Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to all the witnesses for your input and attendance here this morning.
I'm going to start with a comment more than a question, but perhaps I might ask for your comment on my comment.
There appears to be, in my view, Mr. Chair, a misconception that Bill C-26 is inspired by Mr. David Chen's predicament a couple of years ago in Toronto. I think that's wrong.
In rural Alberta there have been a couple of very high-profile cases, when RCMP were not always readily accessible. There was a case in New Brunswick that was highly publicized. I'm not entirely familiar with the facts, but I know a firearm was involved. Similarly, in one of the cases in Alberta where a conviction was made, a quad--a four-wheeled recreational vehicle--was stolen, a chase took place, and firearms were involved. Ultimately there was a conviction and the individual went to jail--under those circumstances, I would have to concede, rightfully so.
My point is that I'm not sure that Bill C-26 is inspired exclusively by Mr. Chen. My question for all the panellists is that in light of some of these other more fantastic situations where individuals have tried to defend property—and in rural Alberta, off-property, and sometimes quite some distance from the property—is it not incumbent upon Parliament to provide some clarity to the citizens as to what their rights are to make arrests and what their rights are to defend their property?
I'll start with you, Professor MacDonnell. You probably know about that case in New Brunswick.