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?