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.

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?

[Danette Thomsen, British Columbia Regional Council Member, North East Region, British Columbia Nurses' Union]

Good afternoon.

I'd like to acknowledge that I personally live on the unceded territories of the Lheidli T'enneh, where MP Doherty is from. Today I join you from the lands of the Coast Salish peoples—the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh.

It is an absolute privilege to be here with you today speaking on behalf of our members.

When you consider acts of violence as a cause of workers from all occupations taking time away from work, nurses represent 30% of total claims, the second-highest occupation behind nurse aides, orderlies and patient service associates. Between 2018 and 2022, nurses reported an average of 51 injuries per month caused by acts of violence in B.C. alone. The number of injuries reported over a four-year period between 2013 and 2017 rose by 49%, from 1,653 to 2,458. It's unacceptable.

BCNU represents approximately 48,000 members in the province of B.C.

You just have to turn on the news to see the increase in aggression in our society. Wait times in health care facilities due to circumstances outside of nurses' control are increasing, and incidents of violence are increasing along with them. Nurses working short-staffed, trying diligently to give the best care to their patients, are being targeted. They need to be protected. That is our job—your job and my job. We need to do this today.

Their families need them to return home safe. Can you imagine going home and not being able to hold your young child due to having been assaulted at work? Can you imagine a patient in a waiting room calling 911 to warn that a health care worker is about to get seriously injured, if not killed? This patient then proceeded to attack one of our male nurses and attempted to choke him out. The nurse who was attacked was working a shift his wife was supposed to work. Had he not been there, his month-long recovery could have looked so much different for somebody else.

What about the nurse in rural B.C. who, last January, entered a female patient's room and was attacked? Can you imagine being held over a chair, receiving punch after punch, with handfuls of your hair being pulled out, while waiting frantically for help to come from the RCMP? In many rural communities at night, there's only one RCMP officer on duty. That nurse was freed by another male patient, who assisted.

We hear horrifying stories. Many are so horrifying that I can't even tell them. The psychological impacts on our nurse victims and the colleagues who try to assist them last far beyond the physical trauma. This is costing our already crumbling health care system, as nurses are now dealing with their own mental health injuries and time off work, trying to heal. We are losing nurses from our system. This is the first time ever that B.C. is reporting empty seats in nursing programs. There's normally a wait-list to get into our programs, and we're not even filling our seats.

We have an obligation to protect those who are protecting others. We have an obligation to care for the caregivers.

I'm excited to be a part of this today. Thank you for having us here as the B.C. Nurses' Union. I look forward to answering any of your questions.

We fully support Bill C-321.

[Linda Silas, President, Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions]

Good afternoon.

Sorry, Elizabeth. That bell is the worst part of the job.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, committee members, for the invitation. It's a privilege to be here.

As you know, I would like to acknowledge that the land that we are sitting on is the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. I'm a proud New Brunswicker from the beautiful land of the Mi'kmaq people.

I'm here as president of the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions and on behalf of my 250,000 members. I'm proud that Danette, one of our leaders in British Columbia, will be presenting soon.

We're the working nurses. Like the paramedics, we're there 24-7, taking care of the sick.

Canada's nurses believe that the language in Bill C-321 complements the existing protections and Criminal Code changes outlined in Bill C-3, which is now two years old. I'll get to that soon.

The Criminal Code changes found in Bill C-3 aimed to ensure better safeguards for health care workers, including nurses. Now Bill C-321 proposes expanding the language to include first responders. We welcome this proposed change to the Criminal Code. We recognize that violence against any health worker or first responder when they are performing their duties is an aggravating factor to sentences.

The facts are shocking. You heard Elizabeth talk about the paramedic field. In 2023, a pan-Canadian survey of nurses was done. Two-thirds reported incidents of physical assaults over the past year and 40% of those nurses reported physical abuse more than once a month while engaged in their duties.

All workers deserve a workplace free of violence and abuse. It should not be tolerated. Sadly, nurses and health care workers experience it routinely. We have to look at these. We have to bring in new measures, such as changing the Criminal Code, but we will also talk about prevention modes.

Many people in Canada are aware that public safety personnel—peace officers, police officers, firefighters and corrections officers—have high-risk jobs and often face violence. Most would be surprised that the same ratios exist in the health care field. Our health care facilities and our health care system are not safe places to work.

In addition to physical injury, workplace violence is strongly correlated with negative impacts on workers' mental health and has been seen as an issue facing nurses for many years. Exposure to violence predicts negative mental health outcomes, including PTSD. From our survey of working nurses, three in four, or 78.5%, report symptoms of burnout. Similar data is seen with public safety personnel.

A similar study was done by CFNU in 2019. Nearly one in four nurses screened positive for PTSD symptoms. MP Doherty will remember all the work we did in 2019 on a federal framework on PTSD, which included health care workers, such as nurses and paramedics.

Sadly, violence and abuse are normal in the health care system. Such a high rate of violence would be unthinkable in any other profession. It needs to be stopped. The health care risks are often accepted.

The House of Commons committee on health, HESA, tackled the challenge of rampant violence against nurses for the first time in a 2019 study. Bill C-3 came out of this and came into law in 2021, as one of HESA's recommendations. Bill C-321 will expand these protections.

Nurses are in solidarity with paramedics on this, but we need to go further than this. We need to be clear that this is not enough. We have to make the public and lawmakers aware of the changes in the Criminal Code and work on better protection for our health care workforce in order to work safely in our health care facilities and in our community. Thank you so much.

While we're encouraged by all this work, we know that many more recommendations of the HESA committee have to be done there.

We support this piece of legislation, but we encourage all MPs and all committees to look further to make our health care and our community safer for those who take care of the sick and the injured in their work.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Welcome back, colleagues, for our second panel. We will now resume.

In our second hour, we are proceeding with our study on Bill C-321.

We welcome, as an individual, Elizabeth Donnelly, associate professor, school of social work, University of Windsor, who is joining us by video conference; Linda Silas, president of the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions; and Danette Thomsen, British Columbia regional council member, northeast region, British Columbia Nurses' Union, also joining us by video conference.

We will start with six minutes each.

Mr. Brock, are you on the list?

Oh, I'm sorry; before that, you each have five minutes for your opening remarks. After that, we will commence with questions.

I will ask Madam Donnelly to please proceed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

I call the meeting to order.

I'd like to issue two reminders.

Before I do that, let me read the standard procedure.

Welcome to meeting number 84 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-40, an act to amend the Criminal Code, to make consequential amendments to other acts and to repeal a regulation.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely by using the Zoom application.

I can confirm that all tests were performed for witnesses joining us online.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members who are online.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike. Please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

I do want to let you know that I have two cards here. This one says “30 seconds” and this one says “time is up”. I will be as discreet as possible, but in order to follow the timing requirements, I will interrupt witnesses or members if I need to. All comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

Last, please let the operators open and close your microphones. That's a new procedure. I think they must have had some issues for other committees, although certainly not this one. With many microphones on, the resulting return of sound could hurt our interpreters.

The tests have been successfully performed.

Before we begin the first hour, I'd like to discuss the following points.

I have just two housekeeping items.

First, I'm requesting that we adopt a motion that I will be asking somebody to move. The motion is on the deadline on amendments for Bill C-321, as follows:

That, in relation to the Clause-by-Clause study of Bill C-321, on Thursday, November 30, 2023, the deadline to submit amendments be Tuesday, November 28, 2023, at noon.

Can I please have someone move that motion?

The date is November 28th and the meeting will be held at noon, because the clause‑by‑clause study is November 30. We've already confirmed the dates and they're in the calendar.

I've also been asked to point out a couple of things on that.

I would like to insist on reminding members that all amendments and subamendments on Bill C-321 must be submitted in writing and sent to the committee clerk. Please do not send drafting instructions to the legislative clerks, as they are not the ones who drafts amendments. They must be sent to the legislative counsel.

I'm now looking for somebody to move what I'm asking to be moved.

Madame Brière, thank you.

Does anyone have any objection to that?

Okay. It is so moved.

(Motion agreed to)

The next item is one that you would have received by email earlier today from Mr. Clerk. There are two budgetary items, one on Bill C-321 and one on Bill C-40.

I am requesting that someone move that the proposed budget in the amount of $16,500 for the study of Bill C-321 and the proposed budget in the amount of $19,700 for the study of Bill C-40 be adopted.

Thank you so much, Mr. Moore.

Are there any objections?

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you.

We will now commence with our first study on Bill C-321.

Today, we are welcoming—

I'm sorry. It's Bill C-40.

So today we are welcoming Mr. Simon Roy, Vice-Dean and Full Professor, University of Sherbrooke, Faculty of Law, appearing as an individual.

Welcome, Mr. Roy.

We also have, by teleconference, two witnesses: Mr. John Curtis, counsel, United Kingdom Criminal Cases Review Commission, and Jessyca Greenwood, executive member, Criminal Lawyers' Association.

Members, we will commence now with the first round of witnesses. You will each have six minutes for questions, please.

Before we do that, each of our witnesses has five minutes for opening remarks.

Mr. Roy, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have a simple question for the witnesses.

I talked about this with Mr. Doherty earlier. Bill C‑321 would require courts hearing these cases to consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the person assaulted was a paramedic or doctor, say.

The wording in the bill is “shall consider”, and that makes me wonder about some things. There are times when it's important to really consider the context. The example I gave earlier was of a doctor trying to deliver medical care to a patient at the hospital. The person is in pain and screams that they're going to rip the doctor's hands off if the doctor keeps touching them. That's not what you would call a real threat, necessarily.

I appreciate that you're not a legal expert, but as a paramedic, you have experience dealing with people in emergencies. You or your co‑workers have probably had to appear in court after being assaulted or threatened. That makes you somewhat of an expert, in my eyes.

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.