Bill C-321

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against persons who provide health services and first responders)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to require a court to consider the fact that the victim of an assault is a person who provides health services or a first responder to be an aggravating circumstance for the purposes of sentencing.

Criminal Code

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at report stage of Bill C-321, under Private Members' Business.

The House resumed from December 15, 2023, consideration of the motion that Bill C-321, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against persons who provide health services and first responders), as reported (with amendments) from the committee, be concurred in.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

moved that Bill C‑321, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against health care professionals and first responders), be concurred in at report stage.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C‑321, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against health care professionals and first responders), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Mr. Caputo, that was the reason we scheduled both Bill C-321, which I reported on yesterday, clause-by-clause having been successfully concluded at this committee, and Bill C-40. Those two needed to be dealt with and were on the order of business to be concluded.

It didn't make any difference to the minister's availability and his appearances as to which date he appeared, because as long as he appears..., and I'm sure he's still willing to appear.

If we can continue with our business and do what we need to do, I am sure we can call him again to appear.

Justice and Human Rights

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I have the honour to present, in both official languages, two reports from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

The first is the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-321, an act to amend the Criminal Code, assaults against health care professionals and first responders. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

The second is the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and is about a motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, December 5, 2023. It is entitled “Measures to Protect Canadians”.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

In terms of consistency, I just want to point out that the proposed wording in Bill C‑321 reflects the wording in subsection 269.01(1) of the Criminal Code, which states that the court “shall consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the victim was a public transit operator.” We're keeping the same wording.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Thank you.

Bill C-321, which we are considering today, amends the Criminal Code by adding section 269.02. I thought I would take a look at what section 269.01 says. It's already existing. It's about judges taking into consideration that the victim is a public transit operator. The language that is being proposed in the bill that is before us today mirrors almost exactly the language of existing section 269.01, which definitely uses the term “shall”: “it shall consider as an aggravating circumstance”.

I think that, just for the sake of consistency with the existing legislation, we need to stay with the original wording of Bill C-321 as it is before us today.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I want to move a subamendment, Madam Chair. It has been distributed to the committee members. It would replace the word “shall” with “may”.

We heard from Justin Mausz, an advanced care paramedic. He completed his Ph.D. and he works as a clinician‑scientist and professor in the department of family and community medicine at the University of Toronto. Mr. Mausz seems qualified to address the issues concerning Bill C‑321.

When he came to speak, I asked him the following question:

Do you think the bill would still be helpful if it said that the court “may consider as an aggravating circumstance”, instead of “shall consider”? That way, the judge would have the discretion to determine whether it should be considered as an aggravating circumstance in a particular case.

Mr. Mausz responded: “Yes, absolutely.” I won't read you his entire response, but he finished with the following statement: “I always think context is important in decisions that must be approached with seriousness.”

It's a good idea, in probably 95% of cases, to consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the assaulted individual was a health care professional. However, there may be circumstances where this doesn't apply. Mr. Mausz gave the example of a person who, under the influence of adrenaline during an accident, I believe, reacted by saying something like “I'm going to kill you.” Everyone knew that this person wasn't violent, that his words weren't sincere and that the reaction was simply the result of the circumstances and adrenaline. Everyone recognized this, including the paramedic. In these types of cases, the judge hearing the evidence must have some leeway to determine whether this constitutes an aggravating circumstance. If the judge finds otherwise, the judge shouldn't feel obligated to consider it an aggravating circumstance in the sentencing process.

In keeping with the evidence heard and in the interest of fairness, I think that we should replace “shall” with “may”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome, everyone.

Welcome to meeting 86 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House on June 21, 2023, the committee is continuing its study of Bill C-321, an act to amend the Criminal Code on assaults against health care professionals and first responders.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person and remotely using Zoom. Those who are on Zoom have already been tested and everything seems to be okay.

As it's only colleagues who are on Zoom, I assume that by now you all know the procedure for raising your hand and speaking. I won't go through all of that formally.

The sound checks have been successfully completed.

Here with us today, to help with our study of the clause-by-clause, we have, from the Department of Justice, Mr. Matthias Villetorte, senior counsel and team leader, criminal law policy section; and Ms. Leah Burt, counsel, criminal law policy section. Welcome.

I have a few remarks and I will be very brief. As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses, in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote.

If there is an amendment to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill or in the package that each member received from the clerk. Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee.

I'll go slowly. There is not a lot going on this afternoon.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first, and then another subamendment may be moved or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Of course, at the end, once it's all done, the committee will vote on the title and an order to reprint the bill if amendments are adopted. Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House.

We'll begin.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of the preamble is postponed.

(On clause 1)

On amendment G-1, I see that Mr. Maloney wishes to move it.

Is there any discussion on it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you very much to both of our witnesses.

Thank you for appearing from North Carolina, and thank you to our witness appearing in person from Ottawa.

Colleagues, thank you very much. Have a lovely evening.

I will remind you that our next meeting is on Thursday, November 30, which is the last day of the month. We will be doing clause-by-clause on Bill C-321.

Thank you very much. Have a nice afternoon.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I have 30 seconds.

I just want to again thank our guests who are here today. Your membership, and the firefighters, the paramedics and all of those who have shared their very emotional stories with me.... You can't help but be impacted by these stories.

I hope we'll do you right by passing Bill C-321—hopefully soon. I know the industry will share that message. It provides another vehicle to share the message that violence against our health care workers and first responders is not okay and it's not part of the job description.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to my colleagues for allowing me to sit in on this, and thank you to our guests.

Ms. Silas and Danette, Bill C-321 came out of conversations we had, very honest and very frank conversations, earlier on when we were dealing with my bill, Bill C-211, on PTSD.

I have the questions and I have the backgrounder that Mr. Fortin was looking for. I will send that information to the committee.

I don't want to take up any more time trying to answer your question, Mr. Fortin. I will get you the information that I have. I'll send it through my colleague here.

I think what we need to hear more of is the voices of our guests who are here. I spoke to a group of nurses in northern B.C. two years ago at the invitation of Ms. Thomsen. When I mentioned the proposal of this bill, it brought tears to nurses around the room. It was a very emotional time.

Through you, Madam Chair, I would like to ask our guests this question: Why does just talking about the proposal of this bill evoke so much emotion with your membership?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

There is no disagreement there.

Sorry to cut you off, but I have just about a minute left.

The existing provision in the Criminal Code refers to a person providing health services. The bill currently before the committee, Bill C‑321, captures health care professionals and first responders. The Criminal Code already covers people who provide health services, including personal care services.

They seem to do the same thing. I could be wrong, but I'd really like to hear your thoughts on that.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you.

Subparagraph 718.2(a)(iii.2) is similar to what's being proposed now in Bill C-321. The provision refers to an offence committed against a person who is providing health services, including personal care services.

Aren't you concerned that the provision in this bill duplicates that? If not, how do the two provisions complement one another, in your view?