Billie Cross

[makar]

Anyone from manitoba here? [url]https://www.winnipegsun.com/opinion/ndp-mlas-controversial-remarks-spark-outrage-across-manitoba/article_777bc5cf-98c7-4f75-837a-afb53a7b07af.html[/url]

[makar]

[makar]

During debate in the Manitoba Legislature over property-owner protections and self-defence, Seine River NDP MLA Billie Cross sparked widespread backlash by suggesting citizens shouldn't be given the "power" to defend their property and should simply "let them steal" and rely on insurance.

[furrowtickler]

Ya seen a clip of that , not surprised coming from an NDP .
Bizarre but not unexpected after watching that NDP conference a while back .

[shtferbrains]

I don't think she has any concept of how for profit insurance works?

Repeating it again to the media puts her in a special class?

Kind of see why Carney doesn't waste time in the HOC with the elected representatives of the voters?
They are just useful for the votes?

[sumdumguy]

“ Why would we want to give the people this power?”
What power? The power to defend your home, your family, your cat, your chickens?
Who raises these lunatics?

(Why bother with doctors and hospitals, just buy life insurance- there that will fix that! ) We don’t need cops either. After all the criminals are just trying to make a living.

[chuckChuck]

The rules and laws in Canada about self defense of person and property are fairly well defined and reasonable.

Of course the shoot first ask question later thinking of many wing nuts is not allowed.

Most people never experience an unknown in person robbery or assault or intruder so most of this is moot.

The greatest risk to most people and especially women is from people known to them whether a spouse or family member in domestic violence.


In Canada you have the legal right to use reasonable force to defend yourself, your family, and your home against an intruder. Unlike some U.S. jurisdictions, Canada does not have an automatic "castle doctrine" or "stand your ground" law, meaning the force used must always be proportionate to the threat faced.

The rules governing home defence are outlined in two main sections of the Criminal Code of Canada ([url]https://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-34.html[/url]). [1 ([url]https://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-34.html[/url]), 2 ([url]https://bcdlaw.ca/castle-law-in-canada/)][/url]

1. Defence of Person (Section 34)
When an intruder threatens your safety or the safety of others in the home, Section 34 of the Criminal Code ([url]https://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-34.html[/url]) allows you to use force—including lethal force as a last resort—if three conditions are met: [1 ([url]https://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-34.html[/url]), 2 ([url]https://rabideaulaw.ca/what-a-homeowner-must-do-before-using-force-in-canada/)][/url]

• Reasonable Belief. You must believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used or threatened against you or another person.
• Defensive Purpose. Your actions must be taken specifically to protect yourself or others, not out of anger or revenge.
• Reasonable Response. The amount of force you use must be reasonable in the specific circumstances. [1 ([url]https://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-34.html)][/url]

2. Defence of Property (Section 35)
If someone is breaking in, trespassing, or damaging your property without posing a direct threat to a person, Section 35 of the Criminal Code applies:

• Peaceable Possession. You must be in lawful, peaceable possession of the home.
• Preventing Unlawful Acts. You can use reasonable force to prevent someone from entering, remove a trespasser, or stop them from taking or damaging property.
• No Deadly Force for Property Alone. Canadian courts have established that using lethal force solely to protect property—when no one's life or physical safety is in danger—is never considered reasonable.

How Courts Determine "Reasonable Force"
If a homeowner is charged after a confrontation, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the homeowner did not act in self-defence. Courts evaluate the incident using several statutory factors: [1 ([url]https://www.townandcountrytoday.com/politics/conservatives-introduce-bill-to-create-self-defence-law-for-home-invasions-11995669[/url]), 2 ([url]https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-6777)][/url]

• Immediacy of the Threat. Whether the danger was immediate and whether you had safe options to retreat or call police.
• Presence of Weapons. Whether the intruder was armed or appeared to be armed.
• Physical Disparities. The size, age, gender, and physical capabilities of everyone involved.
• Proportionality and Escalation. Whether the force matched the threat. For example, using a weapon against an armed invader is generally viewed differently than chasing a fleeing intruder down the street.

Important Legal Caveats

• Weapons Possession. Carrying or keeping items specifically as weapons for self-defence against humans (such as pepper spray, mace, or stun guns) is illegal in Canada. Using an everyday household object or a lawfully stored firearm during a sudden, life-threatening emergency is assessed based on the necessity of the moment.
• Ongoing Legislative Debate. While self-defence laws were streamlined in 2012, Canadian lawmakers continue to debate bills—such as proposals introduced in 2026—that would create a stronger legal presumption that force used against an unlawful home intruder is justified. [1 ([url]https://www.lawnow.org/reasonable-force-what-are-the-limits-of-self-defence-in-canada/[/url]), 2 ([url]https://www.townandcountrytoday.com/politics/conservatives-introduce-bill-to-create-self-defence-law-for-home-invasions-11995669[/url]), 3 (