Madam Speaker, the bill before us, Bill C-26, epitomizes the old adage “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”.
Although the intention of the bill is valid, questions remain about its application and, unfortunately, its results. We are talking about allowing people to arrest wrongdoers who commit crimes against property, which in and of itself is commendable. In the absence of police officers, it is almost a civic duty to uphold the spirit of the law and to ensure that people who commit crime are held accountable and brought to justice. We accept allowing citizens to uphold justice. However, things start to get a little complicated when we allow a person to use physical force or commit an act of violence against another person to make an arrest. Everything else flows from that. What is reasonable and what is not?
With regard to self-defence, there is a great deal of expertise contained in the Criminal Code itself and in the relevant case law to ensure that a person who was assaulted and took action truly acted in self-defence and that his actions were measured, proportionate and acceptable from a legal perspective. There is a reason the legal system takes into consideration criteria such as the aggressor's age, health and size, as well as whether the aggressor was armed and whether he clearly indicated his intentions to physically assault the victim or simply insulted the victim. All of these factors are taken into consideration in determining whether the victim had a legitimate right to self-defence.
Then, a second question is asked: was the response proportionate? If a five year old threatens someone with a stick and the person responds by firing a shotgun, we cannot expect the law to turn a blind eye. It is crystal clear that the person will have serious problems with the law.
I think that everyone, no matter what their political affiliation, can agree that this would be a serious breach of the law. That case does not involve an act of justice but, rather, an act of disproportionate violence. That is the problem we are facing with regard to people who commit property crimes. No life is in danger in such cases. I would even go so far as to say that, by making an arrest, the person is putting his health at risk. The person is even risking his life in the unfortunate situation where the aggressor is better armed.
There is a reason why my distinguished government colleagues have insisted on the fact that an honest citizen's initial reaction should be to call the police and not to risk his life to protect his property. However, sometimes it can be done, which raises the question: what is considered reasonable violence leading to an arrest?
Must the members be reminded that people can commit crimes without being criminals? There is the defence of necessity. We have all heard of someone who got stuck in a snowstorm and committed a break and enter to take shelter from the storm and avoid freezing to death. We have all heard of someone who stole a car to drive a person who was seriously ill to the hospital. These types of situations involve the defence of necessity, which is accepted in our legal system.
We can understand that, in Canada, many people with mental health issues, who are no longer receiving the proper care, find themselves living in the streets and committing crimes. Unfortunately, this situation is becoming increasingly common. These people are not responsible for their actions. They do not belong in prison or on the streets. They need health care.
Unfortunately, these people commit crimes. Do they deserve to suffer a serious injury when they are arrested or questioned about the situation? No one wants that.
Everyone knows that when police officers make an arrest, they do not have the right to use unreasonable force. Police officers are trained to use a minimum of force. They are not the judge or the executioner. Their job is to make arrests and to tell people that they must appear before a judge to explain themselves. That is quite reasonable.
We do not find reasonableness or proportionality in this bill. Many stakeholders came to tell the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that there was a problem in that regard and that the bill really should be amended. In its current form, this bill has serious problems and if enacted would not stand up in court.
The intention is to protect people who make arrests. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to find ourselves passing a bill that, when first applied, would be considered ultra vires because it violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There can be no just and reasonable sentence when there is violence. We would find ourselves in exactly the same situation, as if the law did not exist. This requires legislation. It is important for people who make an arrest to be protected to some extent by the law, and they should be permitted to help police.
Sometimes, police officers patrol alone in their cruisers and have to arrest two or three suspects. They may call for backup, but it may not get there quickly, especially in rural areas. In such cases, it would be helpful for honest citizens to be good Samaritans and help these police officers. Therefore, it is reasonable that they be protected by legislation.
What is unreasonable is that we are basically permitting any type of violence, especially in the defence of property. Earlier members said that we must not replicate what happens in the United States. The member for Prince Albert expressed a very sensible reservation in this regard, a reservation that is quite warranted.
I want to remind members of a very unfortunate case of defence of property in Arizona, with no criteria for reason or proportionality. A young man who was going to meet friends got the wrong address. He showed up at the wrong place and the owner of the property shot him in the back when the young man was walking away. The American justice system found this man not guilty because it determined that the man was defending his property and that the young man had not been invited onto that property. We do not want to see similar incidents happening in Canada.
In addition, I do not want to see us applying Judge Lynch's principle. Lynch was an administrative law judge in Virginia during the American Revolution in 1776. He established the principle that if a number of individuals decide to enforce justice, this act becomes justice. The term “lynching” was named after this sorry individual. These kinds of things are now prohibited. Now, individuals generally cannot spontaneously declare that they will enforce justice. Any members of the public who want to enforce justice must do so in accordance with the law and not in accordance with a tradition or tolerance by the legal system. Therein lies the problem, since the text of this bill seems to indicate some tolerance for violence by the legal system, when this violence is disproportionate.
These things are important. We will soon have a law about the national flag. That bill must not enable people to use this legal right to violence in an inappropriate way.
