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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to our health care workers. It goes without saying just how much we collectively appreciate how our health care workers have stepped up to the plate.

Many years ago, I was the health care critic in the Province of Manitoba. We found that for many health care workers it was more than just the demand of getting more nurses into the profession. It was the way in which human resources often allocated staffing years and things of that nature at different institutions.

I am wondering what the member thinks of the Standing Committee on Health looking at this as a possible study, going forward, on health care workers and how Canada can provide some national leadership on the whole health care resources file, with a special focus on nurses.

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

Madam Speaker, it starts with having enough people in the workforce. Right now, there is a shortage of health care workers. We are focusing particularly on nurses. We need to solve that problem. We need to get enough people in the workforce working in hospitals and in the many other fields where nurses serve their patients and keep Canadians safe. That is where we need to start. I would certainly be open to any suggestions about how hospital administrators allocate those resources, but the resources need to be there first.

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

Madam Speaker, I am having a hard time understanding what is going on. We hear about the need for health transfers and funding. I hear my colleague talking about what can be done to address the labour shortage, to maintain and respect the work of nurses, but we know that the solution is to increase health transfers and let the appropriate jurisdictions do their work.

On the subject of protests, which we heard a lot about during the election campaign, what happened? Quebec took the bull by the horns. As recently as September 2021, the National Assembly took direct action on protests.

What does my colleague think of the solution of increasing health transfers and giving Quebec and the provinces the authority to respect our health care workers?

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

Madam Speaker, the member's question gives me an opportunity to talk about jurisdiction and Canadian constitutional law. I am not talking about the federal government taking over jurisdiction. Of course, we are going to work with the provinces. Health care is a provincial matter. The federal government needs to work with the provinces to find the best way to increase health care resources.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, since the pandemic, the NDP asked the Prime Minister 22 times to fix the old version of the paid sick leave so more workers could access it. Constituents in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith have had to choose between their health and paying rent. This is a choice that no one should have to make. The Conservatives and the Liberals have also voted against making life-saving medications more affordable through pharmacare.

Could the member share when they will start putting the health and wellness of workers, and families first and will my colleague support the much-needed 10 paid sick days for workers?

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

Madam Speaker, as other speakers have said, this needs to go to committee to be studied. We do not have a lot of detail about the government's plans in that regard. I do know that many unionized workers working in federally regulated industries have paid sick leave in their contracts, and I believe in the sanctity of contracts. I would certainly be willing to look at gaps where further assistance is required. However, that is for the committee to look into.

[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.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, during the course of the debate today, we have heard at least a couple Conservative colleagues try to draw a parallel between the protests that are happening outside hospitals with those that occurring along pipelines.

I wonder if the member thinks that when this does get to committee, we should draw that comparison and try to further the legislation to include looking at protests along pipelines.

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

Madam Speaker, Canada relies on infrastructure. At this point, what is before the House is the protection of health care workers. I certainly would be in favour of looking at legislation that protects any critical infrastructure, not just pipelines. Infrastructure is just as critical to Canadians as health care is, so I am in favour of any legislation that extends protection to our system functioning smoothly.

[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, I live in a riding where there is a significant doctor shortage, but it is nowhere near the shortage that my colleague from Nunavut mentioned.

With that, I support anything that is going to get more people into health care facilities. I am open to discussing this at committee so we can dive into it more. Hopefully, we can all come to a consensus so there can be more doctors and nurses. It would be helpful because, simply put, we are just not turning out enough doctors and medical practitioners.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have to just shake my head when I hear my colleague talk about finding solutions to help regions experiencing a shortage of health care workers.

There is a very simple solution. Health falls under provincial and Quebec jurisdiction. We therefore reiterate the unanimous request of Quebec and the provinces to increase health transfers, without conditions. That is the best way for Quebec and the provinces to take charge of recruitment and ensure that all regions in each Canadian province and in Quebec will be well represented and have the staff they need.

Does my colleague agree that the government should commit to an immediate and unconditional increase in health transfers, as called for by Quebec and the provinces?

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

Madam Speaker, a part of our Conservative platform was actually an increase in health transfers. As my colleague for Langley—Aldergrove pointed out, this is a jurisdictional issue, health care is provided by the provinces, and the federal government does provide funding for that. As set out in our platform in the most recent election, we were all for increasing health transfers to the provinces given our aging population and the need for ongoing care.

[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—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It is time for questions and comments, but before we go there, I would like to remind the hon. member to perhaps think before accusing certain members of the House of certain things.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.