My own sense of how we respond to this now is that, given technology, the most useful thing in apprehending criminals is the advent of things like cell phone videos. There is an ability to get the evidence and give that to the Mounties later.

I agree that we must provide a statutory defence so that people who try to protect their business or their life and limb are not charged with a criminal offence. The concern I have is that it goes beyond prosecutorial discretion here and, by providing the idea of citizen’s arrest, no matter how much we say there is caution, how do we avoid people putting themselves at risk, feeling empowered to make a citizen’s arrest without the training to know how to handle a dangerous situation?

Mr. Rick Norlock: Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned something that is a very sensitive issue, and that is the length of time it takes police officers to attend the various occurrences to which they are called. I know police officers would like to be there instantaneously. That is the desire. As a former member of a deployed police force, the Ontario Provincial Police, I know that in rural parts of Canada there are vast areas that need to policing. The member comes from an area that is rural in nature and I know it takes some time.

The hon. member raised some other very good points. We do have tools in a modern age at our disposal that can assist law enforcement agencies to find the perpetrators of crime. If possible, people can snap a picture. We see many convenience stores with cameras, et cetera. Therefore, if there is a camera in the store and a person is readily identifiable, no one should put themselves or their customers in jeopardy.

The government does intend to have a degree of public information so that people know their rights, responsibilities and limitations.

The post Citizen’s Arrest and Self-defence Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.

On another aspect, she did reference the fact that the constituents of Cape Breton expected a great deal from their members. I would agree with her, and that is why there are two Liberals back in the chamber.

The Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, on a related point of order, I am glad my colleague for Cape Breton—Canso stood and made reference to his question. In his question to the Minister of Labour earlier today, the preamble seemed to suggest that the minister was guilty of criminal conduct.

I know the member for Cape Breton—Canso and I know him to be a person of good character. I am sure he would want to do the right thing, the parliamentary thing, and stand up, withdraw his remarks unreservedly and apologize to the minster. Failing that, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to review the comments made earlier in his preamble, judge accordingly and rule accordingly.

Ms. Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I agree with you. This is not a proper point of order. However, I have something in common with the Minister of Labour and the member for Cape Breton—Canso. We all share Cape Breton roots.

As neither of them is a member of my party, and as both of them are people I hold in high regard, I would like the Minister of Labour to know that the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso, unless this jokester has learned how to project his voice as a ventriloquist, was as quiet as the grave as he awaited the minister’s answer.

The Speaker: I appreciate the interventions from the Cape Breton caucus, but I think we will move on.

The post Cape Breton Caucus appeared first on Elizabeth May.