Bill C-3

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) create an offence of intimidating a person in order to impede them from obtaining health services, intimidating a health professional in order to impede them in the performance of their duties or intimidating a person who assists a health professional in order to impede the person in providing that assistance;
(b) create an offence of obstructing or interfering with a person’s lawful access to a place at which health services are provided, subject to a defence of attending at the place for the purpose only of obtaining or communicating information; and
(c) add the commission of an offence against a person who was providing health services and the commission of an offence that had the effect of impeding another person from obtaining health services as aggravating sentencing factors for any offence.
It also amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things,
(a) extend theperiod during which an employee may take a leave of absencefrom employment in the event of the death of a child and provide for the entitlement of anemployee to a leave of absence in the event of the loss of an unbornchild;
(b) repeal the personal leave that an employee may take to treat their illness or injury;
(c) provide that an employee may earn and take up to 10 days of medical leave of absence with pay in a calendar year; and
(d) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations to modify, in certain circumstances, the provisions respecting medical leave of absence with pay.

Second Reading

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, the minister, in his response to a similar question, spoke to that, and I think there is a benefit to putting these two pieces together.

We are in a pandemic, and it is so important that we have timely resolutions to the issues we see. We want to make sure that health care workers and patients are protected, but also that as a result of the pandemic, federally regulated workers have 10 days of paid sick leave. Because the pandemic is the common item that ties these two issues together, it makes sense for them to go through the House as Bill C-3, to be reviewed by a committee that can comment on both aspects of it.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask a simple question of the member. This legislation deals with changes to the Canada Labour Code and changes to the Criminal Code, two very separate pieces of legislation. I believe, as many members would agree, the bill should go through different committees.

Would the member agree that both aspects of the legislation should be examined separately rather than lumped together as they are right now in Bill C-3?

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-3 would protect health care workers, Canadians seeking health services and Canadians who work in federally regulated sectors deciding between their well-being and paying bills. Delivering protections for health care workers and 10 days of paid sick leave were top priorities for our government. It is why I stand here today, just weeks into the 44th Parliament speaking in favour of Bill C-3, so we can ensure Canadians receive the protections they deserve as quickly as possible.

Throughout this pandemic, we have commended our health care workers through efforts such as the nightly banging of pots and honking—

The House resumed from December 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Bill C-3—Time Allocation Motion

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Bill C-3 — Notice of time allocation motion

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) and 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C‑3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code. Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Criminal Code

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on Bill C-3 this evening. It is a very important piece of legislation that requires not just the attention of Parliament, but also committee scrutiny.

Let me begin by saying that I believe that Bill C-3 should have been split into two separate bills. We are dealing with two separate issues here, one as it relates to health care workers and protests outside health facilities, the other as it relates to federally regulated sick days and the provision of 10 days for federally regulated workers. I am hopeful that, when this does get to committee, it is going to get the scrutiny that it deserves.

Let me also say that we are so fortunate in central Ontario to have an incredible regional health facility. The Royal Victoria Hospital is world class in its ability to provide care, not just acute care but all kinds of care led by Janice Skot, who is the CEO of the hospital. She recently announced her retirement next year and I wish her all the best. She certainly has seen the transition of the Royal Victoria Hospital over the 17 years that she has been there into this world-class facility.

In fact, just recently I was fortunate that we were in Innisfil to talk about the expansion of the Royal Victoria Health Centre into the southern tier of our municipalities of Barrie and Innisfil. It is expected that, by the time it is fully functional, it could service up to 250,000 people a year. This is an important part of our community. It is an important part of all of the regions of central Ontario and does a great service to our communities.

I consider many of the people who work there friends of mine; doctors, nurses, great people who do terrific work and have been there on the front lines since this pandemic started with great adversity, great anxiety. I cannot imagine, at the height of the COVID-19 situation, these doctors and nurses and all of those who work in this health care facility not only having to worry about looking after the patients coming into the facility, but also having the anxiety about how to protect themselves and their families. I heard many stories of health care workers going home and changing in the garage. They had moved their washer and dryer into the garage so that they would limit the risk of potentially transmitting COVID-19 to their family members.

When vaccines came, it was a sense of relief for many health care workers. There was a challenge in the beginning. I recall having a discussion with the then minister of health, in fact I would call it an emergency meeting, when our community was running out of vaccines, not just for health care workers, but also for long-term care facilities. We can talk about anxiety. Many health care workers who were in the process of getting their second vaccine were told that their appointments had been cancelled. I called the health minister to ask her on an emergency basis if we could get the vaccines that were needed within our community not just for health care workers, but also for the long-term care providers as well.

Let us not just look at the health care workers and the work that they have done and how they should be free of intimidation and harassment in their workplace, but let us also acknowledge the long-term care workers within those long-term care facilities because they had equally anxious times during the height of COVID-19.

I want to focus on a couple of things, not the least of which is the divisive rhetoric that has gone on. We saw this at the height of the election campaign when there were not just protests in front of health care facilities, but there were also protests on the political front as well. We saw some of those protests play out on the nightly news. We saw them in health care facilities. I believe that every health care worker should be free of any form of harassment, particularly when they are going in to do the job.

How did we get here? There is this divisive rhetoric, and we are now in a position where we are talking about implementing legislation to protect health care workers when we have never been in this point before.

Obviously, we have heard through other speakers today that we have criminal legislation on the books for dealing with protests, much of which is dealt with at the local level. Regarding this divisiveness that has gone on, I certainly saw it through the election campaign. There has been misinformation, and I would suggest that there has not been enough information on the part of government to allow people to make an informed decision on the issue of vaccines. I happen to think that everybody should be vaccinated. I am vaccinated; in fact, I have my booster shot scheduled for December 19. Vaccines are an important tool in the tool box in ensuring that people are safe.

However, there are many people out there, almost five million Canadians over the age of 12, who have not received a vaccine at this point for various reasons. I have been dealing with this in my office, with people calling. They are not anti-vaxxers; they are just concerned about their health and the potential risks associated with vaccines. Perhaps they do not have enough information to make an informed decision.

This is where the role of government comes in, to provide as much information as we can to people so that they make the right decision, to get vaccinated. Many of them right now are in a position where they are at risk of their lives and livelihoods being lost and actually being unable to provide for their families.

A year ago, when we did not have vaccines, we had lots of other tools in the tool box. We were talking about rapid testing, physical distancing, wearing a mask and washing our hands. Rapid testing seems to have fallen off a cliff right now. To accommodate those who perhaps still have that vaccine hesitancy and are not getting a vaccine, it is an important tool in the tool box that we need to be using.

I talked to someone in my riding about this recently. His entire family is vaccinated at this point, but he still has that hesitancy. I am using this example among many that I have received. He was told recently by his employer, after working there for 25 years, that as of this past November 1, he would have lost his job because he was unvaccinated. He has actually been extended now to January 29, and the reason he was extended is that his company is entering into a very busy Christmas period, so it cannot afford that loss of employment. In the meantime, the company has told him that it is going to rapid test him throughout that whole process.

Therefore, he is living with the backdrop of losing his employment and, quite frankly, he is scared, because he has family, including grandchildren. That reasonable accommodation that I spoke about still needs to happen today when it comes to making sure we are reasonably accommodating those individuals who at this point have vaccine hesitancy. We can do a much better job of educating and encouraging people to get vaccinated.

The other part of this legislation relates to the federal regulation on providing up to 10 sick days. I would agree with my hon. colleagues that people should never have to choose between going to work and staying home without pay when sick. Making sure we can accommodate those people who are in the unfortunate position of making that decision needs to be addressed as well.

As it relates to federally regulated industries having this requirement, there are many collective agreements that cover sick leave, but a small percentage do not. Those collective agreements can speak for themselves when dealing with this issue, but I will be interested to see, when this goes to committee, what we hear from all the stakeholders as it relates to the sick days.

In conclusion, a tremendous amount of anxiety still exists among everyone in this country, whether they are vaccinated or not. We have to tone down the divisive rhetoric. We have to make sure that in all cases, unequivocally, we are supporting our health care workers, who are doing such tremendous work to keep us safe. However, we also have to tone down the rhetoric and make sure we educate people that it is important to be vaccinated in order to deal with this crisis.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot about urgency, about the importance of various issues. We heard about it during the election campaign and we prepared for 65 days. Considering the legislative agenda of election promises, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on whether Bill C-3 has come at the right time, when there are other emergencies.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is certainly an honour and privilege to once again rise and enter into debate in this place.

If members will indulge me, I will share a few thanks and a few thoughts prior to getting into the substance of what we are here to debate today, which is the Liberal's new bill, Bill C-3. It truly is an honour to serve, and along with that there are some thanks that I need to pass along.

First, I need to thank my wife Danielle, who has stood through what has been a very interesting first term in Parliament. Of course, when we had that discussion about whether or not I would let my name stand again, she was very supportive, and we hope that we can see a return to at least some level of normalcy as we move forward. I send my love to my wife, Danielle, and to my boys Matthew, Emerson and Winston. I love them, and I am so thankful for the support that they give. Even though sometimes it may be a little hard for the boys to understand, as they are five, three and soon to be six months, I am so thankful for that love and support.

I thank my staff, my campaign team, my EDA and all those who help make an election happen.

I would also like to take a moment to thank, in what was undoubtedly a difficult election in many ways, those other candidates who ran and showed up. There was one party that notably did not even show up in this last election, and that was a travesty for democracy in central Alberta. Anyone who puts their name on the ballot deserves thanks and respect, and I have that for those who ran in Battle River—Crowfoot.

I thank all those poll workers and local individuals who helped to make sure that an election could happen, even though it was an election, I would suggest, that nobody really wanted except for the Prime Minister who sits across the way. However, they also deserve our thanks.

Of course, I am deeply grateful for the people of Battle River—Crowfoot for once again sending me to be their voice in our nation's capital to ensure that the interests of rural, east central Alberta are heard, and that is certainly what I plan to do.

I will share a few thoughts and observances from the election. I found it very interesting that just two or three months prior, the Prime Minister's itinerary came out saying that there was a visit to the newly appointed Governor General's residence, and I could not help but think that he would be going back on his word. Now, it would not surprise many within this place and many Canadians that we cannot take the Prime Minister's word all that seriously. The signs were already there for a fourth wave, yet he put his personal political interests before the lives of Canadians. It is a shame. I have some unparliamentary language that comes to mind, but I will spare members that.

Over the course of the summer and during the election, I had a chance to speak with many constituents who brought up a myriad of concerns. One constituent, a man by the name of John Dillon, brought forward something that I told him I would share in this place. I had spoken with him during the previous election, and I was reminded when I went to his door again. This 40-year Air Force veteran asked a question about why parliamentarians get preferred treatment over the men and women who wear our nation's uniform. Why does it take him decades to qualify for his pension while it takes a politician six years? We continued to talk over the course of a fairly extended period of time about some of the frustrations that he has, and about the hypocrisy and the frustration with the political status quo in this country.

I hope to get to as much in as possible in 10 minutes, which is not a lot of time. I also spoke to constituents who were frustrated beyond belief on all sides of the political spectrum, and about how divisive and polarized politics are in this country. A number of times, I would encourage constituents I was speaking with to make sure that they looked a little beyond Facebook in terms of making sure that we were having dialogue. Certainly, there is politics and partisanship in the House, and that is okay, but we also need to make sure that we are always working for the best interest of Canadians.

The concerns around western alienation are very real. I have talked to many people who have given up hope on Canada. It is heartbreaking to speak with many constituents, more than I can count, who suggest that an independent path forward is the only option. I pleaded with them. We spoke about the issues and talked about how it is not too late, and to not give up hope on this country in spite of the many frustrations.

We heard rumours that the Liberals would be mandating a reduction in fertilizer, which could very well take away the livelihoods of farmers in my constituency. We heard rumours about further activism when it comes to the oil and gas sector, which turned out to be more than accurate when the Prime Minister appointed a criminal activist as his environment minister, and the Prime Minister went to COP26 and decided that the only justice in a transition was to put my constituents out of work. That is shameful.

From COVID challenges to the challenges with our economy, it is Canadians who are paying the price. I certainly look forward to being able to stand up for their interests.

Now on to the substance of Bill C-3. It is interesting that we see an issue that Conservatives have actually talked a fair bit about and provinces have taken action on, and that is access to critical infrastructure. Almost all Canadians would agree that a health care professional going to work or a patient needing care should not be denied access to a hospital. I would hope that is simply common sense, although as I am often reminded by many, including my father, common sense seems to be not so common anymore.

What I find interesting is that in the midst of this debate being part of this two-part bill, and I will get into that in a second, it is in the political interests of the Liberal government to now bring forward something that it saw a political opening for, whereas Conservatives had actually called for this sort of action when critical infrastructure had been placed at risk. Supply chains had been put at risk in the past, and a number of Conservative governments across the country have actually taken action to ensure that critical infrastructure is protected.

I would suggest that is a good thing, although I do have a few concerns about some of the ambiguous wording. I found it interesting that the Liberals are quick to defend the appropriate balance that needs to be had to ensure freedom of speech but also to ensure safety of health care workers. I am glad that there are some Liberals who are encouraging that discussion to take place. Certainly, when it does not fit their political best interests, they will try to shout down any freedom of expression that they can. As this bill, I would suspect, goes to committee, it certainly is one of those issues that we need to keep at the front of our minds.

Before I get into the substance of part two of this bill, I think it is interesting that we have what is kind of a mini piece of omnibus legislation. We have two very different subjects that are addressed within this one bill. I would suggest that this goes against, certainly the spirit, if not directly against what the Liberals promised back when they ran for election first in 2015.

There are two very distinct issues, and I would certainly be encouraged if the Liberals were willing to send it to the two different committees where this could be addressed. When it comes specifically to the issue of paid sick leave, I have some very basic questions. How many people does this affect? One would think that, if the government is planning on implementing paid sick leave for all federally regulated industries within the country, that question would be one of the first to be answered. However, I have yet to hear a Liberal member articulate the answer to that question.

There is some further ambiguity about what this actually applies to in terms of contractors or simply federally regulated services, but if a contractor works in a federally regulated service but that service itself is not regulated, what is the application? That is, quite frankly, why it is concerning that these two very distinct issues are put together in one bill. Had they been separate, it would have been certainly more—

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji.

First, it is my first opportunity to congratulate the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo on his election. I noticed that his speech was silent on the amendments to the Canada Labour Code, yet he spoke passionately about the importance of health professionals.

According to Statistics Canada, my riding of Nunavut has the lowest ratio compared to the rest of Canada for the national average of doctors to residents, which is 85 doctors per 100,000 people. Because of the many issues that we have facing health care in Nunavut, I am particularly interested in what the member's position is on allowing medical certification to be relaxed. Bill C-3 talks about the requirement for medical certification and I would like to hear his position on relaxing the provisions set out in Bill C-3.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour to speak while your are in the chair. I congratulate you on your appearance before the House.

In short, I support the bill going through second reading and moving on to committee. Like my colleague for Langley—Aldergrove, after a few brief comments I will focus on the proposed Criminal Code amendments.

Canada's Conservatives, and our recent platform on this point really bore it out, will continue to be the voice for working Canadians, especially those who have been left behind by the current government.

I will now move on to what is very important not only in my riding but in a number of ridings, which is the implication of Bill C-3 when it comes to health care workers.

It is a pleasure to appear here on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. Our riding is geographically diverse. Places like 100 Mile House, which has a small hospital, or places like Barrière and Clearwater are often underserviced and it is important that we recognize and protect not only the contribution those health care workers in that area make, but also recognize the tremendous importance they have.

In my own experience, during the election, I drove through a protest at Royal Inland Hospital. Two of the fellow candidates, the candidate for the Liberal Party and the candidate for the Green Party, had partners who were critical health care workers, so this was very close to my heart and mind during the election. It really emphasized the strain that the pandemic had placed on health care workers.

I want to emphasize for my colleagues in the House that time and again I commend what our front-line health care workers have done. We have seen them step up. I know at the beginning people would go outside and would frequently ring the bells every night as a commemoration to the health care workers. Slowly, those things started to disappear. Then, I believe it was nightly, there would be a procession of all first responders, such as the police, the sheriffs and the ambulances. Then that went to weekly. It can be very easy to forget the sacrifices that have been made by our front-line health care workers. I want to appreciate them as the member of Parliament for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo as well as simply a citizen of Canada. I appreciate all the work they have done.

A number of people in my riding have really risen to the occasion during this time, for instance, the workers in specific facilities with outbreaks, seniors homes and the Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops. Nurses in 100 Mile House stayed in hotel rooms in order to protect their families. Volunteers ran immunization clinics smoothly. People like Dr. Shane Barclay and Laura Bantock lobbied for and obtained a testing centre in Sun Peaks, which is vital to our community, our tourism, our fabric and our recreation in Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. It is critical that we see tourism thrive in a place like Sun Peaks and eradicating the pandemic from Sun Peaks is obviously of critical importance. With that, it is a pleasure that people do not have to travel to Kamloops to have a safer place to work, worship and play.

The Criminal Code offers protections to a number of groups. There are already provisions with respect to threatening and intimidating, but Bill C-3 goes one step further. Even in these discussions, the Hansard that is created is important to reflect what the House believes. As somebody who practised law for a number of years and spoke about sentencing on these types of issues, it is important that what we say here reflects the consensus and the issues before the House.

The Criminal Code already reflects that it is an aggravating feature to threaten, assault or intimidate certain groups. I think about section 270 of the Criminal Code with respect to assaulting a peace officer. It is an offence to assault anybody, but Parliament has said that when one assaults a peace officer, one has gone one step further and the offence is recognized with a greater level of seriousness for obvious reasons.

It is the same thing for children. There are offences that relate specifically to children to reflect the seriousness of committing an offence against a child. Similarly, when it comes to intimidation and obstruction of justice, there are offences that protect justice system participants, reporters and people who carry out their justice system practice.

With what I have already said, health care workers are integral to the functioning of our society. Various colleagues on both sides of the House have noted already the strains they are under, so I will not repeat them. However, I wish to note that it is very important that we do protect these groups.

I am in favour of studying these issues further at committee. I am therefore speaking in support of the bill going to committee.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am here to talk about the government's proposal to amend the Criminal Code to criminalize certain behaviour, which I believe most Canadians thought was already against the law.

Before speaking to Bill C-3, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the fine people of Langley—Aldergrove for endorsing me for a second term. It is a great honour to be re-elected. I have promised my constituents that I will be a clear voice for them in this Parliament.

I want to thank my wife, Inga, and my extended family for their ongoing support. I also want to thank the many volunteers who helped me throughout the campaign and made my success a reality. Politics is a team sport.

Moving onto Bill C-3, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code, I am going to focus on the Criminal Code aspect of the bill, which would make harassing health care workers illegal if the intent is to prevent them from doing the work of serving the public.

As I said, many people think that this is already against the law. There are provisions in the Criminal Code that the police and prosecutors could rely on to prevent this type of anti-social behaviour. One thing we have learned through the pandemic is that we must value our health care workers as they are essential to the full and proper functioning of our society and our communities. We owe them a debt of gratitude.

Everybody in this House knows a health care worker, is related to somebody who is a frontline health care worker, or is a neighbour to one. I have two family members, a daughter and daughter-in-law, who are. One is a care aid in a seniors home and the other is a nurse in a hospital. Every day they go to work, and they are eager and happy to serve their patients to the best of their abilities.

Sometimes they are in very stressful situations, such as situations of understaffing or having to be moved from one ward to another on very short notice. Sometimes they have to work extended shifts due to a shortage of health care workers. Sometimes they have to work in the COVID ward. I think not only of the health care workers, but also of the family members, who share the risks, stresses and strains of health care work.

This law is a step in the right direction. It is a gesture in support of our health care workers. A more constructive and substantive way to support our health care workers would be by hiring more nurses. The shortage of nurses is a long-term problem that we knew about long before the COVID pandemic, but it has been exacerbated by that.

I met with members of the Canadian Federation of Nurses Union. I have a quote here from a publication they shared with me. It states, “Many risk factors for burnout have been exacerbated during the pandemic, including increased patient acuity, understaffing...increased overtime...reassignment to unfamiliar roles”. It goes on to say, “Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, severe burnout was typically found in 20%-40% of healthcare workers.” In the spring of 2020, at the commencement of the pandemic, that percentage increased to between 30% and 40%, and by the spring of 2021, it was more like 60%.

The publication goes on to say that job vacancies for registered nurses had the largest increase of all occupations over a two-year period. This is what is happening to our health care workers. There is a shortage of them and that shortage is increasing stresses and strains. The best thing that we could do for our health care workers would be to hire more health care workers.

I asked the people with whom I met with whether there is a shortage of people who want to be in the nursing industry, and I was told absolutely not. There are many applications to universities and to nursing schools across the country, but not enough seats in these nursing schools. I am thinking of Trinity Western University in my riding. The nursing school has a very good reputation across the country and around the world, and it would love to open up more chairs. That is what we need to do. We need to increase the supply of nurses.

Let us go back to Bill C-3. I am happy to listen to the debate. There seems to be a consensus developing that we are all in support of this bill. I am happy to hear that we want to support our health care workers, but I am hoping there is also a consensus forming around the right of protest.

Long-standing democratic rights in our society include the rights to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom to protest; however, they need to be done in a balanced way. No rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are absolute. They are always subject to such reasonable limitations as defined in law and as are demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. The question for the committee would be to determine whether we have found that right balance in Bill C-3. It is an open question.

The effective paragraph in the bill states:

No person is guilty of an offence under [the relevant] subsection...by reason only that they attend at or near, or approach, a place referred to in that subsection for the purpose...of obtaining or communicating information.

We are allowed to have information pickets. I agree with that. I think everyone in the House is going to agree with that, but the right of protest does not extend to interfering with the proper functioning of society.

I am going to pivot to something that was in the Conservative platform in the last election. Reference has been made to it by several of the previous Conservative speakers. We are proposing to introduce a critical infrastructure protection act that would prevent protesters from interfering with infrastructure projects, whether they are hospital construction, transit construction or pipeline construction. Yes, we have a right of protest. No, we do not have a right to interfere with legal projects that Canadians have determined are essential for our society. I am very pleased that we are introducing Bill C-3 because not only would it protect health care workers, it would also set a good precedent for us going forward.

I look forward to an opportunity, at some point, to introduce something like what the Conservatives were proposing: a critical infrastructure protection act. The work that the committee would do, and that Parliament is doing right now around Bill C-3, is going to be precedent-setting for legislation going forward that would regulate how protesting is to be done. Peaceful protesting is allowed, but getting in the way of society's functioning is not.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, unless I missed something, it is hard to determine whether our Conservative colleagues are going to vote for or against Bill C‑3.

After all, there are a few contradictions. The English-language media has been reporting that the Conservatives consider it unnecessary to amend the Criminal Code. In the French-language media, however, we sometimes heard the member for Mégantic—L'Érable bring up the notion of prohibiting demonstrations near hospitals and key infrastructure like railroads or pipelines, which is part of the Conservatives' platform.

Furthermore, we have not really heard anything from the Conservatives about the proposed 10 days of paid sick leave. I would therefore like to know if my colleague can shed a little more light on these issues, because I would really appreciate it.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to speak to this important bill, Bill C-3. It is great to see both the Liberal Party and, it seems, the Conservative Party coming around to see the importance of paid sick leave. I have talked about this in the House quite significantly and so has my party. In fact, the leader of my party raised this 22 times throughout the pandemic. Here we are, 20 months after the top medical health professionals in our country decided that outside of social distancing and washing our hands, the top two things we could do to stop the spread of the virus and combat COVID-19 were to get vaccinated and for governments to implement paid sick days. It is really great to see that everybody is coming together today to do that, to protect workers, so that people are not spreading the virus.

We talk about people going to work while knowingly showing symptoms of COVID-19 or being unsure whether they should go to work or not. For many of these people, their spouses have perhaps lost their jobs because of COVID-19 or are unable to work, or they are the sole breadwinners in their homes and are scraping to get by even at the best of times. Whatever their circumstances, they are worried about how they are going to pay their bills, like most Canadians. Fifty per cent of Canadians were within two weeks of insolvency prior to the pandemic. We can think about how many families were terrified at the beginning of and throughout the pandemic about missing any work at all and how they were going to pay their bills and feed their families. Paid sick days are absolutely critical.

There is one thing we have not talked about a lot here. I was really honoured to be the small business and tourism critic for the federal NDP for the last six years, and to stand up and fight for small business. We do not talk about how important paid sick days are, not just for workers but also for employers and small business. I was always mystified when Conservatives would not support paid sick leave, because they say they are strong defenders of the economy and small business. I know Liberals were always patting themselves on the back throughout the pandemic on the important needs of small business, but throughout the pandemic, whether it be on the CERB or another program, we had to fight to make sure small businesses would be included. Initially, proprietors were not even going to be allowed to collect CERB.

Initially, people were going to get $1,200. New Democrats were able to put pressure on the government so that people could get $2,000. We brought forward the idea of a commercial rent assistance program. Of course the Liberals bungled it initially. They made sure it was set up and designed so that people had to have a mortgage to be able to apply for rent support. It was landlord-driven instead of tenant-driven. It was a completely broken program. We found out that there were some Liberal insiders delivering the program for the government and we were glad to put pressure on the government to fix that broken commercial rent program. My colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby and I brought the idea to the government. I am glad to see that it finally fixed it.

When it comes to paid sick days, people were going to work unsure of whether they had the virus or not. They were terrified and governments at different levels did not have their backs to make sure people stayed at home instead of bringing COVID-19 to the workplace and possibly infecting co-workers.

Whether it is in the private sector or in government, it is extremely costly when people get sick and spread the virus in the workplace. One would think it would make economic sense to provide a social safety net, so that people who were sick would stay at home, not spreading the virus in the workplace or ending up having to close throughout the country and shut down government services to Canadians. We do not talk enough, not only about the workers, but also about the impact on businesses and the economy. That is a really important argument for why this is absolutely critical.

As much as we appreciate the legislation before us, there are flaws that are apparent in it, such as a person having to work for 11 months to get access to the 10 paid sick days.

The Liberal government said it would restore the cuts to the federal public services that the Conservatives made. I mean, we can look to Veterans Affairs as a great example. The Conservatives gutted one-third of Veterans Affairs Canada under the Harper government. As a result, the backlog has grown to over 40,000 veterans who have been injured serving our country.

The Liberals said they were going to fix it. What did they do? They outsourced and brought people back in on temporary contracts instead of hiring people and sending the message to veterans that they are committed to them in the long term and are going to end the backlog forever and not just outsource for temporary jobs.

The Liberals are notorious for this and do it all the time. They are outsourcing throughout the government, and this is creating a huge problem, because we have contract flipping going on. Obviously, we do not want this practice to continue. We want the government to hire people and make sure they have job security and benefits they can rely on so that the people they are serving, like veterans, can count on the services being delivered to them. We want to make sure the government is open to amendments that all federal subjurisdictional workers have access to the 10 paid sick days. It is very important that we cover that.

The other thing I have not talked about is the fact that women are being disproportionally impacted. With a lot of the outsourcing and temp jobs in our country, women have been disproportionally impacted by COVID-19. Social services have failed people across Canada, and the lack of child care has had a huge impact. CBC reported that 100,000 working-age women have completely left the workplace since COVID-19, which is 10 times the number of men. We talk about having an employee work approximately a month to achieve one paid sick day, but this is disproportionally going to impact women if it takes 11 months to accumulate 10 days' sick leave.

I really hope the government will consider amending this situation, because we know that people who have been working at a job need that security. Also, we do not want them coming to work sick. We do not want them spreading the virus. We are in the fourth wave right now, and we do not know what the omicron virus, which is spreading quickly, is going to look like. We want to make sure we have workers protected throughout.

We also saw how fractured the health care system became throughout the pandemic. I could speak all day about the things we saw that were highlighted in the pandemic. However, when it comes to paid sick days, it is absolutely critical. This is a victory today for health care workers, workers across this country and professionals.

We are going to continue to ensure that workers across this country have support from us as parliamentarians, but I question why it took so long. Why did Liberals and Conservatives sit on their hands against medical health professionals' advice? Members have heard me talk a lot about the government failing to listen to medical health professionals, like in the opioid crisis. The medical health professionals have made very clear and sound recommendations. Even the government's own officials are asking it to decriminalize and provide a safe drug supply, but it has not done that.

The government does not listen to its health professionals when it comes to sick days or to the other crisis that is happening, which has taken more lives than we have seen in generations. However, I am hoping the government will act swiftly, start listening to its health professionals when it comes to developing policy, and act with much more urgency in the future.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. I look forward to working with him on the official languages file as we take a closer look at the status of French across Canada, including in francophone minority communities.

Regarding Bill C‑3, a question about terminology has already been raised. This bill offers progress on the health care file. Some things have been split off and others have been brought in, such as provisions governing court decisions.

I look forward to working with my colleague in committee as we examine certain details and make sure we improve this bill to protect health care workers.