Probably most helpful here are the sections of the code. They outline the definitions of what an unlawful assembly is and what a riot is. If you'll just bear with me, I'll read directly from that. I think that really tells us exactly what the difference is, and I think it clearly identifies the problem here.
Subsection 63(1) of the Criminal Code defines an unlawful assembly, and that is defined as:
An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner or so conduct themselves when they are assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that they (a) will disturb the peace tumultuously; or (b) will by that assembly needlessly and without reasonable cause provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously.
In section 64, it defines what then becomes a riot, and that is “an unlawful assembly that has begun to disturb the peace tumultuously”.
By the very definitions in these sections, an unlawful assembly or a riot occurs when citizens on the streets of their own city have reasonable grounds to be afraid. It's defined by fear, by being afraid that the actions of others will harm them, their businesses, or their properties. That's obviously of concern to any law-abiding individual and is something we understand we have to ensure we protect the public from.
That is the kind of situation we're talking about that this bill would deal with.