Justice committee  Yes.

Justice committee  Excuse me. If there was a thought to add “at the first opportunity”, it's almost like reverting back to the current law as it is, which has the element of “finds committing”. We're giving—

Justice committee  Thank you for the question. I think you're drawing a comparison, perhaps between the police, who are very well trained, and private security guards, who would be effecting a number of citizen's arrests. We can't necessarily expect the private citizen to be familiar with what an

Justice committee  As to how this would arise, potentially, in the department store context, perhaps a person is observed by security officers—whether by a closed-circuit television or face to face—while stealing merchandise. They would see the person leave the store and would effect the arrest at

Justice committee  That would be a possibility: we can't say with certainty whether the wrong person is arrested. Obviously, there's embarrassment there, and there could be other damages. It's possible that the person may want to pursue civil charges. That's also why, in the context of citizen's ar

Justice committee  That issue would be canvassed with our provincial and territorial colleagues. We meet with them very regularly and give them updates on the status of legislation progressing through the House. We would leave it to them to determine if they have to do anything to bring their provi

Justice committee  Thank you for the question. That is a good point. We're certainly aware of the witnesses who have expressed concerns about what would be considered reasonable. We've tried to make it quite clear that it's “reasonable in the circumstances”. If the committee were to consider addin

Justice committee  Subsection 494(2) adopts or cross-references with section 25 of the Criminal Code, so it's the same standard of force. I'll just go back to section 25 to get the proper wording. Section 25 refers to somebody who is doing: anything in the administration or enforcement of the law

Justice committee  Could you elaborate on the type of scenario you have in mind when a police officer would be asking a civilian to apprehend someone on their behalf?

Justice committee  If the person A has found another person committing an offence, but it's not in relation to their property, I don't think that scenario would be covered by what we're contemplating in the citizen's arrest context. We're changing the law only with respect to the person's property,

Justice committee  That conduct is I think still covered by subsection 494(1) of the Criminal Code, which is not being changed by Bill C-26. We're only changing subsection 494(2), which deals only with citizen's arrest in the property context, if someone finds someone committing an offence.

Justice committee  I can begin to answer and then my colleague will likely elaborate further. In case I misstated something, the point I was making was that with respect to defending property alone, it's the position of the common law at present that you can't use deadly force just to defend your

Justice committee  That's a valid point. We want Canadians to fully understand the law and its limits. When this act is proclaimed into force, we intend for it to be accompanied by explanations, whether we call them backgrounders or fact sheets, that would clearly delineate to Canadians the changes

Justice committee  Sure.

Justice committee  If it's helpful to the committee to know this, we did follow up with respect to that issue of yesterday. We spoke to our legislative drafters. I can provide you with a little bit of information now that might be of assistance. But as Mr. Goguen says, we will follow up on this and