Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Would Senator Tannas take another question?

[English]

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: 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.”

(1250)

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.

Senator Dalphond: Thank you for those very important comments, senator. You raised a fundamental question about the role of the Senate.

I would like to hear your thoughts on two subjects.

First of all, isn’t there a distinction to be made between carefully reviewing legislation, even legislation unanimously passed by the House of Commons, and respecting the House of Commons when it responds to our proposed amendments? Should the fact that a bill passed unanimously be a determining factor at the outset, when we are considering it? I’m not sure. When the other place sends back its responses to our proposals, showing deference to the elected chamber is important.

My second point is this: Shouldn’t we direct our comments not only to the government, but also sometimes to the opposition in the Senate who, in the case of the conversion therapy bill, for example, ensured that the bill passed without this chamber having a real debate at second or third reading, or even a pre‑study of the bill?

(1140)

That bill was passed in just one afternoon, without any real debate or analysis. We failed to fulfill our constitutional duty, but I don’t think we could blame the government that time.

[English]