Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That Bill C-3 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended in clause 2, on page 1, by replacing line 11 with the following:

“423.2 (1) Every person commits an offence who, in any place, en-”.

Senator White, would you take a question?

Absolutely.

Senator White, I was the senator who asked the minister the question about intimidation at the homes of health care workers. This is a concern that I share, but it was your argument today — and I believe the argument of other senators at committee — that we didn’t need much of this legislation because it was already encompassed in existing Criminal Code provisions.

Drawing on your own experience as a former police chief and police officer, do we actually need your amendment or are health care workers sufficiently protected under the Criminal Code as we have it now?

Thank you for the question, senator. My perspective is that I don’t necessarily believe the legislation is going to improve upon the tools policing needs, but if we are going to go there and say the role of health care workers and public health officials is so important that we will take care of them in a better and different way, then we ought to protect them from the intimidation we have seen them receive at their homes.

At the end of the day, I’m not sure it will help, but if we think it will help, then we should actually go as far as we can.

Would the senator take another question?

Always.

This comes to the crux of how I’m going to vote on this amendment. I come from Alberta, where health workers have absolutely been intimidated in their homes, where they have received death threats, and where there have been disturbing and terrifying attacks, not just on health care workers but on our social fabric. At the same time, many of my legal and policing colleagues are telling me that we don’t need this change at all.

If it’s just a question of belts and braces, what is the impetus that we would need to vote for this amendment if you don’t think it is going to do anything?

Thank you, senator. In fact, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has in the past raised the overlapping of criminal offences — that we need to stop building on the existing Criminal Code and start building a new Criminal Code.

I’m always back to the same thing: If we believe that this will help, if you would vote for this legislation, then the amendment will make it better.

I will vote for this legislation, as much as I’m concerned about the limited amount of time, if any, that we actually gave to make it better legislation, like some immediate responses. I think if we are concerned enough to say the legislation is important, then the amendment will make it a better piece of legislation and protect health care workers. It will send a message to those people — which I think the minister is trying to do — not to show up at someone’s house, that you will be arrested, that you will be dragged off, because it is that serious.

I’m always back to the same point. I feel that this discussion of whether it’s necessary should have taken place in committee, but it didn’t. Instead, it’s taking place here in third reading.

Senator White, there are a couple of other senators who wish to ask questions. Your time is running out. Would you take a couple of more questions?

I will.

I would ask the senators who are asking questions to keep them very brief. We are running out of time.

Thank you, Senator White, for your contribution and your amendment.

I agree with you and your concerns about process. I don’t want to talk about that anymore. We have spent more time talking about that so far today than we have about the bill that we’re bemoaning we don’t have enough time to talk about.

Coming back to the bill and your particular amendment, as you have indicated, there is plenty of opinion out there that while these particular provisions to change the Criminal Code may bring light, attention and messages of support, security and concern to health care workers, the actual enforcement actions could have been taken under the existing Criminal Code. Then you bring forward this amendment. I understand your rationale, that if it improves it, why not?

Provinces do most of the enforcement in the jurisdiction area we are talking about. They have access to tools as well. In particular, I’m thinking of the time in Ontario when I, as health minister, and Marion Boyd, as attorney general, brought forward an attorney general’s injunction in response to the bombing of the Morgentaler Clinic and the threatening of doctors in their homes.

What research have you done to see what other provinces have done in terms of enforcement and the necessity, or not, of this? Given all the discussion we have had about perhaps finding a way to make the point on process — but this isn’t the bill for brinksmanship, which I know we are prone to say often — why would you suggest this should be the bill we send back to the House of Commons at this point in time and potentially further delay the impact of this bill, just to get support to Canadians who are in need? Thank you.

Tomorrow is not Christmas. The reality is that amending this bill does not mean it does not get dealt with. As we know, everything can be done virtually. It could be done later on today or on Monday or Tuesday. There is no immediacy for us to even pass a bill, other than the fact that we have been told there is immediacy. In fact, last week the minister said that they welcomed amendments from the House and the Senate if deemed necessary for this legislation to pass. I’m arguing that if this legislation is necessary, this amendment is important.

On the first point, I haven’t looked at what other provinces have done, but if it’s in relation to the Criminal Code, unlike other jurisdictions such as Australia, we only have one; the federal one. So if we’re going to have Criminal Code offences, we have one opportunity and location and that’s here. Thank you.

Debate on the amendment. Senator Tannas.

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak briefly to Senator White’s proposed amendment to Bill C-3, which the government opposes.

I would note for the record that the government carefully considered this issue during the Senate’s pre-study as it sought to proactively respond to the Senate’s concerns. But on policy grounds, the government cannot support this proposal for the following reasons.

I certainly agree with Senator White that we must do everything we can to protect health care workers. They have been nothing short of heroic this entire pandemic and have earned the respect and gratitude of most Canadians. Unfortunately, they have also been subjected to intimidation and abuse.

This problem has been around for a long time, but it was exacerbated and exposed by the pandemic. That is why, during the most recent election campaign, the government committed to making this bill a priority. Seeing as we are debating the bill today, the government clearly followed through.

Colleagues, it is important to note that health care workers are strongly supportive of this bill. The Canadian Nurses Association told the Social Affairs Committee that Bill C-3 “will help protect health care workers from threats and harassment” and “assist in retaining nurses in the workforce . . . .”

In a written submission, the Canadian Medical Association said it:

 . . . applauds the federal government for taking rapid action and introducing new legislation to protect health workers from threats, intimidation, and violence . . . and respectfully urges Parliament to support its enactment.

Clearly, the people this bill is meant to protect think it hits the mark.

As we have heard, Bill C-3 would create two new criminal offences. The first, intimidation, covers any attempt to provoke a state of fear in order to impede delivery or receipt of medical care. This offence would not be place specific nor time-specific. If you approach a health care worker and say, “Stop vaccinating people, or I’m going to beat you up,” you are guilty of this offence whether you do it at a hospital, private residence or grocery store, wherever. Importantly, it also applies to intimidation that occurs online.

The second offence covers interference with lawful access to a place where health services are being provided by a health professional. This doesn’t have to be just a hospital or a clinic. If health care is being provided in a private home, then it could apply there. If a vaccination clinic is being run out of a school gym, it could apply there. The key element is the provision of health services, not the place itself.

May I also point out that the law also provides considerable protection for private residences, often to a greater degree than public spaces. So depending on the activity in question, a person engaging in intimidating activity at, say, a doctor’s house could be guilty of provincial or territorial property crimes or other offences like trespassing or mischief, again depending on the circumstances.

For these reasons, while I recognize — indeed applaud — Senator White’s intent, I do not believe that the proposed amendment is necessary to achieve his aim.

Honourable senators, that is the government’s policy position, which I wanted to put on the record for your consideration.

However, I would also like to take a moment to contribute my perspective to the process, indeed, to the collaboration which has underpinned the parliamentary process that has unfolded with respect to Bill C-3.

Bill C-3 began as a government bill, but at this stage it is very much a product of all parties in the other place. In particular, I would like to recognize the contribution of Member of Parliament Tom Kmiec, whose Bill C-211 has largely been incorporated into this legislation. These new provisions deal with bereavement leave for parents after the death of a child, which is a personal matter for Mr. Kmiec whose infant daughter died tragically a few years ago. I’m glad we have been able to make this happen.

Senators, I too would have liked the Senate to have more time with this piece of legislation. I understand your concerns. I share them. Yet I do believe that Bill C-3 is also very much a product of the Senate because our pre-study had a very direct impact on the amendments that were carefully negotiated and adopted in the other place. That, colleagues, is one of the precise objectives of a Senate pre-study: to make sure that Senate concerns which surface early can be communicated, in this case through my office and through the good work of the sponsor to the minister and other colleagues in the government who listened carefully and attentively to our concerns and worked hard to answer and address those — and this in a minority Parliament where it was not simply a question of the government saying yes or no to us, but having to negotiate this with other members of other parties in the House. Negotiations, as I know all too well in this place, are never cost-free and don’t always happen overnight.

I want to thank the chairs of the two committees, Senator Jaffer and Senator Omidvar. Thanks to your leadership in facilitating the work, the government and I got the tools we needed to better understand the Senate’s concerns and to try to respond to them, in collaboration with all parties in the other place.

I also thank Senator Yussuff for everything he did on behalf of health care workers and all workers during our study of Bill C-3 and, really, for many years prior to that. He did a great job engaging with senators, listening and communicating senators’ concerns. The substantial amendments that have been made to the bill are a testament to his efforts.

Honourable senators, one of the government’s publicly stated priority objectives to begin the Forty-fourth Parliament has been to ensure Bill C-3 could receive Royal Assent before the Christmas break so that health care workers could feel more secure as we continue to weather this pandemic and that a modern, paid sick leave policy finally be put into place in federal legislation.

As we stare into another wave of COVID-19, with the Omicron variant spreading across this country, that objective has become more important than ever.

To achieve this goal, the government focused on consensus building and active listening, reaching out across the aisle in the other place and across the way into this chamber. As a result, even though we have received Bill C-3 in this chamber much too late in the calendar, the Senate’s fingerprints are all over it.

I know there is disagreement around the time constraints we face. I know it. Believe me, I hear you. But, honourable senators, how often is it that a bill proposing significant social policy, as well as changes to the Criminal Code, is adopted with the support of all parties, indeed, all MPs in the other place? Not only that, but how often does such a bill come to us with changes adopted unanimously by them that are so clearly reflective of the Senate’s pre-study work and ongoing interventions and communications behind the scenes with the government to transmit senators’ preoccupations?

As Government Representative, I want you to know that I’m very proud to bring this bill to this place. For all of these reasons in my view, Bill C-3, as adopted by the other place and now before us, is very much worthy of our support. Ultimately, I’m sure that we all share the desire to protect health care workers as much as we can. This bill represents significant progress in this regard. Doctors and nurses themselves support the legislation as it is, and they have asked us to pass it as it is. I encourage honourable senators to take their advice.

For that reason, this government cannot support the amendment put forward by Honourable Senator White, and I would invite you to reject the amendment as well. Thank you, colleagues.

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak on the amendment to Bill C-3.

Bill C-3 really is two bills. At any other time, we would be talking about an omnibus bill where we have two different subjects thrown into the same bill. In fact, for many years under the previous government, we were always complaining about omnibus bills where we get bills with a number of different issues in it. One of them is under the Labour Code to allow benefits for workers. One is under the Criminal Code. I completely support the changes to the Labour Code.

The difficulty I have is with changes to the Criminal Code. There are already provisions under the Criminal Code for the offences listed in Bill C-3, and I fail to understand how these changes to the Criminal Code will make it safer for health care workers. Instead of new offences, police and the Crown should be utilizing already existing legislation.

I ask you: Do you think that the courts would actually sentence someone to 10 years in jail for this new crime? I think not. That being said, I support Senator White’s amendment, because it will at least actually protect health care workers no matter where they are.

One of my concerns is that protest is one of the hallmarks of our democracy for unions and for different groups that want to put forward their views. Any time we limit this, we lessen our freedoms. I totally condemn the actions of a minority of Canadians who try to harass and intimidate health care workers. These people are cowards, and they should be sanctioned. But COVID should not be used to lessen the rights of people.

Perhaps as important is the manner in which the bill was received. It really doesn’t matter which government is in power — Liberal or Conservative. Three times a year we get bills at the last minute with no time to study them: Christmas, Easter and summer breaks. Over the 16 years I have been in this place, we kept hoping the role of the Senate would be recognized by the other place and that we would get bills in a timely manner so we could actually do our job. Christmas, Easter, summer — it just keeps on.

Is this democracy? Is this how the Government of Canada is supposed to govern? We talk about independence and how proud we are that we are not whipped — that we can do our job without a sword hanging over our head. Over the break, I hope that all senators will consider this problem. I look forward to hearing from Senator Tannas on how we can go about this.

I hope we can come back with actions to stop this undemocratic process on the part of the government. I wish all colleagues and staff a happy holiday season. Be safe. Thank you.

Do you have a question, Senator Kutcher?

Yes I do. Would Senator Campbell take a question?

Absolutely.

Thank you, Senator Campbell, for that intervention. Health care workers have been overwhelmed and overburdened during this pandemic, as well as subject to harassment in their professional and personal locations. They are often called heroes, but that is cold comfort. I think they look for action.

I want to ask if you could put yourself in the place of a health care worker doing the best you can, burning out and slogging through this pandemic. Would you feel better and more thankful if the government said that people couldn’t picket your home, threaten your kids at home and come to your house and yell and scream at you?

Thank you for the question. Quite frankly, I don’t think I could be a health care worker. I don’t think I could do it.

That being said, the government has all the tools and should be telling these health care workers that we have the tools and we need to put them in place. We need to have the police and the Crown actually doing something under all of the different sections we have in the Criminal Code. I think it’s bad messaging on the part of the government that they haven’t been pushing to have charges laid every single time this happens — every single time. Because it’s happening in public. It’s not like this is being hidden. It is ongoing. From the point of view of a health care worker, I would be totally demoralized. I don’t know how they do it. I really don’t.

Senator Kutcher, do you have more questions?

No, Your Honour. I just want to acknowledge Senator Campbell’s concerns and his willingness to share them.

Honourable senators, I want to thank Senator White for introducing this important amendment, which provides greater certainty in preventing the harassment that intends to — as the bill describes — provoke a state of fear in health care professionals and, by extension, their families. These people are working so hard and sacrificing so much on our behalf during this never-ending pandemic.

We had an example of this appalling conduct last week in Prince Edward Island when the private residence of our Chief Public Health Officer was the target of demonstrators. Dr. Heather Morrison is a P.E.I. native and Rhodes Scholar, and we are fortunate to have her professional expertise when dealing with COVID. Because of the work she has led and the efforts of many other Islanders, Prince Edward Island is the only province yet to suffer a single death due to COVID-19.

Dr. Morrison and her staff have taken advantage of our geography to test everyone entering P.E.I. — with a follow-up test four days later. To be approved for entry, you have to apply in advance for a PEI Pass showing your vaccination status. As might be expected, many of these measures have greatly annoyed the usual suspects. The anti-vaxxers are upset that no one is listening to them when in fact the reverse is true. Our medical professionals have heard them loud and clear and have rejected their advice based on sound medical and scientific judgment.

To have protestors show up at the private family home of Dr. Morrison is beyond the pale, and that is why I strongly support the amendment to Bill C-3 proposed by Senator White. It would impose a serious penalty on anyone trying this stunt again.

Senators, I want to speak briefly about the fine line between denying legislation and rushing to pass legislation. By now, even the newest of senators have experienced the desire of the government to have government bills passed quickly. Although it is understandable for them to want their bills passed, it does not remove the Senate’s right and responsibility to examine these bills and check them for mistakes, unintended impacts or the need for amendments — like Senator White’s amendment that will improve this bill.

Over the years, senators have been urged, pleaded with and otherwise encouraged by members of successive governments to pass legislation as quickly as possible. Again, this is understandable. However, I believe we should take the time we need both as a matter of principle and because, as we discovered in 2007, of what can happen when we fail to do so.

The 2019 report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer about changes to disabled veterans’ benefits under the New Veterans Charter serves as a good lesson on how rushing legislation can have a long-term negative impact. The Government of Canada, with the full cooperation of all the opposition parties in the House of Commons, decided to pass the New Veterans Charter legislation as quickly as possible. In that respect, they succeeded. From the time it was first spoken to in the House of Commons to the bill receiving Royal Assent, three days passed. The amount of actual debate in chamber and committee was less than five hours. Only two minutes of that five-hour debate was in the House of Commons. The balance was in the Senate.

To be clear, everyone acted with the best of intentions, but we all know what road is paved with good intentions. We did a lot of paving in the Senate leading to the passing of the New Veterans Charter. Put simply, colleagues, the Senate failed in its duty. We did not study the legislation carefully. We did not correct the mistakes in the legislation. We were rushing to do our job. Sometimes — many times — it is precisely our job not to rush.

We can’t say we weren’t warned. At a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, where the Senate sent the bill — because we were in a rush, rather than sending it to the Veterans Affairs Committee or National Defence Committee, we sent it to the Finance Committee — Sean Bruyea, a retired Canadian Forces captain and long-time veteran advocate, testified before the committee. He stated:

We all know that the government wants to be seen as honouring veterans, but that does not necessarily mean that their veterans charter is free of errors. . . . We believe disabled veterans and the CF would rather have it right than have a flawed and unjust charter right now.

Unfortunately, we did not heed his advice.

The 2019 report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer indicates this failure of the Senate has cost disabled veterans and their families millions of dollars in lost benefits. Think of that, senators. We tried to assist veterans; we tried to assist their families. These people were injured serving Canada, disabled and in need of assistance, and we allowed a bill to go through that cost them millions of dollars. One of the significant changes in the New Veterans Charter was a replacement of the long-time monthly pension benefit with a lump sum. That change, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer indicated, cost veterans and their families. That is our fault. That is the Senate’s fault.

The House of Commons was unanimous in passing this bill. We heard discussion today where people said, “Oh, well, if it’s unanimous in the House of Commons, our hands are tied.” This is another example of where the House of Commons passed it in two minutes. As I said, we don’t want to question their motives. They thought they were doing something important and proper, but they missed the errors in the legislation. The Senate compounded the problem in our rush to do what we thought was the right thing. That’s why the Senate needs to take its time.

Honourable senators, over the years, there are lots of examples of ministers rushing the Senate. I’ll give you a minor example. In 2016, the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade had in Minister Freeland, then Minister of International Trade, to talk about ratifying the World Trade Organization’s Trade Facilitation Agreement that Canada had signed but not yet ratified. The minister stated how embarrassing it would be if Canada didn’t ratify it, because it would come into force when 110 World Trade Organization, or WTO, members ratified it. When the minister appeared, 96 countries had. The minister said it was important for Canada to be seen as an effective and energetic participant in the multilateral trade community and requested, “Let’s get it done.”

Colleagues, it bears noting that this bill, at that point, had been in the Senate for five weeks. It took 27 weeks for it to go through the House of Commons. I might add that it enjoyed the support of all the major parties in the House. The need for energetic participation was rather late coming.

At the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Committee, questions were asked: “Why the rush?” “Why such a tight deadline?” “If Canada ratifies after the 110, we’re still a member of the agreement. What’s the rush?”

“No,” the minister said. “We need to ratify right away because we anticipate 14 countries will ratify it in the next week.”

She was questioned about this. Her answer was “absolutely.” When other committee members expressed further doubt, she said, “Everyone has been acting on this.” In other words, colleagues, it was crunch time, and we had to act quickly. The committee set aside its concerns in light of the minister’s sense of urgency. The committee had one more meeting and reported back to the Senate on Thursday, November 24, and it was passed in the chamber two sitting days later on November 30. That’s a total of six weeks in the Senate, less than a quarter of the time it spent in the House.

When did the WTO finally get the 110 ratifications? They did so on February 22, 2017, three months to the day after the minister said she was absolutely sure it would only take a week.

The purpose of this little story isn’t to challenge the minister’s judgment or powers of prediction. She was merely doing what all ministers do, which is the utmost to get her legislation passed. Every minister wants their legislation passed. They’re convinced theirs is a good bill, perfect the way it is. Anyway, they believe we can fix the problem later after it’s passed. If our newest colleagues haven’t heard such arguments yet regarding regulations or adjustments promised but rarely delivered, I’m sure they will.

One example of how we did perform our duty is from December 2015 when Bill C-3, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2016, arrived in the Senate. Once again, the House of Commons acted with impressive speed. They did the first reading, second reading, Committee of the Whole and third reading in 17 minutes. Of course, such speed is possible when you don’t actually look at the bill. It was only when Bill C-3 came to the chamber that it was noted by Senator Day that the bill wasn’t all there. A schedule referred to in the bill was not included. Blaming administrative errors, the House of Commons forwarded the corrected version the next day. Needless to say, there was no mention in the other place that it was the Senate that spotted and corrected this error.

Colleagues, I keep hearing about the new Senate and how it is non-partisan, has merit-based appointments and is independent. But last night, the Senate acted like the old Senate with threats and pressure not to have any discussion or review of this legislation, “Let’s get it passed because it was unanimous in the House of Commons” and “Let’s go home and enjoy the holidays.” Senator Tannas and Senator White received the bulk of the pressure, but it was a group decision from the Canadian Senators Group to further a motion tabled in this chamber on at least two occasions, that we want at least five days of debate on every bill so we’re not rushed.

Colleagues, if the House of Commons realizes no bill will be passed without five days of debate, we know what will happen. We will get the bill five days earlier because they want it passed.

In conclusion, I would like to quote once again one of the founders of the Senate, Sir John A. Macdonald, when he said:

There would be no use of an Upper House, if it did not exercise, when it thought proper, the right of opposing or amending or postponing the legislation of the Lower House. It would be of no value whatever were it a mere chamber for registering the decrees of the Lower House.

Colleagues, if all we do is approve, then our approval means nothing. Let us remember that as we go forward. Thank you, honourable senators.

Would the honourable senator take a question?

Yes.

Thank you. As I listened to you, my spontaneous reaction was that, yes, Senator White could introduce a bill when we come back after the holidays to amend the Criminal Code so we can improve this bill and make it better, more perfect. That is true, that could be done.

I understand your frustration, Senator Downe, and I think we’re all frustrated. That said, here’s my question: Don’t you think it would be more appropriate to proceed, as Senator Tannas suggested, with a comprehensive re-examination of the relationship between the Senate and the House of Commons? That way, we could avoid taking this bill hostage to make it more perfect, as Senator White put it. In any case, Senator White clearly stated that he will vote in favour of the bill. That’s the price we have to pay. The solution I would opt for is to initiate a more formal dialogue with the House of Commons about our frustrations. Don’t you agree?

Just as a clarification, Senator Tannas didn’t indicate he wasn’t voting for the amendments. Senator Tannas wants to do what the rest of us want to do, which is to improve the legislation. The short answer is: Why would we put off improving it when we can do it now?

It’s not our problem that the House of Commons has adjourned. If the House of Commons had the proper respect for the Senate, they would have suspended until we dealt with the bills, even though they have adjourned. It’s easy, particularly in a hybrid session, to call the House of Commons back for one hour to deal with the amendment. If they were to accept our amendment, we would have improved the bill. If they were to reject it, we would have to consider that, as we always do, with the wisdom of the elected members.

For the House of Commons to say, “Oh well, Parliament is over. We’re gone. The Senate’s hands are tied,” is not correct at all. The Senate can amend anything we want, and in this case it is an improvement to the bill. If the House of Commons is serious about the importance of the bill, they can be recalled within an hour, as Senator Tannas said in his remarks. In a hybrid session, it’s even more cost-effective.

Will the senator take a question?

Yes.

Senator Downe, are you asking for five more minutes to answer a question?

Yes. I don’t want to delay the procedure, but yes, if people agree.

Is it agreed?

Thank you, Senator Downe. My question is an attempt to return us to the actual bill or the amendment to the bill that we’re referring to.

When the Government Representative in the Senate stands before this chamber and says that it is the view of the Government of Canada that the amendment is covered by the current language in Bill C-3, being mindful of our former colleague Senator Baker’s remarks of how the court takes our pronouncements in the chamber and committee seriously, would you not agree that the government position, as stated by the Government Representative, will be and should be considered, not only by courts but by senators, relating to this amendment?

Thank you for that. The problem, of course, is that we’ve heard various things from various governments over the years in various bills. We’ve heard, Senator Gold, as I outlined in my speech, various promises and commitments about legislation that has come forward from the House of Commons about what the purpose was.

Let me talk briefly about the veterans charter. We were assured that that New Veterans Charter would improve the benefits for veterans and their families. Not only did all the opposition parties in the government support it 100%, but many of the then-veterans groups supported it. The opposition came from individual veterans, many of whom claimed and were suspicious that it was a cost-saving measure, and we found out they were right. Veterans were denied benefits — people who lost limbs in the service of Canada overseas. Millions of dollars were lost, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer documented, because we asked him. The government said it wasn’t a cost saving; veterans said he checked it out, and sure enough it was.

Back to your point about the bill, what is said and what the interpretation may be is not up for discussion if Senator White’s amendment goes through. It brings greater certainty to an area I’m particularly concerned about, and that is the protest at the residence of the chief health official of Prince Edward Island that happened last Saturday. Dr. Morrison, her family and her children had protesters out in front of her house. Senator White’s amendment will fix that without a doubt, and that’s why I’m supporting it.

Senator Batters, do you have a question?

I have a very quick question to Senator Downe.

Yes.

Thank you. In light of what Senator Gold said about the remarks of the Government Representative on this particular matter having some weight, would you also agree that it’s important to note, then, that today the government leader said that he referred to the pre-study and that this matter was properly considered at the pre-study of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee? However, isn’t it important to note, then, that the pre-study consisted of the Minister of Justice and officials for one hour and that’s it? It was not an exhaustive week-long study or a full day-long study, or anything like that. Is that necessary to consider in that remark?

Thank you, Senator Batters. There are a couple of things. First, we got a very different bill from the House of Commons than our committee studied. Senator Tannas covered that in detail, so I won’t repeat it.

The second is, and I say this with the greatest respect for Senator Gold, whom I like very much personally, but he’s not a member of the cabinet. If he was a member of the cabinet, his words would carry more weight than they do as Government Representative in the Senate, and it is a division of authority and responsibility that has to be considered as well.

Honourable senators, I will enter debate on the amendment. I understand that people are expressing concerns about the process, and it’s not my intent to speak about the process. I’m going to speak to the amendment only, and I can assure honourable senators that I won’t be 15 minutes.

I would like to invite all honourable senators to take out a copy of Bill C-3. If you have it at hand, handy and close by, please use it because I’m going to read from it and it’s kind of boring, so if you have the text, it might be easier to follow. It’s technical.

Not many amendments to the Criminal Code are being proposed. There are only two substantial ones, and they are found at section 2 of the bill. The act is amending the Criminal Code by adding or creating the first infraction offence called intimidation. It’s to threaten, to bring people to fear.

The second offence created is obstruction or interference with access. This is preventing access. This is when you are picketing in front of the clinic and prevent people from walking in; it could be a clinic, a doctor’s office or anything where there are some health services provided.

We should not confuse both offences. They are two distinct offences.

Let’s go back to the first one, the one that Senator White proposed to amend. I will read to you the offence of intimidation.

Every person commits an offence who engages in any conduct with the intent to provoke a state of fear in . . .

— and then there is a list of people, essentially health professionals.

So the offence is to engage in any conduct with the intent to provoke fear. Senator Simons asked the following question:

And someone at their home? Because we’ve heard stories of health care workers being threatened online, protesters coming to houses, but also, more importantly, people posting their photographs and that kind of thing.

This is how Minister Lametti responded:

It definitely applies online, and it was specifically conceived to apply to online.

So the offence is any conduct such as the following: It could be picketing in front of your house; it could be sending you threatening letters; it could be calling you on your phone; it could be sending you emails; it could be online.

The amendment which is being proposed will make the section read as follows:

Every person commits an offence who, in any place, engages in any conduct with the intent to provoke a state of fear . . . .

So you will add an element to the offence which is being proposed. It has to be done in any place. Quite frankly, this amendment could be read as restricting the rather broad coverage which is intended by asking for a kind of material element. It should be done “in any place.” So online may no longer be considered to be covered.

I know I’m technical. I’m sorry that I’m boring when I say that, but in my previous life I spent 20 years just reading and trying to find out the meaning of words. I’m telling you we should carefully consider adding these words because I think they will restrict the intended offence that Parliament wants to create here.

I’m not speaking about the process. I am speaking about the amendment, period. I wish this amendment would have been debated at the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. We could have debated between ourselves, but it’s never too late. It’s coming now, so I want to engage in debate just to say that, and to say I do not oppose the intent of getting better protection for health care workers, but it doesn’t fit there. If it’s included there, it will end up having the risk of defence lawyers arguing before courts that one element of the actus reus, the material element of the offence, must include “in any place.”

That’s going to, I’m afraid, make things less workable than is being contemplated. Therefore, I will vote against the proposed amendment. Thank you.

Honourable senators, I will be brief. I agree with the proposition just put forward by Senator Dalphond. I think that the rationale that Senator White put forward to support this amendment was that, in its description, it applies to the second provision in the Criminal Code amendments in this bill — that being the one not barring access to legal health services. In fact, the act of intimidation, as Senator Dalphond just pointed out, is another provision or clause within the bill. That is the one that currently gives protection to people if it is at their home. If they happen to be providing medical health services out of a home office, then the other provision applies as well.

Not only is it perhaps redundant to what protections or provisions are already in the Criminal Code, it doesn’t apply to the same provision that Senator White describes in the fact situation. I think it would suffer from the same complaint and concern that we have about rushing through things in terms of the process that we undertake.

Much of this discussion today has been letting off a little bit of steam around our frustrations with the government’s lack of respect for the necessary process for the job to be done well. I think that’s all the Senate is asking. Everybody wants to get these benefits to Canadians as soon as possible, and everyone recognizes the urgency. Similar arguments could be made in other circumstances that senators have pointed out where this has happened before.

However, I think it would be wrong, from what many people have argued already, to hold this bill up as the particular case example where we’re going to draw the line in the sand. I look forward to participating with Senator Tannas and others in the chamber to find a strategic and tactical way forward in the future in discussing this matter with the government, but I will vote against the amendment that has been put forward, although I understand the point that is being made. Thank you very much.

Honourable senators, I’ll try to be brief and, in a sense, follow up on Senator Dalphond’s observations.

In some of the discussion in the Legal Committee, there were some who suggested that this legislation is somewhat performative and that it wasn’t absolutely critical. I support the legislation as much as anything and the message that it conveys. I accept the view that Senator White’s amendment is to try to strengthen the legislation, but I don’t think, to be fair, it would make much difference, even if Senator Dalphond were incorrect. I think he’s right about the concerns of accidentally narrowing the scope of an offence.

My point is slightly different. If you look at the rest of the Criminal Code — and I’m going to name four different provisions: uttering threats, mischief, criminal harassment and intimidation. In my view, each one of these applies exactly and directly to the concern that Senator White would like to see addressed in this provision. My sense of what will be the most critical is not so much a slight tweaking of this provision, but, in circumstances that warrant it, that the police and prosecutors move forward proactively to address the circumstances that, among others, Senator Downe spoke so forcefully about.

I think the best thing to do is to vote against the amendment, confident that the Criminal Code already does the job we need and that this provision will help a little. That’s my view. Thank you.

Honourable senators, I would like to speak to the amendment proposed by my honourable colleague Senator White. I would like to thank him for his friendship and equally thank him for sharing his perspective with me.

I understand his desire to ensure that the bill captures all possibilities to protect health care workers from intimidation. I don’t think there is a single senator in this chamber who doesn’t agree with him, but I believe that this bill, along with other sections in the Criminal Code, cover my colleague’s concern regarding intimidation offences. Therefore this amendment is unnecessary, and I won’t support it.

The new intimidation offence created by Bill C-3 is meant to address circumstances where a health care worker or a person seeking health care services is subjected to any intimidating conduct. This could include threats or other forms of violence that are intended to provoke fear; interference with the duties of a health care worker; or, impeding a person from receiving health care services. While the purpose of the act of intimidation made to the health care worker must provoke fear and render them unable to perform their duties, the act of intimidation does not need to be done while the person is in the performance of their duties.

The act that is intended to provoke fear can be done anywhere, at any time, either in person or online or by any means. Consequently, it does not matter legally where the health care professional is when they are intimidated. The proposed amendment to include “in any place” with respect to the new intimidation offence is therefore redundant. This is why I think we shouldn’t support the amendment. Thank you.

Senator Dupuis, do you want to ask a question or to speak?

I will speak, Mr. Speaker.

The amendment put forward by Senator White poses the same problem that we see with almost every amendment that is brought forward when we do not have the chance to examine the impact. People complain about the bill coming to us at the last minute and not having time to study it properly. This amendment seeks to respond in part to the concern raised by many members of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to the effect that some provisions of the Criminal Code are not being applied to incidents of violence against health care workers or people who are trying to access health care facilities.

I think the problem created by the non-enforcement or poor or inadequate enforcement of Criminal Code provisions to date in the context of COVID-19 is a different problem that cannot be solved. If Senator White’s amendment is adopted, there is no guarantee it will be enforced. I think this is a useless argument. The amendment introduces an element that makes a more restrictive interpretation by the courts more likely and, even if it were adopted, it would not address the lack of enforcement of the legislation as it now stands or of the amended version if this bill passes.

Are honourable senators ready for the question?

If you are opposed to the motion, please say “no.”

I hear a “no.” Those in favour of the motion who are in the Senate Chamber will please say “yea.”

Those opposed to the motion who are in the Senate Chamber will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

I see two senators rising. Do we have agreement on a bell? The vote will take place at two o’clock. Call in the senators.