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.

Criminal Code

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations on your re-election, as well as your appointment to the chair.

Bill C-3 does not really change much. The offences in question are already covered by the law. As stated earlier, intimidation is illegal everywhere, and this bill simply reiterates that. It seems that Bill C-3 is really more about creating the perception that the government is doing something on the health care file.

However, there is something far more important the government could do, namely, restoring health transfers and increasing them to 35% of total spending, as Quebec and all Canadian provinces are calling for. What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the House allow me to share my time with the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable. I also congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker. I think it is fantastic, and I think that you are doing a fantastic job.

We are here, and some of us have already spoken in the House, but some have not had the chance to yet. This is my maiden speech of the 44th Parliament, and it has been quite a journey over the past two years. It was also quite a journey just getting to this place last night. Many of us are probably going on two and a half or three hours of sleep, but we are here, regardless. We are tired, but we are here.

Before I get into Bill C-3, it is important that I thank a few people.

First and foremost, as I did in the 43rd Parliament, I thank my Lord and Saviour for the opportunity to serve Essex and for my health. Without my God, I would not be here.

I thank my family. Probably my greatest supporter is my mother, but she is also my biggest critic, and she is probably watching right now. I love my Mom and thank her for keeping tabs on me and for all that she does.

I also thank my wife. I am only afraid of three people in this world, and they are in this order: my Lord and Saviour, my wife and my mother. My wife, Allison, is probably not watching, as she is most likely taking care of Levi, our grandchild. However, I love Allison dearly, and I thank her for giving me the freedom and the opportunity to come here to represent Essex and do what I know in my heart of hearts is right. I thank her for the sacrifices she has made for this country along the way. I love her so dearly.

I thank my staff, who have been working tirelessly. They are tired, and have had two years of being tired, with hundreds of thousands of phone calls, emails and text messages. Each and every one of them is absolutely fantastic, and I thank them for serving our constituents so well.

I thank my colleagues, those I have grabbed dinner with in the House, and I do not necessarily mean just Conservative colleagues, but those across the aisle as well. They have made a difficult time a little easier and a bit more enjoyable, so I thank my colleagues. As well, I congratulate all those re-elected. I encourage those who have been elected for the first time to hang on because it is a lot of fun up here. They will be able to do some great things. I congratulate each and every member.

I thank our Hill staff. The onboarding during a pandemic, compared to the onboarding during normal times in Ottawa, was second to none. To our Hill support, for the onboarding process, I thank each one of them. I thank them for their sacrifice and for making our jobs a whole lot easier on the Hill.

Most important, besides my Lord, are my constituents in Essex for giving me the honour to serve them in their seat. It is not my seat. It is theirs, and I thank them for the honour. I thank them for sending me back to Ottawa, and I promise my devotion to each and every one of them.

Bill C-3 should also have a Bill C-3.1 because, in my opinion, it really should be two bills. The bill talks about harassment, which falls under the Criminal Code, and it also talks about labour, which falls under the Canada Labour Code. I will speak to harassment first, and then I will finish with the labour issue.

On the day of the election, I had an unfortunate accident when, just so the world knows, I fell off my horse. I was spending time with my wife, and I was a little more banged up than perhaps even she knew. Long story short, I went to the hospital in Leamington, the Erie Shores HealthCare. The doctors were second to none. The nursing staff was second to none. I have actually had meetings with the CEO of the hospital to try to advance this forward.

Then I went to the Windsor Regional Hospital. In a couple of months, I will go to get shoulder surgery. My orthopaedic surgeon is second to none.

I was a firefighter. I know what frontline service is all about. I am really blessed to say that my aunt Eva was nurse of the year on a couple of occasions. My mother was a nurse as well.

Before I jumped on the plane that finally got me here, after hours and hours, through no fault of Air Canada, I held onto my grandchild, Levi, for about an hour. As he slept there so peacefully and innocently, I thought about this debate today and the influence I could have to leave the world a better place than I found it. I thought about what I could do for Levi today to ensure that he comes into a world that has less hatred and less harassment, and that respects all genders and respects our frontline workers.

I am excited about the harassment side of Bill C-3. It is something that we, as a generation, have perhaps lost a little focus, or perhaps a lot of focus, on. I also think, to a greater extent, that we all, in this place, agree with. That is something very monumental.

I am also a freedom fighter. I believe in the freedoms of Canadians. I believe that Canadians have the right to voice their opinions. I believe they have the right to protest. I also know that with that freedom comes nothing less than responsibility. What is absolutely vital, right now, is that people are not shamed into doing something against our frontline workers who are ultimately taking care of our parents and grandparents and, in my case, me. We need to give them full access and full support. It is absolutely not acceptable for the folks in this profession to have anything less than this House's support.

With regard to the Labour Code, in my capacity as deputy shadow minister for labour, I very happy to be able to stand here and speak to this today. I started my speech saying that many of us are tired. I can only imagine how tired our frontline workers are, the ones who get us on the planes, our air service personnel and the ones who get us here on Via Rail. They are not only tired physically. They are also tired mentally. This is to ensure there is a floor of 10 days, but many of these companies already have more than 10 days, so quite frankly it would not affect them.

They also deserve nothing less than this House's support. We are all tired. I am not saying that from a function of, “Oh, boo hoo, Chris had to spend some time on a plane”. No, I am saying that as a country, as a world, we are tired. Now is the time to bring the support forward, whatever that support looks like, and ensure that it gets done.

Rest assured, Conservatives will certainly be here for labour. Conservatives will be here for physicians, nurses and support staff. I am very proud to be back in the House. I thank Essex for sending me back to this place.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me my first opportunity to speak in the House since the election.

I would like to take this opportunity to also thank the health care workers who serve us all the time, and especially during this difficult time with COVID.

The hon. member said that Bill C-3 would provide a balance between the rights of people and the protection of health care workers, the facilities and so forth. Where does he see the bill strike that balance? Could the hon. member advise us on that?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be speaking here in Ottawa from the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. My riding of Parkdale—High Park, which I am proud to represent in this chamber, rests on the traditional territory of the Haudenosaunee, the Wendat, the Métis, and most recently, the Mississaugas of the Credit. Toronto is now home to many first nations, Inuit and Métis people.

These past 22 months, it goes without saying, have been defined by the global COVID-19 pandemic. These past 22 months have also been defined by exemplary work on the part of health care professionals working extremely hard to keep all of us safe. The first thing I want to say in addressing Bill C-3 is a very heartfelt and sincere thanks to all health care professionals who have been doing so much for all of us in our time of need.

I am speaking of doctors. I am speaking of nurses. I am speaking of auxiliary health staff. I am speaking of researchers who have brought us vaccines. I am speaking of the people in my riding of Parkdale—High Park at St. Joseph's hospital, at the Parkdale Queen West Community Health Centre, at Four Villages and at Runnymede rehab. I am speaking of all of the countless nurses, practitioners, doctors and other health care professionals who call my riding home.

I am also speaking very personally about my wife and her team at the Public Health Agency of Canada. I have spoken about Suchita before. She has the distinct duty, during this pandemic, of being in charge of quarantine and border health controls for the Public Health Agency in all of Ontario and for the north. It is a critical job at the simplest of times, but during a pandemic it is a pivotal job for what we do and keeping all of us safe. I thank Suchita for what she has been doing consistently for the past 22 months.

All of these people deserve our appreciation, our gratitude and our respect, yet things have unfortunately been inverted in these last several months. Those who should have been receiving praise are receiving scorn. Those who should be empowered to keep us safe are being actively prevented from entering hospitals and clinics. They are sometimes being threatened, harassed or even assaulted.

It extends beyond just those who provide health care. It also applies to those who are seeking health care. Patients are being intimidated and prevented from entering some of these health care facilities. The impact is severe. Health care professionals feel they have gone from heroes to villains, and it is indeed demoralizing.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook. We can tell it is a new Parliament because I am off my game.

I was talking about the impact. The impact is that health care professionals feel they have gone from being heroes to villains, and it is demoralizing. It is also an impact that has been borne by Canadians who are seeking to do the right thing in following public health guidelines, in accessing care to keep themselves and our communities safe. They are at the same time being vilified for daring to follow those public health imperatives.

How has it come to this? How have we gotten to this state of affairs in Canada in December 2021? There are those who have embraced the science behind COVID, the public health measures that are needed to help keep all of us safe, and the utility of vaccines in the fight against this virus. There are those who have not and those who challenge the utility of vaccines, science, scientists and all of the health care professionals who support these endeavours.

Let me be clear about one thing that is pivotal in this chamber of all places: the democratic right to disagree and to dissent. That is what freedom of assembly, freedom of association and freedom of expression mean as protected under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which I had the privilege of defending for 15 years while I was a practising lawyer. That is the hallmark of any democracy, let alone this democracy.

There are and always have been limits to such expressive rights. There is an old legal adage that says a person has the right to swing their arm, but that right ends at my nose. The notion that it conjures up is that one's expressive rights end when they can cause harm to another individual. It encapsulates the idea that threats, harassment and physical assault have always been against the law and remain against the law in this country.

Through this important piece of legislation, Bill C-3, we are proposing to enhance these very protections, particularly in the case of health care workers and those who seek access to health care. With Bill C-3, we are proposing to take decisive action by amending the Criminal Code as well as the Labour Code. I am speaking today of the Criminal Code amendments.

The amendments to the Criminal Code would ensure significant consequences for those who use fear to prevent health care professionals from doing their jobs and for those who prevent patients from receiving such care. Bill C-3 would create a new, specific offence for intimidation of health care workers and those who seek health care, as well as an offence that would prohibit someone from obstructing a person from accessing health care facilities.

Individuals who intend to use fear to stop health care workers from performing their duties, or to prevent people from accessing health services, could be charged with this proposed new offence.

In the Criminal Code, aggravating factors are considered for sentencing. An aggravating factor would be added to require courts to consider more serious penalties for any offender who targets health care workers engaged in their duties or who impedes others from accessing health services.

A new sentencing provision would also be created that requires courts to consider more serious penalties. There would be up to a 10-year maximum, compared with the current five-year maximum in the Criminal Code, for offenders who target health care workers engaged in their duties or who impede people from obtaining health care services.

In precise terms, that is what Bill C-3 would capture. For those who are still skeptical, let me be crystal clear about what Bill C-3 would not capture. It would not capture peaceful demonstrations, or the right of health care professionals to protest to improve their own working conditions. Instead, it would protect such people from the unfortunate violence they are currently facing and would help to ensure safer workplaces than they have right now.

The freedom of Canadians to voice their concerns and protest in a safe and peaceful manner is critical, as is obviously the ability of health care workers to take labour action and organize themselves. That would be respected by these proposed changes in the criminal law, because a communication defence is being entrenched in Bill C-3. That would help ensure that there is a balance, as there has always been due to how the charter was designed in 1982. There would be a balance between the protections we need and the protection of the expressive rights of Canadian citizens, including the health care workers and those who would peacefully protest against them. That balance is the legislative change we need to see in this country, because what we are seeing unfortunately is an escalation of hate. Let us call it what it is. It is hatred directed toward these workers and those who would access their services.

The right to protest and to dissent is one thing, and as I have outlined it is critical. However, obstructing patients and health care personnel and trying to strike fear into their hearts and minds is something that cannot and should not be tolerated in this country in 2021. We have seen people getting in the faces of vulnerable patients who are trying to access care, yelling and spitting at them, or following health care professionals to their cars and vandalizing their vehicles. We have seen health care professionals targeted by death threats: those same health care professionals who are always working not only to keep us safe, but to keep us alive in this pandemic. These death threats, whether made in person or through social media campaigns, are designed to intimidate and frighten those people. It is an unacceptable state of affairs.

What I would inject in these final two minutes is that we are not just talking about COVID. When we talk about the health care apparatus, we have to think about all the health care services that are provided and not just those that address the pandemic. The impacts extend to all those who seek other medical treatments at hospitals and clinics across this country: those who rely on nurses, physicians and surgeons to perform things such as transplants, hip surgeries and knee replacements. The list goes on. Right now, those Canadians are being victimized by the type of escalating hatred we are witnessing around the country, because these surgeries are being delayed or cancelled outright because of the chaos being unleashed at health care facilities around the country. The result is that Canadians awaiting such surgeries are forced to wait that much longer, prolonging their pain and suffering. It is an untenable situation.

Health care workers have taken the Hippocratic oath. I am sure that 22 months ago, they thought they understood the contours of that oath to serve other people, to care for them and provide them assistance. That has been turned on its head over these past 22 months with COVID. I want to underscore this, and we have heard it from other speakers in this chamber: At this time in particular, these people deserve our gratitude, appreciation and respect. If I see somebody wearing scrubs in my riding, I have made it my personal mission to point them out, to stop them and ask them where they work and to thank them for what they are doing, because these people are always brave in the face of adversity. They are always selfless and devote extended hours to their craft. Now they need our support more than ever. That is what Bill C-3 would achieve, which is why I hope all members of the House can get behind this important bill.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise here today for my first speech in the 44th Parliament as the member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte.

As this is my first time rising to speak during this new session of Parliament, I would like to use this opportunity to share my sincere thanks to my wife, Lisa, and my sons, Wyatt and Luke, for their unwavering support. I would also like to thank my campaign team and the many volunteers who selflessly gave countless hours of hard work, my dedicated EDA, and the residents of Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte for once again placing their trust in me to represent them here in Ottawa. I am and will remain committed to working tirelessly on behalf of my community, both locally and in Parliament.

I am pleased to be speaking today to Bill C-3, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code.

Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte is home to the Royal Victoria Regional Health Centre, also known locally as RVH. RVH is known as a place for receiving safe, compassionate, advanced care. It is a place of exceptional health care, led by an unwavering commitment to safety and quality. RVH was awarded accreditation with exemplary standing in 2019 by Accreditation Canada. That is the highest level of recognition awarded, and it is achieved by only 20% of Canadian health care organizations.

Among many other local, provincial and national recognitions, RVH has also received a gold quality health care workplace award from the Ontario Hospital Association for its continued focus on fostering a healthy and safe workplace that promotes a positive work-life balance.

The current president and CEO of the Royal Victoria Health Centre, Janice Skot, has led the health centre for 17 years and has recently announced her much-deserved retirement. I personally want to wish her the very best in her future endeavours. Alongside Ms. Skot are a visionary board of directors, an exceptional senior team and leaders, skilled physicians and nurses, compassionate volunteers and a supportive community.

Hospitals across Canada, including RVH, are places of healing. They are places where we face difficult days, seek treatment, and say hello and goodbye to loved ones. They are places of solemn solace and of beautiful beginnings.

My wife, Lisa, and I were thankful to welcome our two sons in the birthing unit of RVH. When my youngest son required immediate neonatal care, it was the wonderful health care workers of RVH who supported and cared for our family. During my son's 17-day stay in the neonatal intensive care unit, it was imperative that we had unencumbered and free access to the hospital throughout the day to provide our son with much-needed nourishment. I am pleased to say that over 16 years later and completely healthy, he will be graduating high school next year.

Hospitals should remain peaceful places for staff, patients, visitors and volunteers alike. I truly believe that harassment of our frontline nurses, doctors and health care workers is completely unacceptable. We all owe a huge debt of thanks to these frontline workers, who have been health care heroes both before and throughout this pandemic. They deserve unending appreciation and respect.

Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Katharine Smart, president of the Canadian Medical Association, said just last month that this past year, there has been an unfortunate escalation of hate directed towards the medical profession and all health care workers.

Linda Silas, president of the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions, said that before the pandemic, 90 percent of nurses reported being exposed to physical violence at work, and during the pandemic, 60 percent of nurses reported that the level of violence had increased.

Shamefully, as recently as September of this year, staff, patients, visitors and volunteers were faced with a rally against COVID-19 restrictions, which took place outside of the hospital's doors. Regrettably, RVH was among the hospitals that were targeted.

Janice Skot, president and CEO of RVH, said the following in a statement:

People have a right to peacefully express their opinions, but these rallies in front of hospitals are disheartening, frustrating and offensive to health-care workers who have worked tirelessly throughout this gruelling pandemic.

While protesters lined our sidewalk opposing the safety measures intended to keep our communities safe, exhausted staff and physicians inside RVH continue working long hours under extremely difficult conditions, caring for sick patients—including those with COVID-19.

Skot went on to say that a crowd of largely unmasked protesters is also extremely intimidating for the patients coming to RVH to seek care. Dedicated health care workers should not be the target of angry protests. A global pandemic is a time when Canadians should, said Skot, “stand with our health-care workers, not protest outside the building in which they are doing heroic work.”

Since the pandemic began, RVH has cared for over 600 COVID patients. Skot says many of them have been critically ill and some have spent months recovering in hospital. Sadly, 98 have died due to COVID-related complications. She says, “Our employees and physicians have seen first-hand the tragic and heartbreaking impacts of this virus, and RVH supports any effort to keep our patients, our team, and our community safe.”

Dr. Colin Ward, the chief of surgery at RVH, echoed Ms. Skot's concerns regarding Bill C-3. He said, “The last two years have been extremely challenging for the health care community as we have worked tirelessly to provide health care under difficult and sometimes heartbreaking conditions. We appreciate the efforts made by Bill C-3 to help protect both the patients and all of the workers who provide care for them.”

RVH was not the only hospital affected by these protests. Hospitals in Toronto, Ottawa, Sudbury and London were also targeted by protesters.

Our health care centres are essential infrastructure. Access to them must not be blocked for any reason. The staff delivering critical care in these centres must be allowed to access the resources required to deliver necessary life-saving care, without threats, intimidation or harassment. Jaime Gallaher, a Canadian emergency room nurse, shared her experience working as a nurse while protests were taking place outside of hospital doors. She said, “One of our patients actually passed away in emerge, behind a curtain with his family, which was gut-wrenching because that should never, ever happen. They had no privacy to mourn.” Ms. Gallaher also explained that the protesters could be heard in the ER and called the disruption “a slap in the face” to grieving families and patients in need of emergency care.

Likewise, Dr. Rod Lim, a pediatric emergency room physician in London, Ontario, had this to say about protests outside of hospitals:

The protests are demoralizing. There’s a lack of common decency, to protest in front of a hospital, to delay people who are trying to get the care that they deserve. They have nothing to do with the protests, nothing to do with government policy, and they’re being adversely affected. This is absolutely maddening.

As a past member of the Barrie area physician recruitment task force, I am aware how difficult it is to recruit medical staff. With current labour shortages, human resources teams are currently facing a very competitive job market, which is a challenge for recruiting new frontline employees. Vicki McKenna, president of the Ontario Nurses' Association, said, “Prior to COVID, we had hundreds of RN vacancies. That hasn’t improved—it’s gotten worse. RVH is no different than any other hospital; they have vacancies. It’s tough out there.”

Having protesters outside of health care settings does not help this issue. I know freedom of speech is an important right for Canadians, but the foundational principles of Canada are peace, order and good government. When protests turn into blockades and threaten people's ability to access services critical to their lives, the government must appropriately step in, not to diminish or destroy our liberties, but to ensure that people are living to enjoy them.

The staff at RVH and at hospitals across Canada have been working tirelessly throughout this pandemic to care for our communities. Staff from RVH and other healthcare settings across Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte spent their off hours during the pandemic staffing COVID-19 testing centres and vaccine clinics. They have risen to the challenge of supporting us through this pandemic, and they deserve our support, now and always.

Health care settings are not an appropriate place for protests that threaten patients' well-being, disrupt quiet recuperation or block access to much-needed medical services. Slowing down or not permitting health care professionals to gain access to their places of employment is completely unacceptable. We need to respect the health care heroes who have supported and cared for our communities before and throughout this pandemic and who will be there for us long after this pandemic.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to stand in this House of Commons in the 44th Parliament to deliver my speech. To begin, I would really like to thank all of the constituents of Elgin—Middlesex—London who re-elected me to come and be their voice here in Ottawa.

I am going to switch right into the debate today because it is a very important debate that we are having. Bill C-3 has been introduced. It has a lot of merit when it comes to some of the important efforts that we are trying to make. I will start by reading a quote that I read on Facebook. This quote is from September 13 and was posted by the London Health Sciences Centre.

“We are the people who deliver your babies. We are the people who heal your injuries. We are the people who help you live with chronic diseases. We have worked tirelessly through the pandemic to keep you safe.

The vast majority of Londoners have shown appreciation for our work and respect for our people. But a small minority has taken its protests to our hospitals, putting our patients, staff and physicians at risk.

While everyone has the right to free speech, our patients, staff and physicians have an equal right to seek and provide health care without harassment. We have important work to do to care for our patients. We have therefore enhanced security and are working with London Police Service to keep patients, visitors and staff and physicians safe during today's planned protests. We are closely monitoring this situation to ensure the continuity of patient care.”

I bring this forward because occurred in my region back on September 13, just days before the federal election. As COVID continued to grow, we continued to see these types of things. In Ontario, there were protests at 10 different hospitals that day.

The post was brought to my attention by Jason DeSilva, a friend of my husband. He was diagnosed with cancer, and thought, “What am I going to do?” When we see places like this and we are in pain and suffering and in critical illness, it is important to know that there is access to those types of buildings.

It was brought to my attention, and all I could think of were the people being impacted. I continued to read through all of the different comments. There were something like 968 comments, and I cannot even imagine the number of retweets. People were talking about this. Following that, there was a comment made by one of the patients, who said:

“Never ever protest at a hospital.

I've lived out the worst days of my entire life inside of a hospital when I needed healthcare workers the most.

I've had my insides cut apart, ovarian cancer painstakingly scraped out of my abdomen, multiple organs cut apart and stitched back together, a crushed femoral nerve as I took each step in agony to make it into the car for my long ride home after cancer surgery, all while wearing a diaper as my insides continued to bleed and leak.

Never ever protest at a hospital no matter how you feel about things right now. People going through the hardest days of their lives, and the staff that care for them, shouldn't have to deal with you. (There are other places to go if you feel you need to do that.)”

With this, it had “#beatcancer” and “#beagoodhuman”.

Another message that came from the post was this:

“Thankfully, my husband's appointment at the London cancer clinic was the next day.... Please know that the majority of people were appalled that such a protest would be carried out at any hospital...and we all know that the very people that showed up at this protest would be welcomed and treated with compassionate care in their time of any medical need at the very place where they protested...that's what makes it even more sad.... I hope they realize that this was a mistake and will never do this again....hank you to all our London hospitals for being there for us all.”

This has been a very trying time. When we talk about things like protests at hospitals, we all can agree that when someone is going to the hospital, in many cases it is their family and the individual who are driving. There is a great concern as they are driving there. Who knows what type of treatment they are going for? Maybe they are going to speak to a doctor to get a treatment plan, looking forward. Maybe it is cancer. Maybe they are having a new baby. Who knows what it may be? We recognize that this time is extremely stressful. Not being able to get into that type of facility is extremely concerning for so many people.

We can thank our health care providers. Throughout this pandemic and the last 20 months, we have seen the finest of the finest really step up. I think of the health care workers at the St. Thomas Elgin General Hospital; I think of the people at the London Health Sciences Centre and all across this great country, all of those people who stepped forward.

They heard there was a virus and a potential of being killed, and we saw health care workers put extra gear on and take extra caution. They served at the time when people needed them the most, when there was so much unknown and so much angst. Those people stepped up for us.

This is why I am so passionate in ensuring that those health care workers, who during the last 22 months have been there on the front line helping us, are not put in this situation. It is not fair to the health care workers, it is not fair to the staff who work there and it definitely is not fair to the patients and their families.

I also want to say it is not just those people who have helped us out. Across this country we have seen volunteers and organizations that have really stepped up. Because it is my first time being able to really talk about this, I want to thank my staff: Cathy, Jena, Scott, Jillian, Charli and Raghed. We really believe in service over self, and that is exactly what we see here. We see, in our Parliament, in our health care fields and in anybody who has stepped up during this pandemic, this service over self.

Returning to the debate on Bill C-3, I want to talk about a rational discussion, where we can recognize that we can have peaceful protests, but never lose critical services. The protests in London took place on September 13. I was going through the newspapers looking at those days and I was reminded of something. This is a quote from a London Free Press article on September 13, written by James Chaarani, “When asked why they chose to protest at a hospital,...the executive director of the London chapter of Vaccine Choice Canada, said it was a busy intersection and the group wanted to show support for health care workers. 'It's an opportunity for people of London to drive by this intersection and see that not everybody agrees with what the government is doing, and often our voice is not heard'”.

I am not here to try to debate whether they are right or wrong; that is not my choice for today. I recognize we have to look at the big picture. We have to look at what happens when this is critical infrastructure and what happens when this is going to have an impact on our people.

I would like to inform the House that I will be splitting with the member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte.

These are ultimately critical times for families. I think about myself, because following this protest my mom fell ill. She fell ill two days before the election. It is very personal, because when I talk about the health of my mother, that is what always comes first to me. I apologize to my mom because I know she is watching today. When I went to see her that day, I thought she was dead. I walked in there and kept rubbing her to get her awake. When I finally got her awake, I called my sister who said to take her temperature. I called the MPP Jeff Yurek, who said to take her temperature. However, what I needed to do, ultimately, was get her to the hospital.

I wonder what it would have been like. I know what I am like. Anyone in this chamber, as well as anyone at home, knows the passion I have for my loved ones. I think about what would have happened to me personally and what would have happened to others, and I cannot even imagine being in that type of situation.

These are feelings that are very strong. I know that throughout Canada, protests continue to happen. It is important to have the right to protest, but there is a time and place, and when it comes to projects and people's health and safety, that is not the time to put people at risk.

I am going to quickly switch gears and talk about the other part of this, about extending health benefits for sick days to federally regulated employees. Here in Canada we have approximately 910,000 federally regulated employees, and the majority of them are here in our government. We know that there are 18,000 employers whose labour rights and responsibilities are defined by the Canada Labour Code, and these types of organizations include our Crown corporations, Canada Post operations, port service, marine shipping, ferries, tunnels, canals, bridges and pipelines.

I think it is very important, as we saw through this pandemic, that when we are sick we have the ability to take time off. It is very important that when we are looking at this we understand that, if somebody is sick, they do not go to work. We do need to have some sort of backup plan. I know in many of the federal government policies that there is time and space for that, but for others, not so much. I think it is a great opportunity to have this discussion.

The House resumed from December 3 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.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Hochelaga.

I would like to acknowledge that I am addressing the House today from the ancestral, traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin nation. It is a unique opportunity to rise in the House today, surrounded by my colleagues who I am really happy to see again, to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-3.

I will spend the time available to me today to provide some more details about the proposed legislation.

First, it would amend the Canada Labour Code to provide 10 days of paid sick leave per year to workers in the federally regulated private sector. This would affect nearly a million workers in Canada, most of whom work for larger enterprises. However, we also have to take care of the smaller operators and the impact this will have on them. I will have more to say about that in a bit.

Those employed in the federally regulated sector for private enterprise would include interprovincial transportation companies, pipelines, banks, postal services and broadcast outlets, among other things. These are all industries that people count on every day, yet workers in these jobs cannot necessarily count on appropriate support if and when they become ill. If they get sick, they feel the pressure to go to work, because putting food on the table is not a choice. Paying the rent or the mortgage is not a choice.

I know from my past, too many people want to be the hero. They want to go to work and they drag themselves there. As a broadcaster, I remember fighting my way through blizzards and alligators and dungeons and dragons to get to work so I could tell everybody to stay at home. This kind of heroism looks good on the surface, but when it comes to an illness, especially one as critical as COVID-19, it is really not a good attribute to have.

The bill we have before puts people first. As the Minister of Labour has said, people have always been at the heart of Canada's labour program.

Let us talk about the Canada Labour Code. It sets out rules that protect worker health and safety. Today's bill would amend part III of the Canada Labour Code, which sets minimum labour standards for the federally regulated private sector, and it is in part III that we will find the provisions dealing with things like standard working hours, leave, holidays, wages and important issues like sexual harassment. However, today's bill has to do with the leave provisions.

Currently part III of the code provides employees in federally regulated industries with a number of leaves related to personal illness or injury. I will mention three of them now.

The first is personal leave, which provides employees with up to five days of leave per year, the first three of which are paid. This would be for things like personal illness or injury or urgent matters concerning themselves or their families.

The second is unpaid medical leave. Workers have up to 17 weeks if they are unable to work due to personal illness or injury or medical appointments during working hours. Employees may also take up to 16 weeks of unpaid leave as a result of quarantine.

The last leave that I will mention today is leave related to COVID-19. In March 2020, the Canada Labour Code was amended to create this new leave provision. Prior to its repeal law November 20, it allowed for employees to take unpaid job-protected leave for up to four weeks if they were unable to work for reasons related to COVID-19. This leave was designed to align with the suite of Canada recovery sickness benefits, and workers have been able to file claims for income support under that law.

On November 24, the government introduced legislation under Bill C-3, the one that we are debating today, that would reinstate the leave, extend its maximum length to six weeks and ensure it would remain available until May 7, 2022.

Ultimately these leave provisions mean that employees cannot take more than three days sick off work that are paid by the employer. It is clear, especially since the onset of the pandemic, that three days are not enough. Even looking at 2019 data, and that is pre-pandemic, Canadian workers took an average of 8.5 days of leave for illness or issues related to a disability.

What would Bill C-3 do? With Bill C-3, we are taking action to ensure Canadians in federally regulated industries have access to paid sick days. It would amend the Canada Labour Code to do three things.

First, it would make a change to repeal the personal leave that employees may take for treating their illness or injury. This is to avoid duplicating paid leave provisions relating to illness or injury and to set people up to use the new leave that would be created.

Second, on the new leave, the bill would provide that employees might earn and take up to 10 days of paid medical leave in a calendar year. They might take these sick days in one period or more.

Third, the bill would have some built-in flexibility. It would authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations to modify in certain circumstances the provisions respecting medical leave of absence with pay.

Before I conclude, I would like to pause on what is a bit of a sticking point for some. It is one I referenced earlier, namely that the changes proposed today would have an impact on employers, especially of smaller businesses. The government wants to make sure that employers have some lead-in time to handle these changes. That is why the coming-into-force date would be fixed by order in council. We would also commit to engaging in consultations with federally regulated employers to better understand the impact of these changes on their local realities.

There are a few other mitigating factors. The workers covered by these new amendments mainly work in medium- to large-sized businesses where the financial impacts would be more diffuse. For example, 87% of the workers impacted by this are in firms of 100 employees or more. That leaves 13% in smaller companies who would likely feel the pinch of paid absences more acutely. They can also request a medical note from employees when they use their sick days. Again, this is obviously an opportunity, for smaller employers especially, to make sure that the leave being taken is legitimate.

In addition, if an employee has used up all of the leave in the previous calendar year or is a new employee, the employee would start to accumulate paid sick leave at the rate of one day per month. This reduces the exposure for employers. For employees who do not use 10 days in a year, the proposed legislation allows for a limited carry-over of days. This means that the employee is not starting from scratch in a new year. However, the maximum number of paid sick days for the year remains at 10.

The Government of Canada is working hard to finish the fight against COVID-19. However, as we have heard regarding the other part of the bill, there is resistance to this and there are impediments. There are people who, for variety of reasons, be it fear, ideology or just plain stubbornness, do not necessarily want to contribute to the most fundamental of Canadian values: acting for the common good.

Bill C-3 would help both come through. It would make sure that nearly a million more Canadians at least have access to enough paid sick days. This would be more in line with what some of the provinces are doing, such as British Columbia, which allows for five paid sick days and three unpaid sick days. The idea, of course, is that if somebody is sick, they maintain their position in the company, ensuring ongoing employment, especially for employees who are hard to find, talented and technically able. They would be maintained even if they do have to take time off when they are sick.

Bill C-3 would make sure a million or more Canadians have access to enough paid sick days. As the Governor General said in the Speech from the Throne on November 23, “As we move forward on the economy of the future, no worker or region will be left behind.” Bill C-3 is intended to do just that, and I believe the debate and comments we hear from all sides of the House seek to enrich, inform and make this legislation better.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not recall reading a single National Post or Globe article stating that the Conservative Party was pushing misinformation or using it for political divide against the Prime Minister. I just read verbatim from a National Post article.

It is disgraceful that gentleman would misinterpret, purposely perhaps, my speech. Nowhere did I say anything that the Prime Minister did justified the protests. I was very clear in stating that. What I did state was that he used this issue for divisive politics.

It is unfortunate, when the parties are getting together, such as today, that he would choose that path instead of promoting a way forward on vaccines and Bill C-3.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, what a joy it is to be back in the House and be here for the rare occurrence of hearing the member for Winnipeg North speak. It happens about as often as a full eclipse of the sun. It is amazing. I am going to tell my grandkids that I was here to hear the member speak. It is actually disappointing that the Liberals have so many new members, yet time and again it is the same chap who stands up, as much as I do understand.

I will be sharing my time today with the member for Cumberland—Colchester, who is one of the new members we are allowing to speak.

We are talking about Bill C-3 today. I am glad to get a chance to get a word in edgewise, with the member across the way, but also to speak before the Liberals perhaps prorogue Parliament, call another snap election or use any other of their usual ploys to avoid accountability.

Bill C-3 is probably a needed bill, but it is an odd bill. Half is related to justice and the other half to the Canada Labour Code. I am not sure why the Liberals have put the two of them together instead of presenting them to the House separately. I hate to think doing it this way is a typical Liberal ploy, or that they are hoping someone will object to part of it, so they can scream and yell and say we are anti-health care workers. I know I am being cynical because there is no way in the world they would ever consider doing that. They would never try to wedge folks.

We have heard repeatedly from the government, and our colleagues from the NDP and the Bloc, about how much this bill is needed. Why now? Why not a year ago? Why not six years ago with the Canada Labour Code? Why have the Liberals waited? They have had the backing and support of all the parties during the COVID crisis to put through almost everything with unanimous consent. Why would they wait so long?

The labour changes the bill mentions easily could have been brought in before. Their delay reminds me of a great Seinfeld episode in which Newman, the postal worker and Seinfeld's nemesis, helps to kidnap Elaine's neighbour's dog and eventually gets caught. When a policeman comes to arrest him, he, à la son of Sam, asks what took him so long. I have to ask the same of the government. If it was such a priority, why would it wait?

We could have had this before the House, debated it and sent it to committee long ago. The election took place on September 21 and we waited two full months to sit in the House again. In the U.K., Boris Johnson was able to re-form the House and get its Parliament back to work in six days. It took the government two months just to get us here.

We could have easily dealt with Bill C-2. In the House today during question period, we heard the Liberals tell the Conservatives to get on side and pass Bill C-2. We heard them say in debate that we should help small businesses and pass Bill C-2. Why did they not convene Parliament to get us back to work immediately so we could pass Bill C-2? It is the same with Bill C-3.

With respect to Bill C-4 on conversion therapy, people thought it was Bill C-6 or Bill C-8, because it was brought to the House several times. It was killed when the government prorogued Parliament. It was killed again when it called an early election, which no one really wanted and was not needed, as we ended up the same. If it were that important, why did the Liberals not try to pass the conversion therapy bill earlier? They had six years to bring it in.

One bill I remember they brought through in 2017 as a higher priority than the conversion therapy was Bill C-24. At the time, and I was using another Seinfeld quote, I called it “a bill about nothing”. Basically, the bill changed the bank account the old ministers of state were paid from in the estimates process. I think it also changed the official name on the cheques from Public Works to PSPC.

This was a bill we debated in the House and tied up the committee with. Somehow the government decided that was more important than a conversion therapy bill. They had been paid that way since Confederation. The ministers of state were paid out of one small bank account, and the other ministers, technically the government, were paid out of another. We could have continued doing that and brought the conversion therapy bill then.

The reality is this: The government is not serious about how it puts forward its legislation. It delays, obfuscates, throws it out and then demands that opposition parties get on board and hurry up to pass it, when it could have done that a long time ago.

Generally, everyone supports the first part of the bill, on criminalizing threats toward health care workers. We have all seen, during the election, the blocking of ambulances from getting to hospitals and the harassing of health care workers. We have heard the horrible stories from my colleague for Timmins—James Bay, where a small-town doctor, vitally needed, was chased out of his community by these threats. We just heard from him about the single mother who was horrifyingly harassed just for getting a vaccine.

Therefore, perhaps we need this legislation, but I would like to hear more details. Apparently, a lot of this is covered already under provincial or other laws. I would like to see how the bill would strengthen the protection for our doctors and nurses and, as my colleague mentioned, for people who are just going for a vaccine. There are the doctors and nurses we have to protect, but we also have to protect Canadians who are trying to access health care facilities.

During the election, we Conservatives had, as part of our election plan, the critical infrastructure protection act. This would provide additional security from those protesting vital infrastructure, such as our hospitals and our rail and pipelines. We saw what just happened in B.C., with its supply chain devastated because of the cuts to the CN and CP rails. That was obviously an act of nature as opposed to protests, but protests can be just as devastating, and we have seen it be just as devastating to our health care when we do not have consequences. I hope my colleagues in the House will eventually adopt a law that would protect other vital infrastructure besides our hospitals, and also our supply lines.

Unfortunately, from day one, we have had mixed messaging from this government regarding vaccines and the COVID crisis, and it has led to confusion, fear and anger. None of this, nothing this government or anyone else has done, excuses the violence and harassment of our health care workers, doctors and people trying to access health care. However, what the government has done has not helped. When Canadians needed certainty, leadership and consistency, we got false information from the government, like we saw with the Deputy Prime Minister being admonished for fake news on Twitter.

It is funny. We heard earlier that my colleague, the member for Winnipeg North, when he was out door-knocking, was surprised by the anger from the vax versus the anti-vax people. I felt the same thing. We had people threatening us with a shotgun if we dared come with that. We have all felt it, but he was surprised. I want to read something from the National Post for the member. It said that in January, the Prime Minister had argued against mandatory vaccines as “divisive” in our “community and country”. It said that in March, he mused about the inequality and inequity of vaccine passports. In July, he said there would be no mandatory vaccines. However, two weeks later, apparently led by internal polling that showed he could divide the country for political gain, he announced a mandatory vaccine, cynically just in time.

The article goes on to say that the Prime Minister's “flip flop on vaccine mandates” exemplifies “a governing philosophy based on political calculus”.

This is not governing based on bringing us together, or on trying to get the unvaccinated vaxxed by convincing them of how good vaccines are and how they will lead us out of the troubles we are in. There is nothing about that. It is using it based on polling to create divisiveness in Canada for political gain.

The Prime Minister, when speaking out against protesters, used the term “you people” when describing the protesters. Now, I might perhaps, against some of the people who are blocking hospitals, have used harsher language, but he used the term “you people”. Now, I note for our feminist Prime Minister that the website everydayfeminism.com says “you people” is a racially coded phrase. Again, nothing the Prime Minister has done excuses the protesters and their actions, but nothing the Prime Minister has done has gone to alleviate the divisions in Canada. He has used this to divide the country.

Apparently I am out of time, so I will let it go and perhaps leave it open to questions and comments to address the second part of the bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will just continue with one of the most recent questions, as I thought it was of interest. The member just made reference to five days and 10 days. The idea of paid sick leave for workers is something that is important to all of us, and we recognize that. In fact, the member might make reference to the number of asks by the leader of the New Democrats, but he should remember that in 2019, the government actually instituted the three-day paid sick leave for workers. As it was pointed out, B.C. has seen to bring it up to five days.

One of the things the Prime Minister has consistently talked about over the last number of months, and probably from the beginning, is that we can try to learn things through the pandemic. That is why we are seeing before us the legislation that we have today. I will get into that in more detail shortly.

I wanted to start off by underlining what I think is a very important point. Everyone, whether they are a health care provider or a health care client, should feel safe when going into a health care facility. That is one of the two motivators for all of us to get behind this legislation and pass it through.

I am quite encouraged. To say it up front, in the last few days we have seen a great deal of optimism on the floor of the House of Commons. The other day, we passed the conversion therapy bill unanimously through second reading, committee stage and third reading. That could not have been done without the support of every member inside the House of Commons.

Yesterday, Bill C-2 got to the committee stage. Members recognized that it was important, because it continues to provide the supports Canadians need. This includes for small businesses, individuals and the communities we all serve. It was great to see the debate collapse and Bill C-2 go through.

This morning we have another wonderful debate taking place. From what I have heard thus far, we have had Conservatives, the Bloc and New Democrats talk positively about the legislation, believing this is the type of legislation that it would appear everyone can get behind. I can appreciate there are members who have some ideas in terms of amendments, and we will wait and see what kinds of amendments surface. I suspect there might even be some amendments today. Members are waiting for the bill to get to committee, where they will propose the amendments.

Having been a parliamentarian for a number of years, I have always thought that one of the best ways to get amendments dealt with is to share them as much in advance as one can, or do that consultation with parties on all sides of the House, making sure the department is aware of it. This is, as are the other two initiatives, a very important piece of legislation.

I reflect on the last election, and having gone through a number of elections as a candidate, I can tell members that it is not that often that we get real anger at the door. On the issue of vaccinations, what surprised me was the degree to which so many people were very upset. We could see the divisions even within a household.

I can recall at least two or three occasions when I was talking to a person at the door and the individual would be getting visibly upset. Someone else from the household would come and ultimately save the day, if I can put it that way, and lower the temperature. We have to try to get a better understanding of why that is taking place.

During the election we really started to see the protests. When I was at the doors, I would often to say to people that, whether it is members of the Green Party, the Liberals, the Conservatives or the New Democrats, we are all saying that people need to get vaccinated. All political parties, with the exception of the People's Party, were encouraging that.

People would ask about their individual freedoms, the Charter of Rights, and so forth. I suspect that, if the federal or provincial governments were denying people those basic human rights, opposition parties of at least one of the two levels would have stood on their feet to say we had gone too far. However, I am not familiar with any political party or individual member of Parliament sitting today who is saying that people should not be getting vaccinated. Yes, there are some concerns that some are not, but at the end of the day, to the best of my knowledge, I like to think that positive message is getting out.

One has to ask why the anger is out there. We need to expand upon that. What brought us to the point we are at today where that aspect of this legislation is necessary?

We can go back to March 2020, when very few people had an in-depth understanding of what the coronavirus was and its long-term impact, let alone its short-term impact. It was not that long ago when we were just told to wash our hands” Health care and science experts, at the beginning, were not saying that we had to wear masks. There was a learning curve, and it was very steep.

As we proceeded through the pandemic, we learned a great deal. Today, as a result, we find that people will continue to wear masks. I envision it will continue even after a year. Someone was saying to me that, if they were to have a cold, they would be inclined to wear a mask, as a consideration. I believe that masks will continue to be worn well into the future for different circumstances. It is not just something that will be gone two years from now.

I believe that people have a far greater understanding of why it is important to wash their hands. The 95% alcohol sanitizers are going to be selling well into the future because people will continue to use them. In the long term, this will actually save health care costs.

I used to be a health care critic in Manitoba, as well as a critic for a number of other portfolios. I would take tours of facilities, and I do not recall seeing people using the type of PPE that we have today. I suspect some of the things we are seeing now will linger into the years ahead, as it should. We have learned many measures through this pandemic.

If we look back to March of 2020, we were trying to get a better sense of the science. Health experts came together to make sure the advice they were giving to Canadians was right on the mark. That is why I consistently told people, virtually from day one, that I am not a health care expert, so the best thing they could do was follow what our health care experts were saying.

What we provided, as a government and as members of the House of Commons, was a first-class, second-to-none website presence through Health Canada, which was constantly being updated to provide the necessary information, so people could have a sense of comfort in knowing that the professionals were out there and there is a science to this. By clicking in, or by phoning their member of Parliament, Canadians could get an understanding of what was taking place and be brought right up to date. Provincial and territorial entities across the country, in all regions, also did likewise.

The problem was false news and people intentionally spreading misinformation. This is what fed into the whole anti-vax mentality. It somehow gave additional strength to anti-vaxxers. I was concerned when we started seeing rallies with people being bold enough not to wear masks in situations where there was a high concentration of people. People were coming together without masks to say that vaccinations were not the way to go. I would suggest that to think that did not have an impact would be wrong.

That is why each and every one of us has a role to play. The outcome of that misinformation, which provided an empowerment of sorts to those anti-vaxxers, was that it enabled them to espouse garbage, which is the best word that comes to my mind. We started to see protests. Let us imagine, if we can, some of the most vulnerable in society, the sick in a hospital facility, or those wanting to visit them, as there were limitations, and there were people protesting, making it more difficult for them.

Health care workers have really stepped up, working long hours and overtime, some of which was never ever claimed. Many health care workers got into that profession not because of the money, but because they truly care about the health and well-being of people. They want to contribute.

Those health care workers, and I am using that in the broadest terms, as I am talking about the cooks in our hospitals and the workers who kept our hospitals and long-term care facilities open, as well as the registered nurses, doctors, nurse practitioners, nurses aides and lab technicians, saved thousands of lives. All those wonderful people ensured Canada's population was, as much as possible, being provided the services that were absolutely critical to getting through this crisis situation. They prevented thousands more from ever having to go into ICUs. They were there, providing advice so people could ensure they could minimize the chances of people getting the coronavirus in the first place, whether it was testing, bed care in an ICU or the care provided in a long-term care facility. These are the heroes who took us through the pandemic.

I find it appalling that there are some in society who would actually protest people's entry into facilities, and the screaming and the yelling that was taking place. Whether they were protesting health care providers and workers, patients or visitors, they need to really reflect on that behaviour. We have to think about the roles we all play. During the election, there was no hesitation in my mind. When people would bring up the issue, I was right there, recognizing that people should not be protesting in the manner in which they were protesting. It was not right. Canadians recognized that, and this legislation deals with an important election promise.

I see I only have two minutes to go, and I have not even talked about the 10 days' paid leave. I am going to hop right over to that and maybe address more on it during questions and comments.

The federal government, a couple of years back, brought in three days of paid leave. In the last 18 months, the Prime Minister said to Canadians, and to Liberal members in Parliament on so many occasions, that we need to build back better, and this is a good example. Let us take a look at what Bill C-3 is doing. This is giving more social benefits to workers in Canada. This is something that is very strong and positive, and all of us should get behind it.

People who are sick should not have to go to work. This extends what we previously did in 2019. It was nice to hear that B.C. is following suit. If Ottawa were to pass this legislation, I do believe it would send the positive message to our provinces and territories that we could have better labour laws. If the provinces and territories get onside and support this type of legislation, then all workers in Canada, not the minority but all workers, would be able to benefit.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona for her question and for the excellent work she has been doing for two years now. She now has a new mandate and I congratulate her on her re-election.

That is a very important and troubling question. We have known for six months, for a year, even for a year and a half, about the realities of the pandemic and the dangers of going to work while sick. Even though the NDP has been urging the government to do this for workers, for our public health and public safety, it took all of this time, a pointless election and a new Parliament for the Liberals to introduce Bill C‑3.

I think that—

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is my first speech in this 44th Parliament. As many of my colleagues have done, I want to take a moment to extend my sincere thanks to the people of Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie for the confidence they have placed in me to represent them in this institution and to be their voice in the House. It truly is an immense honour to do so for a fourth time. I never thought I would last this long in this Parliament, but I will continue to serve with passion, drive and enthusiasm, to represent the progressive values and principles of the people of Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie.

The House is debating Bill C‑3 today, and I must say that my NDP colleagues and I are extremely pleased to be able to rise in this place and discuss one of the two issues in the bill: the proposal to provide 10 days of paid sick leave for federally regulated workers.

Why are we so happy about this? It is because the NDP has been asking for it for two years, from the start of the pandemic. We are now in the midst of the fourth wave, and it seems like it will never end. There may be a fifth wave, based on what we are seeing in Europe and Africa with the omicron variant.

The NDP has been insisting for at least 18 months that we must give workers 10 days of paid sick leave. In 2020, the leader of the NDP spoke about this 22 times in the House. He asked the Liberals 22 times when this was coming and why they were not taking action, and he reminded them that this change was needed in order to protect people, institutions and our communities. However, the government only kicked the can down the road. It remained evasive, saying that this measure was not needed and that it was doing something else.

Then, in the middle of an election campaign this fall, the Liberals decided that the NDP had had a good idea and that they would act on it. After dragging their feet all through 2020 and 2021, after calling a pointless and costly election, and after waiting two months to recall the House, the Liberals threw together this bill at the last minute and now want to push it through.

The 10 days of sick leave is a protection for workers that the NDP has been calling for for a long time. The Liberals were a bit late to the game, but they finally saw the light, had a road to Damascus moment, had a revelation. This is a good thing and a victory for the NDP, which has been calling for this for months, for nearly two years.

I would still like to take a minute or two to talk about the context of this pandemic. Let us go back to March 2020. I remember that time very clearly. We were hearing about what was happening in Wuhan, China, where it all started. Then, we watched as the virus spread like wildfire around the entire planet.

At one point, the governments decided to shut everything down because things had become too dangerous. People were told not to go to work if they did not have to. They were told not to go out, not to see anyone, and to stay at home because it was too risky. They were told to wear masks and wash their hands. The economy was put on pause, something that has never happened before and I hope will never happen again.

I live near Saint‑Laurent Boulevard in Montreal. I no longer heard any cars going by, but I could hear birds singing, which never happens on that street. That shows how society just shut down all of a sudden and became paralyzed.

Sick people who had a cough or a fever but did not want to miss a day of work had to make an impossible choice if they did not have sick leave. I am referring to people who were allowed to go to work because they had essential jobs in the supply chain, the food sector or health care.

That had a major impact on everyone, on families. It was definitely a collective trauma. I hope we are past it now. I hope that we are heading in the right direction and that, together, we will be able to move on to the next step.

In a crisis, people die. People suffer. Thousands of people died. Tens of thousands of people were infected, and thousands overcame the disease. However, some people will experience serious, long-lasting effects for the rest of their lives. This shows how society was and continues to be shaken to its very foundation.

This crisis was revealing. I want to talk about two different aspects of it.

The first is the fragility of our health care system. We are very proud of our accessible, universal public health care system, but we have noted some major shortcomings. For example, our long-term care homes were not ready. The working conditions of health care workers were sometimes not good enough to convince employees to continue working and to come to work. We saw how ill-prepared and ill-equipped we were.

We did not learn any lessons from the SARS epidemic in 2003. The recommendations made at the time were not implemented. We therefore found ourselves with no vaccines and no gloves, masks or personal protective equipment. We saw how vulnerable that left us. Our health care system was undermined. I hope that we have learned from this pandemic, so that we will be able to deal with the next one. Let us be clear. We are trying to get out of this pandemic as quickly as possible, but in the years to come, there will inevitably be another one. That is why it is so unfortunate that, under successive Liberal and Conservative governments, we lost all our national vaccine production capacity. The NDP has proposed creating a Crown corporation, if necessary. That way, if the private sector is not interested, we will at least have the collective public capacity to produce vaccines to treat people.

Our health care system was fragile. There were problems with working conditions, staffing and preparedness. We have collectively been dropping the ball for years.

The second aspect is our social safety net. Earlier, I spoke about the holes in the health care system. The holes in our social safety net are more like abysses or craters. We quickly realized that the current EI system was leaving many people with nothing when businesses closed, people were asked to stay home, jobs were lost and things were falling apart.

The EI system already excluded 60% of workers. This means that of all the workers who pay EI premiums, more than half do not have access to benefits when they lose their job. That is unbelievable. It is pretty much the dream of any private insurer that does not want to pay. EI is a public tool that we collectively implemented in order to help people who lose their jobs and fall on hard times. However, it is just not working.

As I explained earlier, it was even worse with the pandemic and the ensuing economic crisis. People who contributed to EI were not able to access it, and on top of that, others who did not contribute, such as contract workers, self-employed workers and freelancers, had nothing. That is why the NDP demanded that the government provide direct assistance to offset the gaps in this deeply flawed program. We demanded that the Liberal government increase the Canada emergency response benefit from $1,000 to $2,000 a month, so that people could safely pay their rent and grocery bills. What the Liberals had originally proposed was not enough. We then wanted to expand the benefit to people who might still have been getting a small contract or a couple of hours of work here and there, so that it would cover freelancers and self-employed workers, who had been excluded from CERB. We made it so that people could work and earn up to $1,000 while receiving CERB. We also took action to help students, who had been completely forgotten.

We saw that our social safety net was not good enough and that many people did not have sick leave. I want to emphasize this, because, in the context of a pandemic, sick days are a solution to a public health problem. Sick leave is a social benefit. It benefits the worker. Workers benefit personally from being able to stay home and rest instead of going to work sick, and it is better that way. Everyone wants that.

If someone unfortunately does not have access to paid sick leave and they cannot afford to take a day or two off work because their budget is too tight and they have bills to pay, they are sometimes faced with an impossible choice. They have to choose between buying groceries and staying home to take care of themselves. If they choose to stay home to rest, they might not be able to pay their rent at the end of the month.

It is not just that person's health at stake, but the health of everyone, because we are in the midst of a pandemic. If that person has symptoms of COVID-19, if they are coughing or have a fever and they go to work anyway, they might spread the virus to the other people in their workplace.

Personal sick leave therefore become a tool and a collective method of self-defence. This is a public health issue. Sick leave lets people make rational decisions and protect others, including their family, neighbours, community and co-workers.

While I deplore the fact that the Liberals dragged their feet and took so long to come up with this concrete proposal, I am pleased to see that we can take a leadership role, take a step in the right direction and perhaps encourage some other provinces to adopt similar mechanisms, so that all workers can eventually be protected.

Let us talk about those mechanisms. We see room for improvement. Bill C-3 can be improved. I would even say that it must be improved. That is why it is really important that there be a parliamentary committee that studies the bill one day where we will be able to discuss, debate and propose amendments.

In this version of the bill, people have to work one calendar month to be entitled to one sick day. After five months, they will be entitled to five sick days, and so on.

I see two problems with that. The first is the notion of calendar months. For example, someone hired on February 6 would not get their first paid sick day until April. That person will not have worked every day in February, so they have to wait until they have worked the whole month of March to get their first paid sick day, which they can put in their leave bank. That means they would have to wait six or seven weeks to get that first paid sick day. Why not go with a certain number of days worked consecutively, regardless of the hiring date or start date? Why not base it on an actual month and not make people wait six or seven weeks? I think that is the first thing we need to fix.

The second thing that needs fixing is the bank of 10 days of sick leave. It was people in the health care sector who talked to us about it, including representatives I met with this week from an organization called the Decent Work and Health Network. They are concerned that a new employee has to wait until they bank enough days of sick leave before they can stay home sick. It can take a while to accumulate enough days. According to a U.S. study these representatives cited, it takes at least six days of sick leave for the leave to become truly accessible. That is when the person can really take them, or even dares to take them. It was reported that people with at least six days of sick leave banked take sick leave more than people who have banked only a day or two.

We need to explore the possibility of having a minimum number of days available from the start, before the banking process begins to reach 10 days of sick leave. I think that is something the parliamentary committee could do.

We are talking about technicalities, but they can make a big difference in people's lives. When people get sick, one day is rarely enough. The Decent Work and Health Network also talks about a survey that found that the median duration of leave for influenza is four days. If someone has only a day or two of leave banked, it may not be enough.

With regard to the mechanisms, I would also like to talk about how the employer is allowed to ask the employee to provide a medical certificate for a day of paid leave. For just one day of leave, the employer could require the employee to consult a physician in order to obtain a medical certificate justifying the absence. I believe that it is important to show good faith and to trust employees. Allowing this type of mechanism implies a presumption that abuse and fraud will take place. Is a doctor's note needed for just one day of leave, as opposed to four or five?

We need to ask ourselves this question because this mechanism could be a barrier. A person who suffers from gastroenteritis and who cannot go to work for a day could be asked for a medical certificate two weeks later. This complicates things. Not only will they have to take one day of leave, but they will have to make a doctor's appointment two weeks later to ask for a medical certificate.

That will clog up the health care system. The doctor we met with who was part of the group I mentioned told us that he had better things to do than sign papers for someone who took one or two sick days. His job is to treat people who are sick right now, not to prove, after the fact, that someone was previously sick. Furthermore, this group did a survey and found that the requirement to provide a medical certificate for taking a sick day was an impediment for 82% of workers. That is a lot.

This requirement outweighs the benefits of paid sick leave. It may seem silly, but the NDP believes that we cannot ignore that this is an obstacle for 80% of workers. This is something we need to take into account.

I want to move on from talking about the first part of the bill to the second part of Bill C‑3, which would amend the Criminal Code. Under Bill C‑3, threatening or intimidating health care workers or impeding them from entering their places of work, such as hospitals and clinics, would become aggravating factors. The bill would allow for harsher punishments to combat these forms of intimidation.

Unfortunately, over the past two years and especially in the past year, some very aggressive people who are against science, public health and vaccines have acted in a disgraceful manner. They intimidated and threatened health professionals who were going to hospitals to take care of our parents, grandparents, children and neighbours. It is mind-boggling. The NDP agrees that we need to implement a measure to address that issue. We said during the election campaign that we needed to take steps to protect health professionals. This is a major problem, and we cannot let people intimidate and threaten the workers who take care of us. That does not make any sense. We need to take steps to protect them, so this change to the Criminal Code is a good thing.

That being said, we must not infringe on these same workers' right to use pressure tactics when they are on strike as part of a collective bargaining process, for example. I think we need to take that into account and be very vigilant. In any case, the NDP will stay vigilant, in order to preserve the right to picket and strike as part of a labour dispute.

The NDP stands up for workers. We want to stand up for them so that they do not have rocks thrown at them by anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists. However, we also want to protect workers' rights so that when they are on strike because of a labour dispute, they can express themselves, demonstrate and make their demands and the reason for the labour dispute known.

That aspect is very important to the NDP. We agree with the principle of the bill, but we must be sure not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We need to ensure that the right to picket and the right to demonstrate are protected in the event of a labour dispute or strike. For the NDP, this will be very important to see.

I thank the members for their attention, and I am ready to take questions.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois always agree when it comes to workers' rights. We believe that workers should always enjoy or be able to enjoy a consistent level of well-being. That is why we will vote in favour of Bill C‑3—as will the NDP, I am sure.

My colleague brought up a sensitive topic about where the line is drawn and how far is too far. I completely agree. Debate is not the time for us to set legitimate boundaries.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I found it a little strange that he would imply that the NDP would not want the Bloc Québécois to ask relevant questions about the bill. On the contrary, we will welcome such questions—as long as they are relevant, of course. I still think we are moving in the right direction.

I am sure it will come as no surprise to my colleagues that protecting the right to strike, to be able to protest and to form a picket line when the situation warrants it, is extremely important to us in the NDP.

Is the Bloc Québécois prepared to work with the NDP to ensure that Bill C-3 protects health care workers from hostile protesters who try to intimidate them, as well as the right of those same health care workers to exert pressure in their labour relations?