished for trying to protect their restaurants.

The case of David Chen, owner of the Lucky Moose, occurred on May 23, 2009. He had been robbed quite a few times. The Lucky Moose is in my riding in Chinatown in downtown Toronto. His store is a very popular place where a lot of people shop.

A security camera showed that Anthony Bennett, a thief with a 32-year criminal record dating back to 1976, stole $60 worth of plants, which are called money plants, from Mr. Chen's store. Because the thief was not able to carry as many plants as he could, he came back an hour later to try to steal some more. He admitted that was what he wanted to do. Four or five were not enough. He wanted more.

Mr. Chen, after calling the police many times that past year, finally had it. He gave chase, caught the fellow and held him in a van. One could see bruises on Mr. Chen's body because Anthony Bennett had punched him. He was held and then police arrived four minutes later. Mr. Chen was charged with four charges: assault, kidnapping, forcible confinement and possession of a concealed weapon.

What was the concealed weapon? It was a box cutter, which any grocery store owner would have. They have to cut open cardboard boxes in order to get to the apples and oranges in those boxes. He carries a box cutter with him. He never used it and was not prepared to use it. He just had it because he was a grocery store owner. He was charged with possession of a concealed weapon.

As for forcible confinement, he wanted to ensure the police would come and arrest this person. Citizen's arrest is all about that. However, he was charged with kidnapping and forcible confinement.

The RCMP claimed that Robert Dziekanski had a stapler and that was an offensive weapon also. However, I digress.

Crown prosecutor, Colleen Hepburn, then offered to drop the kidnapping and assault charges if Chen pleaded guilty to forcible confinement and possession of a weapon. For this, he would receive an 18-month suspended sentence and a criminal record. Mr. Chen refused, and I am glad he did. The kidnapping and possession charges were dropped anyway. One of the reasons I suspect they were dropped was because it entitled the defendants to a jury.

By the way, Mr. Chen was not the only one charged. His cousin and his nephew, who assisted him, were also charged. It caused a tremendous amount of grief in the extended family. Mr. Chen spent a night in jail. His wife was worried sick.

The kidnapping charge was dropped. I think maybe the prosecutor was a bit worried that if there were a jury trial, Chen's peers would do the sensible thing and find everyone not guilty. Therefore, the two remaining charges were supposed to be heard in October by a judge sitting alone.

One might ask, what happened to Anthony Bennett? He received 90 days' jail time, reduced to 30 days on the condition that he testify against David Chen, which he did.

What actually happened? The Criminal Code allows a citizen to arrest someone if caught committing a crime. It is a law that goes back to ancient times. Since then, surveillance cameras have been invented, so instead of a storekeeper standing guard all day, we have security cameras.

I have been in the Lucky Moose many times. Mr. Chen had installed large numbers of security cameras. Any reasonable judge would modernize the concept of citizen's arrest, including in Chen's situation, and accept camera evidence as sufficient grounds for later arrest. However, the act now states that one must arrest a person while he or she is committing a crime. If people are arrested inside the store, they have not actually committed the crime yet because they could say they were about to pay. If they do not pay at the cash register, which is right by the door, and leave the store, by that time they are outside, which means the owner would have to give chase. This is what David Chen did. However, because it was after the actual crime being committed, the Criminal Code allowed police to arrest him.

The result was a lot of emotional and financial hardship. The case finally went to trial after a long time. By October 29, 2010, a year and a half later, the judge finally found David Chen, his cousin and his nephew not guilty. However, this was after a huge amount of money was spent on lawyer fees.

Given that the profit margins in these stores are extremely slim, David Chen did not ask for it, but the community came together, had fundraising banquets and drives to help him pay his lawyer fees. The community also said that the law did not protect hard-working store owners and that it must be changed. There was a petition with 10,000 signatures on it.

The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism promised some time in 2009 that the Conservative government would take action. One year later, nothing happened. I then introduced a private member's bill, which I termed as the Lucky Moose bill. Actually the moose was not that lucky on May 23, but I called it the Lucky Moose bill. The bill would have allowed for a flexible interpretation that, as long as the citizen's arrests were done within a reasonable amount of time, the store owners would be entitled to make them.

Unfortunately, nothing happened in the fall of 2010. I tried to push my private member's bill forward. It was on February 17, 2011, that the Prime Minister promised to introduce a government bill.

It is unfortunate it has taken so long. The bill passed first and second reading, but died when the election was called. Therefore, I am quite happy that another version of it, Bill C-26, which is very similar to my original Lucky Moose private member's bill, is now before the House at third reading. I hope in a few days the bill will pass the House of Commons into the Senate for approval and become law. It cannot happen soon enough.

Amending the Criminal Code would only assist in a certain way. To a certain extent it would clarify the law. At the justice committee, there was a diverse group of witnesses, including the Canadian Convenience Store Association, the Elizabeth Fry society, the Association of Professional Security Agencies, Quebec law association, the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Police Association. They all agreed that this bill was good, but there were some flaws in it.

Our critic introduced nine amendments. Two of the amendments were successful and seven, unfortunately, were not. I really regret that. We did manage to get a related amendment passed, which would require a court to consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act. The second amendment would place a greater onus on the courts to consider the history of the relationship between individuals.

There is a great need for different sections of the Criminal Code to be updated. Even though at the end of the day seven of the amendments of the New Democrats were defeated, we still believe the bill will give an adequate update to legislation and that is why we support it.

My colleague is right in that we should also look at other issues connected to the case. We need better community-based policing. A store owner should not have to wait so long for the police to arrive. There needs to be much faster response time by police officers and they need to know their own community so they are familiar with the challenges some of the smaller store owners face. They also need to understand who are the regulars in the community who commit these crimes over and over again.

If we have community-based policing, then there would be a regular number of police who would become familiar with the neighbourhood. By and large, a lot of the people who are stealing are from the neighbourhood. The store owners who suffer from these kinds of offences and are victimized have by and large been in the community for a long time. They own small shops and cannot afford to hire private security guards, which is why they occasionally, unfortunately, resort to citizen's arrest or self-defence.

If the police had a much faster response time, then people like David Chen would not have to take the law into their own hands. When the charges were finally dropped and he was asked by the media whether he would do it again, give chase and perform a citizen's arrest, had he known what would happen, Mr. Chen said, “No, I would probably wait for the police to come”.

I think 99% of store owners would probably give that kind of response. They would rather have the police come to deal with a criminal offence. The problem is that there is not a faster police response time.

On the other side, we have a person like Bennett, who was living in the community and is not anymore. He was not able to get into treatment programs initially, maybe in the late 1970s or early 1980s when he started committing crimes because he was addicted to drugs.

I do not know whether he has any mental health issues, but I do know that a lot of these criminals who commit theft and break and enter are addicted to drugs, and others have mental health issues, and yet we have a system in Canada where we do not have sufficient mental health treatment programs, especially within the communities.

If people have access to drug treatment or mental health programs, they can get clean and are able to start again. However, once they come back to the community, because there is not a community-based program to support them where they live, some of these folks end up reoffending, end up being hooked on drugs again and end up committing petty theft, victimizing the local store owners.

That is why the NDP believes that aside from amending the Criminal Code, aside from helping hard-working store owners to protect their own property, we really need to be smart on crime. We need to find some ways to have better community-based policing. We must have community-based treatment programs, drug treatment and mental health support, because if we do not do that we will end up throwing a lot of people in jail who will come out and reoffend over and over again. People like Naveen Polapady, a restaurant owner, and David Chen, a grocery store owner, will continue to be victimized.

To conclude, I am very happy this bill is finally in front of us for third reading. I hope it will pass without any problems and that the Senate approves it, so that at the end of the day David Chen and others can feel that justice is on their side, not against them.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right in the sense that we do anticipate passing this bill today. It has fairly widespread support within the chamber.

In her comments, she made reference to something that is a bit off topic but is quite relevant in terms of communities' needs as they try to deal with crime issues, and that is community policing, for which I have always been a strong advocate.

Would the member share with members her thoughts on community policing and its potential to have some role in providing education in commercial strips, where there is a greater likelihood of a citizen's arrest being made? Often through community policing there is a strong educational component. I would suggest to the House that, through community policing, people can help better educate our community as a whole on the role of citizen's arrest.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the concept of community-based policing started in the Prairies, interestingly enough. I believe the Edmonton police and others piloted it. It means that in a certain district, depending on the size, the same four or six police officers would patrol an area regularly. They would have regular meetings with the store owners and the residents in the area. They would work with them to find ways to improve on safety. Sometimes it is the design of the community. It could be lighting or shrubs or a neighbourhood watch program, which the police officers would assist in setting up.

However, the problem with policing in big cities is that the scheduling means that different officers rotate in and out of the neighbourhood at different times of day. That means that sometimes officers who patrol the areas would not know their neighbourhood as well, so they are not familiar with the history of what is occurring in a store. Anyone who regularly patrols that area in Chinatown would know David Chen and the Lucky Moose store and would know he had been victimized by petty thefts over and over again. In this case, I am not sure the officers who came to arrest him knew the history of what occurred.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her excellent speech. I will continue to speak on the same issue, that is, community-based policing.

Over the past few years, particularly in Quebec, we have been coping with the new issue. There are fewer and fewer services provided by the Sûreté du Québec in the regions. In some small communities, there are no police services.

I would like to ask my colleague to tell us a little bit more about the consequences that this might have in certain areas that are far away from major centres, neighbourhoods that more often experience crime precisely because of this, including resort areas near rivers and lakes, summer cottages and so on. More and more people are left to their own devices and have to defend their property and sometimes their lives.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a concern. If there were less police coverage, no matter what level of policing, there would be more opportunities for break-ins at cottages, for example, or small stores. In some ways, people whose places have been broken into feel personally violated. It is not even about the property loss. It could be the loss of a very special ring or a memento from a grandfather or grandmother. These kinds of items can have a lot of sentimental value. They might not get a lot of money on the market, but it is devastating emotionally for the person who loses that item.

If the police get too busy dealing with more serious crimes, they may not have enough time to deal with break and enter crimes and theft, and that would be unfortunate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. In passing this bill, of course, we are opening the door to the possibility of overdoing it.

I would appreciate it if my colleague would tell us what the government should do to place safeguards around the bill--to make sure that, on the one hand, we reach the bill's objectives, and on the other, that we do not go over the top with it.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is critically important that we do not encourage vigilante justice. We do not want to encourage people to put their own personal safety at risk. We want to be very clear that if a crime is occurring, people should call the police. People should not get involved. That is the top priority.

There are already sections under the existing Criminal Code that deal with citizen's arrest, self-defence and defence of property. These three concepts already exist in the Criminal Code. The amendments we are doing here would only modify already-entrenched aspects of our current laws and do not really introduce any kind of radical new concepts.

I want to be very clear that we do not want people to take justice into their own hands. We believe that, if people do so, sometimes they put their personal safety at risk. The top priority is to call the police and leave the situation, if possible, if facing danger.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very eloquent speech, which proves that it takes more than one measure to advance security in Canada. I am often in touch with community organizations and street workers in my riding, who often work outside the established order, if I can put it that way.

The NDP supports the current bill. We will study it in committee to ensure that it does not lead to abuses. I would like to expand the current debate somewhat to say that this type of bill is not enough to prevent crime.

Could my colleague give us some more details about that? What other solutions could we bring forward? These days, it seems that the current government is somewhat less interested in prevention. What solutions can we suggest to reduce crime in Canada?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is a disturbing trend. One of the fastest growing populations in prisons is women. Often they are in jail because they are stealing, and they are stealing because of deep poverty. I know of a person who stole diapers because she just did not have the money to buy them for her daughter, I believe. She was caught and put in jail. In some cases, especially for women, poverty is the root cause of some of their criminal activities. As legislators, we need to look at that and see if we could do something to make poverty history.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Compton—Stanstead.

This bill would amend the Criminal Code, in particular subsection 494(2) on citizen's arrest, self-defence and the protection of property. My speech will mainly focus on citizen's arrest and self-defence.

The amendments would make the legislation more flexible. For example, they would allow a person to arrest someone without a warrant within a reasonable time. Often, as In the case of a number of the examples provided today, a person is attacked, may not necessarily fight back immediately, but may do so subsequently. It will be up to the courts to decide what is a reasonable time based on the circumstances. The legislation provides the courts with a framework for making decisions.

The second part concerns self-defence. In committee, the NDP proposed nine amendments to the bill; only two were accepted and seven were rejected. Even though the NDP would have preferred that all nine amendments be accepted, it recognizes that the law needs to be amended and that the bill addresses certain shortcomings and updates the legislation. For that reason, the NDP members support Bill C-26.

It is important to mention—in case the government is listening—that the NDP had proposed an amendment in order to add a subjective aspect to self-defence and to include situations of spousal abuse. This amendment not only included spousal abuse, but also cases of 18-year-olds who still live with their parents and who are abused by one of their parents or a member of the family and have been for many years. This might include any situation where a person has a history of violence.

Battered woman syndrome often comes up in the courts. However, this syndrome is not necessarily recognized. A person who has been a victim of repeated acts of violence might perceive matters incorrectly when in a violent situation. Their reaction to their attacker might be unpredictable.

It is important to know, when we are talking about spousal abuse, that the attacker—the spouse, the husband, or whoever—will not necessarily expect that reaction. I am also thinking about the situation where an 18-year-old might want to protect his mother from being attacked by his father. Someone who is raised in a violent setting might have an unexpected reaction to a relative or loved one who commits an act of violence.

The proposed amendment asked that the court assess whether, in the person's eyes, the person's actions were reasonable in the circumstances. In some situations, the court might take into account this type of history. Including this in the legislation provides a framework for this type of situation. This principle was created through jurisprudence and might differ from one province to another or one judge to another.

Hence, the interpretation is really based instead on evidence and testimony. In certain cases, the fact that it is not included in the legislation may, perhaps, be damaging to certain victims. In fact, I am talking about victims. On several occasions, women who have simply sought to defend themselves against their spouses have themselves been accused of assault. As the member for Gatineau mentioned, we have even seen cases where people no longer wish to intervene. I remember a case in Quebec, for example, where a person dove into the river to save somebody. However, the person who was rescued got injured in the process of being removed from the river and sued the rescuer for assault and battery.

Simply including this in the legislation will give victims of crimes and people seeking to defend themselves the assurance that they themselves will not be prosecuted for battery or assault.

In fact, an historical context is really important here because in several sections of the Criminal Code, there is an objective component that deals not only with assault and battery, but also the intention to hurt somebody. In the case of assault causing bodily harm, the person must have had the intention of causing bodily harm. Bodily harm is identified, but so too is the intention behind it. In self-defence, the issue of intention is not relevant. For example, a victim of domestic violence who takes a pot and hits her attacker on the head with it did not intend to inflict a wound, but rather to defend herself.

I think that this is really important. There are several organizations that share this opinion, one being the Canadian Bar Association. I read in its recommendations, which were based on its review of the bill, that it proposes that the clause be amended to read “the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances as perceived by the accused”. Perception therefore plays a very important role.

The government’s amendment is slightly different to ours. The NDP nevertheless succeeded in having an amendment passed that requires the court to consider the personal situation of the person who used self-defence. The wording is, however, not as precise as what the NDP proposed.

For example, in a situation where two men fight, self-defence is often more difficult to prove. However, let us consider someone who is 18—I often use this example—and has grown up in a violent household. Every day, he sees his father beat his mother and one day he decides to stand up to him, because his mother refuses to defend herself.

In my opinion—and I hope that the government hears this—it is important to be precise about this kind of amendment. Often, the courts need legislators to guide them in the decision-making process. Legislator must take their role seriously and provide a legal framework for these kinds of situations.

I am not criticizing the bill. I am simply proposing some potential improvements. It is a step in the right direction. We proposed nine amendments. We will amend the Criminal Code in the hope that we might continue to improve it in the years to come.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her excellent speech.

Could my colleague suggest restrictions and parameters that could be imposed on a bill of this kind in terms of the concept of self-defence?

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the section that was in the Criminal Code before—I do not have it with me—was quite complicated because there were a number of quite similar situations that followed one another. It was often difficult to apply the section to a specific situation because it was quite unclear, and that is why the section was amended. I can say that there are a number of situations. The bill includes a number of criteria that the court can take into consideration. For instance, it talks about the nature of the force. If someone is attacked with a knife, what is the nature of the force? Would a person who responds with a gunshot be acting in self-defence?

As a person who will soon be receiving a law degree, I must say that it is left to the discretion of the court to judge according to the guidelines provided by the legislator. There are a number of criteria such as size, age, gender, history and subjectivity. Once again, determining whether or not someone was acting in self-defence is up to the court.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, our party is moving in favour of this particular bill because there has been some movement toward improving the bill. However, what concerns me as a former environmental enforcer is that when we come forward with new laws, it is important that the government also come forward with a compliance strategy. That may be particularly important in this case.

There have been a number of questions raised by members in the House about exactly how people would determine what reasonable force is and about how reasonably close to the incident they are in intervening in order to seize and detain the person. When it is made known that this new measure will be in place, does the member think it might be useful for the government to come forward with an enforcement and compliance strategy to inform shop owners or property owners of the limited extent to which they may detain persons, as well as to inform school children, youth and so forth that there may be the potential for a shop owner or some property owner to move to detain?

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said to my colleague, with regard to the way of determining what reasonable force is, it is very important that the legislator provide the courts with the clearest possible guidance. I was speaking of the subjective element in the bill in relation to domestic violence but also in relation to people with a history of violence. Force that may be considered an unreasonable response in one situation might well be considered reasonable if there is a history of violence. It is therefore the role of the government, as my colleague said, to inform the people but also to provide guidance to the courts with clear and stable guidelines that will make it possible for everyone to be judged on an equal footing. It is important that there be no inequality in one situation or another.

With regard to self-defence and citizen’s arrests in corner stores, in the case of young people, I must mention that the Criminal Code does not necessarily apply the same way to children as it does to adults. For instance, a minor may commit a crime. I will not get into a debate about the imposition of adult sentences on children. I have already said my piece about that. I believe that young people are considered under domestic and international law as people who should not be judged as adults. It would therefore be up to the legislator to decide what must be done.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious subject. We have said repeatedly that we will support the bill. I am by no means an expert in law and I would like to tackle this from another angle. In the few classes and courses I took in law, I remember being told something repeatedly about creating legislation, whether a law or regulations. Even if a law is being only partially amended, we must take into consideration everything about its environment, about how it is applied on the ground and in the courts, and about the repercussions it can have from coast to coast to coast.

First of all, I would be remiss if I did not state my personal position on this bill's intention. In my opinion, peace cannot be achieved through messages of hostility and distrust towards others. Peace and harmony in the world and in our modern society begin with the principles of co-operation and non-violence. Nevertheless, this does not take anything away from the principles of self-defence, the protection of property and mutual aid, which are also among our fundamental values of self-determination.

However, when a government's economic policies prevent it from providing the people with an adequate income and social fabric, it may have missed the point. A strong social fabric creates harmony within a community or society. It fosters hope within society, among people, and it very often prevents people from doing bad things.

The same idea applies to employment. Once again, I am not saying that we should not make laws governing citizen's arrest and self-defence. However, if we cannot create an environment of social and economic prosperity for all of the people of this great land so that all Canadians can reach their full potential and live without worrying about the future, we have failed.

Our great nation must focus on helping vulnerable communities and the poorest members of society, and on creating an environment in which social tensions are, for all practical purposes, non-existent. I know that sounds utopian. Still, it is our job to eliminate bad deeds from our society.

Often, geography and demographics are an indication of the poverty in which people are living in various regions of Canada. Canadians must clamour for changes to occur as quickly as possible because the social and economic environment is the responsibility of the federal government.

I like to think that love, hope and optimism are much easier to envisage and achieve, and that they carry hope for our future. I must pay tribute here to the man who inspired these lines, the late Mr. Jack Layton. I like to think that the future belongs to us and that it is in our hands. We, as elected decision makers in this democratic parliament, if there is anything left of it, are the bearers of this message of hope for our fellow Canadians.

I would therefore like to continue this debate and consider the notion of citizen's arrest, which is tolerated in most of the modern day world. It is worth exploring this notion before making any decision regarding this legislation which, as my colleagues have mentioned, the NDP is going to support.

The arrest of a citizen or a wrongdoer by a person who is not a law enforcement officer goes back to the medieval era in Great Britain. At that time, it was more common to seek justice for oneself because the state did not really concern itself with the safety of commoners, and protection of the public was reserved more for the upper classes, the elite.

This is also seen in some modern-day industrialized societies. With the industrialization of civilization and life increasingly organized around an economic society, governments have attempted to make our environment safe. Since the 20th century, in most countries that use common law, citizen's arrest is not only recognized as quite an exploit, it is written into law.

The first subsection of section 25 of the Criminal Code states:

25. (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law

(a) as a private person,

What does “private person” mean? I would have liked a better definition of the word “private person” and “necessary force”. Will the use of firearms be authorized or condoned? I would have liked to see these terms better defined, especially when the emphasis is placed on citizen involvement, which is the very basis of this bill.

Clause 3 also amends subsection 494(2) of the Criminal Code:

3. (1) Subsection 494(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:

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

(a) they make the arrest at that time; or

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

The notion of “reasonable time” during which an arrest may be made is also problematic, in my opinion. This highly subjective and inevitably biased concept will require some time before it is suitably defined by the courts.

The notions of urgency, survival and a number of other important factors also have to be defined in order to examine what a "reasonable time" is.

The border also figures in cases in my riding. There are borders in Stanstead and in a number of other small communities, where people crossing the border illegally sometimes commit crimes against farmers. The farmers are always wondering what they can do about it. Most of the time, they leave them alone. However, on occasion the farmers have taken matters into their own hands and unfortunate things have happened. No one has died, but some farmers have ended up in terrible situations just the same.

If we leave it up to the judges to dictate the rules to be followed, it will mean that, once again, we as legislators have not performed our duties as we should have. This is a very sad state of affairs, and it has also become the reality in this 41st Parliament.

I acknowledge that the legislation in this particular area of crime must be improved, but should we be asking instead why we have to do this?

As I said, the social fabric of a society is extremely important, because it allows each and every one of us to develop and contribute to it. The belief that that we all can contribute to the country's development is invaluable. Many different types of crime can be overcome this way.

Taking the law into one's own hands inevitably means putting one's self in danger specifically in order to stop a crime, whether public or private. Many people think that interacting with the perpetrator or perpetrators of a crime is a challenge.

I am aware of the case of one man who really did take things into his own hands. The result was the appalling death of a young teenager: the man was chasing him, only wanting to catch him, and he just drove right over the teen. These are horrifying incidents. We do not want these situations to happen and we do not want to see, as is happening with our neighbours to the south, these deplorable actions committed by citizens in situations that supposedly involve self-defence. Earlier I asked my colleague to define "self-defence" and "we are protecting our country, our property, our lives".

We have to consider our culture of respect for the courts and legislation and our traditions of peaceful life in our communities, in order to fine-tune the legislation and to make it suitable for use in the field.

In conclusion, Canada has always been a great country to live in, and one where people are used to a peaceful life, a democratic society, a stable economy, a low crime rate and a sense of mutual support and compassion.

Although many of these aspects of our society are in jeopardy and a New Democratic government would quickly handle them, the Conservative government is doing nothing to change the socio-economic situation, especially in the regions. In some regions of Quebec there is no public safety. We have to think about the civil society we want to pass on to our children, because they are the ones who will have to make decisions about the future and accustom themselves to the kind of country we will be leaving to them.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member on his speech.

Since this debate began, we have seen that citizen's arrest must be an exception and that calling upon law enforcement must be a priority. In this regard, can my colleague comment on the importance of educating and informing the public and civil society in the event that this bill is passed?

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. It is very important to inform the public when we correct laws, particularly when changes are made to the Criminal Code. This can be done through education, training and especially through the dissemination of information. This is extremely important because, as I said, from coast to coast to coast, people's lives could be in danger and could change as a result of the application of such a bill, particularly in light of the actions some people may take to protect their property. This is a very important aspect, which, unfortunately, is often overlooked by this government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his passionate speech. I liked his speech for a number of reasons, including the fact that he talked about our responsibility as a parliament and as legislators. It is important to strike a balance between the judiciary and the legislature. We have seen responsibility sliding more and more towards the judiciary and away from legislators.

In addition to these very important considerations, I would like to know what parameters my colleague would like to see in rural communities so that this bill could be properly implemented in those areas, given that security is sometimes very different in rural and urban communities?

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her excellent question. When we change a law, we have to be aware of its repercussions and implementation on the ground. In more rural, agricultural regions, where there are more self-employed workers and small and medium-sized businesses, and in resort areas, implementation can be quite different, particularly in Quebec.

I would like to focus on the situation in Quebec because the Sûreté du Québec was restructured a few years ago. A number of municipalities, including some in my riding, have met with me to say that it cannot even be implemented because the Sûreté du Québec is not even there. Even if an arrest were to happen within a reasonable period of time, it would not be possible because it would take the Sûreté du Québec half an hour, an hour or even an hour and a half to get there. What would happen to citizens making such an arrest?

Implementing such measures will be very difficult in some regions, not just in Quebec but across Canada. We might have to make sure that laws we pass in the future are clear enough for judges to do their job so that they do not have to come back to us and tell us to do our job.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We have enough time for a quick question and a quick answer. The hon. member for Laval—Les Îles.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

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

Knowing that the Conservative Party has abolished the firearms registry, is my colleague not concerned that certain store owners might be tempted to keep a gun on their premises at all times, even if we vote in favour of this bill?

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. That is always the NDP's concern. How are storekeepers and people who own small businesses and vacation spots supposed to protect their property? That question remains unanswered. There is no answer for that.

Nonetheless, there is a risk, especially when some people watch the news on TV and see that in the United States people use weapons to defend themselves without much regard for the consequences to others. Vigilante justice would be unpleasant and absolutely unacceptable.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as I have listened to the debate over the last couple of hours, what I have found of most interest is the way in which members are conducting themselves, and the types of speeches we are hearing.

It has been interesting to compare Bill C-26 to another crime bill that the government had, Bill C-10. There is a significant difference. I would suggest that with this bill there is fairly widespread support. Support for this bill is not only here in the House of Commons. I would suggest that a vast majority of Canadians would be quite pleased to see not only the debate that is occurring but more importantly what Bill C-26 is proposing to do.

We can compare that to Bill C-10. All of the opposition parties were quite critical of the government. The government was not prepared to listen to the opposition parties. It was a very controversial debate. The government even had to bring in time allocation. If we reflect on what the public was thinking about Bill C-10, on the crime file, we will find that there was quite a difference of opinion and a different way of dealing with crime.

There was a philosophy talked about that was, in essence, taken from the Deep South of the U.S., a philosophy of building more prisons and putting people in jails, a policy that has not worked as opposed to a policy that favoured trying to prevent crimes from taking place.

I look at today's bill as a bill that ultimately will pass. The government will not need time allocation for Bill C-26. There is a sense of co-operation. There is a sense that this is indeed a bill that deserves passage. I suspect it is only a question of a couple more hours, a few more speakers, and we will see Bill C-26 pass.

Most Canadians believe that citizen's arrest is pretty straightforward and that they could do that today. In certain situations, yes, they could do that today. However, we have heard examples of just how much misunderstanding there is around that.

Let us look at the example of a citizen's arrest in a poor environment. An individual walks into a store, grabs some merchandise, then walks out. Halfway down the block, the thief is apprehended by the store owner or an employee of the store. The store owner or employee is putting himself or herself at risk of numerous charges. The way the system is set up, the store owner is in fact potentially going to be a double victim. He or she was victimized when the property was stolen from the business. There is a very strong likelihood that charges will be laid against the store owner or employee because in apprehending the thief a half-block away from the store, and not in the store, he or she could be charged with unlawful arrest.

However, one member explained earlier that if the individual was in the store when the citizen's arrest was made, that individual would be able to say that he or she had not left the store and intended to purchase the merchandise. There is a great deal of clarity needed on this issue.

This particular bill reminds me of a provincial bill passed a number of years ago in the Manitoba legislature. It was called the good Samaritan bill.

I was the seconder of the bill. It was a Liberal Party initiative by Liberal leader Jon Gerrard, something he had advocated for a number of years, and we were ultimately able to get it passed.

I say that because a lot of people would make the assumption that if there is a vehicle accident and a good Samaritan assists an individual involved in this emergency situation, by trying to help someone, that good Samaritan could be sued. That particular bill tried to provide clarity. Much like Bill C-26, which would provide clarity.

It does make some changes, much like the good Samaritan bill. Ultimately it reinforces the idea that politicians are listening to what the people are saying and living up to the public's expectations. I think we will find a great deal of support for Bill C-26. In good part, it just makes sense.

I would like to make reference to a few stories. In Winnipeg North, the area I represent, crime and feeling safe on our streets is likely the number one issue, very close to health care. People want to feel safe. People have a right to feel safe and secure in their communities, their streets and their homes.

Like many members of the House, while knocking on doors during election campaigns, quite often I would hear examples of a citizen who felt threatened. We hear on the news about an individual store owner who has tried to protect himself or herself or the merchandise.

I wanted to reflect on stories I have heard and which connected with me because of the manner in which they came about. One of them was from a woman who lived in a house around Arlington Street, one of the core areas of Winnipeg North. She indicated to me that when the sun goes down, she does not feel safe to leave her own home. She does not feel safe to open the door and go outside to her own yard. The way in which that woman expressed herself stuck with me.

When I was in a 55-plus seniors' block after a town hall meeting, a gentleman asked me if I had ever heard of the concept of walking around with two wallets. When I asked him to explain, he said that in case an individual were mugged, the individual would hand over one wallet, and the other wallet would contain his or her identification and money.

When I reflect on those two incidents, it highlights how important it is for me as an elected official to ensure that we do what we can to provide that very basic level of comfort for the citizens of Canada to feel safe in their own communities. I would like to think that people should feel comfortable enough, no matter what their age, to walk out of their homes, no matter at what time of the day. That is a feeling that many generations have experienced. It is a fundamental right we need to work toward.

Individuals should not have to feel that they are going to be mugged when they go for a walk down a commercial or residential street. That raises a flag for me. I take it on as an issue of great importance because we want to try to make a difference.

Two other stories come to mind. This is where public opinion comes in. People will say, “Yes, that's a wonderful story”. This one involves someone I know personally. He is now 70 years old. At the time of the incident he may have been 68 or 69. He was out for a walk in the community of Maples where he does quite a bit of walking. He was approached by two rather large individuals in their late 20s or early 30s. As they got closer, he could tell there was some sort of substance, drugs or alcohol, involved. They approached him very aggressively. They started to rush at him and he believed that he was going to be mugged. This wonderful gentleman grabbed the one individual and lifted his one leg to propel the other individual. I guess he squeezed too tight which caused the individual in his arms to pass out. Then he faced the other individual, who looked at him, saw the other guy on the ground, and turned around and took off. I have heard the gentleman tell that story on several occasions, one to one and in a mall. It made a lot of people feel good that we have a senior with the ability to protect himself.

Another story was in regard to a local store owner. This gets right to the bill itself. This store owner was robbed. She was asked to help out with some ice cream and as she bent over to pick it up, she was stabbed in the neck. Fortunately, it was not fatal. As they were youth, instead of trying to chase them, she knew who they were and she went to the local police. She was able to ensure that those individuals were arrested.

I talk about those latter two stories because we have to be able to use common sense. When we pass Bill C-26, an important part of that bill is the issue of being reasonable. We have to recognize that it is very dangerous, if we are conducting a citizen's arrest, to confront someone who has committed a criminal action. We do not know to what degree the individual is going to respond. I have had many discussions with law enforcement officers. They say that if we are being robbed we should surrender whatever it is that is being asked of us. By doing that, we are decreasing the likelihood of incurring personal harm.

I have had the opportunity to talk to individuals who have been robbed at knifepoint, when a knife was put to their throat. One individual was very candid. He was scared because he thought the individual who had the knife was completely losing it and was going to cut his throat because he did not know where he was and just wanted to see money. He could see panic and fear in the individual who was robbing him.

Fortunately, the criminal left the scene after the person handed over the money. However, this person had the common sense to evaluate, much like the lady who was robbed in the store. In all cases, people have to use common sense and not feel they have to be heroes in order to protect property. That is one of the concerns that we have with regard to this particular bill.

We passed the legislation and want people to feel comfortable in knowing that they can conduct citizen's arrests. I gave the example of the individual who leaves the store and halfway down the block the store owner catches up. This bill would enable that store owner to recover the property, conduct a citizen's arrest and not worry about being charged. That is a positive aspect of the bill.

The concern that many individuals have with this bill, whether it is members of the chamber or law enforcement officers, is that we are not trying to tell the citizens of Canada that this is something they have to do. What they have to do is use discretion. Police officers are well-trained individuals and know how to conduct an arrest. They can anticipate the type of reaction they are going to get if they make an arrest. For the most part, average people do not know what is going to happen if they approach someone and say, “You have taken merchandise from my store, and I want you to give it back” or if they attempt to conduct a citizen's arrest. They do not know if in fact the individual has a concealed weapon, for example, and how they would react to that. When a store is robbed or someone is assaulted, most people would like the victim not to be made a victim again by attempting to do something that maybe he or she should not do.

That said, when circumstances allow someone to conduct a citizen's arrest, whether it is because of a robbery or in defence of someone who is being attacked or something of that nature, it is most appropriate to have a law that protects that individual. It is important that we protect individuals' rights to defend themselves. To that degree, Bill C-26 provides clarity for our courts and judicial system so that when people are being threatened with bodily harm, they have to have the right to protect themselves with reasonable force. They have to have the right to protect themselves. This is where Bill C-26 has great value, because it provides clarity to our judicial system. It tells our courts that under certain circumstances a person has the right to protect himself or herself from bodily harm or to protect his or her property from being taken or damaged.

For the most part, that legislation has a common sense approach in dealing with these issues. Because of that, we see that it has the support of the public as a whole and of political parties, generally speaking. I understand there are some concerns, but for the most part I believe members will vote for the bill. The Liberal Party's position has been to support the bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Winnipeg North will have 10 minutes remaining for questions and comments when the House next returns to debate on the question.

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 third time and passed.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-26, an act pertaining to what civilians can or cannot do when it comes to crimes that are perpetrated against them or their property.

It reminds me of my colleague, the member for Trinity—Spadina, and her constituent who was arrested after a perpetrator, who committed crimes against his particular business, was apprehended by him in a citizen's arrest.

When we look at the bill in the sense of what we should do on a go forward basis, it reminds me that we always need to think about many things when we suggest to citizens or when we try to protect them from charges against them when they try to protect themselves or their property.

I am always cautious around that type of action. Citizens need to be careful that they do not push the limits in what they do to protect themselves and their property when perhaps leaving the situation would be more advantageous. They could be either attacked or hurt when a situation could be defused.

Clearly we want to help them protect their property, their families and themselves from unwanted criminal acts that are perpetrated against them, but by the same token, we do not want to mislead them into believing that somehow, all of a sudden, they should become some form of adjunct police force.

As much as we support the bill, I would caution folks that if they are faced with the predicament of being attacked or their property being broken into and they are unable to move away, they should take reasonable precautions to ensure their property or their family is protected in a safe way that will not inflame or injure themselves or put them or their families at an even greater risk. It is not wrong to protect one's property, one's family or one's self from the perpetrator of a crime.

However, we do not want to give that false sense that individuals should be police officers because they live out in the country. I live out in the country, and to be honest, there really are no police officers in the neighbourhood for any of us who live in rural parts of Canada. The officers are quite far away, and that is as it should be. There are not many of us there and we cannot have an officer for half a dozen houses if they are miles and miles apart. It quite often takes a period of time for folks to get there.

Many of us have been victims of folks who have taken our property. I was the unwilling victim. It happens in rural Ontario, and I am sure it happens to rural constituents across this great land of ours, those who have nice sheds. When I say a shed, it is not the ones we get at Canadian Tire, 7x12 with flimsy stuff. These are great big sheds that hold full tractors, lawn tractors, lawn implements or other implements. We get a rash of folks coming across the rural constituencies who simply decide to load up their trucks with our goods.

In my case it was the famous whipper-snipper and chain saws. The only fortunate part was that whoever the perpetrators were, they could not figure out how to get the lawnmower tractor to move. They did not know that if they yanked on the little lever on the back, it would free-wheel and they would be unable to move it because the transmission was locked, fortunately, so I did not lose that. However, I lost a whole pile of other things.

Unfortunately for me, after I decided to bolt things up and chain them all together after I had replaced them, about four months later they decided to pay me another visit and scooped more stuff, but still could not get the tractor. I have to thank my dad for that, albeit he is no longer with us. As a millwright, he left me great big 10 and 20 foot lengths of chain with the great big locks he used to have when he was an industrial millwright, which would take one heck of a heavy bolt cutter to get through if an individual wanted to do that. These folks do not have bolt cutters. They do not really come equipped with that type of tool. Therefore, they could not get the additional stuff from me.

If I had been home at the time and witnessed the fact that those folks were entering my property and stealing valuable tools from me, which I need for the purposes of looking after my property, I certainly would have been at the window, yelling at them. Depending on the circumstances of what was going on, I may have been reluctant to actually go out and physically confront them. If there were more than one of them, and I was by myself, that may not have been what I would have wanted to do. I certainly would have been on the phone to 911. I may have been marking down their licence plate number and then allowing those sorts of things to go on. I certainly would have been protecting my property from that perspective.

In all cases it is not as simple as that, because the person might have been trying to come in through the door of my house. If I happened to be home with my family, that would present a different and unique danger.

If I am protecting myself and my family from a perpetrator who is intruding into my property, with malicious intent, whether that is to physically harm me or my family, or to do damage to my property just by simply being a malicious individual, do I deserve the right to then try to protect my property? The answer to that is yes, in the perspective of understanding what one needs to do.

People need to take caution, as I suggested earlier, and establish what the situation truly is. If it is perhaps younger people, who may be more afraid of the victim than the victim is of them, the victim might be able to get them off the property. Then again, it could be a person who is well-armed. It could be more than one person. People need to look at the situation and decide how to protect themselves and property. There should be no cost to victims who protected their property by charging them rather than the person who tried to invade their property.

It gets to the nub of the situation of the rights of an individual who is about to become a victim. Clearly, that is what happens to those of us who are either on our property or perhaps are even attacked in the street while walking, for instance. We are victims of a crime and we are simply trying to defend ourselves from an attack of some description.

What it amounts to is the law should not be making a person a victim a second time. The individual has already been victimized the first time. The victim has already perhaps lost property or has had property damaged, or has received some sort of physical harm.

At the very least, people having had their property taken away from them is an emotional violation, whether they are harmed or touched in any particular way. Even though people may not be there at the time, there is a certain value to losing property, whatever that happens to be. In my case it amounted to a few thousand dollars. Those are things that a person has had for a period of time. In some cases, a person's house may have unique value or a person may have intrinsic thoughts that hearken back to loved ones. Maybe it was a prized possession that grandma left for the person. If the person loses that, the emotional violation is always there.

Any time people are victims of crime, the last thing that should happen is that they are victimized again, or at least feel as if they are victim again. They have already been victimized by someone who has decided, in a malicious way, to do damage to their property, to them and their family.

We would all want and hope that folks would not perpetrate this type of violence or crime against other folks, but it would be naive in the nth degree to think that somehow all crime will just end. That is not the case. As we all know, crime is perpetrated, albeit we know it is on the decline.

Based on that, we have to look at what we can do to ensure that crime continues to decline. Albeit my colleagues across the way and I disagree about how to handle crime and punishment and rehabilitation or how to meet the balance. This is about folks who perpetrate crimes against others and the consequences of doing that, and there should be consequences.

What should the consequences be? What do we do to ameliorate that situation because the vast majority of those who perpetrate crimes eventually come out of incarceration or remand, depending on how it is done, or will be in the general society? How do we deal with that particular situation? How do we keep folks from taking other people's property? Ultimately, it really is an issue of how to move forward on crime.

This is about ensuring that the victim does not become another victim. That is the last thing New Democrats want. It was our colleague, the member for Trinity—Spadina, who in the last Parliament asked how one could protect oneself. Is it fair and just and right to use the powers that are available to citizens to ensure they protect their property, their person or family without crossing the line and committing a criminal act?

What is that line? How do we make that line broad enough so folks do not inadvertently trip over it because they did not understand it? How can we continue to move forward and allow them to act in a responsible way because they are a victim?

The folks this legislation would cover are the unwilling and unintended victims of a crime. They had no knowledge that a crime would be perpetrated against them. This was not a contrived act that the victim knew about. The victim had no sense that a crime would be perpetrated against him or her. This really was about an unintended situation happening to the victims, not unintended by those who attacked them. An intended act is when one decides to kick down someone else's door and ransack the house.

Ultimately, what are the consequences on people who receive that intentional act? They have to understand what the law will allow them to do. They have to understand that they can protect themselves or their property knowing in the full light of day that they will not have to worry about being criminally charged because of some unintended act based on an intended act by someone else who broke into their home and attacked them, their family or their property.

Again, it really has to be a cautious act. I would not want folks to think that this becomes a carte blanche bill that would allow one to set up some form of quasi judicial force or, for those of us who live rurally, would allow one to set up some sort of adjunct police force that is not the auxiliary police force.

We already have auxiliary police officers throughout the country, in Ontario and in my region. We have many of them because we do not have enough police officers. These auxiliary police officers are used at special events and parades. They are used extensively for the Labour Day Parade to help with crowd control and traffic. In my neck of the woods there are some great hills for cyclists. The auxiliary police officers control the intersections so that the regular officers can be out doing the work they are empowered to do under the law. We do not want to see another adjunct to the auxiliary officers such that, for example, the member for Welland will now have a group, and not just a neighbourhood watch.

A neighbourhood watch is a good thing. It is a neighbourly thing when one looks after a neighbour's property by simply paying attention when the neighbour is away. In my case, when I travel here, I know that my neighbour, Dave, who lives down the street—and I will put a plug in for my neighbour—and owns Longlack Poultry comes to plow my driveway, which is greatly appreciated. He has been doing this for a number of years now. My partner appreciates when the driveway is done and she is not waiting for me to get back from Ottawa to do it. I want to thank Dave for that. He helps out with my property and keeps an eye out, as do other neighbours because we do not live next door to one another as people do in the city.

When I say that we live next door to one another we are about a half mile away from each other. The neighbourhood watch is really about noticing a suspicious vehicle. Unfortunately, that is how my material was lost. That is how folks in rural Canada lose material. Trucks pull up and look like moving vans, but they take all of one's stuff. However, we do not want to see people in a neighbourhood watch who think that they somehow have the power of the police to interfere in situations and act as if they are members of a quasi police force. I do not believe the bill intends for that. I would caution folks that is not the way we would like to see this go. The police forces have a legitimate role and they do it in a very effective way. We congratulate and thank them for all of their hard work.

This reminds me of when I was on the community policing association committee for my neighbourhood. I used to ask the sergeant about the number of police cars in the neighbourhood when we had break-ins. He would say that they were re-evaluating and would place a car here and there. I remember a complaint from a constituent that a car was not in our neighbourhood. There were none in the town at all. When I asked the sergeant why there was no car within the area, he told me that there was a stabbing in Niagara Falls. He asked if I would prefer the police car to be in my town or somewhere else. I said that I would prefer it there was not a stabbing at all. There was no car in my area because he had to allow the car to go to a very serious situation. Someone had been violently attacked and stabbed.

I will finish by saying that as New Democrats we certainly appreciate the bill coming forward. We have made an amendment to it and we would like to see that happen. However, I will say to the folks out there, whenever one is in danger, be careful, call the police and try to ameliorate the situation so that more harm is not perpetrated on oneself or one's family.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend from Welland for a very thoughtful speech about the importance of this bill. I think most members of this House will be supporting this bill in the end, even though some people may have one concern or another.

One of the reasons I am supporting this bill is for the small businesses in the Streetsville business improvement area in my riding. These are hard-working local merchants, often one person working in a store, and they have been victimized. There has been a robbery, an assault or something. Quite often we find in these cases that the perpetrators return. They realize it was a good place to try to commit another robbery because it worked well previously. They can escape around the back quickly. However, sometimes the shop owner is able to get a picture of the perpetrators on video or maybe a glimpse of them. Then the perpetrators come back.

Would the member not agree that this bill is perhaps designed to help out that type of small merchant in communities all across Canada to be able to take some action if perpetrators return, and not be subject to charges as could presently be the case?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is absolutely right about the small business owners. There are many in my community.

As the member knows, although my community is more than just Welland. I love to give a plug to my riding of Welland, which is Welland, Port Colborne, Wainfleet, Thorold and parts of St. Catherines. There are small communities, like Port Colborne, Wainfleet and Thorold that have small business owners.

I think of a merchant like Elio's Foot Comfort Centre where people can get custom-made shoes and orthotics. I would encourage the member for Mississauga—Streetsville to come down and get those. If so, maybe he could get a pair of cowboy boots just like my good friend, Peter Kormos, the retired MPP from Welland. That is where he bought his good Canadian cowboy boots.

Clearly, the reason for this bill, as was said by the member for Trinity—Spadina, was what happened to Mr. David Chen in her riding. This was a small business owner who had acts of violence and robbery perpetrated against him not once but twice. We do not wish to see hard-working folks who own small businesses be victims of crime on multiple occasions, as in Mr. Chen's case, by the same person.

It is bad enough when an act is committed against a business owner or an individual, but it seems to me it is worse when the person who committed the crime comes back and perpetrates another crime against that business owner or individual. That is brazen beyond belief, that the same person would come back and try to victimize someone again.

Clearly that is why my colleague, the member for Trinity—Spadina introduced the legislation in the last House, to make sure that that did not happen.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Madam Speaker, in my own riding of Cape Breton—Canso, we had a rash of break-ins over a period of time in the Howie Centre, Sydney Forks area. We were fortunate. A member of the community, Seana Niedzielski, called a community meeting. There was a very good turnout. In conjunction with the Cape Breton Regional Police Services, she set up a neighbourhood watch program.

I am nervous about this piece of legislation because of something shared with us that evening. Police officer Paul Ratchford said that when people see someone trying to steal their barbecue, their initial reaction is to go out and confront the person. However, if someone is stealing something out of the backyard, he or she is probably not a very rational person. The individual may be high on drugs, such as cocaine or crystal meth. Those who confront these people are putting themselves at risk.

My question to my colleague is, should there be an education piece to go along with this legislation so that we do not unleash vigilantes across the country? There is a proper response for someone who sees a crime being perpetrated on his or her property. There is a rational process that should be pursued.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree. It is an issue of what a reasonable person should do when faced with the situation, as my colleague has expressed. What do we do with someone who has indeed—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order please. There was a question raised and the hon. member is answering.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague from Cape Breton. It is a wonderful part of the world. Next to my homeland of Scotland, it reminds me of being home when I come to Cape Breton. I have been there many times.

As the member described, if someone came into my backyard to steal my barbecue, he is right that the first response sometimes is to head to the door and prevent it. However, as I said earlier, I ought to take half a step back and question why I would go out. The person is bigger than me. Perhaps as was described, he or she may indeed be under the influence of a substance or may have a weapon. Therefore, the first response should be to dial 911 and have the police come. We should not take it upon ourselves when indeed we do not have to because we are not being physically confronted.

The issue is different if we are in a business and someone comes into that business or our home and attacks us or one of our family members. That is a huge difference. If someone is outside our home stealing property, such as in my case when folks decided to help themselves to the material in my big shed, that is a different situation altogether.

Therefore, I would implore Canadians not to take action themselves when indeed the action they should be taking is to have the police forces take the action on their behalf. That is why we have them. They do a good job. They are well trained and well prepared to take that type of action.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the hon. member for Welland's speech. I support and share his rather serious concerns about the fact that corner store owners and others can decide to take justice into their own hands.

In committee, we heard from representatives of the Association of Professional Security Agencies. Most of their presentation involved asking the government to give the association more authority in order to allow the police to take care of more important matters.

I would be curious to hear my colleague's opinion in this regard. It seems to me that the training security guards receive is not necessarily the same as that received by police officers. This is one of our concerns about this bill—it allows a witness or the person he appoints to make an arrest in lieu of the police. Are we therefore not allowing many other people to take on a peace officer role?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Madam Speaker, clearly we do not want to create another quasi police force. We have a police force, whether it be the RCMP, regional police or provincial police, depending on the province and where we live across this great country. Day in and day out, we have officers who do the hard work that we ask them to do.

We need to ensure that the folks who are in security agencies make sure that the property is secure, that folks are not trespassing, that the doors are locked at night, that parking lots are clear, and that if folks get hurt or fall ill they call the appropriate authorities. In the case of a crime being perpetrated, their call to the appropriate authorities would be 911 to have the police come. They should not become an adjunct police force looking for additional powers to take on the role of a police officer, when indeed we have them available to us, as do they.

This bill should be about the unintended consequences for me as an individual when I do not have a security person looking after my house. When someone enters my door and I am confronted, I have the choice to either fight or flee. In all cases, when one can flee, one should flee.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg Centre. I actually prefer to speak before him, rather than after him, because I know he has a great speech.

I want to take a couple of minutes before I speak to the bill to say I had a chance to attend a function on Friday that was organized by some very young people in my riding. It gives me great hope for Canada when I see young people being involved in our community and setting an example for other Canadians. These young people have managed to raise $10,000 in a couple of months for BC Children's Hospital.

I just want to read out their names: Prineet Ghuman, Harmeet Nijjar, Mandy Badwal and Sharon Uppal.

These young people are in high school. I want to thank them for taking a leadership role in our community and raising funds for the BC Children's Hospital.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Jasbir Sandhu Surrey North,, NDP]

Madam Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-26, which amends subsection 494(2) of the Criminal Code, dealing with citizen's arrest.

First I want to say that the New Democrats support the bill. It is actually something that my fellow New Democrat, the member for Trinity—Spadina, had been advocating for quite some time.

Half of the bill proposes measures that her private member's bill had previously called for. My colleague introduced that legislation, which was known as the Lucky Moose bill, in response to an incident that happened in the city of Toronto in 2009. David Chen, the owner of the Lucky Moose Food Mart in Toronto, apprehended and restrained a man, Anthony Bennett, a few hours after he had stolen from his store. When police arrived, they charged Mr. Chen with kidnapping, carrying a dangerous weapon—which was a box cutter, which most grocery store workers would carry normally—assault and forcible confinement. Crown prosecutors later dropped the kidnapping charge, but proceeded with the charges of forcible confinement and assault.

According to the Criminal Code as it is currently written, a property owner can only make a citizen's arrest if the alleged wrongdoer is caught in the act. Clearly, this portion of the Criminal Code needed to be changed. My colleague saw that and introduced her private member's bill, and the government followed suit with its own very similar bill.

What surprises me most about this bill is that the Conservatives are proposing something in the realm of public safety that actually makes sense. It is very surprising that they are proposing something that is sensible, because what we have seen from the government, from the Conservatives' crime agenda, certainly does not make any sense at all. Most of the time the Conservatives seem to be living in some kind of alternative reality, completely devoid of factual information and common sense when it comes to crime.

Normally, instead of answering critical questions about a reckless public safety agenda that is destined for failure, the Minister of Public Safety has preferred to hurl accusations and insults across the floor, such as standing in the House and accusing me of supporting child molesters because I questioned the complete failure on the side of the government to estimate the cost of its reckless crime agenda.

Sadly, we know that the facts do not really matter to the government. In Senate committee hearings on Bill C-10, the public safety minister told senators to ignore the facts. He said, “I don't know if the statistics demonstrate that crime is down. I'm focused on danger”.

That was not the first time we have been told to ignore the facts by Conservatives when it comes to crime. In response to questions about Bill C-10, the Minister of Justice said, “We are not governing on the basis of the latest statistics”. When it comes to public safety, ignoring the facts seems to be in the Conservatives' talking points.

Of course they want us to ignore the facts, because the facts are on our side. The facts will tell us that their crime agenda will cripple our criminal justice system and will not make our communities any safer.

I am happy to see that the Conservatives actually support something worthwhile, Bill C-26, but this, unfortunately, is the exception, not the rule, when it comes to the Conservatives' approach to crime. While I support this bill, which has been improved by NDP amendments in committee, I remain very concerned about the safety of our communities across this wonderful country of ours.

The NDP priority in reviewing this legislation was to ensure that it did not encourage vigilante justice or people putting their own safety at risk. While we understand that there are concerns about these matters in relation to citizen's arrest, self-defence and defence of property, we have determined that the bill proposes acceptable changes.

It should be noted that all three of these concepts already exist in the Criminal Code. Therefore, the changes made by this bill would only modify aspects of our current laws and do not introduce anything radically new.

The justice committee heard from a diverse group of witnesses while considering this legislation, including the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Police Association, academics and practising lawyers. Although New Democrats have already supported the intent of this legislation, we have brought forward a number of amendments in accordance with recommendations of witnesses. One successful amendment we brought forward will place a greater onus on the courts to consider the history of the relationship between the individuals.

We recognize the great need for these sections of the Criminal Code to be updated, and although most of our amendments were defeated, we still believe this bill accomplishes an adequate update to the legislation and we support this bill. Also, legal experts the committee heard from were, in general, supportive of the proposed changes to the self-defence and defence of property sections of the Criminal Code. They all acknowledged that these clarifications were absolutely necessary.

In conclusion, I want to thank my colleague from Trinity—Spadina for her work on this issue and for bringing such a worthwhile issue to the House. I also want to thank the minister and members across the aisle for their support to bring this initiative forward. As I have mentioned, we do not often see anything sensible coming from that side of the House when it comes to crime. In fact, when it comes to crime, the Conservatives are usually detached from being sensibile altogether and pursue an approach that has been tried and has failed.

I hope to see the members opposite keen to adopt more New Democratic ideas in the future. We have many that I think make a lot of sense and are aimed at making our communities safer for all Canadians to live in.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. He expressed a sense of unease that I think many of us feel. Citizens, small business owners and people protecting their property have a right to ensure that they can stop crimes, if possible, but we see the habit of certain right-wing governments to fan the flames, in a sense, as we have seen in the United States, and to create the sense and expectation that citizens can go further. We have heard about the horrific murder of young Trayvon Martin in Florida, thanks to a piece of legislation that not only allowed for vigilantes but said that if vigilantes feel in any way that they need to shoot somebody, they are able to.

That is a far cry from this bill, but the question we are grappling with is how we can ensure checks and balances so that citizens do not get themselves hurt by thinking they should be able to intervene in situations where they should not intervene—police tell us all the time to step back and be careful—but can intervene in a way that will not result in their being unfairly penalized. There is a very narrow line between what is acceptable and not acceptable.

I want to ask my hon. colleague if he feels comfortable that the House understands where that division point is.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Madam Speaker, I understand the issues that small businesses are facing because I have a small business in Surrey. The member is right, we do not need to fan any flames on this issue. This is a common-sense issue. Businesses and citizens need to ensure that they use the existing services we have to protect themselves. Instead of relying on vigilantism, we need to ensure we use the resources we have, such as calling the police, ensuring their services are used before any measures that individuals may take. It is a tool that will help business owners move forward and protect their properties.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, who is a member of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We are very pleased to have the benefit of his knowledge in this matter.

I especially appreciated that my colleague pointed out that Bill C-26—as I mentioned in my speech this morning—is an example of the work we can accomplish, even with the members opposite, when there is a little goodwill, instead of continual gags, time allocation motions and so forth. This bill is a fine example. We were able to discuss it without being told that it had to be passed at all costs in a certain time frame. There were discussions and debates, which were a little heated at times, but it was all done for the well-being of Canadians, the people we represent.

My colleague was also a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety, where we saw how difficult it can be sometimes to understand this government's reasoning. It accepted the bill introduced by our colleague for Trinity—Spadina. However, does he think that we will ever again have this type of co-operation from the government?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Madam Speaker, I believe that Canadians expect us to work together across the aisle, and they also expect us to make rules, regulations and laws that are common sense, that protect and help Canadians in their day-to-day lives and that are backed with facts and figures. Unfortunately, my Conservative friends across the aisle have shown in the last number of months that they do not want to look at the facts.

If we want to make our communities safer places to live, they need to look at the facts, see what is needed, and work with the New Democrats and the other parties when they bring in legislation. We have a lot of ideas that can make our communities safer. We need to work together. This was an example of how we can do that, and the idea was from a member of the New Democrats.

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Before resuming debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges, Government Appointments; the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Airline Security.

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Surrey North for agreeing to share his time with me as we debate Bill C-26. I asked specifically for an opportunity to join the debate today on behalf of the constituents I represent in the riding of Winnipeg Centre.

Every time I poll the constituents in my riding as to what their top of mind issue might be, consistently for the last 15 years the number one issue has been safety, crime and criminal justice issues, safe streets and the right to walk the streets free of molestation and with a sense of comfort and safety. That has been the prevailing issue of about 34% or 36% of those people answering my surveys. Things like tax cuts are down around 8%, and perhaps that is a function of the socio-economic demographics of my riding as it is one of the poorest postal code areas in the country. Low income people are more likely to be affected by and have their lives touched by crime, violence and even the criminal justice system.

I am particularly interested in this legislation and how it would affect ordinary Canadians.

I also want to compliment and pay tribute to my colleague from Gatineau for representing the party on this sometimes controversial issue with integrity and a sense of balance that such a sensitive issue calls for. I also recognize the comments that were made by other members of the NDP and the origin of this particular bill.

The member for Trinity—Spadina can claim responsibility for us having this debate today as Mr. David Chen, the owner of the Lucky Moose Food Mart, resides in her riding. It was the very high profile issue associated with Mr. Chen's frustration at so often being the target of shoplifting at his small business that he was compelled to take what we would consider to be dangerous and extraordinary action but which most Canadians would agree was justified and necessary at the time.

However, we are dealing with a bunch of competing rights. As with many pieces of legislation that properly fall before the chamber, it is an issue on which reasonable people can reasonably disagree and therefore we do not want to take this issue lightly.

In the few moments that I have I will start from the premise that the benchmark of a civil society is the quality of its criminal justice system and that the criminal justice system should be measured by its fairness and its application instead of the concern that there is sometimes an arbitrary application of criminal justice issues. Also, in the element of fairness, we must take into account some of the driving forces underlying the problem as it is presented to us.

I am a former labour leader. I have negotiated dozens if not hundreds of collective agreements. Every time we sought to change a clause in a collective agreement, two questions were put to us by the management side: First, why do we want to make this clause change? Second, has this clause been a problem during the life of the collective agreement?

I think we can safely say in this example that there is justification for opening section 494 of the Criminal Code that deals with a citizen's arrest based on the extraordinary case of Mr. Chen and the Lucky Moose Food Market that brought the public's attention to this compelling issue.

The reason I began in the context of trying to describe the socio-economic demographics of my riding is that the opposite of poverty is not wealth. The opposite of poverty is justice. When we look at the high incidents of crime and in fact violence and contact with the criminal justice system in low income areas I think the argument makes itself.

When I look at the circumstances surrounding Mr. David Chen and the case that was put forward so compellingly by my colleague from Trinity—Spadina, I am gratified to know that all parties in the House of Commons acknowledge the necessity but, at the same time, we are confounded by the Conservatives' approach to criminal justice issues in the 41st Parliament and, in fact, even in the 40th Parliament when they were in a minority situation.

We have seen issues used as an excuse to raise the spectre of crime and violence in the streets as justification for putting forward legislation that cannot be easily justified. I am thinking of Bill C-10 where the Province of Manitoba, my home province, actually came to the government asking for certain changes with the detention, for example, in the auto theft situation when Manitoba was experiencing a great rash of auto thefts, often by young offenders. The police and the courts were frustrated by the limitations of holding a young offender who may have been apprehended that evening in the act of auto theft, being released the same night and then sometimes getting picked up by the same police in yet another vehicle, all in the context of a 12-hour period.

The Province of Manitoba came to the federal government urging it to make changes to where young offenders could be detained overnight until such time as they could make their first court appearance. That found its way into this new bill that has been quite controversial, but talk about baby and the bathwater. The ultimate legislation that we wound up with went far beyond any reasonable justification.

As I illustrated, the first question we need to ask when we open legislation to amend a clause is whether there is justification for it. We need to know whether the clause has been a compelling problem? In many of these cases, the only thing we were trying to address was a straw man built up by the Conservatives to strike fear in the hearts of Canadians and then they tried to paint themselves as the great saviour, the only ones who could protect the people from this manufactured fear. However, all the empirical evidence shows us that the rate of crime, especially crimes of personal violence, et cetera, is way down statistically.

However, that did not stop the Conservatives from mailing ten percenters into my riding trying to whip up a frenzy of fear. I saw one of the ten percenters, back when MPs could actually mail ten percenters into other people's ridings, and it had a picture of a guy breaking through a window with his face shielded and with a knife raised above his shoulders as if he were going to break into our house and murder us in the night with a knife if we did not vote for the Conservatives to stop him from breaking in and killing us. That was the message, for all intents and purposes.

Even at a time when we are trying to calm people down and show them the actual statistics that the streets are safer than ever before, even in an area that experiences a great deal of property crime, et cetera, no one is at particular threat of being murdered in the night by this junky with a knife.

There is a dishonesty, a disingenuous aspect to this. The Conservatives are like a duck on a June bug when it comes to any issue associated with criminal justice issues, and their reaction is far disproportionate to the actual cause, need and demand.

In the context of Bill C-26, our party supports it with concerns that have been expressed by many of my colleagues.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have noticed that a lot of speakers have concentrated on one half of the bill and not on the other, and I would like to give that opportunity to my colleague.

The bill is called the citizen's arrest and self-defence act. However, I think that we have had some weird court decisions involving people who were simply trying to defend themselves and the perpetrator came back to swed them. The bill would help to provide better clarity for the judiciary, police, crown attorneys and so on, who would potentially lay charges or look at these individual situations.

Does the member for Winnipeg Centre want to address that aspect of the bill and indicate whether he thinks it is a good thing to have more clarity around issues of people acting in self-defence?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that my colleague should raise that, because I was just reading a quote by Alexander Solzhenitsyn who said:

Whenever the tissue of life is woven of legalistic relations, there is an atmosphere of moral mediocrity, paralyzing man's noblest impulses.

Therefore, we need to aspire to more than just the legalistic relations we have in society if we are going to elevate the standards of living conditions as a community. There is a more holistic approach to criminal justice issues than are dreamt of in their philosophy.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. colleague. I know that in the area of Winnipeg that he represents there are many poor people and many poor people suffer violence. When the Conservatives talk about safe streets, it seems that they talk about some people's safe streets and not other people's safe streets.

For example, in aboriginal communities in the far north and in the region I represent, Nishnabi Aski territory, there is a lack of police services and police stations because the federal government does not want to bother funding them. Ricardo Wesley and Jamie Goodwyn burned to death in a makeshift jail cell in Kashechewan because the federal government would not put sprinklers in this shack that the police had to use as a centre. None of this would be allowed anywhere else. However, when police work on isolated reserves, they are often in very difficult situations and the families are put at risk.

Given that my hon. colleague has raised the issue of economic injustice, I would ask him why the government seems to favour certain people's safety, rights and privileges while other people are completely left out.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for adding a necessary element to this debate. It seems to me that the uneven application of the criminal justice system in this country perhaps serves as the most glaring and obvious charter challenge issue in the country. Certainly Canada's north and first nations are the most glaring examples.

The member invoked the names of two people who died in a jail in Kashechewan. I wonder if there is a member of Parliament present who believes that it would have taken 16 years to find the murderer of Helen Betty Osborne if she had been a white girl in The Pas and if there would have been a conspiracy of silence to bury the truth. We have a long way to go in the even application of the criminal justice system in this country.

However, we are satisfied that the bill addresses a legitimate concern and shortcoming in the Criminal Code. We are proud that we moved amendments to add some balance to the self-defence provisions. We took seriously, wrestled with and, I believe, added some satisfaction to the other side of this bill, which is, of course, the right of defence of property.

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 third time and passed.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak at this third reading stage of Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (citizen's arrest and the defences of property and persons). We would amend the Criminal Code in two respects, in relation to the issue of self-defence and the issue of what is known as citizen's arrest, which is contained in section 494 of the Criminal Code.

The circumstances giving rise to this bill in the first instance arose through the case of David Chen who was a shopkeeper in the city of Toronto at a store called the Lucky Moose. On that particular day, the Lucky Moose was not so lucky because of an incident that ended up in an individual being arrested and subsequently the store owner himself being the subject of criminal proceedings. This gave rise to a consideration of the rules with respect to a citizen's arrest in Canada under the Criminal Code.

This was originally a private member's bill brought forward by the member for Trinity—Spadina, and it ultimately was incorporated into a bill by the government, which also decided it was time to give consideration to suggestions that had been made by many, including academics and the Supreme Court of Canada, which suggested there was a great deal of confusion in our law on self-defence. We had a provision with approximately eight sections of the Criminal Code that dealt with self-defence. They were not necessarily contradictory but gave rise to potential interpretations of contradiction and caused problems of interpretation and sometimes contradictory results in the case law. An attempt was made to change that at second reading here in the House. This bill on the whole is a reasonable, if not perfect, example of inter-party co-operation on the creation of legislation that is literally seeking to improve legislation that is brought before the House, in this case by the government.

We had agreement at second reading to proceed to committee and we went through a series of hearings where we heard from individuals including Mr. Chen, other representatives of shopkeepers and store owners, someone from the security guard industry, lawyers in private practice and officials from the justice department. Our expressed intention at second reading, when dealing with this legislation, was that we ought to be very vigilant here when we are taking provisions of the Criminal Code. I do not know if they have been amended in decades or even 100 years, since the Criminal Code was first codified into law. There were not many amendments to these sections. Some might say they had stood the test of time, but they had not stood it very well and it was time to revise it.

The worry was that when we make these changes, we did not want to make changes that would cause problems and that have unanticipated results. Therefore our intention was that we ought to be very careful, that we ought not to treat this as something that could be done in a perfunctory manner. There was some rush in December that this could all be done in a matter of three or four days before Christmas. That was not our view, in our experience of hearing from the witnesses and considering the amendments that came through at the committee stage. There were a dozen or more amendments, probably 15 or 16, proposed by all parties. I know there were a dozen NDP amendments and four by the Liberals, and maybe the Conservatives did not bring any amendments. I do not see any here on my list.

Nevertheless, there were very extensive discussions in the committee while hearing from witnesses and legal counsel who had acted in a number of cases and who understood the law. We heard from the Barreau du Québec and the Canadian Bar Association. They very helpfully offered their comments and advice.

Based on some of this, as New Democrats and as the official opposition, we put forward a series of amendments designed to improve the bill. I will say that some of them were accepted by the government members on the committee, and we are very pleased to see that. Others were not, and obviously we were disappointed that the measures we brought forward in those instances were not accepted.

However, it was a collaborative effort. We did our best as a committee to not only come to conclusions and be reasonable but also to listen to the advice of the officials from the department of justice who were there as technical experts on the interpretation of various provisions of the existing law and who had their opinions with respect to how it might be interpreted based on the existing case law.

On the basis of some of that, some of the amendments we had proposed as being beneficial were in fact withdrawn by us. I say that just to let members of the public who are watching understand how this process works.

We have legislation that is brought forth. If it is a government bill, it is brought forth by the government. It is debated at second reading. It goes to a committee where witnesses are heard, often expert witnesses, in this case lawyers, but also members of the public, who we heard from in this particular case. Then we have what is called a clause-by-clause study in committee on each element and each word, if it comes down to that, especially when we are dealing with criminal law because every word is given a meaning by the courts.

We came forth with amendments that we thought were appropriate. These were then debated in committee at clause-by-clause consideration with experts, and ultimately what we have before us at third reading is this bill as amended.

That might sound a bit tedious, but it is also extremely important. What is written in these sections of the Criminal Code determines what the courts call the liberty of the subject or the freedom of a citizen. A citizen's freedom can often depend on the interpretation of one, two or three words in the Criminal Code. That is why it is important.

Let me give an example of why that is. The amendment to the citizen's arrest provision is designed to change the law so that a citizen's arrest, which under the existing provisions of the Criminal Code must be made at the same time as the commission of an offence, has now been changed. The new wording will say that the arrest to be made within a reasonable time.

That sounds like a small difference, but it can be the difference between the guilt and innocence of someone who is charged with making a citizen's arrest that, as in the case of David Chen, was not while he caught someone in the commission of an offence but was a couple of hours later. That person had left Mr. Chen's store after being seen to steal something, came back a couple of hours later and was then arrested. Mr. Chen was charged with kidnapping, unlawful confinement and other charges.

He was eventually acquitted by a judge, but nevertheless the crown and the police felt very strongly that they had the right and should have the right, and expressed no regrets for it afterwards, to arrest the store owner and charge this individual because of their understanding of the wording of the act. The judge found extraneous circumstance, but it would be unusual for the words not to be applied as they were in the Criminal Code.

The change to add “within a reasonable time” is a good one, and we accepted that. We also thought, however, and this is where one of our suggestions was rejected by the committee, that there ought to be a further protection in the sense that while an arrest should be made within a reasonable time, and we agreed with that, it should be made at the first reasonable opportunity.

We had evidence before us suggesting that the law was too broad, as it was written by the government, that it would allow for organizations such as private security operators to turn themselves, essentially, into private investigators who would act as agents of individuals and arrest somebody at home some time later. We tried to put some constraint on that by saying it had to be not only within a reasonable period of time but at the first reasonable opportunity.

Another amendment, which was defeated, suggested that it should be within a reasonable period of time after the offence is committed and at a place that is within reasonable proximity to where the offence was committed. In other words, it does not have to be in the store. If the individual was found down the road some 20 or 30 minutes later, he or she could be arrested, but the individual could not be hunted down over a period of time, such as after finding out where the person lives and arresting him or her at home. People would be required to phone the police to say, “Here is the address of the guy who stole from me. I am satisfied that he lives there. Would you arrest him, please?” That was rejected and there were arguments made on both sides as to why and why not.

However, other amendments we proposed were accepted. For example, when we talked about the other topic of self-defence, we wanted to ensure the court was going to take certain factors into consideration and added an amendment of our own. We wanted to ensure that it must take into account the relevant circumstances of the other parties involved in the act, and also other factors. Those factors listed in the original bill had to do with size, age and gender of the parties. We sought to add the physical capacities of the parties because gender by itself may not be sufficient. There could be a man with a slight build, a mild manner and incapable of doing certain things, or there could equally be a woman who was in fact a formidable opponent, trained in physical combat, martial arts or any number of activities. When taking into account the person in respect of self-defence, one should take into account not only gender but the physical capacity.

These are just examples of the kinds of changes that were made in our committee to improve the quality of this bill.

We had some reservations about some of the wording, which is evident in the dozen or so matters we brought forward, but on balance we are satisfied that what we have at the end of the day is an improvement over what was there. As to the confusion that reigns to some extent on the issue of self-defence over the last number of decades that has been recognized by our courts, there have been at least attempts to resolve it with the best information and the best we have been able to bring to the task up until now. We did not want to see another 20 years of litigation to determine whether we made a good choice or not. That was our worry.

We have given it the kind of scrutiny that a legislative committee is expected to. That is important. That is, after all, our job. We come here to represent our constituents on all sorts of levels, whether they be major policies in terms of economic development, international affairs, the redistribution of wealth and taxation or attempting to solve social issues like housing and poverty, but we also make laws. One of the laws that governs all of our citizens is criminal law. In crafting those laws we, the people in the chamber, are the ones who have the ultimate responsibility for passing those laws. This is a prime example of how a committee would look in detail.

Most of the justice committee members are lawyers. I happen to be a lawyer, but I do not for one minute believe that one needs to be a good lawyer to make good laws. I would be the last person to say that. Also, we had good advice to the committee from witnesses who are not lawyers and also from members of the committee who had their points of view on both sides, our side as well as the other. They put their common sense, knowledge, experience and brainpower to the task of making the law better. This is a good example.

My colleague, the previous speaker, talked about how this particular government uses the criminal law for political purposes. That is a big shame. It is a serious shame. I had the honour of being the justice critic since last October. I am not anymore; my colleague is now the justice critic, and I commend her to her new role. I know she will be equal to the task. It is an important job.

I do decry, along with the previous speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, the attitude the government has toward criminal law. It is the most appalling, degrading kind of debate. We should not even give it that name. To suggest that someone is obviously in league with child pornographers or pedophiles if that person disagrees with the government's idea of what the criminal law ought to be—the wording and nature of crime and punishment and how to go about dealing with that—is the most appalling abuse of parliamentary precincts that I have encountered, and I say that with some experience: I was first elected to Parliament 25 years ago next July.

That is the most appalling thing that I have heard in this Parliament and the other parliament that I was in with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is appalling for the government to suggest that people who disagree with it are in league with criminals and are here to defend...well, on one day it could be pedophiles, the next day terrorists, the next day child pornographers. It is appalilng that the government would do that.

However, amidst all that, there was this small island in dealing with Bill C-26, in which the justice committee sat down and talked, for the most part civilly, about the rules governing self-defence. It is an extremely important part of our criminal law. The right of citizens to defend themselves when under attack or under a threat to their lives or safety or property is a most important right that citizens have, and a criminal law should reflect a proper understanding of how that ought to be interpreted.

The right of citizen's arrest is not something new. It did not come about as a result of the Criminal Code. In fact, the citizen's arrest predated the development of police forces. At one time that was the only way that people were arrested for crime, by an act of a citizen. When we codified the common law, much of the criminal law was governed by common law, and in many respects it still is in some countries, including England, although it has codified things recently.

The citizen's arrest is also a fairly fundamental kind of right that citizens have to defend themselves and to arrest someone who they find committing an offence. Both of these things are extremely important, and we did have, with the work of this committee, a very small island of working to try to improve it.

It is not perfect. I hope the courts will not take 10 or 15 years to figure out what it really means and I hope we will not have controversy, but I think we have done a good job, and we support the bill as amended.

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

Madam Speaker, I understand that the committee struggled with this bill. It definitely improved it with a number of amendments, which are welcome, but no amendments were allowed to the section on citizen's arrest.

Clause 3 creates for the first time, under proposed section 35, that not only can the person who owns the property issue a citizen's arrest but also a person authorized by the owner. A number of witnesses before committee raised concerns that this could give rise to a growth in the private security business with the ability to execute a citizen's arrest after an event. It appears to be the view of some of the committee witnesses, from what I see in going through transcripts, that this would be a gift to private security firms.

I understand that the member feels that he has reached the compromise that he must reach and I respect his opinion on this. I have to go on record as saying that it looks as though I will be the only member of the House to vote against this bill. That is because I am deeply worried that it would create problems down the road.

Could the hon. member tell me how he feels about private security firms taking advantage of this legislation?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is sincere in her concern about this particular issue. It is something that we looked at and raised some concerns about. That is why some of these amendments in terms of the proximity to the place were brought in. They are an attempt to at least put a ring around some of the activities that one witness suggested private security firms could engage in.

I take issue with my colleague's notion that no one other than the owner could take action in the past. As the member will know from her own experience, often a private security agency operates in a store. Sometimes operatives are disguised as shoppers, and they can actually arrest somebody who is shoplifting, take them to a room within the building and call the police. They can effect an arrest. That is not really new. I am not as worried about it as my colleague is in terms of creating a new right.

I do have concerns about what security companies may be up to. They are supposed to be regulated by the provinces, not by the Government of Canada, so we ought to let our provincial counterparts know that this is something they may opt to look at and keep an eye on in case security companies go beyond what is a reasonable mandate for them.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from St. John's East has shed a great deal of light on the issue that we are debating here today.

As he said, he was a member of this chamber a great number of years ago. He decided to step down because the oil from the lamps that were used to light this place caused him headaches.

Since he was a part of this process, my colleague may be able to enlighten me on a concern I have. I am leery that this piece of legislation may prompt an outpouring of vigilante justice.

I talked earlier about a neighbourhood watch program that was established in my community because there was a rash of break-ins. If some guy decides to steal a barbecue, the initial reaction is to confront him head-on. If this guy is on some kind of substance—crystal meth, coke, or jacked up—or if he has a weapon on him, or whatever it might be, the citizen confronting him is placing himself at great risk.

My question is in combination with the questions posed by my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands. With the passing of this legislation, should there be some type of program that could assist in educating provinces and private citizens?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, it was not the glow of the lights that caused me to retire temporarily from federal politics. The voters decided they wanted me to sit in the provincial legislature, not the federal, so I took their advice and spent a few years doing that before I came back.

The member raises a very good point. We certainly discussed that. There was some talk that was a bit wild in our committee, suggesting that shooting guns over people who are coming onto our property was a good thing, or allowed.

The big worry that I am sure the hon. member would have would be that this bill could possibly encourage people to take risks. Police forces across the country would warn the public against that. I would hope that the federal justice department, upon the passage of this bill, would earmark some money into a national program saying that we have the right to defend ourselves, but the police are there to do the job. That should be the message out of this.

However, it should not stop us from making the law better. I think we have done that, but I do hope the members of the public listen to what the hon. member is saying and avoid these kinds of confrontations, because they are not trained and they do not necessarily know what they are dealing with if they try to effect a citizen's arrest.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague whom I am glad to see before me. This morning, during my speech, I thanked my colleague from St. John's East for the extraordinary work he did on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights as the justice critic. He has been a very good mentor.

I would like to go back to the committee's deliberations on Bill C-26. It is true that much has been said about the Lucky Moose part of the bill, but there is also everything to do with self-defence. What is more, some legal experts had concerns about how to define “reasonable defence”, and we had to strike a balance between objective and subjective criteria.

I would like to know whether my colleague, who has been in the House for a long time, is pleased that we managed to uphold defences that might be used by battered women, for example. In that regard, the bill is well balanced. Not all of our amendments were adopted, but some of them were approved by this government, which often turns a deaf ear.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Gatineau for her kind words. As I said in our last gathering, I was delighted that she was appointed justice critic and I felt that she would do an excellent job on behalf of our party and the country, so I commend her to that role.

We were worried enough about the state of the bill that we moved the amendment. One was to seek to ensure that the perception of the person was key, that the subjective interpretation was important. That amendment failed. Sometimes we make amendments for greater certainty, and that was the case here: we wanted to make the amendments for greater certainty. We were given some assurance by the justice department officials that they were unnecessary; however, in our judgment, it was for greater certainty that we moved them.

It is a balance. Sometimes we have our own opinion, but when the majority passes something and we have some legal advice from the experts, then we have to decide whether we do not support the bill or whether we support it hoping that they were right and that our judgment was unnecessary in this particular case. This is an example of that situation.

I do not think it puts at risk the situation of the battered wives syndrome as an aspect of self-defence in those types of cases. I do not think it puts those people at risk. We wanted to have greater certainty and we did not get it; we hope it does not cause problems in the course of events, but that remains to be seen.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be a part of the debate today.

Right from the get-go, I will display my non-credentials to the extent that I am not a lawyer. I am a layperson, so my comments will be very much from the point of view of what took place, why it took place, what the solution is and where we are in terms of the politics of it right now. I will leave it to the professionals to deal with the details of discussing the minutia of the bill.

Also, it is a real treat to be stand in this place to talk about what one could call a law and order bill from the government that we can actually support, that actually does something positive and is not just laden down and loaded with spin, taking care of the base and all the politics. It is nice to deal with the Criminal Code in a way that the average Canadian would not only understand but would support.

At the risk of my whole speech becoming a preamble, this may indeed be the very first time probably in my entire public life where I may not use all the time available. The odds are that will not happen, because I know what I am like, but there is a good chance I will conclude a little early. I am just letting you, Mr. Speaker, know that if that happens, I am not ill; nothing has gone wrong, even though it will be so uncharacteristic of me to give up any time available. However, this may indeed be one of those times.

With all of that, let me give some thoughts to Bill C-26 before us now. One cannot talk about the bill or these measures without giving a great deal of credit to, and I am not sure it has happened but I would hope government members have also acknowledged, the lead role that the NDP member for Trinity—Spadina has played on this file. I know it has been talked about on our side of the House. I certainly hope Hansard reflects that the government was gracious enough to acknowledge that at least half the credit for an improvement to our Criminal Code does go to the member for Trinity—Spadina in whose riding the original incident took place, and that gave rise to Bill C-26 and the amendments therein to the Criminal Code.

It has been mentioned a number of times, but it is pretty hard to give a speech without putting some context to it. As we know, on May 23, 2009, Mr. Chen, who owned the Lucky Moose Food Mart in Toronto, apprehended someone he believed had stolen from his store. When the person returned, Mr. Chen and two employees tied him up and locked him the back of the delivery van. When the police arrived, they charged Mr. Chen with kidnapping, carrying a dangerous weapon--which was a box cutter--assault and forcible confinement. By the way, the box cutter is pretty much a tool of the business. I think everybody understands that.

The crown prosecutors dropped the kidnapping and weapons charges, but they went ahead with the charges of forcible confinement and assault. This got a lot of attention from a lot of Canadians, for good reason. It the sort of circumstance that ordinary people could find themselves in, or someone they know could find themselves in, wheter friend, family, or neighbours. It is not the usual dealing with the intricacies of the law. This is pretty plain and simple. This is everyday living.

It is interesting that this area of the Criminal Code has been a problem before. In fact, there have been public comments made by judges in the matter around the issue of self-defence and defence of property and the rights to citizen's arrest.

It is interesting that in the case of R. v. McIntosh, Chief Justice Lamer stated that sections 34 and 35 were:

—highly technical, excessively detailed provisions deserving of much criticism. These provisions overlap, and are internally inconsistent in certain respects.

Most of us can get the gist of that. Lawyers in the room will understand, I am sure, the poetry to that language. However, I thought a more apropos quote for ordinary folks, and very much a colloquial interpretation of what the justice said, comes from Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist, and captures that same sentiment rather nicely. In Oliver Twist it says:

If the law supposes that, “said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, “the law is a ass...

From time to time, even though that was written a very long time ago, it is quite appropriate. I think it is appropriate in this case—

[An hon. member]

Not just the law.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

“Not just the law”, the hon. member across the way says. I have to agree with him on that. Because he was not specific, I will not assume to what he was referring. I will just take it as a generalization and keep us in good spirits here.

I do think the point is made in terms of “the law is a ass”, and goes on to say, “a idiot” after that.

The fact remains that for Mr. Chen's point of view, this law is “a ass”. Here was a store owner, and as far as he was concerned, there was complete proof of who was stealing from him. When the person returned, Mr. Chen thought this was his chance to get at the source of the theft and stop the stealing. He knew the person, so he wanted to grab him before he came back to steal even more. Then, as we know, Mr. Chen ends up with all these charges and a potential criminal record. If he had been found guilty of those original charges, he would have been in a pile of trouble, probably doing time in a federal penitentiary, assuming there is one that is open.

Luckily, in this case one could say that our system actually worked. To recap, here is a situation. The grocery store owner went through these incidents, had taken the action he did, believing that he was completely in the right, doing exactly what he had a right to do to protect his property and his business from theft, only to discovery that he was the one who was in a lot of trouble because of, as the justice had talked about, highly technical, excessively detailed provisions deserving of much criticism. The law is “a ass”, and every now and then that is the case.

The only thing that would be worse is if nothing was done about it. If all that happened was that Mr. Chen had it resolved one way or another, it went off the front pages and out of the media, people did not talk about it anymore and we, the chamber of law-making, did nothing. That, to me, would be an even bigger crime.

I think it is worth pointing out from the lay person's point of view that we had an incident. A citizen believed he was in the right, only to find out that due to the technicalities of the law, he was not within his rights. In fact, he was in a lot of trouble. As we know, Mr. Chen and his two accused were found not guilty of the charges of forcible confinement and assault on October 29, 2010. The person who stole pled guilty in August of 2009 to stealing from that store and he was given 30 days.

At the front end, where people live, things worked out, but, quite frankly, only because there was such a hue and cry across the land and the fact that the member for Trinity—Spadina took up this cause and said that it was not good enough that we allowed Mr. Chen to find justice in this case, that we needed to fix the law so no future Canadians would find themselves in a similar situation. When we discover a piece of law is “a ass”, we fix it so it is not. That is pretty much what we are doing here. It is actually a relatively good day for the Criminal Code of Canada, given the kind of abuse that it has taken from the government on the other side.

Mr. Chen got his justice. It would seem that the perpetrator of the crime got his justice, and hopefully he has turned his life around. Now we are in the process of finalizing the changes to the Criminal Code so no other Canadian has to go through what Mr. Chen did. It does not mean the law is perfect and it does not mean there will not be people who still find themselves in a bit of a jackpot, but at least the House, the standing committee, experts who were brought in, everybody focused as best they could on how to amend this law.

That was not necessarily easy. First, it is never good policy to be making laws around one issue. One has to be very careful when thinking of doing that. Second, there is a concern that if the law is reshaped too much in one direction, we could encourage, perhaps even make legal, activities that we do not want in our country, meaning that people will seek their own revenge. They will seek their own justice. There will be a vigilante kind of atmosphere around the changes. Therefore, one has to be very careful.

Again, not being a lawyer, I could not say exactly which words or clauses would do that. That is why we brought in experts. Most of the members in this place are not lawyers and that is why we take advantage of slowing down the work at committee, going through legislation clause-by-clause and asking experts, not just somebody who has an opinion but somebody who has an expert opinion, such as law professors, the law society, the whole list.

We brought those folks in and asked them questions such as: Did this do the job? If it did not, what would they recommend and why? We would ask the person sitting beside them, “You have heard something that's a little different, so what do you think about that?” With that give and take and working things through, it seems to us in the official opposition that we have a bill that actually meets that need. It is going to save the Mr. Chens of the future from having to go through what he went through, but we have not gone so far as to give a sense that any kind of vigilante activity, in the purest sense of vigilante, is not on. For all the problems that we have and all the fun and jokes about government and everything else, it really is nice to see.

In the end, we had an incident that was resolved with fairness and justice, and that is good. Now we have a bill that would amend the Criminal Code so hopefully it would not happen again, but we have been very careful about adjusting it so we do not go too far to suggest that vigilantism is okay in the country. All in all, finally, on the Criminal Code file, it was a good day at work.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Hamilton Centre will have five minutes remaining in the time allotted the next time the House resumes debate on this question and the usual 10 minutes for questions and comments.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

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 third time and passed.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

When we last took up this motion before the House, the hon. member for Hamilton Centre had five minutes remaining in his speech.

The hon. member for Hamilton Centre.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, I appreciate this opportunity. As I only have five minutes, I will not try to mount a review of everything I said.

However, a couple of people who were flipping through the channels and heard me using certain language contacted my office wondering what exactly that was all about. Therefore, I will take just a couple of the minutes I have to address that.

I was making reference to the Criminal Code and the areas that Bill C-26 would amend and how there had been a long-standing issue with a number of aspects of that legislation. I had pointed out that one of our chief justices had said in the case of R. v. McIntosh that sections 34 and 35 were:

—highly technical, excessively detailed provisions deserving of much criticism. These provisions overlap, and are internally inconsistent in certain respects.

I have no doubt that for learned colleagues who are lawyers, that language is crystal clear, but not so much for the rest of us.

I then presented to the House a quote from Mr. Bumble of Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist, which reads as follows:

If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, “the law is a ass...

I hear one of my colleagues say that it really should be “an ass.” That is the natural way to say it, but given that I was quoting, I wanted to use the exact quote as I would not want to wrong Mr. Dickens after all these years. Although that is the direct quote, there is more to it, but I thought that was the most apropos. It is a relatively well-known expression when we find ourselves in a situation that seems perfectly logical, but when we look at the law from a legal point of view it looks completely different. Therefore, we often hear people say that the law is “an ass”. It is a reference to this famous works.

The reason I brought that forward was to try to illustrate the situation that Mr. Chen found himself in when he believed he was defending his property. It is a fundamental right that people have. He believed the actions he took did not cross any legal lines. He thought he was well within his rights to do what he did to assist in apprehending someone who was stealing from his business.

Mr. Chen was initially charged with kidnapping, carrying a dangerous weapon, assault and forceable confinement. However, the kidnapping and weapons charges were dropped, but the serious charges of forceable confinement and assault were proceeded with. He was acquitted of those charges.

Although we recognize that changing laws based on one case and one instance is an area that we need to be very careful of, in this case it illustrates to us that this place and the system can work. Mr. Chen was found innocent and the guilty person was found guilty and served a sentence. Now we are in the process of changing the law so the Mr. Chens of the future will not find themselves in the horrific legal position in which he found himself.

Therefore, all in all it worked out. Hopefully, this will improve our Criminal Code and will bring more justice to Canadians.

I thank all those who worked so hard to get us to the point where the official opposition is comfortable in supporting a bill that amends the Criminal Code and that actually helps people, as opposed to the spin we get from the government on its law and order agenda. Therefore, We are very pleased to support the bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this bill has fairly widespread support, whether from the Liberals, New Democrats or the Conservatives. One of the most important aspects of the bill is that there has to be some sort of educational component to it. Using citizen's arrest as an example, in particular areas, such as some of the commercial streets where there are a lot of restaurants and a greater likelihood of robberies and things of that nature taking place, it is important to make sure that citizens understand what they should do in order to make citizen's arrests. I wonder if the member might comment on that aspect.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. I mentioned in my remarks yesterday that one of the concerns is that in clarifying the legislation, we may inadvertently incent the notion of vigilantism and that is something we do not want to do. I appreciate very much that the member has also focused on the important balancing act within the law and the need to balance the right of citizens to engage in citizen's arrests when the circumstances warrant, but that it does not get out of hand. We know where that could lead us. The notion of an educational component to advise citizens what their rights are under similar circumstances makes a great deal of sense. I hope that will be part of the follow-up to the bill passing this place.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support from the opposition for this particular bill. I did note a comment made by the member and I will make this observation. He indicated this is a bill that will in fact help individuals as opposed to other law and order types of bills. This is typical of the NDP approach: let us make sure we can arrest them, but when they are arrested, simply let them go.

In fact, our government's approach is that when someone is arrested, by a citizen or police officer, there are consequences to breaking the law. That is what our legislation does, even if the member opposite does not support it.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the minister himself is responding to my comments. If we take further what the hon. member has said, we all know that the Conservative idea of a balanced justice system is to just throw someone in jail, throw away the key and then tell everybody that the streets have been made safe. The fact of the matter is that for all the people who go into jail, the overwhelming majority are coming out again. If we do not pay some attention to what is happening when people are incarcerated, yes, I stand by the statement that under some of the government's laws, things will be worse, the streets will be less safe and people will not have the justice that I am saying does exist within this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, we know how misdirected the government has been on criminal justice issues. It slashed crime prevention programs, which we know actually reduce the crime rate. It is willing to spend billions of dollars on prisons even though the crime rate is coming down. We have seen a variety of justice legislation that seems to be written on the back of a napkin and thrown into the House.

Could the member for Hamilton Centre talk a bit more about the fact that this particular piece of legislation is much better because it was essentially drafted by New Democrats? The NDP member for Trinity—Spadina actually did the work. It is because of that we have a bill that is worth getting the stamp of approval of the House of Commons.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, every one of us here, certainly on this side of the House, has given credit to the member for Trinity—Spadina, in whose riding Mr. Chen lived and where the incident happened. It was her initiative and credit needs to be given. I said yesterday that I hoped somewhere in Hansard there was a quote from someone in the government who also recognized the leading role of the member for Trinity—Spadina.

In the time I have, I want to acknowledge what I said in the beginning. The government has finally found a way to work with the opposition, to get into the Criminal Code and deal with it in a real way as opposed to the political spin that is around every single law and order item that it brings forward. Therefore, I am prepared to acknowledge that, with the leadership of the member for Trinity—Spadina, it took the cooperation of members in the official opposition and the government. We only wish that the government would take this approach more consistently, because it is a heck of a lot more progressive and positive in terms of making changes to our Criminal Code than the way the government normally conducts itself on matters like this.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member was just saying, there is perhaps a lack of collegiality or cooperation on the government benches. I would be interested in hearing more about that. Perhaps the member has an idea to pass along to the government.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was not that long ago in a minority setting that the government did not really want to, but was forced to, work with other members. We did get things done. The government has had from the beginning the attitude that it has a majority and somehow 39% of the votes give it 100% of the power. The Conservatives believe that they can just rule at will. Their whole demeanour changed once they received that majority. It is a shame, because Bill C-26 is an example of how working together benefits all of us politically, but more important, provides better legislation, better laws and ultimately safer streets.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Hamilton Centre for his very eloquent speech. It gives us an appreciation for the situation and the work that has been done on Bill C-26.

The thing that strikes me is the spirit of co-operation that has allowed the House and the committee involved to achieve what we could call an optimal result. It may not be perfect, but perfection is unattainable. So it goes and we can live with that.

However, I think this is a start, or at least a shining example compared to other very unfortunate cases where the government decided to embark on its own path, alone. We have seen some of the consequences of that approach.

I would like the hon. member to say more about this spirit of co-operation that we wish for in order to achieve results that benefit everyone since, after all, we are all representatives of the Canadian population as a whole.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was important that the member said the House and committees. All of us in this place know that the real work, the roll up our sleeves, get down to work, no one is watching, just do plain work, happens at committee.

We first started to see the government's approach to committee work when we were setting up the rules, when we were talking about how committees would be structured, how often people would be allowed to talk, all those basic and fundamental fairness rules. We watched the way that the Conservative government just rolled in like a bulldozer and attempted to get every advantage it could, believing again that its 39% of the votes gave it an entitlement to 100% of the power and everything that goes with that.

The member himself answered appropriately in focusing on committee, because that is where the work happens, that is where the tone is set. The work that was done in committee that led us to Bill C-26 was successful. I am willing to bet that if we looked at the transcript we would find that people cooperated, people worked together to find solutions rather than working to find divisions based on partisanship.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I rise during this discussion with great disappointment in my colleagues in the NDP. Many of the things that they have said today are absolutely not factual, not based on any kind of a study that has been done.

Having almost 19 years of police experience tells me that victims across this country are screaming for governments across the country to do the right thing and to support them in their efforts to find justice. This is another example of where the NDP has it wrong. Those members continually support judicial discretion for offenders.

I stand today to ask a simple question of my hon. colleague from the NDP. Will he stand and simply tell Canadian victims that he will support victims over offenders and join the government in its efforts to do so through its legislation? Will he support victims here and now? Will he state that to Canadians so that they know clearly that the government and opposition members are trying very hard to do what is right for all victims across the country?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do thank the parliamentary secretary for her time and her involvement. Let me say at the outset that I have great respect for the service she provided in uniform as a Canadian police officer. I share some experience in the policing world, having been the Solicitor General of Ontario, as well the civilian head of the OPP. I was also responsible for corrections.

I know that the job does not end when we arrest someone. When somebody does something wrong, then our justice system needs to kick in. However, this notion that somehow from that moment forward whatever the crime, the individual no longer has a useful role in society is not an approach that we believe in.

The fact of the matter is that these are our family members, neighbours, co-workers, and at some point in their sentencing they are coming back out. If we do not do something to make it different for those individuals, they are going to come out and make it worse because they know of nothing else.

We believe in balance. While we must make sure that we impose the justice system as we need it, support police and support our justice courts, we must also be sure that we are fair to the people who are in there, recognizing that we want them to have a positive future, not just throw it away.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Timmins—James Bay.

Today, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-26 which deals with citizen's arrest and the defence of property, and clarifies the concept of self-defence.

The bill amends the Criminal Code in order 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.

First of all, we will be supporting this bill, which is essentially modelled after a bill previously introduced by our NDP colleague for Trinity—Spadina. I would like to congratulate her for her efforts in this regard.

You will recall that it all began in her riding back in May 2003, when the owner of the Lucky Moose Food Mart, David Chen, arrested a man who stole something from his store.

The Criminal Code allows the owner of property to arrest someone only if the presumed perpetrator is caught red-handed. In the case of Lucky Moose Food Mart, the owner arrested the thief one hour after the incident, when the criminal returned to the scene of the crime. As a result, the police charged the store owner with kidnapping, carrying a concealed weapon, assault and forcible confinement.

The charges of kidnapping and carrying a concealed weapon were dropped by the Crown, and Mr. Chen and his two co-accused did go to trial. They were acquitted of the charges of forcible confinement and assault in October 2010.

In order to protect citizens like David Chen from criminal prosecution, our colleague from Trinity—Spadina introduced a private member's bill to allow people to make arrests without warrant within a reasonable period. We are pleased to see that it has been reintroduced by the government.

It is important to note that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police supports Bill C-26. When he appeared before the committee, Superintendent Greg Preston said:

...CACP does support the passage of Bill C-26. We think it's important that citizens be recognized, that when they do act, they have self-defence available to them. We believe that this will assist the police in understanding, to be able to better determine whether or not somebody who does act does so lawfully.

...we'd prefer if we were on every street corner, but that's not the reality of the world. It is inevitable, and as such we certainly support the idea that they would be recognized for that.

It is important to understand that Bill C-26 does not reinvent the wheel. In Canada, the power granted to citizens to arrest without warrant is defined in section 494 of the Criminal Code. With regard to citizen's arrest, the only thing Bill C-26 does is to allow citizens to make an arrest without a warrant “within a reasonable time”.

Bill C-26 also includes amendments to provisions of the Criminal Code related to self-defence and the defence of property. These amendments will lead to long-awaited reforms that will simplify the complex provisions of the Criminal Code on self-defence and the defence of property.

In committee, Nicole Dufour, a lawyer and the coordinator for the Barreau du Québec's Criminal Law Committee, had this to say about self-defence:

The Barreau du Québec would like to offer its congratulations on the effort to simplify the legislation relating to self-defence, which has been criticized by the courts and by law enforcement bodies. In our opinion, these amendments do not alter the current case law, since the proposed provisions address the conduct and actions of a person who uses force, and not the outcome, for deciding whether the use of force in the circumstances is reasonable and lawful.

In committee, Hamish Stewart, a law professor at the University of Toronto, also pointed out the efforts to simplify the provisions on self-defence. He said:

The existing provisions of the Criminal Code have often been criticized for being unclear, for overlapping in ways that are not always clear, and for being difficult to explain to juries. There has been a long stream of criticism from lawyers, judges, and academics about the difficulty of interpreting and applying the existing provisions. So the attempt to take all these ideas of self-defence and put them into one section that would be clear and that would apply to all potential crimes I think is very welcome.

Although we support this bill, we regret that in committee the government rejected our amendment to specify that self-defence includes actions taken under the influence of what is referred to as battered woman syndrome. We wanted the bill to recognize that it is possible that a person who has been a victim of domestic violence might reasonably perceive the perpetrator of repeated acts of violence to be a greater threat than someone without this history might perceive the perpetrator to be.

We believe that the definition of self-defence must take into account the subjective perception of the circumstances rather than a purely objective perception of the situation. We thought that the terms describing the history of the two parties were not specific enough in Bill C-26 and we wanted to ensure that in this type of situation “the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances” from the individual's perspective.

The Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies recommended this amendment. Unfortunately, this government did not support it.

Eric Gottardi, from the Canadian Bar Association, pointed out that the current legislation does not protect female victims of abuse very well and that it is imperative to correct this situation. In committee, he said:

It's well accepted in our case law that a reasonable person, acting reasonably in the circumstances of the accused, can have honest but mistaken beliefs about a set of facts. So someone might think that they're about to be attacked or they're about to be threatened, and they may act in self-defence. That, in fact, might not be the case. But as long as they honestly believed, and that belief was reasonable, then they are justified in using force to defend themselves, even in advance of an attack or in advance of a threat.

...

We're strongly against violence against women, and we support a law and an amendment to the law of self-defence that protects those women in their subjective belief that they are under imminent threat. It's our concern that subjective belief isn't adequately protected as the law is currently drafted.

I am extremely disappointed that the NDP's amendment was rejected and I can assure you that we will continue to press this issue. Furthermore, I met several times with women from La Mouvance, a women's organization in the riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. These women do extraordinary work with female victims of violence. Unfortunately, they are not receiving any financial support from the federal government. Evidently, this government is not interested in helping women who are victims of violence by supporting the NDP's amendment.

There was a demonstration on the Hill today. We know that tomorrow, the Conservatives will be launching an attack on women in the form of Motion M-312. Canadians have fought for decades to give women the right to make their own choices about their bodies. Clearly, this government is determined to undermine women's rights. The Prime Minister has refused to clarify his government's position on this subject, and that has voters in my riding and across Canada worried.

Throughout our study of this bill, our primary concern has been to ensure that it does not encourage individuals to take justice into their own hands or to endanger themselves.

Personally, I agree with many of the witnesses who appeared before the committee to express concern that this bill gives too much freedom to the private security companies that are proliferating in Canada and Quebec. Even though a number of concerns were raised, we decided that this bill contains acceptable changes and that it will prevent people like Mr. Chen from being charged with a crime for defending their own property.

I am ready for questions from my hon. colleagues.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a little earlier, as I was listening to the Conservative members' comments, I got the impression that they are somewhat confused about the meaning of standing up for victims and supporting victims.

Unfortunately, we often hear statements to the effect that the NDP is against victims and does not stand up for victims. However, in my opinion, there is a clear difference between more severe sentencing for criminals or revenge for victims and real protection, real support, for victims. For example, victims can be given tools to help them react better or better defend themselves.

Could the hon. member explain, for example, the relationship between the bill to make our streets safer and this bill, which provides real support to victims of theft or other crimes? Could she tell us the difference between the two?

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for those comments.

She raised an excellent point. This government's position on criminal justice creates more victims than it helps. We cannot simply put people in prison without considering what they will do when they get out. Rather than investing in high schools and health, the Conservative Party would rather invest in new cells for prisoners. I find this very troubling.

This is an important point to raise. Rather than putting our young people and adults in prison, we must help them, particularly by addressing problems such as poverty and education.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that the bill deals with citizen's arrest, self-defence and so forth, and has received fairly widespread support, whether it is in the House or from the public as a whole.

In part I would like to express what I believe are concerns held by people of Winnipeg North, the area I represent. They want to see more of action to deal with some of the crime issues out there, and ways of dealing with crime.

The member made reference to what I would classify as alternative activities for young people and how government could invest in those types of things and could enhance such things as community policing.

Yes, it is great that we have the bill before us. We know it is receiving widespread support in terms of its ultimate passage through the House today, but would the member acknowledge that we need to do more than just deal with bills such as this and look at other forms of preventing crimes?

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation is an important step, but of course we need to take other measures.

It is important to note that the rate of crime is in decline in Canada, so the position of the government in terms of criminal justice is not actually based on facts or science. There are no studies that back the position of the government with regard to criminal justice. It is something that will not work in our communities. It is something that will not prevent criminals from committing more crimes.

My constituents are telling me that we should not be putting young people in jail, because they will come out as hardened criminals. That is something the NDP also noted in the House of Commons during debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question for my friend, the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, relates to the issue of private security firms.

Contrary to the advice of my friend from Winnipeg North, there are a lot of groups opposing the bill, including Tom Stamatakis, the president of the Canadian Police Association, who is quoted in today's press as saying:

We should take care that any changes made with this legislation do not have unintended consequence of broadening the current mandate of private security.

I noticed that my friend mentioned private security firms yesterday. One of her colleagues said that they do arrest and that this bill would not change things; however, the bill will allow them to leave the store and chase somebody and arrest them that day or later, so I remain concerned that the bill is opening the door to private security firms. I would appreciate my friend's comments.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a reasonable question that has already been dealt with in committee.

We see that this legislation is reasonable. This legislation is aimed at citizens such as David Chen, citizens who are protecting their own personal safety and property.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a real honour to stand in this House and represent the people of the great region of Timmins—James Bay.

When we talk about crime bills, crime prevention and crime strategies, it is unfortunate that much of the rhetoric in the House of Commons has not been to deal with the substantive issues but sometimes to create black and white caricatures or set up windmills. This is difficult because the issue of crime and law is complex and the solutions are sometimes not as simple. This is why the judges do need discretion in being able to interpret action and being able to interpret circumstances.

However, I find this has been a good instructive debate for Canadians to participate in and to watch, because we are trying to find a balance regarding the protection of ordinary citizens. This is something that communities have done from time immemorial.

For example, I live in the great little community of Cobalt, Ontario, where people look out for each other. I remember late one night I was coming home from a trip with my family and my little kids. I drove up in my beat-up little Toyota Tercel hatchback, which may not be the ugliest car ever built, but it was certainly in the top five. Barrelling in the driveway behind me was a big pickup truck with double wheels on the back. It sounded like a tank. Out jumped Bruce Miller, a big guy from Sherman Mine. He said, “Who goes there?” I almost fell over, and then he said, “Oh, it's you. I knew you were away. I just wanted to make sure when I saw the lights on at your house that nobody was robbing you”.

That is what neighbours do. We need to be able to say that it is okay for neighbours to check in on neighbours, that it is okay to stand up in a public square when something is wrong and say, “There are no police here, but a crime has been committed”.

In saying that, we have to be careful. We have seen in the United States where politicians fan the flames of vigilantism and horrible tragedies result, like the Trayvon Martin shooting in Florida. If we look at it, we wonder how could it be that a self-styled vigilante armed with a gun can patrol a neighbourhood and, when the police tell him to stand back, he believes his life is at threat. Under Florida law he only had to believe that. It is completely subjective. Issues of subjectivity do have a value in dealing with perception of violence or perception of threat, but they are not the only thing. We cannot just say, “I didn't like the looks of him. He seemed like a bad guy, so I shot him”. Yet, that is what is considered okay in the Florida legislature.

We have seen some of the crazy gun laws in many American states that think people should be able to carry a gun, a concealed weapon for self-defence, that they should be able to carry a weapon into a hospital because it is a citizen's right. That kind of over-the-top response creates dangerous situations.

I am looking at Bill C-26 from the sense of how we strike the balance between civic protection and ensuring that we are not putting people at risk. It is not about putting the so-called criminals at risk, but also the people who want to intervene. It is very difficult to intervene in a situation that could escalate. People need to have a sense of the ground rules. When the police are watching, they are certainly telling us to be careful about how we go about this.

There has been good discussion at committee. There has been good cross-party conversation.

On the issues of criminal justice, I had the great honour in the 1980s as a member of the Catholic Worker Movement to work with men coming out of prison and to live with men and women coming out of prison in the streets of Toronto. I saw a steady pattern in terms of recidivism. There were addictions. Addiction was probably the highest single cause of people committing crime. There were basic issues, such as a lack of a stable environment in which to actually get one's life together, and then there was plain stupidity.

I have known many cons through my work. Contrary to what we see in the movies, they are not criminal masterminds. That seems to be an oxymoron. Contrary to what my Conservative colleagues sometimes point out as these evil bandits who have to be locked up, sometimes they just make really stupid choices. I have talked to them about their choices.

I think that when we are looking at criminal policy, we have to remember that by far, the vast majority of people who end up in jail have made really bad choices. Should they be punished? Certainly. As a society do we need to have a plan to pull them back? Even more so.

I remember my friend, Robert, who died recently. In his day, Robert was a huge, massive expense on the health and criminal justice systems because of his horrific level of alcoholism. At the time, we could not get Robert into even a rooming house. There was no public housing. I remember the Conservative government of Mike Harris, and many of his old gang are on that side of the House now, telling us that social housing was a failed principle.

It was not a failed principle. We needed to get a guy like Robert a place to stay. Once we actually got him into secure housing, he sobered up. At that point he was never again a burden on the medical system or on the criminal justice system. I think he was 20-some years sober before he died. We needed to find ways to get men like him out of crisis, and it was possible.

That is where social policy comes in. If members believe that government should not be in the business of ensuring some level of social housing, then people like Robert will fall through the cracks. If people have levels of addiction, they might break into a car and get whatever change they can.

Last year I was moving and my car was broken into, probably because of the Oxy epidemic. Normally my beat-up old Chevy does not have much in it worth taking, but I was in the process of moving. There was a vacuum cleaner that my wife had given me. I did not mind sharing my vacuum cleaner with the criminal underground of Ottawa. I could have accepted that. That was in the car. There were a couple of brooms. They could have had them. But my God, my Bob Dylan collection, original vinyl, was in the back, as were my grandfather's favourite Scottish and Irish records. I have not brought forward a private member's bill about mandatory minimums for people who steal vinyl. I did manage to get some of it back. I went to the record store. I did not get any of my Bob Dylan collection; that was gone, but I got the Clancy Brothers and Kenneth McKellar records back.

I said to the guy, “Listen. These are my grandfather's records. They were stolen out of my car.” I do not think they could have even bought one Oxy pill. I said, “I do not mind paying for them. I just want the records.” The guy said, “We were only selling them for 50¢.” Being Scottish myself, I would have spent $5, maybe even $6 on each of those records.

I am not saying this to make light of the situation. Perhaps if I had been at the house that night and saw the guy stealing my records, I would have run out and stopped him. I would have at least tried to offer him the vacuum cleaner instead.

When I go home at night through the market I have seen some situations that have started to escalate. I am not out with the late, late night crowd because parliamentarians are always in bed at an early hour, so I do not see any of the stuff that happens outside the nightclubs. However, it tends to be my perception that we are dealing with people with addictions, and sometimes people with addictions do desperate things.

The question is, if someone sees something happening on the street, such as a shakedown, an escalation towards violence, what as a citizen does the person do if there are no police there? There is the question of someone intervening, such as a shopkeeper intervening and stopping someone from stealing by saying, “You cannot do this. I am going to hold you until the police come.” That is a reasonable citizen's response. That is a reasonable societal response.

In terms of the larger of issue of what people do when they see relentless situations, particularly when there is drug addiction and people are resorting to crime, we need a larger societal response. That is why I talked about the interventions and about the lack of treatment centres in northern Ontario. We do see levels of addiction, mostly involving Percocet and Oxy. There is no place for people to get treatment. That is an issue.

We cannot just leave it to the citizen to address the crime problem. We cannot just leave it to the jails. We need a larger, more comprehensive view. We have not had a holistic view of crime and crime response in this Parliament.

We will be supporting this bill. It is one little piece of a much larger puzzle. I am more than willing to take questions from any of my hon. colleagues.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the earlier questions I had asked the member's colleague was in regard to how important it is that there be some sort of educational component to this bill with respect to citizen's arrest.

I profiled that there are some areas within our communities that would benefit more by having community policing, police officers visiting some of the stores in communities where there might be more value in terms of making sure people understand what the legislation actually enables a store owner to do in terms of making a citizen's arrest.

I wonder if the member would share some of his thoughts in regard to the value of and the need for an educational component. There is some misinformation out there in regard to what a citizen's arrest is.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent suggestion, because the question before us is about ensuring that we have the correct nuance, and nuance is difficult when we are talking about legislation. Legislation is like moving a massive glacier. We might move it two inches, but that two inches could have a huge effect on what is on the other side of the glacier. People do need to understand.

I find that in the north where we deal with the Nishnawbe-Aski Police Service and mostly with the OPP, we have some really good community outreach. However, people need to understand that this is about being able to stop the guy who is ripping off the albums out of someone's car. This is not about saying that the person gets to beat the guy up. This is not about that person getting to exercise justice. He or she has no right to decide appropriate punishment, or to make the guy pay. This is about stopping a crime from happening.

There is a level which people are not able to go beyond and if they do, they cannot go crying to the public if they are arrested by the police for going beyond it. The education component is going to be very important. I am sure the police will play a large role through community policing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know there are concerns within other parties in the House. I regret that having come to some consensus through the committee process members who have concerns seem to feel they have to hold their noses and pass a bill that may well open the door to some serious problems in our society.

I note that the vice-chair of the Canadian Bar Association, Eric Gottardi, is quoted in today's paper as saying this is a gift to the rent-a-cops. He said, “Such personnel often lack the necessary range of equipment or adequate training to safely and lawfully make arrests in a manner proportionate to the circumstances”.

Even at this late stage we should insist that the sections relating to citizen's arrest be left alone and remain as they are now in the Criminal Code and not extend them, as this bill does.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that private security exists already and that is not going to change. Are there concerns about how private security contractors are used? Certainly, but the bill is not going to change their reality in our society.

We think that the bill is a good bill. It is good because there has been push-back on both sides in order to deal with some outstanding concerns. If my hon. colleague feels that she has to hold her nose to vote for it, well, making laws is like making sausages. It is not the easiest thing. We do not get everything we want. Law is not easy either and there are always going to be grey areas. That is what will be interpreted by the courts.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in Hamilton a number of years ago there was a situation where a Bell technician was outside a hotel and a husband and wife had a dispute. He held the husband because he thought the husband was going to injure the woman. The woman turned around and buried her shoe in the back of the Bell technician's head. It just shows us that when we give that kind of extra leverage to the public, there is a certain risk factor.

I wonder what the member's comments are on that.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say anything about what happens in Hamilton because I share a seat with a guy from Hamilton and I have played gigs in Hamilton and it is a pretty tough town. I was told when I went to Hamilton that I was in the big city and I had better behave, so I am not going to mention anything about what happened at that event.

There are always altercations. There is always going to be push-back. There are always going to be issues of how people defend themselves. What we are trying to do is clarify the laws. To use the example of the Lucky Moose that was being hit again and again and with no police there, it is not unreasonable for the shopkeeper to be able to stop the criminal.

My colleague's advice is wise. We have to ensure there is discretion. We have to remind people to be careful. It is better to wait and let the police do it. People should not get hurt over a box of Smarties.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before resuming debate, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Beaches—East York, National Defence; the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona, Aboriginal Affairs; the hon. member for Saint-Jean, Flooding in Montérégie.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest.

Bill C-26 demonstrates that the committee process in this House can actually work, when a bill starts out as reasonable in its aspirations and its general content. I will speak mostly to the self-defence provisions, which have not been getting as much attention during this debate, and I hope to have time to speak to citizen's arrest. If not, I am happy to answer questions.

The NDP worked in good faith within the committee and advanced a number of amendments, two of which were accepted. We feel that the legislation could be better yet, especially, from my point of view, on the citizen's arrest portions. However, we also feel that it has been somewhat improved and that, in general, it started out as worthy legislation. For that reason, we believe this bill should be supported, as my colleagues have been indicating.

With respect to the legislation that was originally tabled, I must commend the parliamentary secretary, the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, for his speech on December 1, 2011, when he introduced the bill. His speech was a model of thoughtfulness, tightness and elegance of exposition and, indeed, care taken to explain the bill's purpose and its relationship to the existing law and to the general principles of criminal law. That speech should be taken seriously when the legal profession begins to interpret Bill C-26, when it becomes part of the Criminal Code, with respect to the provisions on self-defence of the person, defence of property and citizen's arrest.

What is very interesting about both the reforms in Bill C-26 and the speech of the parliamentary secretary is the contrast with the approach of the current Criminal Code provisions. This is partly due to the origin of the current provisions in one of the original versions of the Criminal Code well over a century ago. However, the present Criminal Code provisions are best characterized as a patchwork quilt of relatively detailed provisions that are responding to a range of concrete situations. Partly because of that level of detail, these provisions have for some time been criticized, decried by some as needlessly complex and increasingly confusing, as we have had layer upon layer of judicial interpretation over the years.

The Bill C-26 provisions are, in contrast, a model of simplicity and distillation to the core principles in their essence. I dare say that their formulation owes a lot, although I cannot say this is for sure the case, to the civilian tradition within our multi-juridical heritage, with its preference for unifying principle and generality when we are codifying the core areas of the law.

A passage from the parliamentary secretary's speech speaks to this approach. When the hon. member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe spoke to the self-defence provisions in Bill C-26, he stated in part:

If we were to ask ordinary Canadians if they think self-defence is acceptable, they would say that it is acceptable when their physical integrity or that of another person is threatened. I think they would also say that the amount of force used should be reasonable and should be a direct response to the threat.

The reforms proposed in Bill C-26 are centred on those basic elements. Because of the general nature of these ideas, one law based on these fundamental principles should be able to regulate all situations that arise involving defence of the person. We simply do not need different regulations for every set of circumstances. All we need is a single principle that can be applied to all situations.

There is a lot of merit in the conceptual clarity and the focus on unifying principle that is represented by that passage. However, the common lawyer in me does worry a bit if the idea of “a single principle” is seized upon to the exclusion of what he also mentions, which is “all situations”.

General principles only live and breathe and become coherent in the real world where, hopefully, most Canadians live--when they are brought to bear on concrete situations to allow more nuanced rules to emerge gradually. It is for this reason that it is a virtue of the new proposed clause 34 in Bill C-26 on self-defence that it is grounded in a general idea, that of reasonableness of response, but this is also expressed, which is important, as “reasonableness in the circumstances”. That is proposed paragraph 34(1)(c). However, it is all the better that proposed subclause 34(2) then goes on to list nine factors that are relevant to the contextualized approach to the general principle of reasonableness.

The NDP was very concerned that these factors would themselves be principled and at the same time useful for real-world decision-making of ordinary citizens, then of police and prosecutors and, finally, of judges in their exercising of judgment as to whether a self-defence situation has arisen. In particular, an NDP amendment that was accepted modified the chapeau for proposed subclause 34(2) and that amendment is most welcome. It appears before the list of the nine factors and states:

In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors....

That sets up well the various factors. This phrasing interacts with factors (e), (f) and (f.1) in the provisions to provide a good basis for the criminal law to be responsive to the very particular challenges of applying self-defence in the context of abusive relationships, which is an area I know many members in the House have some concern about, especially where women have been subjected to patterns of violence and psychological abuse by their male partners. I think it is important to recognize that the parliamentary secretary himself, in his speech on December 1, recognized this when he said:

Another factor is whether there were any pre-existing relationships between the parties, including any history of violence and abuse.

This last factor is particularly important in cases where a battered spouse must defend against an abusive partner. As the Supreme Court has noted in the landmark case of Lavallee, it is sometimes difficult for a jury of citizens to understand how a battered spouse might stay in an abusive relationship or how the person might come to understand the patterns of violence of the person's partner. These cases do not arise often but when they do, sensitivity to these factors is crucial.

Having praised the parliamentary secretary's speech on December 1, I would also like to add that the response speech from the previous justice critic, the member for St. John's East, was also a model of constructive and thoughtful parliamentary engagement. While he expressed general support and appreciation for the intent behind the bill, he also raised questions aimed at ensuring that during the committee process, the overhauled existing provisions of the Criminal Code did not throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. In that respect, he said:

We need to examine it [Bill C-26] very carefully. We need to ensure that by making changes, we are not throwing away 100 years of precedent and all the advice that the courts have given. If we are starting off with a blank slate and a whole new law, it may take another 10 or 20 years of case law to understand what that means. Do we really need to go down that road?

I will end by saying that it is really important to understand that there is a conundrum built into law reform. Do judicial interpretation and the perceived understandings of the law go by the wayside when new law is enacted, especially when such detailed provisions are replaced by general provisions in criminal law? It must surely be the case that we, and by “we” I mean citizens and the legal profession, do not reinvent the law of self-defence from a whole cloth. We must engage with what was the living law under the old provisions and forge a new living law under the new ones that is in communication with what went before it.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member is new to his portfolio but he was not at committee to hear the testimony. We heard testimony that suggested that, in this particular case, judges should use their discretion for victims instead of criminals, as that member's party has been saying.

We also heard experts at committee say that for years they have been seeking clarification of the law on self-defence. During my time practising criminal law there was a tremendous amount of confusion to say the least relating to many aspects of self-defence. I wonder if the member would not agree that we should listen to the experts in this case. Even the Canadian Bar Association said that it wanted clarification of the law.

Would my colleague not agree that it is a good thing for the government to stand up for victims instead of criminals and allow judges to use their discretion as well?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with the member on the justice and human rights committee.

I do not think the premise needs to be accepted that the NDP views judicial discretion as only something that should be relinquished when it is a case of the wrongdoer. That is not at all what we have been saying. In general, judicial discretion needs to be respected in our legal system.

We are consistent that in the revised bill, with respect to the very open textured rules on self-defence, we think discretion will work, keeping in mind that the judgment of ordinary citizens will be equally important. The law cannot wander too far away from basic common sense.

However, we also believe that when it comes to things like sentencing, judicial discretion is also needed. We are being consistent.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to welcome my hon. friend to the House. This the first time I have had an opportunity to put a question for the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth. I hope he will not mind if I trespass on his time to follow-up on a response from one of his caucus colleagues.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay made the mistake of thinking that I planned to vote for this bill. I do not plan to vote for the bill. I am fairly certain that I am the only member of Parliament who finds it objectionable to expand the powers of citizen's arrest. I note particularly that, while the member for Timmins--James Bay said that this little change was nothing in terms of citizen's arrest and private security firms, it would in fact create a new opportunity for people to arrest some reasonable time after the offence.

How does my friend from Toronto—Danforth feel about that?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was upfront in my remarks when I said that I, like many people, have qualms about playing around too much with the citizen's arrest provisions. However, the committee and ultimately the government in its proposed bill has this right.

The member is absolutely correct. It is true that there is a small extension of citizen's arrest to include arrest within a reasonable time after someone has been found committing an offence. However, there are a number of safeguards. This cannot be done if it is at all reasonable to expect the police to show up and do the job.

There are a couple of other provisions that I do not have time to go into that really attempt to send the signal that the Lucky Moose shop case with David Chen is really the paradigm. We need to work out from that, use that as the analogy and not accept this as a licence for anything resembling citizen's arrest gone wild.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the member for Toronto—Danforth to the House and congratulate him on his new portfolio as deputy critic for justice. This is the quality of debate and the type of thoughtful, reasonable and well-researched remarks that we can expect from this member after just a few short weeks. I cannot wait to see what he will be capable of in a year or two.

I am pleased to have an opportunity today to speak on Bill C-26, an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to citizen's arrest and the defences of property and persons. In reality, the heart of this bill came from the New Democratic Party, specifically from the member 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.

I would also like to note that it is nice to see that for once the Conservatives are willing to accept a good idea from the opposition. I certainly wish the Conservatives would adopt more of our good ideas. If they had, of course, there would be not be 90,000 more unemployed families. If the Conservatives had taken our advice, we would not have the highest debt load of Canadian families in history. If they had taken our suggestions and listened to the NDP, then we would not have seen a real wage reduction of 2%.

Going back to the bill, it has its origins in the attention brought to a citizen's arrest two years ago at the Lucky Moose Food Mart in downtown Toronto, as many members have already stated. The owner of this store was a persistent victim of shoplifting. A shoplifter who was seen in his store walking away with some property apparently came back an hour or so later. Based on his experience in trying to get the police to respond to shoplifting events in the store, the owner felt that the only way to actually have this fellow charged was to apprehend him himself. As a result, the owner was charged with assaulting the individual and forcible confinement. This case caused a lot of controversy, some of which had to do with whether policing was sufficient in the area.

We know that in larger establishments like chain supermarkets and retail stores there are often paid security services. They have the resources to better protect themselves. These paid security services have training in apprehending people and are more familiar with the Criminal Code than the average citizen. They, in effect, perform a citizen's arrest based on seeing someone commit a shoplifting offence. They phone the police and hold the shoplifter until the police come, which is what Mr. Chen did. However, what was different in this case is that the individual had left the store and then came back. When he came back he was not in the act of committing an offence at that time. As a result, Mr. Chen, the owner of the store, was not inside the current provisions of section 494 of the Criminal Code that says a citizen may arrest someone who is found committing an indictable offence or personally believes on reasonable grounds that a criminal offence had been committed, the perpetrator is escaping from it and is freshly pursued.

Section 494 states specifically that, “A person authorized by the owner or by a person in lawful possession of property, may arrest without warrant a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property.”

There is also a provision that says, “Any one other than a peace officer who arrests a person without warrant shall forthwith deliver the person to a peace officer.”

The normal process for shoplifting is that the store detective, store owner or the private security officer can apprehend individuals, phone the police, turn them over and let the police handle it from there. In this case, because the arrest took place over an hour later on a return visit, the owner did not have any basis under section 494 to arrest the individual, which is, of course, why we are standing here today debating this bill.

The bill originally came forward as a private member's bill introduced by our colleague, the member for Trinity—Spadina. I think she may have even called it the “Lucky Moose Bill” in honour of Mr. Chen. It has received widespread support from all sides of the House with perhaps one notable exception. Many people who are in the position of lawmaker are very concerned about passing laws that would encourage a vigilante type of justice. This is why it is such a touchy area.

As has been pointed out by many of my colleagues, we have highly trained police forces operating across the country. We have a national police force, provincial police forces in Ontario and Quebec, as well as local police forces and community policing. We are incredibly proud of these men and women who serve Canadians on a daily basis. As well, in the area where Mr. Chen's supermarket is located in Chinatown, police patrol on foot. These are the people we need to rely on. On the other hand, not every store owner has access to security guards or store detectives, and certainly the police are unable to be everywhere at once.

The concern here is for people trying to run a business. In this case, Mr. Chen was trying to run a business and protect his property. Most people would think that he acted reasonably and detained the individual without using excessive force. However, it was still under the current provisions for forcible confinement that Mr. Chen was charged. If one uses force to confine someone and prevent that person from leaving, that is an offence.

However, the citizen's arrest provision provides a defence for forcible confinement by changing it to an arrest, provided the arrest is made within a reasonable period of time.

If the individual who is committing the offence is known, one would be able to simply phone the police to tell them what the individual has done and that they have done this before, in this case, taking something and leaving. In this instance, Mr. Chen did not know the name and address where this individual could be found and unfortunately felt the necessity to take action. An individual should not be chased because of the danger involved, and the police should be called. However, as I have stated, in a case where an individual is not known, the only way to apprehend an offending stranger is to take advantage of the opportunity.

We support this aspect of the bill wholeheartedly. It takes a minimalist approach by making changes to section 494. What I mean by “minimalist” is that it changes only what is required according to the circumstances in which Mr. Chen found himself.

There have to be two conditions: one must witness the offence, and the arrest must be made at the time of the offence or within a reasonable time after the offence is committed; and, one must believe on reasonable grounds that it is not feasible under the circumstances for a peace officer to make an arrest.

We could say that when the individual came back into the store, instead of arresting him perhaps the police should have been called right away. However, in Mr. Chen's experience the police often did not come fast enough in these kinds of situations and he thought that this individual would be gone again.

If these changes had already been in place, Mr. Chen would have had his defence, as it would have fit these circumstances. As legislators, we should not make laws every time something unusual happens and we must be very careful in making changes to the Criminal Code. However, when a flaw is pointed out in the law due to an unusual event and injustice can be seen, then a reasonable legislature should take action. We support that wholeheartedly.

I have had several instances in my personal life where I have come close to this kind of situation while travelling on public transit in Toronto. I have taken the TTC on a daily basis for many years and have encountered all kinds of unusual situations. I witnessed an assault on a 13-year-old in the subway by 17-year-old students, and I witnessed a TTC patron spitting on a TTC operator. In each of these situations, the assailants fled. Being a little out of my mind with anger, I did pursue them. However, during that pursuit, I was lucky enough to locate peace officers who were then able to make the arrests so that I did not run afoul of the law in some way and end up in trouble myself.

This bill is important because it ensures that individuals like Mr. Chen, who are protecting their person and property, are able to do so within the law. To be able to defend oneself within the law is incredibly important. That is why over many years there have been all kinds of changes made to the Criminal Code, and we certainly have to do so diligently.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the test of reasonableness in my colleague's speech today, which is suggested by the legislation itself, the reasonableness of a judge who has had legal experience and legal education, and has seen these cases many times before.

Does he have a problem with the government suggesting that judges should use their discretion to determine what is reasonable in the circumstances? If so, why does he have a problem with judges deciding that? If he opposes the legislation, the very crux of the issue is the reasonableness of the judges and the interpretation of the law by them, and what is reasonable in the circumstances based on that citizen.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the member was listening. Nowhere did I say I was opposed to the legislation. In fact, we are supporting it.

What is absolutely surprising to me is to hear the member from his side of the floor, the Conservatives, now saying that judges should be able to apply their judgment. Time and time again we have seen the government attempt to make changes to actually take that discretion out of judges' hands with mandatory minimum sentences. That is the kind of thing that takes the law out of the hands of the experts and the people who should be applying sentences, who should be taking into account the circumstances of offences, criminal history, behaviour of individuals and reasonableness of the judgments being made.

This is the government that is taking that discretion out of judges' hands. I think it is a little hypocritical to hear the member make that kind of statement now.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party critic talked about how we support the bill in principle. There is fairly widespread support in the House. Most Canadians see the value of passing the bill.

In previous questions I have asked about the need for an educational component for certain sectors, in particular the retail or the commercial areas, to make sure people are aware of what citizen's arrest really entails. Would the member comment on what he feels is important in an educational component on citizen's arrest?

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we as a society can do a better job of educating the public on a whole raft of different issues, not just citizen's arrest, but preventive health, tax code or a number of situations.

However, I would like to turn it back to the member and ask, if the Liberals feel that the bill is lacking in this kind of way, have they proposed, or will they be proposing, amendments to insert such language into the legislation?

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to ask a question. Earlier, one of our colleagues said that she suspects the NDP cannot stand up for victims. My colleague's speech, which I just listened to, gave a fine example of how all parties can work together to come up with measures that will truly help victims.

We are not talking about victims' revenge; we are talking about real tools to help people defend themselves. I would like my colleague to comment on that a little.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

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

It certainly shows the kind of results we can achieve when the parties work together. If we work together, we will have better laws. When the members opposite accuse us of all kinds of rather silly things, when the Minister of Justice, or the Minister of Public Safety, say things like “you are either with us or with the criminals”, it does not help us do our job. Furthermore, such comments have no place here in the House.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak once again to Bill C-26.

It now appears that the bill is being framed as sort of the victims versus the offenders by the other side. I would like to clarify our party's position on victims versus offenders.

The bill came from our party in the first place through the member for Trinity—Spadina. It was an attempt to turn an offender who was really a victim away from being an offender. How does that work? It is where someone who was a victim of a crime, attempted to arrest or stop a person who committed a crime and he became an offender, according to the police, because he had unreasonably detained someone.

This bill is all about that. It is to try to regain the balance between victims and offenders. The bill is now one of the very few in this Parliament to have had actual agreement on amendments at committee. Many bills have gone through committee that have had zero amendments approved by the other side.

That leads me to comparisons between this bill and other bills which have created victims, by the other side, and in which the amendments we have proposed have been outright rejected. I am of course referring to Bill C-31, which has elements of this bill in it all over the place. People who flee countries, where those people are victims of crime or who have their own personal well-being threatened, to come to a safe country are themselves victims. They are the victims of crime in those countries. They are the victims of persecution. They are victims in any imagined sense of the word.

However, if these people arrive here by the wrong method, they immediately become an offender, according to the government. If they are victims of human smuggling, they are imprisoned and are considered to be offenders.

We need to turn those things around. This is a situation that cannot be allowed to stand. Unfortunately the votes on Monday meant that those bills are now off to the Senate and perhaps they will become law.

We have a situation where the other side is accusing this side of being soft on offenders and hard on victims, and the exact opposite is true. The government has determined that people who are victims will be made offenders. The immigration bill is but one example.

That is an example of a bill where the parties actually did work together. The previous Parliament actually passed a bill that was praised and lauded, that struck a balance between people being victims and being offenders.

However, now we have a government that is insistent on its ideologically driven anti-immigrant agenda that will now treat potential immigrants who come here by magic, because they found a way to get here when they were unable to get here any other way, as criminals.

In addition, those individuals who did everything right, who acted in accordance with the law, who applied to come to Canada years and years ago are now going to be treated as criminals because they are having their money given back to them and are being told “Sorry, we did not get to your application 10 years ago, and we are never going to get to it. You have to apply again”. Those people are being made into victims by the government. We are treating people horrendously.

I also want to talk about how this bill has a possibility of creating a vigilante system. We will support it, but I want to be very clear that we do not support anything which takes Canada further into the sort of American mentality of “shoot first and ask questions later”. We do not agree with that kind of mentality.

I was in a high school in my riding last week. In that high school was a bunch of Grade 10 students. They were 13 to 15 years old. I asked them how many of them owned an illegal handgun or knew someone who owned one. Half the class put up its hand, and that is not unusual. When I asked them why all these handguns, their immediate answer was for self-defence, that they had to defend themselves against others in their communities who had handguns.

What is the government doing about the proliferation of handguns that I find in my riding? There was a drive-by shooting last night and someone was shot just last week in the same neighbourhood by illegal handguns that have arrived in my riding.

What is the government doing about the proliferation of weapons of destruction, of killing? It is removing border protections. It is laying off border services people. It is cutting the number of sniffer dogs that might stop these guns from coming into the country in the first place.

The Conservatives have decided it is better to have guns come in and to--

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been listening to the member talk on Bill C-26, which is about citizen's arrest, and he has been meandering all over the place, covering all sorts of different legislations and bills with which we were dealing. He talked about Bill C-31, which would improve the refugee act. Now he is talking about illegal handguns and border services. He is absolutely not talking about the subject at hand, Bill C-26, which would enhance citizens' protection.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for his intervention. It is true that the members are encouraged to ensure their comments are pertinent to the question before the House. Members will also know they are given a great deal of freedom to explore different ideas and eventually bring them back on the subject. I am sure the hon. member for York South—Weston was getting to the point.

The hon. member for York South—Weston.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thought I did mention the point. The point is we do not want this bill to become a further direction. We do not want it to take us further toward a “shoot first, ask questions later” situation. Part of the bill is about self-defence and the definition thereof. I was trying to point out that I already had a situation in my riding where many young people believed that owning a firearm was a matter of self-defence. They believed they had the right to own firearms. I am sure we have heard some members opposite talk about that right. There is no such a right, but members opposite have said that.

Now these children, having heard this, believe it is their right to have a firearm to defend themselves. Part of the bill is about changing the definition of “self-defence”. It is in the news. It is something we cannot avoid. We are now facing this explosion of very young individuals who believe they need to own handguns. They get it by illegal means, I will grant that, because it is not legal.

However, I was astonished, as I think the members opposite should be, to discover that half of the 13- to 15-year-olds in that classroom had handguns or knew somebody who did. This is an astounding number of individuals of that age group.

Those same people are now being made victims, and that is part of where this is coming from. The bill starts with the premise that the person who is being robbed is a victim and should not be the offender. What we are trying to establish, and what I am trying to point out to the government, is that many of the bills it has brought forward in fact create victims of people who do not need to be made victims. We are trying to protect victims.

One of the things we are doing is trying to help pass this law, which would actually protect victims. However, there are other laws that have come to us that would make victims out of ordinary law-abiding people, and we are opposed to that.

It was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance who brought us to that portion about victims versus offenders in the discussions on the bill.

What we hope to do with this law should not become something more than it is. We hope to allow individuals to protect their personal property and to hold somebody, but we do not want to create a system of vigilante justice where individuals believe they have the right to use firearms on other individuals.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member is new to this place, but he asked a very important question. He asked how he could solve the problem in his riding. I have a proposal for him.

The Safe Streets and Communities Act brought in tougher sentences for organized drug crimes and mandatory minimum sentences for violent offenders. It increased penalties for sexual offences against children and ended house arrest for serious crimes. We have the opportunity to put people in jail for committing serious crimes for a certain amount of time, keeping them off the streets and keeping citizens safe. Instead of voting against that and opposing our legislation to keep serious criminals in jail, New Democrats should support it. This is how to do that. It takes years to do it and he has the opportunity to support our legislation and keep criminals in jail where they belong.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am really glad the member opposite raised that issue. I asked the same high school students if they were afraid of being incarcerated with mandatory minimums for the possession of firearms and other crimes. The answer I got was what I expected. They do not read the law before they commit crimes. They do not determine, as somebody has suggested, that there is a mandatory minimum for growing six pot plants, which they were all surprised to learn. That is not how the criminal system works in Canada. The criminal system works because of desperate people doing desperate things or people who feel they have to defend themselves and do desperate things. That is not the kind of Canada we want.

If the member opposite suggests the law that creates mandatory minimums will somehow reduce the number of victims of crime in our country, he is very much mistaken.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member touched on an important issue regarding guns and weapons in schools. I used to be an education critic in the province of Manitoba. Most schools have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to weapons in schools. After all, our youth should have a sense of safety when they are in their schools, knowing there will not be knives and guns found in lockers. I was surprised at the degree of availability or general knowledge of illegal handguns.

Could he expand a bit on that point? Does he feel that type of weaponry is actually on school premises? Does he feel there should be a zero tolerance on weaponry in schools?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely believe there should be a zero tolerance for weapons in schools. That goes without saying. I am not suggesting that these individuals are bringing firearms to school. I am suggesting that there is a proliferation of firearms of which parliamentarians should be aware. Certainly, in lower-income ridings, such as mine, poverty and desperation take us to a whole different level. We also have a situation in which illegal firearms come into our country through a very porous border and we should not support a government that wants to reduce the protections at the border and make it easier for firearms to get in.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am struck by the discussion about firearms. When we think of firearms in our country, we think about a criminal act of not storing them safely. Business owners will not be in a position to have loaded firearms available if someone comes in to take over the store because they have to store their firearms in a separate place from the ammunition. Safe storage is under the Criminal Code.

The other point I want to bring up is with regard to the police. For instance, police officers will say that the most likely gun they will be injured or killed by are their own guns. In fact, their bulletproof vests were designed to repel a slug from their issued firearms.

When we talk about increasing the supply of firearms in our country, would the member not agree that it will take a lot of examination to see whether this bill fits in all of that?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Yes, Mr. Speaker. Part of why I am bringing this up is to try to draw attention to the fact that this bill creates a knowledge, appreciation and clarification of the laws around self-defence. We are trying to ensure the laws that talk about self-defence are not used by people to create a vigilante system that will end the lives of many of our young people.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-26. This is a great honour for me given that I have happily agreed, at the NDP whip's request, to become a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. This is both a great honour and a great challenge for me.

I will take advantage of my speaking time to express my opinion about a bill that the committee has studied and to talk about the ins and outs of bills like this one, their impact on society and their usefulness to the courts.

It is very important to understand that the courts are working to help society, to ensure order and to suppress crime using the tools they have been given by, among others, our House of Commons. That is an important notion because the bills that we draft, discuss, debate and study in committee to achieve an outcome are just part of the courts' toolkit.

Of course, simply passing a bill does not solve all problems. Quite the opposite. The goals of a bill can be achieved only if other authorities, including this House, give police forces and other stakeholders the means to engage in prevention and education and if other levels of government are equipped to ensure that the implementation of the law achieves the desired results.

I have to say that I am also very honoured to speak to this bill because I personally believe that it is a good model. This bill should become an operational model for the work of this House and of the various committees my colleagues work on.

I want to emphasize that because the New Democratic Party, as represented by committee members, was disappointed in a number of things. Unfortunately, even though the other members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights agreed to two of the amendments we proposed, seven of our amendments were rejected, including, among others, an amendment that was very important to us and that had to do with actions taken in self-defence, such as in situations involving domestic abuse.

Some of my colleagues have given very eloquent, detailed speeches on this issue, which is very important to us. I will not necessarily go into further detail on the matter. However, I would like to come back to the fact that if there is one measure of satisfaction that all members of this House can express and, more importantly, that we all hear from our constituents, that would be great. Incidentally, I would like to point out that we are all here as representatives of our constituents, first and foremost, and we are accountable to them, to everyone in our ridings, no matter which party we belong to.

Coming back to the main point I wanted to make, when all is said and done, and considering the results achieved, Bill C-26 is a great example of how this House and its committees can work together.

Although by no means ideal—that would be going to far—it is nevertheless a model that all members in this House can follow in order to improve the atmosphere here, which is not always easy. I do not wish to dwell on examples from the past, but unfortunately, the fact is that this government continues to blindly and stubbornly advance its own agenda, while dismissing any informed opinions that differ from its own. I would like to again point out the success of Bill C-26.

I would now like to address another very important aspect that gives us a great deal of satisfaction about the goals achieved while working on Bill C-26. It is important to understand that creating legislation that deals with a subject as complicated as self-defence and the protection of personal or other property is like walking a tightrope.

Defining the limits of actions, violent or not, that in some cases are clearly criminal and in others are not, can be very tricky.

As you know, self-defence is a widely accepted principle. Some of my colleagues, like the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth, have been very clear on this subject—and I thank them for that. In my opinion, this has allowed all of my colleagues to understand that even though self-defence is widely accepted by the public, there are nonetheless some inherent risks involved in its implementation.

The New Democratic Party does not accept and will never accept vigilante justice. It is very, very important to understand that. Likewise, it will never accept the pure repression that this government is promoting. Nuance is very important. Fortunately, or unfortunately—depending on one's point of view—we do not live in a world without nuance, where everything is black and white. On the contrary, the circumstances surrounding a case before the courts can become very important and can affect the outcome tremendously. That is one of the reasons our justice system gives judges some latitude. They are not, however, given full or arbitrary latitude. Our judges have to make their decisions and work within the confines of the law and case law.

I am pleased that this bill will give our courts new tools for building more balanced precedents in matters of self-defence, protection of property and citizen's arrest. It is very important.

However, I am warning this government not to believe that passing this bill will solve all the problems. On the contrary, if we do not give the other stakeholders—such as our courts or police officers—all the tools they need to implement this legislation, then unfortunately, Bill C-26 may very well not meet its objectives.

I repeat: I wanted to put this in perspective. This bill will be only one of a number of methods for achieving the important objective of protecting ordinary people who, in some exceptional circumstances, may find themselves in situations where they could be convicted of a crime.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am just curious. I have not heard again the reference to judicial discretion. I know there has been some argument in committee by the NDP in relation to this, and then again some discussion here. I am wondering how the member feels about removing judicial discretion for judges in respect of victims. The NDP has said in the past that judicial discretion should not be removed and that a judge should be able to send people away for as long as the judge feels is appropriate.

We say that we need to send a clear message to the community that violent crimes, violent drug offences and gang-related organized crime will not be tolerated and that the people who commit these crimes deserve mandatory minimum sentences. That would remove judicial discretion and bring certainty across the country that people who commit violent crimes have to do serious time.

I am wondering if the member agrees with our position here to allow judges to have judicial discretion in relation to victims' rights.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question and comments. That is a very good question.

I think judicial discretion is key. I therefore find it particularly strange to see the hon. member getting upset about the fact that judges have a certain amount of discretion in the performance of their duties, in their use of the criminal justice system.

Unfortunately, this government has always had the bad habit of applying the “give a dog a bad name and hang him” philosophy. What is really outrageous is that they believe that wishful thinking can solve any problem and they refuse to trust professionals, people who, through years of practising law, have acquired sufficient judgment to apply the law to its fullest extent. Indeed, under our Criminal Code, life and other very stiff sentences can be imposed. Judges have the freedom to impose such sentences and it is very important that their freedom be preserved.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative member said that eliminating judicial discretion and imposing minimum sentences gives victims more rights and ensures that those who commit serious crimes are incarcerated for a certain amount of time.

However, and I do not know whether my colleague is aware of this, with minimum sentences criminals generally are more inclined to plead guilty in order to negotiate a shorter sentence. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

Personally, I think this proves that minimum sentences do not always work.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for her question.

We can consider minimum sentences from several perspectives, as the government argues. We can take the statistical or epidemiological point of view: it has been clearly shown that minimum sentences do not reduce or prevent crime. On the contrary, they result in more crime.

I remember very well some discussions we had at our national convention in Vancouver last year, especially with correctional officers. Apparently all inmates, no matter what sentences they receive—except for those serving a life sentence with no possibility of parole—will have a life after serving their sentences. Whenever hope is crushed or thwarted, the inmate is all too easily pushed into despair, or put in a position where they could reoffend or commit more serious crimes.

It is truly important. We are seriously worried about this and we will continue to defend our position as we continue our work in this place.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak for a second time to Bill C-26. Those watching the House of Commons today might be thinking that they are watching a competition to see how many times the Criminal Code can be amended in one Parliament, with these Conservatives and their tough on crime agenda.

Nevertheless, I would like to say that I think this change is essential. A number of lawyers and judges say that this is a necessary change. There is no denying that the Criminal Code sections on self-defence, defence of others and defence of property have been causing some confusion in the courts for a long time. I would like to read a section of the presentation made by the Canadian Bar Association to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

The Criminal Code provisions concerning self-defence, defence of others, and defence of property have been subject to decades of criticism, and have been an ongoing source of frustration for lawyers, judges and juries. This is due to the multiplicity of relevant Code sections and subsections, and the variations among their elements. Many high-profile cases have faltered on jury instructions regarding self-defence.

Clearly, there was a real need for change. As a member of this House, I am pleased that we were able to bring about this change. I would also like to congratulate my colleague from Trinity—Spadina for having initiated this bill in the previous Parliament.

As we all know, this bill was inspired by one specific case. Mr. Chen was trying to protect the merchandise in his store. When he discovered that the thief who had stolen a plant—I think—had returned to his store, he detained that person, but he faced charges himself.

During one of our meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, someone from the convenience store owners' association was present. He talked about this need and this desire on the part of owners—those who cannot afford a security guard—to be able to protect their property and put an end to these constant thefts. He pointed out that convenience stores tend to be robbed over and over again, and this translates into serous losses at the end of the month.

I understand that situation. Many small and medium-sized businesses are trying to be independent, and they do not necessarily have the means to protect themselves by hiring security agents. So if someone steals milk every week, eventually that ends up being a loss for the convenience store. I really do understand the situation.

During testimony, we asked a lot of questions about the bill. We were a little worried about the balance between the subjective and objective elements of the bill. We even presented some amendments that, unfortunately, were rejected. The Conservative Party rejected one amendment in particular. We were disappointed about that, but we worked well together to make sure we covered the issue thoroughly.

We also considered whether this could become a trend and what we could do to make sure that it does not. By that, I mean making sure that people do not take on the role of the police. People can put themselves in potentially dangerous situations by arresting someone themselves if they do not have the experience or the strength to do it.

However, we all agreed that we do not want to see this to become a trend. We also proposed amendments to prevent that from happening, but that does not mean we should not have these provisions.

In my opinion, Bill C-26 also includes another important and interesting element.

It contains a non-exhaustive list that the judge can consult when a person pleads self-defence. This list allows the court to determine whether that person has a history of violence, whether there is a history of interaction between the parties, the nature of the force, the size of the person, etc.

Of course, I am a small woman and I would be afraid of a large man. I have reason to be afraid in certain situations. This is very important to consider, particularly when we think about women who are victims of domestic violence and who, every day, have to face a person who could do them harm. It is very important to consider the factors on this list.

I am also happy that this list is not exhaustive and that there is always the possibility of adding additional factors to it. We know that, with time, we will find other factors that should be added to the list.

We also heard comments about security guards. I find this dynamic very interesting. Our society seems to be depending more and more on security guards, and private ones for that matter. I encourage the House to examine the issue of private security guards. They are not necessarily obliged to obey the charter.

This bill will affect their work because, when they are on site, they try to protect a store or shop and its goods. They cannot always arrest someone. There is, therefore, a certain desire among security guards to see these changes implemented. They are very happy about them, and I encourage the House to continue to examine this issue. Personally, I believe that some studies are needed in this regard.

I would also like to speak about the arrest of a person after the fact. We know that, in some rural communities that do not have as large a police force as metropolitan areas like Montreal, it is not always possible for a police officer to come and arrest someone who has committed a minor crime, such as stealing plants, as in the case of Mr. Chen.

The bill clearly states that a person can only be arrested if it is believed that the police would not have arrived in time to make the arrest. It is important to include this. Perhaps it does not go far enough. We submitted a number of amendments to try to restrict this a bit, but the Conservatives refused. The bill states that it can only be done when a peace officer cannot come to arrest the person in the place of the citizen. I am pleased about this because it could be dangerous for someone to make an arrest because that person may not necessarily have the expertise or the strength required.

I will end my speech here. I would like to point out once again that we support this bill, but that we do not want it to become a trend.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainvillewill have five minutes for questions and comments when the House resumes debate on the motion.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from April 25 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 third time and passed.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise today to speak to Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (citizen's arrest and the defences of property and persons).

As I prepared for this a moment ago, I was thinking in terms of the election just a year ago and the impact that our late leader, Jack Layton, had in that particular election. This bill was something that he believed in very much, in a previous incarnation, so it brought that back to mind.

One of the things I pride myself in is that in the Hamilton area I attend the local Tim Hortons and the local food courts and I talk directly to the citizens I represent. One of the things that they believe, and I hear it said quite often, is that common sense is not as common as it once was. I think we have in Bill C-26 a fair effort on the part of the government to bring some common sense into this particular issue.

Bill C-26 would amend the section 494(2) of the Criminal Code dealing with citizen's arrest to provide greater flexibility. A little later in my remarks, I will refer to a speech by the member for Trinity—Spadina who actually introduced a bill in this place in the previous session but which died because of the election.

The crux of the problem is the timing of when people are able to complete a citizen's arrest. The law of the day says that people need to act on that citizen's arrest during the actual crime but, of course, sometimes that is just not the case. It also includes changes related to self-defence and the defence of property, which are currently in sections 35 and 42. These changes would bring much needed reforms to simplify, and this is where the common sense comes into the equation, the complex Criminal Code provisions on self-defence and the defence of property, something that has been requested by the courts over the years, not just our good citizens.

At this point, I will refer to the speech that I talked about a few moments ago.

The member for Trinity—Spadina had an event occur within her riding at a convenience store called the Lucky Moose. Mr. David Chen, the owner had been robbed numerous times in fact. It seemed that it was a very popular place to shop but it was also a very popular place to shoplift . Mr. Chen was extremely frustrated. A security camera showed an individual, who he had seen robbing his store and had left the premises earlier, coming back for some more. The individual was 37 years old and had a criminal record that stretched back to 1976.

Mr. Chen decided, along with a couple of people he worked with, to detain the individual until the police could arrive. My understanding of the situation is that he bound the person and put him into a van to contain him. It is indicated here in this speech that the police arrived within about four minutes. When the police arrived, apparently bruises could be seen on Mr. Chen's body where this individual had assaulted him but instead, Mr. Chen was charged with assault, kidnapping, forceable confinement and possession of a concealed weapon.

We need to ask ourselves where those charges came from. The concealed weapon was a box cutter. If anybody has been around a grocery store, box cutters are used all the time. It is not something that people working there would hide from everybody and conceal as a weapon. Beyond that, as far as the forceable confinement, the owner detained somebody while waiting for the police to come, somebody who had a record going back to 1976 and who just may want to try to get away.

The problem for Mr. Chen was that when the four charges were laid against him, we need to stop and think about what he was facing. The crown prosecutor offered to drop the kidnapping and assault charges if Mr. Chen would plead guilty to the remaining charges and, if he did, he would have faced 18 months in prison and a criminal record.

I am pleased to say that Mr. Chen chose not to plead guilty.

We have to wonder, from a common-sense perspective, whether our system has been stilted to the point that police officers actually put in more charges than necessary in “shooting for the moon and hoping for halfway”, an old expression used in labour negotiations. In other words, if they put into place a trading arrangement in advance: the charges are laid, the Crown makes an offer and the person pleads guilty to save himself or herself the costs of court. However, had the individual put forward a proper defence, he or she might well have gotten off. Therefore, it really makes one wonder about the situation.

Members will recall there was a bill put forth by the NDP member for Trinity—Spadina, in the last parliament. It died due to the election. On February 17, the government promised to reintroduce the bill, and I am thankful that it has done so. However, when this bill was at committee just before returning to the House, the NDP critic offered nine amendments. We felt the bill was flawed in a number of areas. Of the nine amendments we proposed, only two passed, which is unfortunate. Although we are concerned about the fact that the other seven did not pass, there is enough content in the bill to satisfy us to the point of supporting it.

After carefully reviewing the bill and hearing from witnesses, our concerns were reinforced. When we reviewed the legislation, our priority was to ensure that it did not encourage vigilante justice or encourage people to put their personal safety at risk. A horrific tragedy took place in Montreal a couple of days ago. A dispute escalated between a cab driver and a number of his patrons who had probably just come from a bar. The young men jumped on his car and hit the taxi driver. He tried to get out of there and tragically ran over one of the individuals. That is an over-the-top, blatant case situation. However, it shows us how quickly a situation can get out of hand when an individual or a group of people try to impose their physical will on someone else.

Let us look at what happens to people in a confrontation. I think I made reference to this not long ago. In Hamilton where I worked at Bell Canada, one of our technicians tried to intercede when a man was beating his wife in public. People think that they have to do something. He grabbed the man to prevent him from striking his wife, pushed him and held him against the wall. The man's wife came over, took off her shoe and struck the Bell Canada worker in the back of the head. That is an example of a situation where the individual was trying to do the right thing to protect the woman first and foremost from physical injury. His intent was to hold her husband until the police came because there were other people in the area. He did not realize that because of the strong relationship between the husband and wife, she felt she should defend her husband in the manner that she did.

There are concerns around the situations that people can put themselves in when it comes to a citizen's arrest. Unfortunately, the amendments that we tried to put through to deal with that were not addressed properly.

The NDP will be supporting this bill. We think it brings some common sense to the justice system. We are satisfied that a reasonable effort was made on the part of the government. On that point, I will conclude my remarks.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Madam Speaker, I hope my colleague will be able to finish his speech. I know he had some additional information that he wanted to share with us. He spoke about the fact that some of the other changes should have been considered. We are hoping that at some point we will have another opportunity to change that. I am wondering whether he can continue his speech on that issue.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that. I tend to tell stories and get away from my prepared text.

There is self-defence relative to a situation called battered spouse syndrome. Our proposed amendments on that did not succeed. Those were to introduce a subjective element. Subjective circumstances are related to the person's preservation of the right to protect oneself in a reasonable manner.

That element means it is possible that a person, based on a history of domestic violence, can reasonably perceive a greater threat of violence because it has been repeated by the same perpetrator. We thought it was important to add that historical context to this bill. Unfortunately, it was not successful at committee because the government did not see our view.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek for his speech on Bill C-26. As the House will know at this point, I think I am the only member of Parliament who feels I must vote against this bill because of my concerns about the expansion of citizen's arrest powers.

I tried to obtain the opportunity to put forward an amendment to delete one section of the bill, which was recommended by the Canadian Bar Association. That section deals with the expansion of citizen's arrest powers. I wonder, could the hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek explain why the official opposition was not willing to second my amendment, which would have at least given us a chance to fix the one section of the bill that gives people the most trouble?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was not at the committee. I am not privy to the reason that our members of the committee chose to not support the amendment. Obviously, they gave it due consideration and felt it did not address the situation in a manner that was appropriate to the bill.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I also listened carefully to the speech by my colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

The NDP will obviously support the bill. However, some groups have raised legitimate concerns, which have been addressed in part by the committee. One concern is the perception that this will encourage groups of citizens to somehow take justice into their own hands. In English, we call them vigilantes.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this, and I would like to know whether he believes that the bill will lead to more incidents of vigilantism.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, there was a situation in the United States where an unarmed young man was shot. There is legislation in that country called Stand Your Ground, which gives permission to people who feel under threat of physical harm to take a life. That is 100% different from what we are talking about here.

In that instance, there was subjectivity in deciding that person was a threat. They are, obviously, if the person is armed or actually proceeds to strike another. In that instance, apparently, the young man was shot because of things that were said as opposed to things that were done.

This bill does not provide for that to happen in Canada. Our committee members who looked at this were satisfied at the end of the day that it would not generate that kind of response.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague who just spoke, and I will continue to elaborate on this bill.

As he mentioned, the bill makes good sense.

This bill seems to make a lot of common sense by directing that a citizen is able to assist in the arrest of someone who commits a crime, even if there is delay. I think that makes sense.

Bill C-26 amends subsection 494(2) of the Criminal Code, which deals with citizen's arrest, to provide greater flexibility.

The amendments will allow citizens to make arrests without a warrant within a reasonable time. The main change is the introduction of the concept of reasonable time. At present, subsection 494(2) requires the citizen to make the arrest when the crime is being committed. That is the difference between the existing law and the proposed bill.

Bill C-26 also includes amendments to sections 35 to 42 of the Criminal Code, which deal with self-defence and defence of property. These amendments will make long-awaited changes and simplify the complex provisions of the Criminal Code on self-defence and defence of property, as called for by the courts.

As several of my colleagues have already mentioned, members on this side of the House support the bill. Half of the bill consists of measures that the NDP had already proposed in the private member's bill introduced by the member for Trinity—Spadina. This part of the bill amends subsection 494(2) of the Criminal Code, which deals with citizen's arrest, making it possible for citizens to make arrests without a warrant within a reasonable time.

The other part of the bill seeks to clarify the sections of the Criminal Code on self-defence and defence of property. After a thorough review of the bill was conducted and expert witnesses were heard at committee stage, it was established that the changes made the legislative measure clearer. Our main goal in examining the bill was to ensure that it did not encourage citizens to take justice into their own hands or put their own safety at risk. Even though some concerns were raised about these issues with regard to citizen's arrest, self-defence and defence of property, we determined that the bill proposed some acceptable changes.

It should be noted that each of these three concepts already exist in the Criminal Code. Accordingly, the proposed changes in the bill will only affect existing aspects of our current legislation and will not add anything completely new.

This is what happened in committee. A diverse group of witnesses appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, including representatives from the Barreau du Québec, the Canadian Convenience Stores Association, the Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, the Association of Professional Security Agencies, the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Police Association, as well as academics and practising lawyers. In other words, experts testified before the committee.

So while we already supported the intent of the bill, we did propose a number of amendments arising out of the recommendations made by witnesses, as is our usual practice. That is the logical process: we listen to the witnesses and we propose amendments. Two of those amendments were agreed to and seven were rejected. More specifically, we should mention that the amendment to incorporate the subjective element in the part of the bill relating to self-defence was rejected.

That amendment would have covered all of the things done in self-defence that are commonly referred to as “battered wife syndrome”. For example, the subjective element means that a person who has been a victim of family violence may reasonably perceive a greater threat from a person who has previously been violent than a person without that background would perceive.

In other words, it is important to take into account the subjective perception of the circumstances, rather than to have a purely objective perception of the situation. We believed that the wording relating to the history of the two parties was not sufficiently precise in Bill C-26, and of course we wanted to ensure that the fact that “the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances as perceived by the person” would be taken into consideration in this kind of situation.

This was also the first time that Parliament had an opportunity to incorporate the concept of the subjective element, which had until now been developed in the case law, into the Criminal Code itself. The Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies both recommended this amendment.

We did, however, succeed in having the amendment that requires that the court “consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act” agreed to. While that wording is not as specific as “the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances as perceived by the person”, the amendment we did get agreement to will put a greater onus on the courts to consider the history of the relationship between the individuals.

We recognize here that these sections of the Criminal Code need to be included, and even though most of our proposed amendments were rejected, we still believe the bill updates the legislation appropriately and we support the bill.

I would like to give a little context in the minute I have left. As my colleagues know, on May 23, 2009, David Chen, the owner of the Lucky Moose Food Mart in Toronto, arrested a man who had committed a theft in his store. Everyone knows the story here. I am going to conclude by saying that even though all the amendments were not agreed to, we support the bill on this side.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech. He stated a few concerns regarding clause 2, which contains exceptions and relevant considerations.

My question for the member relates to the list of factors enumerated in the new bill with respect to when self-defence is available, in particular the list of factors at proposed paragraph 34(2)(f) that allow for a court to consider the nature, duration and history of the relationship between the parties. I did hear his comments with respect to that section.

Our concerns with respect to that section are that it could cause problems in two ways, in that self-defence may be available in circumstances where it now is not and that the presence of the section could result in a claim of self-defence not being taken seriously simply because it is there.

I would be interested in any further comments the hon. member has with respect to that factor being included in the self-defence provisions.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Madam Speaker, the way I read the bill is that there is discretion. The bill allows the judge the discretion to determine when looking at self-defence or reasonable cause.

I do not think it is the intent of the bill to allow unreasonable use of force as a means of self-defence. I understand that concept because I have spent the last 30 years studying martial arts and self-defence and I understand that it could go overboard.

The way it stands, there is probably sufficient protection in the law to ensure that the judge or those who look at this would understand that there will not be an overuse of self-defence and that reasonable cause and the background would be taken into consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, my question is also a commentary on our procedure in Parliament and how we handle legislation. I raised this issue earlier with the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek and was slightly misunderstand.

As a member in this place for the Green Party, I am not a member of committee, but I have the right to put forward amendments at report stage, which I think provides the House with an ideal opportunity to further improve legislation. That is indeed why there is the opportunity for amendments at report stage.

What increasingly happens is that when political parties as entities decide that they are satisfied with deals struck at committee, they are no longer willing to consider improvements that are even advocated by such a group as the Canadian Bar Association. That is why not a single member of this Parliament was willing to second an amendment that would have improved the legislation.

I would like my hon. friend's thoughts on this problem that we face, the problem of groupthink within parties.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her question and once again welcome her here. I always enjoy hearing her her comments and her take on matters in the House.

All of us in political parties, when the political party gets bigger—and one day, hopefully, her party will also grow—have a tendency to not allow discussion from outside the party. I think we have to be very vigilant with that. Even though we may have a majority and another party may have only two or three members, it is part of the democratic process in the House, and we owe it to the Canadian public to allow this democratic process to function.

I look at the debate on proportional representation. We talk about that, and I am glad my party supports this concept. I know that other parties have supported it in the past, but once they got into power, they forgot about it because they did not need it.

We have to be constantly vigilant about democratic debate and allowing all members to express their views and to have input into any legislation.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-26.

This particular piece of legislation would amend the Criminal Code to allow an individual 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.

As well, the bill attempts to clarify in law the self-defence provisions. I have some concerns with respect to these and will elaborate on them momentarily. However, I do want to say from the outset that the Liberal Party will support this bill, although we do have concerns about certain aspects of it.

Currently the Criminal Code allows Canadians the right to claim self-defence in the event they are assaulted without provocation. The Criminal Code also allows for Canadians to rely on the defence to property provisions in certain circumstances, so there is a Criminal Code defence of self-defence and defence of property. There is also a common law defence for each of them as well.

The point I wish to make is that we are not dealing with a legislative vacuum. There are laws with respect to self-defence and defence of property, both codified and under the common law. It is true that some aspects of the Criminal Code in this regard are outdated and in need of modernization. Indeed, the provisions of the Criminal Code with respect to defence of property span five sections and with respect to self-defence span four sections, sections 34 to 37 of the Criminal Code.

While Liberals support the bill, I do wish to raise again what has already been articulated by the hon. member for Mount Royal, a couple of areas of the bill, and there are more.

Two areas will be the focus of my remarks. The first concern relates to the property defence provisions of the bill. I have some concerns with respect to the consequences of their new breadth. They have been expanded and there are, understandably, consequences associated with that expansion.

In particular, it is clause 3 of the bill that is the operative clause here. I would like for those Canadians watching and those who are unaware of the contents of clause 3 to quickly read into the record exactly what it says. Clause 3 of this bill amends subsection 494(2) of the Criminal Code with the following:

(2) The owner or a person in lawful possession of property, or a person authorized by the owner...

—“authorized by the owner” is important wording, for reasons that I will come back to—

...or a person in lawful possession of property, may arrest a person without a warrant if they find them committing a criminal offence or in relation to that property and

(a) they make the arrest at that time; or

(b) they make that arrest...

—and these are the key words in this section—

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

One of my concerns with respect to this section relates to private security agents. As I indicated, this section allows for persons “authorized by the owner” to make an arrest “within a reasonable time after” the commission of an offence.

We are all aware of private security firms and private security officers. We see them at hockey games. They are often out in full force on the weekends, watching over a particular business or providing security in a mall.

The amendments contemplated in this bill prescribe new powers to private security agents and in some cases provide them with powers incongruent with their training and experience as private security agents. It needs to be borne in mind that private security officers are accountable to the property owners, accountable to their employers, as opposed to the accountability that peace officers have to their code of conduct.

We know that peace officers, or police officers, are duly authorized individuals who we entrust to enforce the Criminal Code and other statutes in this country. They exercise considerable power only after a process of extensive training. Peace officers in this country are well trained in police tactics, arrest procedures and the Criminal Code. More importantly among the list of requirements, these individuals are properly vetted for temperament and balance. After that training, we entrust these individuals with a gun.

All that is well and good in this country. We need our police to protect us. I am concerned that this particular clause of the bill may lead to serious difficulties, including vigilantism. Allow me to provide what is now a very well known example.

We are all very well aware of the situation in Florida recently where an individual acting as a neighbourhood watch person now stands accused of committing second degree murder. He is up on charges because, as we understand it, he is being accused of using excessive force. The facts in this matter are now very well publicized. A young man is now dead as a result of another individual who, while functioning as a neighbourhood watch person and in possession of a weapon, acted in what he claims was a lawful manner because he was defending property.

I share this example only to point out that when laws are enacted in which we provide individuals the right under the Criminal Code to act in the protection of their property or of their person, or act in the stead or at the behest of another in an employee-employer relationship, we must be very careful. I have no doubt there will be a time when we will face a situation perhaps not unlike what we have seen in Florida.

Therefore I am concerned about this particular provision in the bill, and I hope the government might take another look at it as it proceeds to the Senate for legislative scrutiny. Certainly allowing for a piece of prime legislation to be amended at the Senate is not without precedent, even in this particular session of the House.

Another source of concern for me can be found in proposed section 34. This section does not deal with defence of property, but with self-defence. Again, for the record and for those who are not in possession of the bill, proposed subsection 34(1) states that a person is not guilty of an offence if :

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

That is the new law that has been proposed. The current Criminal Code with respect to self-defence reads, and I quote:

Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force

I have two concerns with respect to this section. The first is the removal of provocation as a relevant consideration for self-defence. The second is the removal of the necessity of an unlawful assault, preferring instead the word “force”. The question becomes how broad the word “force” is. The law used to say that one could rely on self-defence if one were being assaulted, which implies a violation of the person. However, the word “force” is broader than that and arguably could have an economic force element. Therefore, it broadens the situations in which a claim of self-defence may be made. I will state again that I hope the government might take another look at this matter and perhaps be open to further discussion.

I will conclude by suggesting that we are in general agreement with the thrust of this bill. As suggested by the member for Mount Royal, the bill does provide elements of clarity for prosecutors, judges and juries as well as those who may find themselves in a circumstance where they need to defend themselves or their property. Time and jurisprudence arising out of the application of these provisions in our courts will inform us if the amendments have gone too far.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, once again, I listened attentively to the speech by my colleague from Charlottetown.

In fact, I would like to ask more or less the same question that I asked previously, but I would appreciate the perspective of the third party on the sometimes legitimate fears regarding people who might try to take justice into their own hands, as a group. These people roam around certain neighbourhoods and are called vigilantes.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the bill before us. Could he say a little more about his point of view, his fears and his concerns regarding the scope of the bill and certain groups or individuals?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, of course it is important. I touched on that in my speech. I hope we can count on judges and the courts to act judiciously when they consider this legislation.

My response to my colleague is that, with the expansion of the rights with respect to defence of property, there is always a concern about vigilantism. I focused my comments on the expanded rights for private security officers, but this also goes for private citizens. The bill itself does not promote vigilantism, but the problem is that the public perception of the expanded rights of citizen's arrest does raise that flag.

My colleague is right to be concerned about it. It is incumbent upon the judges in the country as they interpret the new provisions to make sure that there is a governor on that and that the jurisprudence around this is reported by the media in such a way that the public awareness does not result in those unintended consequences.

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

Madam Speaker, as we approach Bill C-26, a lot of members of Parliament are mindful of the notion that hard cases can make bad law. There is the specific case of David Chen and the Lucky Moose. We would have wished that the police on the scene had exercised some common sense and discretion by not prosecuting the individual. Now we have a law where a lot of us are concerned that there could be an increase in injuries, and even deaths, from people trying to take the law into their own hands, feeling empowered by what the House is doing with Bill C-26.

Since I am the only person planning to vote against this legislation, its passage is a certain thing. I ask my friend whether he thinks there is any way the House can send a message to Canadians that they should avoid taking the law into their own hands.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, that is a difficult question because here we stand as legislators expanding the rights of citizen's arrest. We as legislators debate the bill and express our concerns over it, but what enters the public psyche is what it reads through the media.

We as legislators can do so much, and I believe we are doing it here today, but it is extremely difficult to control the message. There will be elements of society who, as my colleague points out, would feel empowered by these expanded notions. As she indicated, hard cases make bad law. There will undoubtedly be cases going forward where the expanded right of self-defence or defence of property will be used to justify inappropriate actions.

It is my hope and expectation that the coverage around those hard cases informs Canadian judgment. I think it is more likely that will impact public opinion than the debates we have here as legislators, which by necessity are at times on the theoretical as opposed to practical level.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to comment on Bill C-26 which is, at the end of the day, a societal debate among all members of the House.

We are all attempting, collectively, to create civilized societies, but we have all had very chaotic experiences. Even though we have been tremendously successful on some levels, and even though crime rates are much lower than they were a hundred years ago or in the Middle Ages, our relationship with sometimes aggressive and violent situations is still difficult.

The bill specifically deals with this grey area. Unfortunately, some people have violent habits. What must be done about these behaviours?

The NDP intends to support Bill C-26 because it contains a lot of similarities to the bill introduced by my colleague from Trinity—Spadina. Throughout my speech, I am going to focus on the very well-known case of Mr. Chen, who owned a grocery store with his family. This case is what got my colleague from Trinity–Spadina interested in the issue. David Chen was accused of unlawful confinement, kidnapping and assault after having tied up a person who was stealing from his shop. It was not the first time the thief had stolen from his shop.

Mr. Chen tied the person up, he did not beat him, and he certainly did not beat him to death. There are some key words in this situation: he tied somebody up and was dealing with a repeat offender. This situation applies perfectly to the questions being asked today. It is not a simple situation. Somebody tied up, but did not beat up, a repeat offender. It is not a situation involving two people where a shop owner is suddenly threatened by somebody with a machete and has to act. There were a lot of shades of grey. We all understand why our colleague asked at the time that the law help simplify complicated situations, in other words simplify the outcomes for people facing complicated situations involving self-defence.

These very difficult concepts require a lot of distinctions and proper context. Here is a simple example. No one here would want a teenager who stole two cans of Pepsi to be beaten with a baseball bat. However, that is the kind of message, which we do not want to see acted upon, that this bill might send to a small segment of the population. We constantly see concepts such as “reasonable” in the bill. I did a count, and the word “reasonable” came up some 30 times, just in the amendments to the act recommended by Bill C-26. Here again, such terms must always be nuanced.

There are difficult concepts here, such as self-defence. There has to be a clear definition of what it is, when it applies and the line beyond which an action no longer constitutes self-defence. Here again, we are in a grey area.

The question is whether an assault is provoked or unprovoked. At what point does an assault become significant enough for a shop owner’s reaction to the attack to be considered provoked? Here again, the distinction is very important.

Several NDP members have advocated an amendment on subjective perception. For example, they talked about battered wife syndrome. That is a term that I do not really like but the understanding is that, even if the assault was perhaps not that “serious”, an energetic reaction might be understood, justified and not be penalized if it came in response to numerous assaults.

Consider the assault on Mr. Chen, the owner, in this context. Say, for example, that I own a business and am assaulted, but not seriously, by a single individual who is lightly armed or totally unarmed, but that my children are in the aisles of my grocery store.

My reaction might possibly be different because I would not simply be protecting myself from someone who is threatening me with a jackknife in order to commit a minor offence. In fact, he would not really be threatening me because I would be relatively well protected behind my counter. And I would know that my children are in the store, since they are in the aisles. So the issue would be this area of perception in which it would be possible for an individual to react more strongly in a context such as that. You have to consider the perception of the situation perceived by the assaulted individual before he reacted.

This places us under an obligation to demand that this government, which has an annoying tendency to avoid giving the committee the necessary time to consider potential amendments, submit to the democratic process in this case and allow the committee to consider all these issues, because they involve a lot of subtle distinctions.

This will prevent us from abandoning a principle as important as our responsibility to ensure public safety. When I analyze all this, I conclude that there is another threat that may weigh on us: that we may abandon our collective responsibility for public safety. The message must not be that we should take justice into our own hands. We must absolutely not get to that point.

Why? Two fundamental reasons seem obvious to me. No one wants to relive the wild west of 1875. It makes no sense. We have become much more civilized since that time. Furthermore, even to people who support taking a tough stance on crime, vigilante justice is fundamentally and systematically unfair.

Let us imagine that my family and I own a store and, tomorrow morning, a teenager or someone panics and steals a box of cereal and threatens me with his fists. Now, if I were behind the counter—and I weigh 225 pounds—I could take the law into my own hands. However, suppose it was my 76-year-old mother behind the counter, with her poor eyesight and bad knees. We would both have the same rights as citizens. We would have the same opportunity to defend ourselves, but no one could claim that the two situations are equal.

We must, therefore, never get to that point. We must maintain the simple notion that our civic duty is to ensure that the panic button under the counter is in working order. That is our only civic duty. If this bill leads us to move away from that goal, collectively, we have a serious problem. People need to be able to ask for help and they need to get the help they need from police forces within a reasonable time frame. That is one aspect that worries me and that relates to the potential consequences of such a bill. Are we collectively abandoning what should be the only goal of civil defence? If it were my mother behind the counter in that situation, unable to defend herself and certainly unable to defend herself the same way I could—or the same way as my colleague who has been practising karate for 25 years—she would deserve the same protection. That should be our collective goal in this House. We must not hide behind principles that would take us back to the wild west.

So I repeat my request that there be no form of closure when the committee examines these issues. Let us allow the committee to work on every nuance in this bill. That is what will ensure an excellent bill, one that can make things easier for people like Mr. Chen in situations like the one he faced at his store.

I would like to make another argument in support of my request to let the committee do its work. There is no need to panic. Yes, under the existing laws, Mr. Chen went through six months of complications from the time he had to defend himself to the time when he and the people working with him were acquitted. Let us hope that this bill will prevent people involved in similar incidents from enduring six months of complications. In the end, they were acquitted.

It is not as though there are hundreds of Canadians coping with great injustice because they acted reasonably in defending their property and businesses. There is no need to panic. I hope that the government will not behave as it did in connection with other public safety bills and tell us that if we question this bill, we must be on the side of thieves and shoplifters.

We will support this bill, but please give the committee members time to study all of the ethical and moral nuances of this bill.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my what my colleague said about our concerns. As other members have mentioned, amendments were proposed. This bill is a step in the right direction and will strengthen existing Criminal Code measures.

Can my colleague elaborate on the need to discuss the necessary changes that will improve the bill as well as the Senate committee's potential contribution?

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. In a case like this, things are easy as long as we are looking at extremes.

With regard to the example I gave earlier, in committee it was said that a teenager who steals a can of Pepsi must not be beaten with a baseball bat, but on the other hand, a store owner must not spend 30 days in prison for defending himself against someone who aggressively threatened him with a machete. It is simple. These are two extremes. Anyone with good moral standards and a little bit of balance will agree. However, scenarios that fall in the middle of these two extremes must be properly defined, and that will take time.

I would therefore like to reiterate that we must allow the committee to consider 50% of the cases and how they should be dealt with. We are looking at the triggers of aggression, and the reactions of the aggressor and of the person defending himself. We need to consider all these scenarios and come to conclusions that will result in legislation that will help those who use self-defence, but will help them in a fair manner.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, one aspect that needs s to be approached with caution by anyone who is considering making a citizen's arrest is when they find themselves in a situation where the person whom they are attempting to detain resists them because legally we are only allowed to match the amount of force that he or she is subjecting us to. In other words, if that other party has a small billy club and we have an iron bar, it creates an imbalance because we would have a more destructive object, which we would be unable to use. Therefore, when discussing methods as to how far a person can go, it is a problematic area.

Another issue is how people go about making a decision as to whether or not they should intercede and deal with a situation. To get that common knowledge out into the community will be very difficult. As well, it will be very difficult for the courts to look at it and be able to balance it off.

We could have gone further with this bill.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think that I can say that this is in keeping with my thoughts on the possible scenarios that could result from this bill.

Collectively, we must stay the course. Our collective goal is that the panic button will protect the 71-year-old grocery store owner, not that he will be under some sort of obligation to know how to use a baseball bat. This sort of thinking could lead to a great deal of trouble and serious consequences for the aggressor.

Yes. Let us support this bill on behalf of all the store owners who, unfortunately, too often find themselves in such situations, but let us ensure that we introduce a very detailed, brilliant bill that will include the expertise of the best Canadians in the field. If that takes time, let us take that time.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House to speak to Bill C-26. A number of my colleagues who have spoken thus far have raised interesting points. I will not be using my time to repeat what has already been said, even though they are important points. However, there are some things that should be highlighted. I mentioned a few in the questions that I was able to ask this morning about this bill.

One of the important aspects of this bill is that it renews or updates some elements of an older law that does not necessarily reflect today's realities. I am referring to the provisions on self-defence, which need to be updated. This bill accomplishes that.

Concerns have been raised and, in my opinion, they are legitimate. When laws are created or amended, we sometimes venture into unknown territory. However, I am generally very satisfied with the committee's work on the proposed amendments. Naturally, we would have liked to have achieved some of the amendments that we, the official opposition, had proposed and that were highlighted earlier by my colleague from British Columbia.

However, in its current form, the bill addresses some of our concerns that were first raised by the member for Trinity—Spadina pertaining to a very specific situation. My neighbour from the riding of Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup also mentioned the case of David Chen.

However, there are other cases that illustrate the need to protect the people who defend themselves and defend their property. I will not rehash Mr. Chen's case, but there was another specific case that caught my attention and also upset me, quite frankly. In a rural region of Ontario, last August, a man woke up in his house to find three masked men outside who were starting to throw Molotov cocktails at his house. The individual grabbed a firearm and fired off two or three shots in order to protect himself—we all agree that a Molotov cocktail is an extremely dangerous weapon for the property and also for the individual. The police arrived and charged the individual with possession and use of a dangerous firearm.

Again we have a situation where the law does not protect individuals like Mr. Chen or this person from rural Ontario, when they want to protect themselves or protect their property.

The issue of whether the use of force is proportional to the offence is important. I think this bill addresses that quite well. Clearly, if a person commits an offence against property, such as shoplifting at a convenience store, then deadly force is not appropriate. The bill as worded does not propose that. In fact, it is a fine and properly worded bill.

In my opinion, the proportional force aspect is central to the proposed changes here. It makes the bill well balanced. According to the text of the bill, “the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force” is a factor in determining reasonableness. Thus, deadly force cannot be used to protect property.

There is another point I also raised in my questions, and I would like to come back to that point in my presentation. The current version of the bill does not give greater powers to what are known as vigilantes, that is, groups of people who create watch committees to protect their territory. That is not the case. That is not what this bill proposes, which is good, because we know that this can ultimately lead to abuse.

Furthermore, it is important to point out that the bill allows individuals to protect themselves and their property and allows other authorized, delegated people to also do so. Thus, one cannot witness an offence involving someone else and take action as a result. That is what watch groups or vigilantes would be doing.

It is important that we have a bill like this one in order to clarify the situation of security guards in big box stores, for instance.

The way things are going, and as demonstrated by the fact that Mr. Chen was charged in the first place—although the charges were dropped—as was that person in Ontario, it seems that security guards in big box stores can, in their role, detain people who have shoplifted, for instance.

For example, someone who shoplifts and is caught by a security guard is usually taken to an office in the back of the store until the police arrive. This is a form of citizen's arrest. The security guard has the legal authorization, conferred by the store, to carry out this kind of surveillance and arrest. Thus, there is no abuse happening here.

However, if we went by what happened to Mr. Chen and that other person in Ontario, the legal vacuum that existed at the time could have meant that a security guard who was simply doing his job could have been arrested for kidnapping.

Thus, it was important that the House examine this issue in order to prevent such abuses from being committed simply because that is how the legislation is currently written, since frankly, that would be illogical. It is the duty of this House to propose these kinds of amendments.

I think any objections have been noted. Clearly, we would have liked to see the bill go a little further.

The NDP proposed nine amendments. Seven were rejected and two were accepted. As my colleague said—I think it is worth repeating—we really wanted to see the subjective element in the bill to ensure that the courts can take all of the circumstances surrounding an incident into account.

Of course, the cases members have been mentioning often involve theft, property offences or threats, such as when an individual seeks to harm someone by throwing Molotov cocktails. There are also specific situations that I feel fall into a grey area, such as spousal abuse cases where one spouse has to resort to violence to escape. For cases like these, the courts have to take the history of the relationship and everything that happened into account.

That is why the NDP, at the request of certain groups, proposed the amendment that was rejected.

However, the NDP also proposed another amendment that was accepted. It was one of two that were accepted. The courts will have to take into account the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act. That definition will be integrated into the bill. We are pleased with that. It does not go quite as far as incorporating the subjective element and is not quite as broad as that would have been, but it is still a commendable and welcome improvement.

The Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies recommended including a subjective element. Even though the NDP is not completely satisfied with the amendment, it is a good first step toward better protection from abuse and domestic violence.

In that sense, we are satisfied with the bill in general. I am very happy to see that there is widespread agreement among members of the House to support this bill. The NDP will support it, too, and we will gladly vote in favour of the bill at third reading.

With regard to the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands' concerns, they are clearly understood, and I think that they have been well received by the House. Amendments likely should be made. As with any bill, situations will result where we will eventually be able to see whether there are aspects missing in the application of the legislation or whether certain aspects go too far. That is why we are here in this House. We will have the opportunity to address the issues, make changes and propose additional amendments that will put a stop to any problems that may arise.

I am very pleased to support this bill. I would like to reassure people by telling them that the bill does not go too far and that it does not allow groups to take justice into their own hands, which often leads to abuse, as demonstrated by the case that is currently making the headlines in Florida, in the United States. Since this is a well structured bill, we will be happy to vote in favour of it, and we are pleased to see that there is a strong consensus in the House.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques on his excellent speech.

I would like him to elaborate on one of the concerns that has been raised, which I also addressed in my speech last week, and that is the notion of reasonable time. In many rural areas of Quebec, including the hon. member's riding, as well as those of some other members and myself, police services are limited because of various agreements between the municipal police forces and the Sûreté du Québec. Quebec is a particular case.

How can the notion of reasonable time be applied to certain regions where people sometimes have to wait for 30 minutes to an hour for the police to arrive?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, that question is indeed important and it is an important aspect of the bill. The concept of reasonable time has to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

I think it is very important to mention reasonable time in the case of Mr. Chen, for example, since the thief in question made off with items and came back less than an hour later. Mr. Chen knew what offence the thief had committed, and the thief came back. The time was genuinely reasonable, since Mr. Chen could not have run after him and would have been looking for him for an hour. So he had the ability and the power to stop the person and detain him until the police arrived.

The concept of reasonable time is important, particularly to ensure that owners or individuals are not entitled to stop criminals a week or two weeks or a month after the incident, because conducting the investigation is solely the job of the police.

I think the right to protect oneself or one’s property is fundamental. That right must still be limited to urgent situations where law enforcement is not able to take speedy action. Accordingly, the bill and the definition of reasonable time appear to cover the matters raised by my colleague.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this discussion in a slightly different direction. I was not part of the committee that studied the bill, and I do not know if the hon. member was, but we know that the proposed law is in response to a specific incident and, presumably, to prevent the arrest and detention of people who are trying to protect their property, such as shopkeepers.

The City of Edmonton has recently recognized that in order to actually improve public safety and not to leave homeowners or shopkeepers victims of this violence, with the poor and street people, in many cases, being the highest victims of violence, programs are being introduced to bring community agencies, business owners and so forth together to try to get a handle on who is committing these offences.

I wonder if the hon. member thinks that it is also important, when we are considering a law like this, to look at it within a broader context of what we are doing as a federal government to try to support municipalities in ensuring public safety, particularly including small rural municipalities, farmers, counties and so forth, other than just passing another law to allow people to potentially use some level of vigilantism.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is entirely correct. If we want to understand what prompts people to commit offences or crimes, and if we want to understand how to protect ourselves from them, it is important to look for the underlying reasons, the root causes.

That is why prevention and communication within a community are absolutely crucial if we are ultimately to succeed in reducing the number of crimes. That allows for better interventions on the ground, so we can help people, particularly in the case of poverty and community relations. Many offences are in fact committed by individuals who are not evil at heart. There are things in their past and their present situation that sometimes prompt them to commit these offences, based on their perception of things, and that is unfortunate. It endangers people’s property and quite often people’s lives.

The question has to be addressed in legislation; it must be circumscribed, and we must ensure that people’s property and lives are protected. This is essential. However, as with any law and any action taken by the courts or the police, it is also good for a community’s health to treat the root causes of the economic and general problems that communities experience so we can reduce the crime rate.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-26 on citizen's arrest, an issue in which a lot of us have an interest.

Most of us in the House are familiar with an Ontario man by the name of David Chen. Mr. Chen is a Toronto shopkeeper who faced criminal charges after he subdued and held a shoplifter at his store in 2009. Mr. Chen held a repeat shoplifter after the man stole some plants and then had the nerve to return to the store. This defensive action caused Mr. Chen, unfortunately, to be charged with assault and forcible confinement.

There is a lot of confusion on this issue, which is why I welcome the opportunity to try to clarify it and remove the ambiguity.

While Mr. Chen was eventually acquitted of all criminal charges in this matter, the nature of this case shocked many Canadians. Canadians had a hard time believing that defending one's property could potentially be criminal.

Worse yet, while the notion of a citizen's arrest had been a common law tradition for several decades, this case raised serious concern among police and legal experts. Bill C-26 is the government's response to that surprise and concern.

I accept and believe that Canada's self-defence laws are complex and antiquated and clearly need to be brought into the 21st century. The Chen case has highlighted this fact for many of us. It is time for Parliament to remedy any ambiguity.

Bill C-26 would provide much greater clarity to prosecutors, judges and juries, as well as to private citizens who find themselves in a similar situation as Mr. Chen.

However, I am concerned with comments made by Eric Gottardi, the vice-chair of the Canadian Bar Association's National Criminal Justice Section, in reference to some of those who may use the provisions of this legislation. While referencing non-professional security personnel, Mr. Gottardi said, “Such personnel often lack the necessary range of equipment or adequate training to safely and lawfully make arrests in a manner proportionate to the circumstances”. The proportionality of the response is a key point.

These warnings need to be addressed along with Bill C-26.

For the sake of clarity, it is my intention and my party's intention to support the legislation but I continue to have concerns about the scope of the self-defence provisions of the bill.

Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, also has concerns about the bill. He indicated that Canadians should leave law enforcement to the professionals. Specifically, he warned, “We should take care that any changes made within this legislation do not have the unintended consequence of broadening the current mandate of private security”.

We need to ensure that political considerations do not override our primary responsibility here in the House of Commons, that being the enactment of responsible and sound laws. One could question whether some of the crime legislation and so on that has been passed through the House was really sound and responsible.

On the matter of the property provisions, the right balance has been struck.

I will tell members the reasons for some of my concerns.

I represent a riding that is inviting, friendly and ethnically diverse. York West is a place that is home to countless different cultures and traditions and I can say, without hesitation, that I believe it is the best riding in Canada. Despite this, like many places struggling with certain negative employment, education and economic factors, combatting crime is a challenge at times. Recently, the local media has reported some criminal occurrences within the neighbourhood, something that has put many of our community members on edge. This heightens people's awareness and edginess and it becomes a concern for some.

A citizen's arrest should never be made without careful consideration of certain factors. First, personal safety and the safety of others should be paramount in these discussions. Second, is reporting the matter to police for its response a better option? Third, is an actual crime occurring and has the suspect been correctly identified? Failure to look at those three factors could lead us down a path that could have very dangerous consequences for many people, including the overall community.

I want to talk a bit about a law that is in force the U.S., in particular, in Florida. It is the “stand your ground” law. We are all quite familiar with the tragic Florida case where Trayvon Martin was shot at close range by an individual named George Zimmerman.

I am not passing judgment with respect to guilt or innocence. Either way, the loss of any young life is tragic. However, it also quite possibly can ruin the life of Mr. Zimmerman as well.

Mr. Zimmerman is a 28-year-old, armed, neighbourhood watch volunteer. It is totally legal in the U.S., especially in Florida. He has admitted to pulling the trigger and killing the 17-year-old inside a gated community.

For those who have not followed the story, this was a young man who was going to visit his father. He was carrying a bag of Skittles, some sort of candy, and was talking on the phone with his girlfriend. He was unarmed, a good student and a young man whose parents were very proud of, not someone who was into crime and all the rest of it. He was wearing a hoodie. That right away alarmed the individual.

Therefore, guilt or innocence aside, I believe this entire matter is a consequence of an emboldened volunteer, with inadequate training, acting as though he was a law enforcement professional. Again, a proportionate response was not present. He was told to turn around and leave, that police officers were on their way. However, he thought he could do far more than what he should have done. Now his life has been ruined. There is also the loss of the life of a young 17-year-old.

My point is that tough on crime means to be smart on crime. The two of them have to go together.

Protecting one's home or business is important, but it has to be tempered with responsible action. The proportionality of any response to criminal behaviour is essential. We do not need any more instances like the Trayvon Martin case because too many young lives are already lost to crime.

Police officers are there and that is their job to protect us. Not everyone can or should be a police officer. Police officers are psychologically tested and professionally trained on how to best protect and preserve life and property. They should always be the first call in any case of a suspected crime.

Laws should give citizens the option to act in the most extreme of circumstances. I am hopeful that Bill C-26 will strike that balance.

I recall a few years ago, when I was a city councillor, one of my constituents heard someone breaking into his house. He was a hunter and had a rifle. He got the rifle and shot the intruder. The intruder was not seriously injured but, in the meantime, my constituent was charged, much as Mr. Chen was. He was defending his own property. As in the case of Mr. Chen, my constituent was charged and had to go through a court process, which then was dismissed. However, that cost him a lot of money, a lot of aggravation and left him very fearful of some of the things that were ongoing.

Bill C-26 tries to remove the ambiguity, but we must move very cautiously as we move forward on these issues. Therefore, we will support Bill C-26.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments on this. This is why some amendments were put forward at committee. Unfortunately the committee only agreed to two of them. However, the bill reinforces what is currently in the legislation, but it will help bring it a bit closer to where we are today because it is antiquity. It is important to note that part of the bill is includes part of a bill that our colleague, the member for Trinity—Spadina, put forward.

We also have to be extremely careful that the bill does not make people think they can now take the law into their own hands. I do not think we will see a big influx of that. It tries to clear things so people like Mr. Chen will not be subject to being charged.

I know my colleague said that her party supports the bill. Does she believe it is a step in the right direction and does she hope there will be more amendments from the Senate, given the fact that we have had discussions both at committee and in the House now?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, any time we can strengthen legislation by introducing some amendments and have full discussion on them is useful. If that gets done by the Senate, then it will continue to do some very helpful work for us. The whole goal of this is to ensure we remove the ambiguity of those grey areas. I think we all know that those grey areas can cause a lot of trouble for people in a variety of different ways.

The whole issue is this. We do not want to have happen what has happened in Florida, where people become emboldened, whether they have a gun or not, to think they can take the law into their own hands. We have a fabulous police service in Canada, starting with the RCMP.

It is imperative that we ensure we have laws that are clear for citizens and our law enforcement officials to follow to ensure the safety of Canadians and our communities.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague has mentioned on a few occasions the fact that some people will take the law into their hands. It is very unfortunate what happened to the constituent, however, I do not think people pulling guns out and shooting at somebody to try to defend themselves is always right. I am trying to get to some sense of it because I cannot fathom having that under somebody's belt, especially if someone dies.

At the end of the day, this legislation is a step in the right direction to protect people who defend their rights, but we do not want to encourage people to take guns out to shoot warning shots. Some Conservatives think this should happen. However, we need to move our legislation forward into this century.

Could my colleague elaborate a little more on some of the changes we would like to see occur?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am quite disappointed that we no longer have the gun registry. The fewer guns we have on the streets, the better. I think most of us would agree with that.

If people have guns in their homes and they feel threatened, they should call 911. However, let us be honest about this. If their families are being threatened and they have something they feel can protect them, that is what they are going to do. They do not want to wait for 911 if someone is there who will kill them or their families. They will do whatever they can to defend to themselves.

As much as I would like to see far fewer guns in our country, we have to deal with the reality. Many people, law-abiding citizens, carry guns, and that is what happens when they think they can take the law into their own hands.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Bill C–26. This is a rare event. For once, the Conservative Minister of Justice has introduced a balanced bill that is realistic and even includes a number of recommendations from the opposition parties. For once, we can be glad to have a bill before us that will probably receive unanimous support. The Bloc Québécois intends to support this bill.

The problem with the current legislation was also identified. Everyone gave the example of what occurred in 2009, in Toronto, when Mr. Chen, a store owner, arrested someone who had stolen from him. It became apparent that the law was problematic when charges were laid against the store owner.

In my opinion, what happened to Mr. Chen is not a frequent problem, but the situation really upset a lot of people, and with good reason. It was important to amend the legislation so that what happened to this store owner would not happen again.

The law already gives people the right to defend themselves and even to arrest somebody they catch committing an offence on or in relation to their property. Bill C-26 allows such arrests to be made within a reasonable time after the offence and even to extend this period of time. That is a big difference. In the case we have been talking about since the beginning of the debate, Mr. Chen made an arrest one hour after the offence had been committed. He noticed the thief when he came back to his shop one hour later. That takes the cake. A person would have to have some nerve. It makes perfect sense that the shop owner decided to catch and tie up the thief and call the police. He did what needed to be done.

Nevertheless, we have to ensure that we do not become a wild west society when it comes to protecting our property. That must always be considered, first and foremost, the job of police officers. It is possible to defend oneself and even to make an arrest without being charged as Mr. Chen was. The bill will correct this situation.

Fortunately, even though charges were laid against Mr. Chen, the judge did his job properly by finding that there were no grounds to charge him with anything. It could therefore be said that justice was done and that the individual was ultimately not charged with making an arbitrary arrest or breaking the law, even though the arrest was made one hour after the crime was committed.

The matter did not finish there, and that is a good thing. It was raised not only by the government, but also by the opposition parties, which introduced bills, made recommendations and acted to ensure the situation did not happen again. In my opinion, Bill C-26 corrects the injustice—and it can be called that—that occurred when charges were laid against a person who was ultimately only defending his property.

The right of self-defence is important, but we should not become vigilantes, and our streets should not become the wild west. By clarifying the law, we are solving a problem that perhaps did not arise frequently, although once is undoubtedly once too often. We are therefore in favour of this bill, although some questions still remain about the actual enforcement of the new provisions of the bill, particularly those respecting the time that may elapse between when the crime is committed and when citizens arrest the offender.

It is normal to allow citizens to protect themselves and their property, if they act in a reasonable manner without using excessive force. Ultimately, this is all a matter of self-defence. Far from promoting a society in which every individual takes justice into his own hands, the Bloc Québécois advocates a measured approach whereby citizens are entitled to defend themselves but are of course encouraged to call upon the police to protect them and to arrest criminals. We do not believe Bill C-26 runs counter to that principle.

As I said earlier, intervening or making an arrest ourselves must be a last resort, because our physical safety and that of those close to us may also be compromised if we decide to take justice into our own hands.

However, there are circumstances in which we have no choice and must absolutely ensure that the person who is attacking our family or our property is stopped. I do not always want to talk about things that happened to me, but when I was younger, three individuals broke into my parents' home. I was alone with my young girlfriend at the time—I believe we have all done that. I say young girlfriend, but I was young too. I was very much afraid at the time, not just for my physical safety, but for that of the person who was with me that evening.

I had a vague feeling that there was more than one person in the house because I could hear them walking and talking. I knew that alone, without a weapon of any sort, there could be a problem. Outnumbered, I could possibly lose a fight, if it came to that. Gripped with fear, I decided to take action. I did not necessarily intend to show myself, to try to confront these people, but I wanted at least to let them know that someone was home, that I was armed and that I would deal with them if they did not get out. I was not armed, but they did not take a chance and they ran away. That was how I handled the situation.

However, what would have happened if these people had looked all around the house? If I had remained silent, they would have ended up in my bedroom. Whether we like it or not, we are all afraid that the people who are with us will be attacked by these individuals. I could have become much more violent and I would have done anything to defend the person who was with me. It is quite normal to react that way. At the time, I also did not have access to a telephone; I could not call the police. I do not know if cell phones existed back then; in any case I did not have one at the time. I was a teenager. It obviously all depends on how you look at it and on the circumstances.

In that sense, there is nothing to suggest that the current legislation was applied inappropriately, as I was saying. Other than Mr. Chen's case, very few cases have been brought to our attention where self-defence came as a delayed reaction. The legislation advocated proceeding with an arrest or an intervention if the perpetrator is caught red-handed. In Mr. Chen's case we know that he reacted an hour later, but what about people who see the same thief who stole from them 24 hours later? I think the justice system needs to find a balance between what is reasonable and what is not, when it comes to how much time passes after the offence.

Let us not forget the case being used to justify this measure, namely that of the Toronto store owner who arrested a thief and then was charged with assault and forcible confinement. The store owner was acquitted, as I was saying earlier. The judge did his job. Nonetheless, Bill C-26 clarifies this situation.

I will not list all the changes in Bill C-26, but there are some important ones that we need to talk about here in this House. The bill completely changes the part of the Criminal Code on self-defence and protection of property. In fact, the bill amends sections 34 to 42 of the Code. Those sections are being replaced by what may be called a simpler system. That is not a bad thing. The bill also significantly amends the right of property owners to make a citizen's arrest under section 494 of the Criminal Code.

It seems to me that Bill C-26 no longer separates the various self-defence clauses according to the attitude of the person invoking self-defence, namely whether that person provoked the attack or whether it is a question of an attack against the person citing self-defence or a person under his or her responsibility. Everything has been combined under one section—section 34—which lays down a general rule that reads:

A person is not guilty of an offence if

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

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

c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

It was important to clarify this measure. These changes were and are adequate. That is why the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-26.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wish to congratulate my hon. colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska on his excellent speech.

Even though all opposition parties have indicated that they will support this bill, would my colleague not agree that certain points could have been improved? Does he think that the governing party will be open to discussion when this bill is being examined in committee?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Compton—Stanstead for his question.

Obviously, I cannot speak for the Conservative Party. The Conservatives are usually fairly uncompromising, not only in committee, but also here in the House. However, as I said, this bill is balanced. That being said, there is always room for improvement. My first question is about reasonable time. What is reasonable and what is not?

In Mr. Chen's case, it was an hour after the crime took place. In that case, his intervention was completely justified. But what if a person intervenes a week or two after the crime is committed? I know a person who went to the home of the person she believed had robbed her, but that is not the right thing to do. She could have put herself in physical danger and there could have been a fight. Instead, she should have called the police and reported that she suspected the person had robbed her. She should not have gone there herself.

People have to trust the justice system. Judges are capable of judging cases on their merits. As my colleague from Compton—Stanstead said earlier, things will have to proceed on a case-by-case basis to prevent people from playing private detective because they believe that the law will protect them if they intervene. Intervention must occur within a reasonable time. People should not step in for the police.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague’s speech on this bill.

We can certainly see that there have been similar situations in communities in every province. I wonder whether the member could say some more about the need for this bill. Does he agree that this bill makes the changes that are needed to improve what the law already says?

I am certain, from listening to his speech, that this bill was not proposed with the aim of encouraging people to defend themselves more often. It allows them to do so if it is necessary, but I firmly believe that this bill does not encourage people to take the law into their own hands.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question and comment.

In fact, the Bloc Québécois would not support this kind of bill if the aim were to have people become vigilantes and start running around the streets with weapons to arrest thieves. That is obviously not the case. This was necessary to remedy a flaw that became particularly apparent in 2009.

As I said, I had not heard about a lot of cases. This is not a bill that would necessarily have been brought forward if charges had not been laid against an honest store owner who decided to make an arrest himself. Fortunately, it went well. He arrested the person who had come back an hour later after already committing a theft in his store; he tied him up and he called the police. He did his job. But charges were laid against the store owner, and that is what was unjust.

Bill C-26 simply clarifies the reasonable time a person has for arresting someone. The fact that it happened an hour earlier does not mean that a person has to let a thief who has the gall to come back to their business get away with it. You do not know what they are going to do; you have reason to believe they are going to keep stealing or committing more serious crimes; and you do not know whether they are armed or not.

Therefore it was not proper to lay charges against that store owner, but that is what happened. By clarifying the situation, we will ensure that in future, charges will not be laid against people who are fully entitled to defend their property and their person.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I too am rising to speak to Bill C-26. The origin of the bill is the Lucky Moose case. A shopkeeper, believing that the same accused was continuing to shoplift in his shop and frustrated that he was not getting action in apprehending this person, chose to detain and essentially arrest and confine this person. The shop owner was arrested, charged and convicted. However, there was a lot of controversy around this case. It was appealed and the conviction was overturned. The court at the appeal level raised concerns with the current provisions in law specific to property protection. The court found the provisions inconsistent and meriting clarity.

I would like to congratulate the government and commend it for responding to the courts. It is a refreshing change. There have been a number of rulings by the courts where the government has snubbed the judiciary. One example is the case of the Wheat Board. In another example, in a series of cases, the Minister of the Environment has refused to exercise his authority properly to consider impacts to aboriginal peoples' lands and waters. I commend the government. It has listened to the courts and it is trying to move in the direction of improving the law.

This bill was triggered by the actions of my colleague, the member for Trinity—Spadina. Everyone in the House congratulates her in her initiative to bring forward a private member's bill in the last Parliament. The government is to be commended for responding to a private member's bill. One of the powers of all the members in this House is to bring forward activities in a private member's bill. Members may or may not have their bill go through the entire parliamentary process and have it accepted and adopted. However, by simply tabling a bill, members can signal to the government that this may be an action they want to pursue.

It is, however, important when we are making amendments to the Criminal Code that we avoid one-offs. There has been a propensity for one-offs by the current government, particularly in the area of public safety. Some members in the House have raised concerns as to whether the bill goes too far or not far enough and why the House has not accepted amendments brought forward by groups such as the Canadian Bar Association, representing our defence counsel, or the Elizabeth Fry Society. In some cases, the members of the committee and the House have considered these proposals for change. Some have been made and others not. We would hope that, if this law should pass and then go on to the Senate and pass and be law, the authorities that oversee this amendment to the Criminal Code, including the courts, the Canadian bar, defence counsel and prosecutors, parliamentarians and the committee, consider reviewing how this law is being applied in the field, whether it was a good idea to amend and whether it has gone far enough or should be reined in.

We sought amendments to improve the bill. We always try to take a proactive, constructive approach. Some of the amendments were accepted and some were not. I am advised we recommended a change to section 34 to additional criteria for consideration, whether the use of force was reasonable, to consider the state of mind or the circumstances perceived by the person, an example being the battered spouse syndrome. For example, if people have been continually battered they may perceive that they are going to be harmed seriously and react in a very serious way. That should be considered. Unfortunately, that amendment was not accepted.

I suggest that, while efforts have been made to clarify this law at the request of the courts and the public, it still remains highly subjective. As a lawyer, I always look to the law to see if we are providing clarity so people know what the law says and what their rights and obligations are, and so that the courts can make a fair ruling. One of the examples I would give is the proposal for amendment to subsection 494(3) regarding the use of force or detaining a person in the case of property being impacted, that the owners may arrest if they find the person is committing a criminal offence.

I would suggest that is a highly subjective matter. It may be very difficult for a shop owner or property owner to determine whether it is a simple trespass or whether it amounts to a criminal offence. These are the kinds of provisions that I think merit a closer look, and we will await what the determinations of the courts are.

The intent of the government is very sound. It wants to provide clarity around the reasonable actions that people can take to protect their persons or property, but, as we are hearing from members in the House, only so long as the intent is not to go in the direction that some laws have taken in the United States, those being the “stand your ground” and the “shoot first” laws. We have heard some concern in debate, particularly with respect to the use of force against others or as to what kind of action is reasonable when protecting one's property. Hopefully we are not going in the direction of “shoot first”.

It is very important that we put boundaries around citizen enforcement. Some entities, such as the police associations and in some cases the Canadian Bar Association, are raising concerns about greater citizen vigilantism and the potential for people to take the law into their own hands. I would suggest there is a need for training and guidance. Perhaps it could be provided through business associations, or perhaps police officers or members of the bench could come in and explain the boundaries of these provisions in cases where there have been repeat incidents of shopkeepers being robbed or attacked at gunpoint. A good example would be bank branches, where on some occasions, and certainly in my city, there have been repeat robberies at particular branches. That may be important.

When the government brings forward new laws, as a former environmental enforcer I like to encourage it to also table or bring forward new enforcement and compliance policies and strategies at the same time. If the public presumes that the law gives them greater powers to arrest and detain or perhaps use greater force when they feel they are being assaulted or their property is being impacted, we need to provide some guidance. Perhaps the committee could review this and make some recommendations to police forces and community associations.

I would like to commend my own city, Edmonton, for implementing a new program called REACH Edmonton. It recognizes that the police cannot be everywhere. There have been pleas from every municipality and from smaller centres across the country for more money from the federal government for policing. In the interim, because of this change in the law there may be more interventions involving people taking matters into their own hands.

It is very important that we stand back and assess who are committing these kinds of offences. If there are property offences or shoplifting, why these offenses occurring?

In my own riding, we have a number of centres struggling to get the funding to get kids who have been abandoned by their families off the street and give them a safe place to stay and a hot meal so that they do not shoplift, break and enter, and so forth. It is very important that our government give equal consideration to a strategy for public safety to prevent these kinds of circumstances, not just to after-the-fact actions. Therefore, I would encourage the Government of Canada to observe the new programs of the City of Edmonton and give due consideration to also providing assistance for the implementation of community crime prevention programs.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the comments and the speech made by the member for Edmonton—Strathcona. She is not only very dedicated to her community, but I have worked with her on committee here and I am aware of how passionate she is when she takes something on.

It is important to recognize that legal experts testified with respect to this particular bill at committee and put comments forward. Unfortunately, the Conservative representatives did not see fit to make some of the other necessary amendments to the bill that would enhance it even more.

We will be supporting the bill. However, we would like to see some further amendments put forward in order to really substantiate the need for change appropriate to this century.

On that note, I wonder if my colleague could elaborate on why these changes should occur and how great it is to be able to update bills such as this one.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the great pleasure of working with the hon. member. If any member in the House deserves an order of merit, the hon. member deserves one for her dedication to her constituents. To elaborate on that would take far more than the response, and I will leave that to my colleagues who are the justice critics.

I would like to respond in a slightly different way. There was a case in Alberta that my fellow members of Parliament from Alberta will recall, a case that I think should cause us to reconsider the bill from another way around.

In the Lucky Moose case, the shop owner was eventually acquitted because he used reasonable force. In Alberta, a young woman was with a group of youth who were joyriding on a farmer's property, the famous Wiebo Ludwig property—Wiebo is now deceased— and it was the other way around: a gun was shot, and the young woman who was joyriding was killed.

We need to keep in mind that there are two sides to all of these cases and we need to make sure that people are only using reasonable force when they are protecting their property.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in speech after speech in the House today, there is a thread of concern about whether or not we are opening the door for more vigilante violence, or at least for an escalation in the type of violence used to try to detain people. From the standpoint of the courts, a law is often subjective as opposed to prescriptive as to what would happen.

Does the hon. member see shortcomings in this particular bill in that area?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I had mentioned that the bill still contains very subjective language.

The particular provision that stood out to me relates a person who finds somebody committing a criminal offence. In the area of environmental law, we could actually file a complaint to the government if we believed on reasonable grounds that somebody was violating an environmental law. Simply filing a request to the government to investigate is a far less serious action than allowing people to intervene. I have some concern about whether people really understand what the boundaries are for what people can do to them and what they can do in response.

I think it would be very important to monitor the applications of this law, how people respond to it and what kind of cases come before the courts.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we move forward on the bill, it is again important to reiterate that part of the bill is an NDP initiative by the member for Trinity—Spadina, who brought forward David Chen's story.

I greatly appreciate the comments that the member for Edmonton—Strathcona put forward. I am sure she will be very glad to elaborate on the fact that this bill would not encourage people to out for vigilante purposes, nor will we see an increase of people being charged for protecting their rights. It is just to protect the rights of those people when circumstances like this happen.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

We have heard from some of the members in the House, Mr. Speaker, particularly from those with ridings in large cities where there may be a variety of youth and people of different racial backgrounds. There may be some level of prejudice there. We have to take care that suspicions against certain groups of people do not go to the extent that people use vigilantism.

I would like to just share with the House an expression after the Trayvon Martin case: somebody in California has said they were shocked to learn a private citizen in Florida could essentially serve as cop, judge and jury and impose the death penalty on a fellow citizen. We have to be careful that we are not transferring over to our citizens the power of arrest and detention and the determination of whether somebody is committing a criminal offence.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)