Alex Atamanenko

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, May 1st, 2012]

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.

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, May 1st, 2012]

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.

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, May 1st, 2012]

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.

[Petitions, April 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition with hundreds of names in support of my bill C-322.

The petitioners state that horses are ordinarily kept and treated as sport and companion animals. They are not raised primarily as food-producing animals. They are commonly administered drugs such as phenylbutazone, which makes the meat unfit for human consumption.

Therefore, they call upon the House to bring forward and adopt into legislation Bill C-322, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act and the Meat Inspection Act (slaughter of horses for human consumption), thus prohibiting the importation or exportation of horses for slaughter for human consumption as well as horsemeat products for human consumption.

[Petitions, April 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, add some petitions that are part of the 57,000 signatures collected in British Columbia, mainly from Vancouver Island.

The petitioners are adamant that we create legislation banning oil tankers from B.C.'s northern coast because of the potential danger of spills.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, April 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, for years, genetically engineered animals have been propped up as another solution to what ails the agriculture industry. The developers of GE animals have been happy to sell an idea, take their subsidy but never really develop a business case.

After 13 years in the development stage, Ontario Pork has decided to drop the enviropig program. Farmers do not want this pig and the public has no appetite for this meat.

At a time when the government is cutting inspection staff at CFIA and when farmers and agricultural employers are struggling, will the government finally stop accepting requests to approve GM fish and food animals?

[Best Municipal Water in the World, April 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's smallest city of 676 residents, Greenwood, B.C., has won the title of Best Municipal Water in the World.

In January of this year, Mayor Nipper Kettle sent a sample of its tap water to the International Water Tasting competition in Berkeley Springs, West Virginia.

The award-winning 22nd annual competition welcomed more than 100 water samples from across the country and around the globe.

Greenwood's water, which comes from a 110-foot well, was judged on appearance, odour, flavour, mouth feel, aftertaste and overall impressions.

I stopped in Canada's smallest city a few weeks ago at Deadwood Junction to have a tasty cinnamon bun and filled up my water bottle with Greenwood's liquid gold.

To Mayor Kettle and all the citizens of this fabulous community, on behalf of the Parliament of Canada, I offer my heartfelt congratulations. I look forward to participating in the official ceremony on May 11. In the meantime, I urge all Canadians to visit Greenwood and taste its liquid gold.

[Petitions, March 27th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, the last is a last short petition to establish a department of peace.

The fact is that 27,000 nuclear weapons still exist, and the number of countries possessing nuclear weapons and the threat of nuclear weapons is still increasing. Of the 26,000 nuclear weapons held by the United States and Russia, 3,000 are on a 15 minute launch on warning status and threaten to destroy our world due to potential technical systems failure. Of today's modern nuclear weapons, 50 could kill 200 million people. There is no medical response to the effects of a nuclear war. Prevention is the only answer. The petitioners call upon Parliament to establish a department of peace that would reinvigorate Canada's role as a global peacemaker that holds the abolition of nuclear weapons as a top priority.

[Petitions, March 27th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, the third petition supports Bill C-322.

Whereas Canadian horse meat products that are currently being sold for human consumption in domestic and international markets are likely to contain prohibited substances, the petitioners call upon the House of Commons in Parliament assembled to bring forward and adopt into legislation Bill C-322, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act and the Meat Inspection Act (slaughter of horses for human consumption), thus prohibiting the importation or exportation of horses for slaughter for human consumption, as well as horsemeat products for human consumption.

This petition comes from Quebec.

The fourth petition I have is dealing with the same subject. The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to bring forward and adopt into legislation my Bill C-322, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act and the Meat Inspection Act (slaughter of horses for human consumption), thus prohibiting the importation or exportation of horses for slaughter for human consumption, as well as horse meat products for human consumption.

[Petitions, March 27th, 2012]

My second petition is in regard to NATO, and our NATO review of nuclear weapons policy.

Petitioners point out that NATO states still rely on policies involving nuclear weapons for their defence. There are no ongoing multilateral negotiations for an agreement to eliminate these weapons of mass destruction. A model nuclear weapons convention has been filed before the UN General Assembly as a discussion document to encourage progress toward nuclear disarmament. Therefore, the petitioners demand that the Government of Canada call for an urgent review of NATO's nuclear weapons policy to ensure that all NATO states fulfill their obligations and negotiate and conclude an agreement for the elimination of nuclear weapons.