Bill C-3

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

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

Second Reading

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

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, we have commended our health care workers through efforts such as the nightly banging of pots and honking of horns at 7 p.m. Health care workers have been true heroes working on the front lines tirelessly.

Calling health care workers heroes and commending their bravery, while entirely deserved, is not enough. We need to provide real protections for them.

The amendments to the Criminal Code in this bill would afford health care workers security against obstruction from accessing their workplaces safely. Unfortunately, we have seen terrible incidents where doctors, nurses and other health care practitioners have been intimidated, threatened and in some cases spat on or threatened with violence, all because they are saving the lives of COVID-19 patients.

I would like to take a moment to give my very personal perspective on this bill.

My wife is a doctor at a hospital that was declared a COVID hospital at the outset of the pandemic. During the first week of the pandemic, we updated our wills, not knowing what dangers we faced. We slept on different floors and took extra precautions to sanitize, when we could actually find disinfectant materials.

Some doctors moved out of their private homes to protect their families and moved into private accommodations. Many extra precautions were taken to launder clothes to make sure the virus did not come into our personal homes. Challenges continued wave after wave. Then throw in a heat dome and another wave, and we have a health care crisis and a system stretched to the breaking point relying on the goodwill and moral fibre of the people who work in the system.

I would like to thank my wife and her colleagues at Surrey Memorial Hospital and other hospitals across the country, the specialists and technicians, the nurses and the aides, the cleaning staff, food services and everyone else in patient care who all worked to keep the rest of us safe.

Now protesters are trying to threaten these workers and to prevent them from accessing their places of work. I feel especially for the emergency room doctors but also the paramedics, who are understaffed, underfunded and need to shepherd their patients past rabid anti-vaxxer protesters.

Our health care workers are facing moral distress. No one should feel unsafe at their workplace. This legislation would provide health care workers the confidence and legal protections needed to safely access their workplaces.

We know intimidation can also manifest through online forums as well, not just in person. We would be protecting health care workers here as well. In the age of social media and digital technology, we know online threats can be just as real and devastating as those faced in front of a workplace. No individual should be able to use fear to stop health care workers or those who assist them from performing their duties.

Our legislation would not only protect health care workers but those accessing health care as well. In many cases, those accessing health care are the most vulnerable, particularly during this pandemic. This summer, an individual went to Toronto from Prince Edward Island to wait for a lung transplant. They were leaving the hospital after a physiotherapy session. They had to be escorted by police to protect them from an unmasked group blocking access to and from the hospital. We have heard story after story of this kind of behaviour across the country. We cannot accept this behaviour, which is placing our most vulnerable at risk.

This legislation would clearly ensure Canadians have the freedom to voice their concerns and protest in a safe and peaceful manner. It would also ensure workers’ freedom to take labour action, including picketing. These would be respected by these proposed changes to Canada’s criminal law.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted a number of issues facing Canadians in their workplaces. Too many health care workers, those who assist them and Canadians seeking medical care have experienced or feared intimidation while attempting to provide or access health services.

In normal times this type of harassment and intimidation is disagreeable, but during a worldwide pandemic, this type of behaviour is abhorrent, which is why legislation is needed.

I will now shift my focus to another aspect of this bill.

Too many Canadians have been forced to choose between staying home when they are sick or being able to afford rent or groceries. This legislation's other change, which is the provision of 10 days of paid sick leave, would protect the well-being of Canadians, support them economically and avoid pressures on our health care system. While this would only apply to federally regulated workers numbering almost one million workers at this point, it would contribute to a wider discussion about paid sick leave across the country.

The pandemic has demonstrated the effect that illness can have on our economy and the cost for individuals and families. With isolations and quarantines lasting up to two weeks, workers need to know that if they contract COVID-19, they can take the necessary time off work without risking a loss to their income and without exposing others to the risks of COVID. Not only will this ensure that workers do not need to choose between their income and their well-being, but it will also avoid spreading COVID-19 or other contagious illnesses in the workplace. There have been too many stories of outbreaks in workplaces that happened because individuals felt they had to come into work because they could not afford to take unpaid time off. This often results in negative economic effects for companies as well.

Not only will this legislation help workers, but it will be a preventive measure for our health care system. We have all experienced lockdowns throughout the last 20 months to help our hospitals avoid being overwhelmed by COVID-19 cases. This is another measure to prevent the outbreaks in workplaces from driving up case numbers and putting our health care system at risk now and in the future.

For Canadians not employed in a federally regulated industry, our government will be engaging in consultations with federally regulated employers and workers on the implementation of this legislation. Additionally, the government will convene the provinces and territories and other interested stakeholders to develop a national action plan to legislate paid sick leave across the country, while respecting provincial and territorial jurisdiction and clearly recognizing the unique needs of small business owners. Ten days of paid sick leave is another tool in creating a more resilient economy as we emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic.

For all the reasons I have outlined in my speech today, I will be supporting this bill. I welcome any questions from my colleagues.

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

Madam Speaker, banning demonstrations aimed at intimidating health care workers or hindering the smooth running of hospitals is a good thing.

However, does my colleague not think that there is a risk that this will backfire on workers who want to demonstrate, on the right of unions to demonstrate?

What could we do to clarify that aspect?

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

Madam Speaker, a very important right we need to maintain is the ability to have legal protests within a workplace to stand against employers and stand up for the rights of workers. This legislation does address that. It respects the constitutional rights of workers to defend their rights and negotiate with their employers. It also makes sure that workplaces will remain accessible despite protests, so it is about free passage to obtain necessary health care. I believe the bill strikes the right balance, and that is why I am supporting it.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, my question is about urgency and being in a pandemic. The member mentioned that this needs to happen very quickly because we are in a pandemic, so he will not be surprised when I ask him why he feels it has taken the government 18 months to move forward with these 10 days of sick leave. The government has known since the very beginning, of course, that the New Democratic Party would be very supportive of allowing these 10 days. We have been calling for that, really, since the beginning of the pandemic.

If this is urgent, why are we in a situation where we have to push the bill through quickly right now? If the government wanted to bring this forward sooner, and could have, why did it not?

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

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I was not here in the last Parliament and could not weigh in on the urgency of this based on the personal experience I was seeing with my family, as my wife is a health care practitioner, a physician, and the pressures it was putting on my community. That is why I am so delighted, now that I am back in the House of Commons representing my community, that our government has acted so quickly. This is a priority piece of legislation within the first hundred days, and we are acting on it. We are moving quickly. That is the kind of response I want to see when I am fighting for the needs of my community.

The House resumed 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.

Criminal Code

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C‑3.

I must admit that this bill is a little strange because it deals with two completely different topics. It would amend the Canada Labour Code and would also amend the Criminal Code. The bill's scope goes in two completely different directions.

First, the bill would amend the Criminal Code to increase penalties on people who intimidate health care workers or patients or who obstruct access to a hospital or clinic in order to impede people from obtaining health services, such as vaccination. It is hard to argue against virtue, so it is relatively easy to support this part of the bill.

Second, the bill would force federally regulated employers to grant up to 10 days of paid sick leave to their employees. As I just said, it is hard to argue against virtue, so we will support this bill.

I would like to raise an important point about the part involving protests outside health care facilities. We are being told the bill is not intended to infringe on the right to peaceful protest and is therefore not intended to affect workers' rights, but that is not made perfectly clear in the wording.

This will require clarification. As usual, the Bloc Québécois will be thorough in asking questions, checking the facts, seeking confirmation and possibly proposing any amendments needed to protect this basic right.

The Bloc Québécois always stands up for workers' rights. Of course, we defend collective rights, but defending workers' rights is one of our core values. It is of the utmost importance to us.

In Quebec, workers' rights during a dispute are particularly well protected compared to the rest of Canada. Think, for example, of the anti-scab legislation in effect in Quebec. It is important that close attention be paid to this part of the legislation.

Furthermore, paid sick leave is a step forward for federally regulated Quebec workers, even though there are not that many of them. It is a step forward for them.

As history has shown, progress for one group of workers is always progress for all workers. A rising tide lifts all boats, and measures like this create momentum, which is always positive even if it is just for a small group of people. The Bloc Québécois will definitely support this measure.

I want to comment on the prohibition of protests. The bill would give prosecutors added powers to charge people who impede others in the performance of health care duties and interfere with access to a clinic or hospital.

Under the present circumstances, because of the election campaign and anti-vax protests, people have been thinking about access to health care facilities a lot. It is these events, in large part, that led to the creation of this bill.

Over the years, we have also seen protests by people preventing access to abortion clinics. Recognizing that every woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body and that nobody can interfere with that is one of our core values. In that respect, this measure is good because it goes some way toward ensuring that people will not be hassled while accessing health care.

This part of the law is important because it distinguishes between “freedom of expression” and “aggression”. Unfortunately, in our society, some individuals or groups often confuse the two concepts. Some think that because they have the right to express themselves, they have the right to prevent others from doing something. This is not at all the case, and such behaviour should never be tolerated. This is a fundamental and very important point.

As parliamentarians, we have a duty to protect people from all forms of aggression. This is what we started to do in the last Parliament before the unnecessary election that everyone knows about. We were working on Bill C‑205, which concerned the agricultural sector and would have prevented vegan activists from trespassing on livestock farms and other farms.

Assaulting someone or coming onto their property to express a political opinion or a point of view is unacceptable. This is a democratic country, and democracy is expressed in a peaceful and respectful way. There are public spaces for demonstrating. Once people start to be bullied, it becomes very important to intervene.

This also deals with intimidation, and that is important. When people head out to a certain place and find a threatening group there, they may turn back. The example of vaccine-hesitant folks comes to mind. This is not a judgment of someone's opinion. I am not saying that one group is more right than another. However, in order for us to get out of this miserable crisis, our duty as parliamentarians is to encourage people to get vaccinated. That means that any demonstration that might interfere with that goal obviously must be prevented without stopping people from expressing themselves. Once again, “expression” does not mean “aggression”. This is a very important point.

In my former life as a high school teacher, I fought against bullying and intimidation for many years. It was a fundamental issue that was very important to me. I will continue that fight as a parliamentarian, because our civil society must not accept that kind of behaviour.

Bill C‑3 is quite severe, providing for prison sentences of up to 10 years, depending on how the offender is charged. They could get 10 years or two years less a day. This could be a good way to make people think twice about assaulting others.

As for the rest, the bill also contains other clauses, such as release orders for people charged under the amended law, potentially with conditions. That is fairly standard.

However, I would like to highlight one very important point for my colleagues. Under Bill C‑3, any criminal offence committed against a health professional in the performance of their duties would now be considered an aggravating factor. I think this is a great approach, because it confirms the almost sacred nature of health care work. It also protects access to care for the general public, which I think is a very good sign.

The last part deals with paid sick leave, and it is positive, as I said earlier. However, the majority of federally regulated private sector workers already have access to 10 or more days of sick leave. We are talking about roughly 63% of those workers. Getting that number up to 100%, or in other words, giving everyone access to those sick days is great, but there is one aspect of Bill C-3 that could prove to be problematic, and it needs to be addressed. I am referring to the fact that the employer can require a medical certificate within 15 days of the employee's return to work. I wonder about that.

Consider the example of someone who has been sick for two days and returns to work, then after another five or six days is asked by their employer to provide a medical certificate. I think it would be hard to prove one's illness by that point. The right questions need to be asked, and I am counting on my esteemed colleague, who is the critic on this issue, to dig into the matter, but I think it is important to clarify that aspect.

As I have been saying from the start, we cannot be against this bill, despite the fact that it changes very little. It feels like the Liberals are trying to prove that they are with the times and following the trends. We are being asked to vote on this bill after we were forced to urgently vote on a time allocation motion. As a colleague from another party said earlier, however, this was brought up a long time ago.

Why was this not done at the beginning of the crisis when many people may have needed it?

Why wait 62 days to recall members to work and then shove bills down their throat?

Many areas need our swift action, such as the cuts to the guaranteed income supplement for seniors, which is a major injustice. When will we see some movement on that? I am being told that Bill C‑3 is urgent, that it needs to happen by tomorrow morning, but we sounded the alarm about the cuts to the GIS before the election campaign.

Does the government not want to introduce a bill to address that situation? It is a matter of social justice. Yesterday, we discussed Afghanistan; it is the same thing.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the things we recognize is that Canadians afforded the House of Commons a minority government. This means that the government does work, has worked and will continue to work with opposition parties as best as it can to speed up legislation, as legislation does require the support of another party to pass. In the past, we have been sometimes supported by New Democrats, and sometimes by members of the Bloc. We have even had support from the Conservatives.

The majority of members of Parliament are saying we should proceed quickly on a piece of legislation for whatever reasons, just as, I trust, the Bloc will identify an important piece of legislation. Based on that, would the member not agree that this says a lot about the urgency to get this bill through for our health care workers and for workers because it is in the best interests of both?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and openness. That is exactly why we are here.

My colleague noted that Canadians re-elected a minority government. I would point out to him that combining the Liberal and Bloc members results in a majority. The Bloc Québécois proposes initiatives every day in the House because we are an intelligent and constructive opposition.

I talked about the guaranteed income supplement. We also made suggestions about Afghanistan, and the motion was adopted this afternoon. I hope that we will be able to move quickly to bring people over and to provide humanitarian aid to that country. Furthermore, for two years, we have been making proposals with respect to temporary foreign workers. We have been promised that reforms are in the works. These reforms must be implemented, and we will be there to support them.

There is much work to be done, and the Bloc Québécois is here for the people, but always with the same principle in mind: It has to be good for Quebec.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to come back to something my colleague mentioned in his speech. I have already had the opportunity to ask questions about Bill C-3. Obviously, nobody can be against sick days and apple pie.

My colleague gave two examples related to the right to protest that are of particular interest to me. The first example, specifically protests in front of abortion clinics, is of particular interest to me as the critic for status of women. Indeed, those protesters can sometimes do more harm than good, since the women who need to attend those clinics are often going through an already difficult and intensely private experience.

My hon. colleague also drew a parallel with a previous bill, Bill C-205. As a member representing a rural riding, I have heard a lot about the harm protesters have caused to animals.

Can my colleague talk about the need to balance the right to protest with the fact that these protests sometimes do far more harm than good?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague and favourite seatmate for her fundamental question. I thank her for giving me the opportunity to emphasize this point.

Just last week, I had discussions with people who were at a crossroads. Take the vaccine, for example. Imagine someone is afraid to get vaccinated, but then thinks about it and finally decides to go ahead. If that person arrives at the health care facility and protesters are blocking their way, that person might turn right around.

The same thing might happen to a young woman who has been sexually assaulted or who has been fretting for days about an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy. She too might turn back.

Access to health care must be respected, because it is essential. Our job is to protect these people.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, during the pandemic, I have been absolutely appalled at the level of harassment I have seen toward health care workers, who are trying to do their part to fight the pandemic. Does my hon. colleague agree that it is absolutely critical for health care providers to be provided with immediate protection?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I agree, it is absolutely critical. I will take this opportunity to come back to the urgent need to pass this bill. Earlier today, debate was shut down on the pretext that it was urgent to pass the bill. However, someone pointed out earlier that the 10 days of paid leave were proposed a long time ago.

The COVID‑19 crisis began a long time ago, so why did the government not act sooner?

I would like to remind the House that Quebec did not wait for Canada to act. In Quebec, we have already passed legislation and introduced very severe fines. Quebec is often ahead of the game when it comes to legislation. Rather than judging it—