Bar leery of citizen’s arrest bill

Powers for security firms a concern

Aconservative bill aiming to clarify laws around citizen’s arrests will grant greater powers to private security agencies, something police and the Canadian Bar Association say will give poorly trained “rent-a-cops” greater latitude to arrest Canadians.

“Such personnel often lack the necessary range of equipment or adequate training to safely and lawfully make arrests in a manner proportionate to the circumstances,” Eric Gottardi, vice-chair of the Canadian Bar Association’s National Criminal Justice Section, told a parliamentary committee recently.

Bill C-26: The Citizen’s Arrest and Self Defence Act, now in third reading in the House of Commons, clarifies and simplifies the rules on when citizens can take the law into their own hands. The bill is intended to repeal about 10 existing Criminal Code provisions dealing with selfdefence, defence of property and citizen’s arrest, and collapse them into three easier to understand sections.

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, the only MP to oppose the bill, said C-26 will encourage vigilantism and amounts to a “very big gift to the private security companies.

“The constitution of this country is governed by the concept of peace, order and good government,” May said. “This stuff goes off in a wacky new direction, and it worries me.”

However, some Tories, including controversial Calgary MP Rob Anders, think the bill does not go far enough and advocate a more robust legal definition of a citizen’s right to self-defence, one that resembles the “stand-your-ground” provisions in force in parts of the United States, which many blame for the recent shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida.

While testifying before the committee in February, Gottardi said the bill will probably embolden private security guards such as mall cops to make more arrests, which could then prove problematic.

“We’re also concerned that the changes will encourage unjustified arrests by private security personnel,” he said. “(They) are not subject to public oversight in the same way that police agencies are.

“The changes to the law of citizen’s arrest are just unnecessary, and in fact may put Canadians at further risk.”

Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, also objected to the bill, saying Canadians should leave law enforcement to the professionals. The best and safest thing to do, he said, is to take photos or video of the crime and call the police.

“We should take care that any changes made within this legislation do not have the unintended consequence of broadening the current mandate of private security,” he said.

Citizen’s arrests can become even more dangerous when gangs are involved, he warned.

“In the worst case, gang affiliation can lead to increased personal danger for private security personnel who try to effect an arrest,” Stamatakis said. “We definitely don’t want to see a situation in which a citizen’s arrest is made only to find the suspects’ friends or accomplices returning for a measure of retribution.”

Ross Mcleod, president of the Association of Professional Security Agencies, argued in favour of the new law on citizen’s arrest. He said private security guards — such as those who police big box stores like Walmart — already make a stunning number of arrests, and mostly without incident.

“We’ve arrested over 65,000 people over the last 30 years,” he said. “We have basic training regulations, and the next step will be adding more regulations and testing for people who are actually using force.”

The bill has the support of the Liberals and the NDP, in part because a private member’s bill by NDP MP Olivia Chow inspired it. Her socalled “Lucky Moose Bill” was inspired by the case of David Chen, owner of the Lucky Moose convenience store in Toronto, who was charged after making a citizen’s arrest of a thief who stole repeatedly from his shop. Chen was later acquitted.

Chow said the bill was intended simply to give small business owners greater latitude to apprehend thieves, not to give more power to private security firms.

“It’s the small store owners that have no financial capacity to hire private security guards that this bill works for,” she said. “It is to bring them into line with what Walmart or Loblaws or Metro are already doing.”

In a March opinion piece published in the Prince Arthur Herald, a bilingual online student blog based in Montreal, Anders said he wants to see a much more permissive self-defence law put in place, which he dubbed the “castle defence.”

“A man’s home is his castle,” Anders wrote. “If someone breaking into my house has a gun then I support the old common law rule that I can defend my house with equal force.”

During committee testimony on the topic of Bill C-26, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said he thought it would be reasonable in some circumstances to fire warning shots at thieves, a comment that surprised many.

May said the proposed changes to self-defence laws put Canada on a slippery slope, one that could lead to incidents like the recent shooting of an unarmed teen in Florida.

“I think we’re moving into an area where there is a risk of vigilantism,” she said.