Justice Committee on Oct. 26th, 2023

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

The data we on the rates of violence against nurses or health care workers show that it's 66% higher than with their counterparts in frontline services. That's 66% higher.

I'll bring our committee back to another area that our bill was born out of. That was the study done by the Standing Committee on Health in June of 2019 entitled “Violence Facing Health Care Workers in Canada". I can submit it to the committee as well. Their third recommendation is exactly what our bill is prescribing. So they studied this as well.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you.

As you are no doubt aware, subparagraph 718.2(a)(iii.2) of the Criminal Code stipulates that “evidence that the offence was committed against a person who, in the performance of their duties and functions, was providing health services...” is considered an aggravating or mitigating circumstance.

What does your bill add to the provision, since it already refers to people who provide health services?

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

Our bill complements that very clearly. I believe that's from Bill C-3. Our bill, and Bill C-3 and Bill C-345—I believe by our colleague in the NDP—are all bills that complement each other. There isn't just one tool in the tool box that legislators or our legal society need.

Our bill doesn't.... The victim is not doing a job at that time, but the bill recognizes that the act of violence is against a nurse or a paramedic. What if they're off duty? What if they are still wearing their uniform and are coming from work, travelling on transit or going to their car? Can it be said that they are performing their duties at that time? We have witnesses right now who are wearing their uniforms. What if they're walking down the street and there's an act of violence perpetuated against them?

The fact of the matter is that Bill C-321 covers the fact that that victim is either a health care worker or a frontline first responder and that they are protected. It sends a clear message.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Precisely so the bill can capture as many people as possible, would you support an amendment to replace the terms “health care professionals” and “first responders” with “persons who provide health services”?

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

Again, I think that's a good question. That's something for this committee to decide, and we will go from there.

As with any piece of legislation, the devil is in the details. Do we let perfection get in the way of good work and other pieces of legislation that we've seen? Do we make the list so onerous that it can't be applied, that it weakens it? I think that is for the sage and wise direction of our group right here as we move forward and study the bill.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Bill C‑321 would add new section 269.02 to the Criminal Code. Section 269.01 refers to public transit operators, and subsection 269.01(2) lists the applicable definitions. Do you think Bill C‑321 should include definitions as well?

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

I think that adding the definitions.... When I had my conversation with Mr. Davies, I was very clear that it was an error on our part in our rush to get that done and tabled. I think it would only strengthen it.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair (Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin), Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Thank you, Mrs. Brière.

I'm giving myself permission to jump in here for a moment.

Mr. Doherty, I think this is a good bill. I think the intent behind it is excellent, and most—if not all—the members would agree with you. As you, yourself, said, though, the devil is in the details. That's why it's important to really consider them.

The definitions thing bothers me a bit. If I understood correctly what you said in response to Mr. Van Popta's questions, you're going to send us your proposed definitions by the end of tomorrow.

Do I have that right? Did I understand correctly?

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

Absolutely, I can do that.

[The Vice-Chair (Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin), Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

All right.

Mrs. Brière asked you whether it was appropriate to replace “health care professionals” with “persons who provide health services” in the bill, to give the provision broader application. That made me wonder just how broad it could get. For instance, is a massage therapist a health worker? Do we want to protect massage therapists? Obviously, I'm not opposed to the idea, but we can't forget that this is about adding an aggravating circumstance to the Criminal Code based on the person's occupation. We have to think about that.

That brings me to a question about a little word on the third line of proposed section 269.02, which stipulates that “a court... shall consider as an aggravating circumstance…”. In some cases, it's clear, to be sure. For example, a situation where a doctor is attacked because they are providing care to someone else leaves no room for doubt. It's an aggravating circumstance, and no one will challenge that. However, some situations are trickier because they fall in a grey area. Let's say a patient in the throes of pain utters threats against the doctor who is treating them, saying they're going to cut the doctor's hands off if the doctor keeps touching them or what have you.

In those types of situations, don't you think the court should have the discretion to make distinctions based on the context, and determine that, in this case, there was no actual threat? Does the obligation to consider the fact that the victim was a health care professional as an aggravating circumstance excessively limit the court's discretion? Wouldn't it be better if the provision said that the court “may” consider the fact an aggravating circumstance?

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

Mr. Chair, we've had interesting conversations about this. You always bring us food for thought.

Look, I'm not a legal expert and I'm not here to try to say that I am. I will leave it to the committee to decide that. What I'm telling you today is that we have people who don their uniform each and every day. I think common sense has to come into play here. We have people who don their uniform each and every day just to serve you, your family and my family. In the course of doing so, there are violent acts that are being taken against them. They've been hunted, they've been shot and they've been stabbed. Why does a paramedic have to wear a bulletproof vest at this point?

It's a good question, but do we run the risk of making this bill so watered down or so.... Again, I'm not combative. I'm just saying that I guess the question is, when does common sense come into play? Again, I'll leave it to the committee to make those deliberations.

[The Vice-Chair (Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin), Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Thank you, Mr. Doherty.

I have a minute and 45 seconds left.

Do I take it, then, that you would be comfortable with the idea of making such a change? You mentioned common sense. Do you think we should leave it to the courts to figure out what's what and to use common sense in applying the provision? If the court had some latitude, the judge could decide whether there was an aggravating circumstance or not. In my scenario, it's important to put things into context.

Would you say the common sense solution is to give the courts that discretion?

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

With all due respect, Mr. Chair, I'm seeing the common sense in terms of a charge or somebody who's reporting this. I would say that for a doctor attending a patient who is clearly under duress and says, “I'm going to cut your hands off”, I don't think that doctor is going to say, “I felt threatened by that.” I think there's common sense that would come into play and that doctor would probably be the first to say that, clearly, that patient was under duress and did not understand what they were saying or doing at that time.

[The Vice-Chair (Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin), Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Thank you, Mr. Doherty.

We now go to Mr. Garrison for six minutes.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to join others on the committee in thanking Mr. Doherty for bringing this bill forward and drawing attention to what's become a serious problem in our society, and that is the attacks on health care providers and first responders.

I want to go back to something you touched on briefly in your introduction, and that's the question of why we are seeing this increase, this spike in violence. Some have pointed to the effects of the pandemic and some members of the public disagreeing with public health decisions. Others have talked about things like the opioid crisis, with those under the influence of drugs being much more likely to be violent in their response to those attempting to help them. If we think a little bit more about causes, we may be able to think of other ways in which we could help find preventative measures to stop these kinds of attacks.

I wonder whether you could say a little bit more, Mr. Doherty, about why you think this is occurring.

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

Thank you, Mr. Garrison. It's good to see you.

I wish I knew. I wish I had a crystal ball. I wish I had the answers.

My daughter is a psychiatric nurse—and I'm going to get emotional doing this. You guys all know me to be a big baby. She was involved in a bad car accident two days ago. She's a mobile care nurse, and so she goes to where her patients are. This patient was in a tent city on the side of a highway. Once she finished administering treatment, she had to cross the highway to get back to her office. She was broadsided by a semi-truck.

I was never concerned or worried about my daughter going to and from work. I was concerned about my daughter at work when she told me she was going to become a psychiatric nurse. I was concerned when she would show up...and she's just a tiny person. She definitely didn't get my genetics. She is good looking though. That is the very real thing that we live with now each and every day, and not just our family but every family.

He knows. He has the kleenex box. Thanks.

But that's the reality of the families who have loved ones who are first responders or nurses or health care providers.

Mr. Garrison, to answer your question, I don't know what has caused the rising rates of violence in society as a whole. I have so much colourful language that I'd like to use. We've just gone bonkers. It used to be you would see somebody with a uniform and you thanked them for their service. How do these...? I don't even know. I'm asking our committee.

Why would anybody want to do that? These are honourable professions, but why would you want to put yourself in the line of fire, so to speak, each and every day? But they do. They sign up so they can help and heal and make sure our communities are safe and secure. Instead they worry about their life each and every day. They worry about whether they will be able to come home safe and sound or at all.

I wish we didn't need Bill C-321 or Bill C-3 or Bill C-345, but the reality is we do. The reality is we need to send a strong message to society that we value the work these individuals and the nurses and the doctors and the people who are on the front lines put in each and every day. Violence is never okay.

I probably ate all your time. I'm sorry.

[The Vice-Chair (Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin), Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

You still have 30 seconds, Mr. Garrison.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you for bringing your personal experiences to bear.

I think what you're highlighting here highlights another problem we have in health professions and first responders, and that's retention of people in these professions, people who have been trained, who have experience, who are central to providing public safety and public health, who are quite often leaving their profession because of this problem with violence. I think one of the things you've done by introducing the bill is to help bring public attention to this. I think that public attention is going to be an important part of helping to solve this problem.

I know I'm just about out of time. I'll end on that note here.

Thank you, Mr. Doherty.

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

I appreciate it, Mr. Garrison.

[The Vice-Chair (Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin), Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Thank you, Mr. Garrison.

Go ahead, Mr. Caputo. You have five minutes.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also want to thank Mr. Doherty for being such an advocate in this area. I think we've all come to appreciate his strong work when it comes to health, mental health and his ardent advocacy for our first responders.

I want to pick up on a theme Mr. Doherty himself put out there a few minutes ago. That was actually a question I was going to ask.

He said, “When did it become okay to assault a nurse?” I was wondering the same thing. One thing I've noticed is this: It used to be, for instance, that if somebody assaulted a police officer, it was considered a horrible offence and jail time was presumed. It wasn't about whether you went to jail; it was how long for—often up to six months for a simple assault on a police officer. What I've noticed, and I'll ask for Mr. Doherty's opinion on this.... I'm thinking back to one case where a police officer was literally kicked in the face. You could see the boot print on his face. The result was a conditional discharge, which meant the person had no criminal record. That's where I think we've seen things go. We've seen it go that far when it comes to police, but also to other people in uniform.

Can you comment on the disrespect for the uniform itself?

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

I wish our colleagues around the room could sit in the meetings I have with first responders, paramedics, ambulance, police, fire or nurses. It's very heartbreaking. I get emotional with this, because I feel the weight of the world. We're carrying their hopes that we will do something.

To your point, Mr. Caputo, how many of these incidents go unreported, because they know nothing will happen? Their supervisors will tell them, “Don't bother. It's not worth the paperwork, because nothing's going to happen.” A paramedic was assaulted in the back of an ambulance. She reported it. That person was taken to the police station and was out within hours and back in that paramedic's ambulance the very next day to traumatize this person. I simply can't imagine going to work.

Think of us and the job we do. If we put on our suits, clothes and shoes each and every day knowing we were going to face violence.... We're seeing some of that, but can you imagine, when all you want to do is heal somebody and make our communities safe? It's shocking. It speaks to how we have fallen as a society and, to your point, how we have this revolving door. People can commit some of the most heinous crimes and, within hours or days, be back out on the street doing the same thing.

It's bad.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Doherty.

I know we're getting close to the 4:30 cut-off time.

My proposal, Mr. Chair, is this: If Mr. Doherty is amenable, I could ask him another brief question. I'm also happy to end now so we can get the other panel on. Perhaps, if the committee's okay, he could still be present in the event somebody else has a question for him. He could be available ad hoc.

[The Vice-Chair (Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin), Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Thank you, Mr. Caputo. That's a good idea.

That brings us to the last round. Go ahead, Mr. Maloney. You have five minutes.