Evidence of meeting #35 for Justice and Human Rights in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was nurse.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Thank you, Ms. Begum.
Mr. Lawton, you had that point of order.
I would really appreciate it if we can get back to Mr. Brock. He moved UC. It was not granted, and I would like for him to get back to his motion.
Go ahead, very briefly, Mr. Lawton.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Mine's a genuine point of order.
It was just that Ms. Begum was debating the merits of the motion. It sounds like, given her insistence on the importance of what Mr. Brock is saying, she'll be supporting the motion, so I look forward to that.
Liberal
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
For the benefit of our colleague Monsieur Fortin, this is the exchange. I'm doing it slowly.
I wrote, “Here's my proposal. We move expeditiously today and clause-by-clause in the first 30 minutes of Monday's meeting. Then move immediately to S-233, with Todd Doherty taking one round of questions, and we move immediately to clause-by-clause. All of this s completed within two hours. We cancel Wednesday's meeting.”
Ms. Lattanzio's response was, “Let's see how today goes, and we'll talk after.”
I responded, “Will your team agree to wrap up by six?”
The parliamentary secretary responded, “Viviane has amendments to present, so we cannot be done by six.”
My response was, “It's her bill. Why wasn't it included to begin with and how is she presenting as a witness?”
Ms. Lattanzio's response was, “She can move amendments to her bill. Your colleague Luc did the same thing a few weeks ago.” That was Wednesday.
On Thursday at 2:44, literally within minutes of every justice committee member receiving the notice of motion for today's date, with no reference at all to Todd Doherty's Bill S-233, I responded, “I guess the utility of a discussion is moot, given the notice of meeting for Monday.”
The same day, I got a response from Ms. Lattanzio saying, “Discussion is always possible. We are just following what I've told you in the past, as we did with the other two PMBs—two meetings each, one with proponent of bill plus officials, the second meeting with witnesses plus CxC.” That's clause-by-clause.
My response last Thursday was—
Liberal
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
It was, “With one meeting remaining, discussions are moot.”
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
That concludes. Thank you for filling in the blanks, Ms. Lattanzio.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Thank you. I'm going back to my motion.
It underlines and reinforces how we as parliamentarians can walk and chew gum at the same time. There was every single ability for us to conduct ourselves in a fashion to move quickly last Wednesday and today. We're talking about only a handful of amendments. We could have expeditiously moved with Todd Doherty's presentation. We probably wouldn't even need one full hour. We probably could have gotten by with one round and then moved to clause-by-clause.
I appreciate Ms. Begum's intervention highlighting not only the importance of Todd Doherty's bill but certainly the importance of Ms. Lapointe's bill.
The fact of the matter is that, without any agreement, without any understanding and without a telegraph of a willingness by the government to accommodate Bill S-233, they would rather punt that particular bill into the fall session. We'll have to deal with this in the fall session. This was moved very quickly, as I said at the outset, at the Senate in the fall. It was moved very quickly and unanimously at second reading in the House. There is absolutely no rational explanation offered by the government why this—
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
I understand. If I may, can I ask you to bring it to the actual substance of the motion that you have moved, please?
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
I intend on doing that, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
That's where we find ourselves—at a bit of a loggerhead, I might say.
I talked about the position of the CNA. I talked about the position of the CMA. I referenced the case in Halifax. I circled back to my own riding. I circled back to my wife's commentary and what she was subjected to. I'm now returning to some other publications that I was able to research.
This one is entitled “Workplace Violence Against Nurses in Canada: A Legal Analysis”. It talks about how this is happening not just in Canada and not just in North America but around the world. It says:
Workplace violence against nurses is a significant global occupational health problem widely acknowledged in the academic and policy literature. Nurses experience intimidation, threats, and violence far too often in the course of their employment. A recent survey by four international health organizations found that violence against health care workers has been occurring at a higher frequency since the COVID-19 pandemic began in 2020, and that it happens all over the world
Workplace violence is a major concern for nurses in Canada and has received increasing attention from Canadian nursing organizations and government stakeholders.
That would be the British Columbia Nurses' Union; the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions; the CNA, the Canadian Nurses Association; the Government of Canada in 2021; and the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, also known as RNAO.
The full extent of workplace violence against nurses in Canada is difficult to determine due to pervasive underreporting, the lack of a consistent definition of workplace violence across studies and policy documents, and a lack of recent comprehensive Canadian data on this issue. Although now over a decade and a half old, the most recent comprehensive examination of the Canadian nursing workforce took place in 2005; this data revealed that [almost 30%] of nurses providing direct care reported having been physically assaulted at work within the past year, and 44% reported emotional abuse from a patient.
That's according to StatsCan data from 2006.
A national survey of nurses...(2017) found that 61% of nurses had experienced workplace violence over the previous month, and two-thirds of those had considered leaving their jobs due to the experience.
We already have a shortage of health care workers. Let not Canada be forever known as the outlier who fails to pass the appropriate legislation and then sees even a further drain of our health care professionals because the Government of Canada is not doing enough.
A 2019 survey by the CFNU found that 93% of nurses reported physical assault as the most frequent type of psychologically traumatic event exposure, with 46% of surveyed nurses reporting exposure to physical assault 11 or more times.
Workplace violence against nurses can have serious consequences, both for individual nurses and for the health care system. The experience of workplace violence may result in physical injury and psychological consequences for an individual nurse and may result in short- or long-term absences from work. The results of a 2019...national survey of nurses on occupational stress found that workplace violence can have serious impacts on nurses' mental health, including post-traumatic stress, major depressive incidence, generalized anxiety, panic, and alcohol use disorders with the potential for suicidal ideation and attempt.
They compiled a list of cases. Now, mind you, this was before the passage of Bill C-3, which provided assault against a health care worker to be an aggravating factor. They compiled the 12 most leading cases at that time. They do not provide the area of jurisdiction. They don't provide the court of jurisdiction, and they certainly do not provide the province, but I wish to read out a few of these cases.
This is Regina v. Gelenzoski from 2006:
[That offender] pled guilty to assault. [He] was seeking medical attention following an assault on a police officer. [He] was restrained and spit on the nurse caring for him after telling health care staff that they were positive for Hepatitis C.
This was the impact on that particular nurse:
The nurse reported feeling traumatized and was in fear of having contracted Hepatitis C for a year before being confirmed negative for the virus. The nurse reported that the incident interfered with their ability to do their work as a nurse.
This was the sentencing decision:
The offender's last conviction was in 1990 and he was remorseful. The offender was sentenced to 90 days in prison for the assault on the nurse.
Discussion of the victim being a nurse on sentencing was:
No [discussion], but the judge did consider the pervasiveness of violence against health care workers by placing emphasis on the sentencing objective of denunciation. "Police and health care workers are on the front lines. The message that the law will not tolerate the type of behaviour that [the offender] has demonstrated must be sent....”
I'll move on to 2009 and the decision of Regina v. Knight:
Knight was found guilty after trial for publishing defamatory libel. [He] sent a letter to the medical ethics committee falsely accusing a nurse [who happened to be his ex-spouse] of allegations including drug trafficking.
This was the impact on that nurse:
The nurse reported being “angered” by the false allegations.
Under sentencing:
Knight had a long criminal record and it was not his first offence against this victim. He was sentenced to [a 15-month house arrest sentence] to be served in the community. The court of appeal changed the sentence to be served in jail, finding Knight posed a danger to the community.
This is the discussion of the victim on sentencing:
No [discussion]. The judge remarked, “the innocent victim is entitled to pursue her life and her profession in peace, free from false accusations that require her to defend herself and her reputation.”
This is a little more recent, from 2016, Regina v. Stard:
Stard pled guilty to assault causing bodily harm. [He] was seeking health care and became uncooperative. When the triage nurse turned away, Stard repeatedly punched the nurse without warning or provocation.
The nurse suffered a concussion, torn retina, and bleeding in the eye socket. The nurse suffered PTSD and experienced difficulty with memory, balance, and focusing. The victim's personality had become unpredictable and often angry. The nurse was unable to return to work.
This was the sentencing decision:
Stard had no criminal record and was apologetic. [He] received a conditional discharge, meaning he did not have a conviction entered against him or serve time in prison.
In my view as a former prosecutor, it is deplorable that a judge, under that extreme level of violence, would deem that to be in the public interest.
Discussion of victim being a nurse on sentencing:
The victim's status as a nurse was not found to be...aggravating.... The judge commented, “people that provide service to the public, and this would include taxi drivers, bus drivers, nurses, doctors, are in a position where they should be free from attack while doing their job.”
In 2018, there was the decision of Regina v. Delorey:
Delorey was found guilty after trial for assault with a weapon. [He] threw a cup of urine at a nurse.
I often hear about urine and feces throwing on a fairly regular and consistent basis every time that I take a stakeholder meeting with that profession.
In terms of impact on the nurse, it states, “No information was provided regarding impacts on the nurse.” It also states:
Delorey was already serving a life sentence in a federal prison at the time of the assault and was sentenced to [a further] 12 months in prison to be served concurrently with his ongoing sentence.
Next is Regina v. Martin, which was a “Court of appeal decision in 2018, varying the trial decision of 2017.” It states:
Martin pled guilty to assault. [She] was a certified involuntary patient at a psychiatric hospital and was assaulting a nurse student when a nurse intervened. [She] grabbed the nurse by the face and hair, shaking and scratching the nurse's face.
Again, there was no victim impact statement done by the nurse.
In terms of sentencing, it says:
Martin struggled with mental illness and had a significant criminal record. She was sentenced to 45 days in jail for the assault on the nurse. The Court of Appeal varied the assault sentence to run consecutively to Martin's robbery sentence.
Was there any discussion about the victim being a nurse? It says:
The victim's status as a nurse was not considered an aggravating factor. The trial judge made the general remark—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Excuse me, Mr. Brock. I'm going to have to pause. I see that bells are ringing in the House. I seek unanimous consent to continue this meeting.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
In that case, I will say thank you very much to our witnesses for their testimony today and participation in Bill C-238.
We really appreciate the amazing work you're doing and we hope to continue our conversation soon.
The meeting is adjourned.
