Madam Speaker, Bill C-207, introduced by the member for Wanuskewin, says much about health and some of the realities facing health care practitioners.
At first blush, one might think that this is a matter for the Minister of Health, but there is much more to the bill than that.
The bill also refers to the justice field and must also take into consideration the context of federal-provincial relations. In the many debates on this topic, it is often forgotten that the federal government, the provinces and the territories have a long tradition of working very closing together when it comes to the health care sector.
For example, there is the social union agreement signed at least one year ago by the federal government, nine provinces and three territories. This agreement is one of the very important results of this co-operation. And, as it says in the preamble to the framework agreement:
The following agreement is based upon a mutual respect between orders of government and a willingness to work more closely together to meet the needs of Canadians.
It is critical for the federal government to acknowledge that the regulation of health care professions and the development of employment standards for health care professions are areas of provincial and territorial jurisdiction. Why is this important as far as Bill C-207 is concerned? This bill deals with education and employment standards in health care. By law and according to the federal-provincial-territorial framework, these are areas of provincial and territorial responsibility. It therefore follows that to attempt to trump provincial and territorial jurisdiction through the creative use of the criminal code runs against all legal and policy protocols in health.
The purpose of Bill C-207 is to amend the criminal code in order to provide better protection to health care practitioners against any reprisals resulting from their decision not to perform certain medical procedures for religious or ethical reasons.
The bill proposes that the following three situations be considered offences: an employer who refuses to employ a health care practitioner and dismisses him for religious or ethical reasons; a health care educator who refuses to admit such a person to courses in a field of health care; and an officer of a professional association who takes similar action.
I would like to point out that Health Canada does not have a mandate to intervene in any case that is exclusively provincial or territorial. Health professionals are subject to private provincial or territorial legislation which has been passed to enable them to self-regulate the delivery of their professional services.
Moreover, the majority of these professionals are required to adhere to a code of ethics adapted to their profession. Such matters do not fall under Health Canada's jurisdiction, or that of the federal government.
The objective of the Canada Health Act is not to direct or control professionals, their employers or those training them, but to ensure that the Canadian public has reasonable access to insured and medically required services.
In addition to the provincial laws, each administration is protected by provincial and territorial human rights legislation, which not only constitutes a dissuasive element with respect to discrimination or reprisals, but also represents a suitable way of handling the type of violation we are talking about.
A further consideration that is important when reviewing Bill C-207 is the appropriate application of the criminal code. The criminal code is the ultimate statement of our fundamental values expressed as prohibitions.
In general, therefore, it ought to be used as a last resort, not the first one, when legal sanctions affecting the health field are involved. There are other legislative vehicles at both levels of jurisdiction that are appropriate for lesser offences.
Even when there is clearly a serious offence involved, the federal government has tended to use the criminal law power expressed in health legislation in preference to the criminal code for health matters.
Even if the contents of Bill C-207 were to fall within federal jurisdiction, which they do not, the criminal code would not be a suitable legal vehicle for regulating the performance or not of work related tasks on a day to day basis.
To conclude, I would strongly encourage all those with an interest in the issues raised by Bill C-207 to make a serious study of these issues in relation to compliance with the established jurisdictions over these matters. It will then be seen that the criminal code is not suitable to the issues raised, in particular the ones raised by Bill C-207.
A debate is also required on the ethics of health care delivery, which might yield some pertinent legal elements. Such a debate, however, would also have to take into consideration and respect areas of provincial jurisdiction, provincial legislation, and federal-provincial agreements in this area.
In closing, while the hon. member's bill does indeed deal with an important and sensitive matter, it remains an issue that falls outside the jurisdiction of Health Canada and the federal government.