Senator Tannas: You had two questions, but I just got one out of that.

[Translation]

Senator Tannas: Yes.

[Translation]

Hon. Renée Dupuis: Would Senator Tannas take another question?

[English]

Hon. Donna Dasko: Senator, will you take another question?

Senator Yussuff: Yes.

Hon. Paula Simons: Would Senator Yussuff accept a question?

Senator Yussuff: Yes.

Hon. Terry M. Mercer: Would you accept a question?

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator Bellemare: I agree with much of what you’re saying. Your comments are very wise. They also give us an opening to question our processes and talk about the modernization of the Senate.

I have a question about your comments on the need for speeches to be given by the Government Representative in the Senate. Don’t you think it’s time we asked the minister responsible for a bill to come and present it to us in the Senate? We could set aside time for that presentation, which would be open and different from a Committee of the Whole. The senator presenting the bill would come answer our questions before we study it, perhaps at second reading. The fact that there are sponsors for bills in the Senate doesn’t mean there couldn’t be a spokesperson. What’s more, the minister responsible could appear before us to present his or her bill so that we could ask him or her questions. We can debate whether this exercise should be done at second reading or third reading, but I’d like to hear your thoughts on this.

[English]

Senator Tannas: Yes.

Senator Bellemare: Would Senator Tannas take another question?

Senator Tannas: I agree. I think it is incumbent upon all of us, on all sides of the chamber, to have on our Senate hat of sober second thought when we are confronted with these kinds of situations. That could easily, as it did, come in a motion from the Leader of the Opposition.

You’re right; we missed an opportunity. It’s not the fault of the Leader of the Opposition. He put forward the motion for good reasons and because he thought it was the right thing to do. It was our job — mine, other leaders and, indeed, every senator’s — to have jumped up and asked for further clarification or whatever needed to be done. We did not do that, and so we passed a bill that perhaps we should have spent more time on, or maybe not. Your point is well taken, Senator Dalphond. Thank you.

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker: Debate on the amendment. Senator Tannas.

Senator Downe: Yes.

Hon. Frances Lankin: 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.

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

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Downe, are you asking for five more minutes to answer a question?

Senator Gold: Will the senator take a question?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it agreed?

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.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Quinn, did you have a question?