Public Safety committee  Thank you. I have not prepared opening statements. Our understanding was that the committee might have some questions for us. I can briefly indicate that I would be prepared to answer questions with respect to the restitution provisions and the victims surcharge provisions, havi

Public Safety committee  I'm not prepared to speak to the constitutionality of the bill. It would be other colleagues within the Department of Justice who may have been consulted with respect to its constitutionality. My understanding was that you had questions with respect to surcharges and restitution,

Public Safety committee  If a restitution order or a surcharge order were outstanding, that's a debt that's owed to the province because a surcharge is collected by the province. So the province that would be seeking the surcharge revenue from the offender would likely be waiting for that offender to be

Justice committee  I'd just point out a few things for your added consideration. We have the provision in this citizen's arrest that it's only when you're not able to engage the police to make the arrests, so I don't think we would be in the scenario of somebody waiting around to get their buddies

Justice committee  Is the question related to Mr. Cotler's suggestion?

Justice committee  I think it would be understood that way, but we wouldn't want to add those words into the factor, because it's a non-exhaustive list of factors and we're not offering greater certainty to anything in particular. We're planting some guidelines in terms of what the factors are, but

Justice committee  Do you mean “for greater certainty”? I don't really think that's--

Justice committee  We would want to consult with the drafters to make sure that they had strong reasons for using the word rapports. If you had other suggestions, we could take that back to them for their reaction, but this would not permit you to deal with the issue now.

Justice committee  Alternatively, we could attempt to make contact with our drafters now, if this is stood down, and see if we could get a reply shortly.

Justice committee  I would remind the committee that this is a non-exhaustive list of factors. I'm sure that everybody can conceive of countless situations that they'd like to see covered in the factors. At the same time, we're quite confident that when those factors are relevant, they will be pres

Justice committee  Mr. Goguen's comments would be our view as well. It was drafted to take into account that we start off from the premise that you're not guilty of an offence if these things are established, but that if those factors weren't established, the act you have committed may well be an o

Justice committee  We're always interested in the views of the various bar associations, but the position of le Barreau is basically that we shouldn't be changing the law at all. When the minister appeared before a committee, and in other statements he's made, he made it clear that the government i

Justice committee  But it's almost a mixed message, because if we say “reasonable”, we want to give the courts—if the case gets to the court's attention—the opportunity to look at what was reasonable in the circumstances of that person arresting someone who they found committing.... Obviously, if

Justice committee  —an opportunity and you can't take it, because there's a risk there or you're not going to be able to carry it out, or whatever. You have to let that opportunity go by and hope that you'll have a second opportunity.

Justice committee  That's correct. We're amending only subsection 494(2) of the code. Subsection 494(3), which requires delivery to the peace officer, remains. So this provision will remain in the law. Anyone other than a peace officer who arrests a person without warrant shall forthwith deliver th