Human Resources Committee on Dec. 14th, 2021

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Committee members, I will call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number three of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Today's meeting is in hybrid format. Today's meeting is to begin a clause-by-clause reading of Bill C-3.

I'll remind you that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. When you're speaking, please speak slowly and clearly.

As I indicated, Bill C-3 is an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code. Pursuant to the order of reference on Thursday, December 9, the committee will resume its consideration of Bill C-3.

Before we begin clause-by-clause consideration, there is a matter to discuss regarding the routine motions. Specifically, it is the routine motion governing orders of reference in the House respecting bills. Is it the will of the committee? That's notwithstanding the routine motion adopted by the committee for 48-hours notice. We dispensed with that routine motion for this meeting. The part dealing with 48-hour notice to file amendments at the start of clause-by-clause shall be waived.

I see agreement from the committee. Thank you, committee members.

(On clause 1)

We will begin with clause-by-clause, beginning with clause 1. Shall clause 1 carry?

Clause 1 is carried and we move on to clause 2.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

I have a point of order, Chair.

I don't understand why we're not reading the summary first. I understand that we want to get through this today. We still have an hour and 25 minutes. I don't even feel like clause 1 addressed the summary. I just feel as though we need to go back and address the summary first, please, and then go to the first clause.

I didn't nod my head in consent for the first clause. I'm not sure if my colleagues did, but I didn't. It wasn't carried, so could we just go back, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

The summary is not under consideration, Madam Kusie, so therefore it's not in discussion.

I have a question from Madame Chabot.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

I wanted to make the same observation as the one you just made, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Duly noted.

We were dealing with clause 1. I had called the question and nobody objected, so it was carried, Madam Kusie.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

I have a point of order, Chair.

Again, I didn't give my agreement, so I don't think it was carried.

When you identify the clause, could you please read the first sentence of the clause? It's not clear from the legislation as to which are the clauses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We'll be clear.

Clause 1 is “Paragraph (a) of the definition offence in section 183”—

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Chair, it's not a lot of text. I would even say that perhaps we could read the text of the clause in its entirety. That would certainly be very helpful to me because it's not entirely clear to me what we are approving to carry.

It would help me, Chair. I apologize for placing this time on the committee. If this were several hundred pages I could certainly understand not reading the text, but given its short length.... I mean this sincerely. If you could kindly read the content of the clause, that would be helpful. I believe you'd only have to read it in one official language since the other would be translated.

As I stated, given the brevity of the bill, I believe that it's not too onerous to ask. Thank you so much for that consideration.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madam Kusie.

We're dealing with clause 1, which reads:

Paragraph (a) of the definition of offence in section 183 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after subparagraph....

Okay, you've heard it.

Shall clause 1 carry?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Sorry, Chair, I have a point of order.

To clarify, you read “adding the following after subparagraph...section 423.2 (intimidation - health services”.

Is that the area in its entirety that you were referring to for clause 1?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Yes.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

That's great. If we could just be totally clear, that would be very helpful to me. Thank you.

That carries with me. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Good.

(Clause 1 agreed to)

(On clause 2)

[Jacques Maziade, Legislative Clerk]

Mr. Chair, do you want me to read clause 2?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Yes, I will ask the legislative clerk to read it.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you kindly, Chair.

[Jacques Maziade]

Clause 2 of the Bill C-3 reads as follows:

The Act is amended by adding the following after section 423.1:

Intimidation — health services

423.2(1) Every person commits an offence who engages in any conduct with the intent to provoke a state of fear in

(a) a person in order to impede them from obtaining health services from a health professional;

(b) a health professional in order to impede them in the performance of their duties; or

(c) a person, whose functions are to assist a health professional in the performance of the health professional's duties, in order to impede that person in the performance of those functions.

Obstruction or interference with access

(2) Every person commits an offence who, without lawful authority, intentionally obstructs or interferes with another person's lawful access to a place at which health services are provided by a health professional.

Punishment

(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is

(a) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or

(b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Defence

(4) No person is guilty of an offence under subsection (2) by reason only that they attend at or near, or approach, a place referred to in that subsection for the purpose only of obtaining or communicating information.

Definition of health professional

(5) In this section, health professional means a person who is entitled under the laws of a province to provide health services.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Chair, I have a point of order.

As members, we have these all in front of us. I don't know why we also have to have to these read to us. I think that takes a lot of time.

We're delayed anyway, correct? I mean, there were documents from the Conservatives that were not translated, I believe.

I would suggest that we don't need to read every word in every clause. I find it irregular.

I'd like you to rule on that, if you could, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Madam Kusie.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you.

If we look at what has been read to this point, it is essentially a third of the bill, and it's not even quarter after four o'clock. I think if I ask for it, it's a courtesy.

I don't think, as I said, it is too onerous. If the bill were 50 pages long, then absolutely I agree, but I think five pages is not too onerous.

I really don't think it's that big of a deal. If any other colleague would have asked for it, I certainly would have supported it and allowed for that. As I said, we're one third of the way through the reading. I really don't see it as being a major inconvenience. For the true clarification of what we are passing, I think it's fair and reasonable.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Chair, if I might?

Whether it's one page or 300 pages, it's in front of us. I think it's unnecessary and unreasonable that the clerks have to read everything that we can just read in front of us. I just find it unreasonable.

That's my two cents.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Mr. Coteau.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Could I suggest that perhaps we maybe just stick to the bolded text? If there's a misalignment or the assumption that there may be a misalignment between what's being read and what's being voted upon and what the person has in front of them....

Let's just stick to the bold and it will identify the clause clearly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I will take the direction from the committee.

Does the committee want to proceed with the legislative counsel reading verbatim each clause or does it want to proceed, as described, with the bill before you?

What are the wishes of the committee?

Mr. Boulerice.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

That isn’t necessary. I support the suggestion of my colleague Mr. Long. It will go quicker, and we have a lot of work to do this afternoon. We can all read.