Sean Casey

[Old Age Security, May 10th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, no.

[National Defence, May 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, what is unfortunate is that the minister decided to attack instead of explain.

Corporal Steve Stoesz has defied orders and is courageously speaking out about the terrible state of mental health care services in the Canadian Forces.

He said:

“The country I fought for now has broken me.”

Meanwhile, the minister is cutting funding to programs to prevent suicide and to help soldiers overcome depression. Why?

[National Defence, May 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I attended the Military Police Complaints Commission hearings and met Sheila Fynes, the mother of a deceased soldier. I saw first-hand the impact his suicide is having on her. Compounding this enormous sadness was a 14-month delay in releasing the suicide note, leaving the family to wonder and to question the reasons for his death. The note included his hope to have a small, private funeral, a wish that went unfulfilled because the government did not release the note.

At what point in 2008 was the minister first made aware of the suicide note?

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, May 7th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on a couple of themes mentioned by the hon. member.

In his speech, he trumpeted how good the budget is for Ontario. I am from Prince Edward Island, and we are not feeling the love. The public service has been gutted. The head office of the Department of Veterans Affairs has been gutted, the district office of Veterans Affairs has been closed, the Canada employment and immigration processing centre has been closed and the Citizenship and Immigration Canada office has been closed.

I heard my colleague say that the budget will not pay off the deficit on the backs of the provinces and municipalities. Well, the increase in the OAS eligibility age does exactly that. It transfers the cost of supporting our poor senior citizens to the other levels of government.

He talks about not bringing down the debt on the backs of municipalities. We have a crumbling infrastructure. We now have infrastructure projects, including a well field in Prince Edward Island and a sewer separation project, which is only being funded by two levels of government while we wait for the feds.

My question to the hon. member is whether there is a place in this budget—

[Veterans Affairs, May 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, today the Veterans Ombudsman released a report in which we learn that 60% of Veterans Review and Appeal Board decisions reviewed by the Federal Court contained reversible errors of fact and law. He suggests that veterans are not getting the benefit of the doubt in these cases. Veterans deserve better.

Will the minister conduct a review of the entire appeal process, with a goal to provide our veterans with a fair, independent, non-partisan and professional appeal process? Will he do that?

[Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, May 3rd, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I was interested to hear my friend say that this is a Canadian budget. I come from Prince Edward Island, the cradle of Confederation, and I might remind the hon. member we are part of Canada but we certainly feel left out in the budget.

There are provinces where people can get their EI claims processed. Prince Edward Island is not one of them. There are provinces where people can talk to someone at Citizenship and Immigration Canada if they need its services. Prince Edward Island is not one of those places. Two hundred and thirty-two jobs were cut from the Department of Veterans Affairs. If a veteran in Prince Edward Island wants to talk to a live person, that individual is out of luck. If someone wants to talk to someone on the computer, the cap sites are being closed.

Prince Edward Island is part of Canada. Why has Prince Edward Island been left out of the budget?

[Veterans Affairs, May 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, today the Federal Court ruled in favour of Dennis Manuge and other veterans who have been waging a court battle with the Conservatives over pension clawbacks. The government was wrong to litigate in the first instance, and now the court has ruled.

Will the Minister of Justice commit today to not appeal this ruling and leave these veterans alone?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.