Bill C-3 (Historical)

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.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. opposition colleague for his comments. I absolutely join him in thanking everyone who works here.

It is an extraordinarily difficult thing, particularly during a pandemic, to provide the support we have seen. I want to take this opportunity to thank the Clerk of the House, Mr. Charles Robert, his wonderful team of clerks, every branch of service in the administration of the House of Commons, including the Parliamentary Protective Service, and the pages, who help us so much in our work, particularly during these challenging times.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to wish you and your family, and indeed all members, a very merry Christmas, happy holiday and happy new year. I hope that all members are able to spend time with their families and are both safe and healthy in these very challenging times.

I think we have demonstrated over the last four weeks, with my hon. counterparts from the Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democrats, a wonderful spirit of co-operation. We have been able to get a lot done on behalf of Canadians. I want to thank them, and through them I thank their caucuses for a very productive last four weeks.

This afternoon, we will continue our work on Bill C-2, an act to provide further support in response to COVID-19, and Bill C-3, which would provide workers in federally regulated sectors with 10 days of paid sick leave and make it an offence to intimidate or prevent patients from seeking care.

I will advise that in February, the government will propose a take-note debate on Saskatchewan's proposed constitutional amendment. I would also like to table, in both official languages, an amendment to Bill C-3, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code.

Finally, there have been discussions among the parties, and I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, special order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-2, An Act to provide further support in response to COVID-19, as amended, be deemed concurred in at the report stage, that the motion for third reading of the bill be deemed moved and seconded and that the House proceed immediately to a recorded division on the motion for third reading.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in relation to Bill C-3, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, it has become more and more apparent that this is a Liberal government that has run out of steam and run out of ideas. We are now nearly three months away from what was supposed to be, in the Prime Minister's words, “the most...[consequential] election since 1945”, yet Canadians still have little clue about what direction the Liberal government is taking our country. Canadians can be forgiven, I think, for a profound sense of déjà vu as they read the latest throne speech delivered by the Governor General. In many ways, it reads exactly like the throne speech from 2020, so much so that Canadians are wondering just why we needed to have an unnecessary, reckless and expensive $600-million pandemic election.

To be sure, there are some important points in the throne speech, such as fighting the pandemic and getting Canada back to normal. There are promises to address reconciliation with first nations, to take action on climate change, to strengthen the middle class and to grow the economy. These are all important promises, but when we look at the record of the Liberal government, particularly over the last three years, we see a lot of talk, but little action. Conservatives believe that the purpose of winning elections is so we can legislate to fix problems and seize opportunities for our country. For the Liberals, it is the other way around. They legislate and make promises so that they can win elections and seize opportunities for themselves.

This abdication of leadership has led to a country that is dealing with more than one crisis, where the government can say the right thing, but action is rarely forthcoming. One columnist recently wrote that the Prime Minister is the return of the infamous Mr. Dithers character. Someone who has “hit the ground running at a sloth-in-slow-motion speed.” This is no longer the government of idealists elected in 2015. It is a government that desperately wants to hold on to power, divide and conquer Canadians, and take the bare minimum of action required to safely remain in government.

This has resulted in a terrible situation in our country, where very real problems are not being addressed with the seriousness they deserve. In the throne speech, I was disappointed to see little or no mention of the significant issues Canadians care about right now. For example, in Canada, we are undergoing the most significant period of inflation since I have been alive. For decades, Canadians could rely upon fiscal and monetary policy that maintained an inflation rate close to 2%. This meant that Canada’s economy could grow at a solid rate, while ensuring that prices for goods did not drastically increase. Now we are seeing very significant increases across all sectors, with food, fuel, housing and vehicles all seeing steep jumps in prices.

One recent report also indicated that almost every investment asset class, when calculating for inflation, is returning a net negative real return. The consequences of letting inflation run at these levels will impact families for generations to come. It will mean less money saved for retirement, more resources dedicated to just the essentials and less resources for achieving Canadians’ dreams. It will mean eroded standards of living for retirees on fixed incomes, who will look at the value of their nest eggs shrink as the money supply expands exponentially. The government promises that it will find a way to make Canadians whole, but we saw the consequences in the past of government trying to control wage and price inflation. It only exacerbated the problems further.

The most significant actions that have worked historically to address runaway inflation have been for the government to get its fiscal house in order and for the Bank of Canada to raise interest rates. These are bitter pills to swallow for Canadians who have grown used to massive government largesse and artificially lowered interest rates. The Liberals, I fear, will try and win politically by forestalling this inevitability by increasing spending and allowing the Bank of Canada to let inflation run even higher, thus forestalling the need for increased interest rates.

The consequences of this will mean exponentially more pain for Canadians in the future as the government loses its ability to finance deficit spending and the Bank of Canada loses its ability to control inflation. Canadians deserve a government that will make the tough choices to ensure future generations can have a better life than the one we have. I know from hitting the doors in my community that the cost of living was top of mind for many families. Canadians need to see leadership from the government and they are not seeing it right now from the Liberals.

There is also nothing in the throne speech to comfort the anxiety of my constituents in Alberta. In my region, we rely on the agriculture, forestry, oil and gas, and service sectors to put food on the table. On the agriculture front, there was only one mention in the Speech from the Throne, and that was about creating a Canada water agency. What about a plan to ensure that Canadian farmers can continue to access world markets? What about a plan to address the rising cost of agricultural inputs, such as fertilizer and fuel, which are threatening global food security? These are serious issues, but there was no mention of them by this government.

Where is the plan to fight the Americans on the unjust doubling of softwood lumber tariffs? Where is the plan to ensure that our oil and gas sector can continue to sustain our economy for generations to come while reducing and eliminating greenhouse emissions?

I see company after company from Alberta pledging billions of dollars in combined resources to implement revolutionary and effective carbon capture technology. Where is their willing partner in the federal government? Where is the tax credit for enhanced oil recovery, which will sustain new, low-carbon jobs and investments for decades to come? It is not to be found in the throne speech. Instead, we just see ideological talking points and promises to shut down our jobs and our industries.

The words “just transition” have become a nightmare for Albertans. Many people in my riding lost their jobs when coal-powered plants were phased out a few years ago. Communities and workers were promised by this Liberal government that they would have compensation and a just transition. The last promise in the 2019 budget said $100 million for coal communities.

Well, we have not seen any funding from this Liberal government, and it has been two years. Folks in my area know exactly what a “just transition” means. It means fewer jobs, less prosperity and more “just inflation”. It is time for the Liberal government to take co-operative action with the oil and gas sector to ensure the prosperity of all Canadians, not just those who are represented by Liberal MPs.

The Speech from the Throne also failed to address the elephant in the room in Canada right now. One of our most important institutions has been on the news on an almost daily basis, and not a lot of it has been good news. I am talking, of course, about the Canadian military and the numerous scandals that we have seen.

As someone who represents a large military community and CFB Edmonton, I know that my constituents are extremely proud of our Canadian Forces members, but every day they lose confidence when they see the Liberal government fail to act and fix problems. An institution as important as the Canadian military deserves far more attention from this government than it received in the throne speech, where it was not even mentioned once. Sadly, this is just another case of the Liberal government failing to tackle the important issues that Canadians want to see solved.

The Liberals' rhetoric has, yet again, failed to match the reality of action. When the Prime Minister said this was “the most important election since 1945”, he clearly was not talking about its importance to Canadians. Instead, he was talking about its importance to his own ambitions for a majority government.

We are seeing bills being passed today that would have been, and could have been, passed if we had not had an election, such as Bill C-2, Bill C-4 and Bill C-6. We see legislation that was passed with unanimous support, like Bill C-3 last night, which fulfilled the promise from all the way back to May 2020 to implement paid sick leave.

This is legislation the Prime Minister said would be implemented without delay, but it took a year and a half to produce a mere page of legislation. In fact, it was not even important enough to merit its own legislation. It had to be merged together with a Criminal Code amendment. We are seeing a recycled throne speech. I praise the government for its commitment to recycling, but the throne speech largely repeats the promises and agenda of the government from last year in 2020.

It is clear, as I said at the beginning of my speech, that this Liberal government has run out of steam and out of ideas. Canadians are growing more disappointed each and every day as they see the priorities they talk about around their kitchen tables with their families every night not being reflected in the policies and action of this government. I hope for the sake of all Canadians that this government can get its act together.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to the throne speech, and to a lesser degree to the amendment proposed by the Conservative Party, because if we read the amendment from the Conservative Party its members have really missed the boat.

I want to start by responding to some of the questions from the opposition party. If we listen to what the government has said over the last number of months and within the throne speech, and the issues the Conservatives have raised, the government is in fact beyond concerned and is taking action.

For example, the Conservative member made reference to child care. For the very first time in Canada, the government is moving forward to create tens of thousands of spaces in every region of our country. For the first time, we have a Prime Minister and a government that have recognized the importance of affordable child care. We are now entering into agreements with the provinces and territories to ensure $10-a-day child care. That is going to have a profoundly positive impact on our communities, both urban and rural, whether direct or indirect.

All we need to do is look at what happened in the Province of Quebec when it instituted $10-a-day child care. Taking a good idea from one region of the country, and expanding it and implementing it nationally, is going to create opportunities for thousands of people who would have had to defer getting a job in the future or deal with the rising costs of child care. More people will be engaged in employment as a direct result, and children will have quality care. That is the bottom line. That is the answer to the Conservative question.

Then we have our friends in the Bloc, who talked about seniors. I would challenge the members opposite to reflect on this. We came into government in 2015. Prior to that, what did the Conservative Party do for seniors while it was in government? Let us look at what we have done. From day one, we dramatically increased the guaranteed income supplement that lifted tens of thousands of seniors across Canada out of poverty, hundreds of whom are in Winnipeg North. We were there for them leading up to the pandemic, and when the pandemic hit we gave direct payments to not only our poorest seniors but to all seniors. We also made the commitment to increase old age security for seniors age 75 or older. Those benefits are direct cash in their pockets.

I would also mention the indirect things we have done for seniors, such as the new horizons program and increased program funds to support seniors, as well as supporting non-profit organizations throughout the pandemic that were there for seniors all across our land.

The opposition trying to give the impression that this government does not care about seniors, or is not doing enough for seniors, is misleading at best. At the end of the day, I do not have any problems comparing what we have done for our seniors. That is not to say that we are done. We have a minister responsible for seniors who is very much in the community consulting with seniors and stakeholders to figure out what else we can do to continue to support seniors going forward.

The NDP ask about workers and the whole idea of transition and support programs. I would remind my NDP colleagues of the degree to which this government has stepped up to the plate. When the worldwide pandemic hit Canada, we had a government and a Prime Minister that were there every day, seven days a week and 24 hours a day, to ensure that we were developing the programs that were going to be there to support Canadians and businesses.

We can talk about the CERB program that supported millions of Canadians in all regions of our country, or the wage subsidy program that supported tens of thousands of businesses, thereby also saving tens of thousands of jobs, or the rent subsidy program. These programs really mattered. They put disposable income in the pockets of Canadians. They provided a lifeline to businesses, whether in the arts, the private sector or the non-profit sector. The government was there in a very real way.

As a government, we recognize that the impact has not ended. COVID-19 is still there today, and we recognize that. The battle is not over. That is why we continue to promote and encourage the idea of getting fully vaccinated. Over 86% of Canadians are fully vaccinated. We all have a role to play in the promotion of that.

A week or so ago, the new premier of the province of Manitoba, Heather Stefanson, made it very clear in her caucus that if members were going to continue to sit in the house they had to be fully vaccinated. Former leader Brian Mulroney gave his opinion on the issue. If people want to be part of the Conservative caucus, they had better be fully vaccinated. For Canada to be able to continue to do well, especially in comparison to other countries, we need to recognize the millions of Canadians who stepped up and recognized how important it was to become fully vaccinated. It is making a very real difference today.

More jobs have been put back in place today than we had pre-pandemic. We are doing exceptionally well on the job front. There are many jobs out there. We continue to work at expanding the economy the best that we can. We continue to work with provinces to ensure a sense of co-operation in identifying industries and jobs and using retraining programs. Literally hundreds of millions have been invested by this government to ensure that we can train people for the jobs that are going to be there for Canadians.

We have a very proactive Minister of Immigration working with provinces to get ahead of industries where we can. We have to put it in the perspective of keeping Canadians safe, and we do that by having people who travel to Canada either be fully vaccinated or quarantined. These initiatives and policy decisions are based on the fact that we have to continue to be diligent. COVID-19 has not disappeared yet.

The throne speech highlights the fact that the battle is not over yet. We should not let our guard down. That is why we passed Bill C-3. I was really encouraged to see all members of the House supporting Bill C-3 going to committee. That is what Canadians want. They want us to be working together. The mandate that was given was very clear: The Liberal plan was the best plan, and there is an obligation for all of us to work together. That is why there is a minority situation.

I see that my time has expired, but hopefully I will get a question or two.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, who asks an excellent question every Thursday.

This afternoon we will continue debate on the Conservative motion. Tomorrow will be the fourth day of debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.

Next Tuesday, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance will present the fall economic statement in the House at 4 p.m. We will schedule a relevant ways and means vote the following day, on Wednesday afternoon.

Further, we will also focus our efforts to pass two bills next week, namely Bill C-2, an act to provide further support in response to COVID-19, and Bill C-3, which would amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code to provide workers in federally regulated sectors with 10 days of paid sick leave and make it an offence to intimidate or prevent patients from seeking care.

Supplementary Estimates (B), 2021-22

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Madam Chair, we have made it clear that our bill will help Canadians and the tourism sector. We encourage the members opposite to vote in favour of Bill C-3.

Bill C-3—Time Allocation Motion

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

moved:

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

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

Bill C-3—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to rise to speak to Bill C-3, very important legislation that covers two aspects of providing for our health care workers, especially during this pandemic.

The latter half of the bill specifically addresses the issue of paid sick leave and how important it is to ensure that people do not have to choose between paying their bills and going to work. When people are sick, as we have learned through this pandemic, we do not want them going to work and participating in an environment where they could potentially be passing along illness to other people. When we are sick or do not feel well, it is important we stay home. To that end, we need the proper legislation in place to protect workers and give them that flexibility so they can take the proper measures to protect themselves.

The other part of the bill, which I will focus a little more on, specifically ensures that proper measures are put into our Criminal Code to protect individuals from being harassed on their way to and from work, in particular, health care professionals. When the bill was introduced, I was extremely happy to hear about the measures that would be put in place.

There was an extremely unfortunate incident at Kingston General Hospital at the beginning of the election campaign, when protests were gaining speed and traction. A group of people chose to protest not just in front of Kingston General Hospital, but right in front of the cancer clinic at the hospital. Folks going to receive their cancer treatments and then leaving were being harassed by a protest group that yelled insults. In addition, those serving on the front line, the nurses and doctors, were being harassed as they were going in and out of the hospital. It is absolutely ridiculous that we even need to have this debate or that we have a requirement for legislation. However, unfortunate incidents have been popping up, such as the one most recently in my community of Kingston and the Islands.

Perhaps it was the nature of the election taking place at the time that really added fuel to the fire. The unfortunate part about the campaign was that it was taking a political lens. The People's Party of Canada was really promoting this event. People's Party of Canada signs were in front of the hospital during this protest. By and large, on Twitter, it was the People's Party and its supporters who were promoting this event to take place. Of course, they did it all in the name of civil liberties, believing that somehow liberties had been breached during the pandemic, which I find extremely alarming.

Even though the People's Party did not win any seats in this place, I still find it concerning when members of the House attempt to play footsies with the issue of civil liberties being in jeopardy during the pandemic. Unfortunately, I am reminded of the more recently formed Conservative liberties caucus, the freedom fighters caucus, whatever it is called, which consists of approximately 15 to 30 Conservative members of Parliament and senators, who somehow find it their job to stand up for the liberties that have been infringed upon during the pandemic. I believe that every person in the House believes strongly that people are entitled to certain rights afforded them under the charter and that, indeed, no person's rights have been infringed upon during the pandemic. However, this is not the way it is being interpreted. When leaders are helping to fuel the fire through their actions and words, it only further instills within the people who are leading these protests to go out there, to charge and suggest they somehow need to be protected.

We end up with what I described in my riding of Kingston and the Islands in front of the Kingston General Hospital: an event where there were about 50 people yelling, screaming and hurling insults and accusations toward not just health care professionals, the nurses and the doctors coming and going from the hospital, but indeed people entering the cancer clinic at Kingston General Hospital and people who were leaving immediately following treatments.

Members can imagine the public outcry against this type of activity that was going on. It was quite a bit, and there was a lot of anger and frustration from the community, but at the same time it provided an opportunity for a certain degree of empowerment in this group.

This legislation specifically seeks to make this type of activity something that is not permissible in the Criminal Code and indeed that people can be held accountable for. I am extremely happy to see this legislation that we committed to during the election come forward so quickly. I want to see this get to committee as quickly as possible so it can be properly studied. As I have been listening to the debate today, some of my colleagues have raised questions about the content of the bill and how that will be affected. I think back to the previous question from the NDP member, and these are good questions and things to study at committee, where we can hash out the details to ensure that this legislation is the best it can be.

The reality of Bill C-3 is that it is a commitment to Canadians. It is a commitment that we will not tolerate this kind of behaviour around health care facilities that are providing services. The frontline workers are there to provide services to our communities. We will not allow people to participate in activities that intimidate, harass or threaten their ability to move freely in and out of such a facility in order to provide these frontline services.

I know I am close to question period and I am happy to begin my five minutes of questions, but I want to say I am very glad the bill is before us. I want it to move quickly to committee so it can be thoroughly examined and reported back to the House and we can pass it into legislation.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to zero in on something that has not been discussed yet on Bill C-3. As I have been able to state previously, I am very supportive of protecting our wonderful nurses and health care workers.

I want to focus on another aspect of sentencing, which is the flexibility that a judge will have. I noticed some commentary in the media that this may be too harsh a way to protect our nurses by having as much as a 10-year sentence.

I wonder if the hon. member could comment on the fact that the judge will have a lot of discretion. It can be an offence by summary conviction. It can also be an indictable offence of up to 10 years. There are no mandatory minimums here.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kingston and the Islands.

Let me start by acknowledging what an important day today is. It is a day of action to end violence against women, and I recognize all the women who have died in Canada and around the world and the incredible women who continue to fight each and every day. As a society, we have a long way to go to end violence against women, but it is a day for us to redouble our efforts in this regard.

I am glad to speak today to Bill C-3, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code. I will be speaking primarily about the amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada.

The last 19 months or so have been difficult for frontline workers, particularly those in the health care sector. They have been working around the clock to help Canadians get through the pandemic. In many ways they have been putting their families at risk and have been away from their families during this period. We are very grateful for their service.

In my home community of Scarborough, I know that members of the Scarborough Health Network and those at the TAIBU Community Health Centre and many other local organizations have been instrumental in supporting us. However, sadly, the work of many of our frontline workers, especially those in the health care sector, has been the brunt of a great number of issues over the past few months, and I want to speak to that. I believe the amendments that are proposed today would address this.

It should be a fundamental right to go to work free of harassment and free of any form of disruption by the public, but sadly, because of anti-vaxxers and many others, health care workers are scared to go to work. I have been able to speak to many nurses, PSWs and physicians who are at their wit's end. They are stressed and are going on leave or are considering it because they can no longer bear what is happening to them.

I think all members would agree that it is unsettling to see reports in the media of bullying, threats, violence and intimidation directed toward health care workers and those seeking care. I was shocked to see reports of individuals in Canada using online platforms to incite others to shoot health care service providers who vaccinate children. Let me be clear: Such conduct is criminal and has no place in our society.

This past weekend I was able to get my second daughter vaccinated. She had her first dose. It was administered by Dr. Jaya, who has been at the forefront of the fight against COVID. I know she and her colleagues want to work in an environment where they are free and safe. We are very thankful for what they have done so far.

Bill C-3 seeks to provide enhanced protections to health care workers and those seeking care at a time when the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing. Unimpeded access to health services is critical to moving Canada beyond the pandemic. As Ontario right now has reached the important 90% mark of vaccination for those over the age of 12, it is more important than ever that we extend these protections to all Canadians who are working in the health care sector.

While Bill C-3 would create two new offences in the Criminal Code, namely a new specific intimidation offence and an offence of obstructing access to health care facilities, I want to focus my remarks today on the sentencing amendments advanced in the bill that relate to the proposed aggravating factors.

In short, aggravating factors are facts present in any given case that increase the gravity of the offence or the offender's degree of responsibility. Existing Criminal Code examples include when an offence is motivated by hate or prejudice and when an offender abuses a position of trust. To arrive at a fit sentence when sentencing, the court must weigh all aggravating and mitigating factors present in the case at hand.

Before speaking to these proposed legislative changes in more detail, I want to provide some additional context in relation to the sentencing amendments being advanced.

In 2019, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health studied the prevalence of violence faced by health care workers in Canada. It reported that the rate of workplace violence against health care workers was four times higher than any other profession. What is particularly alarming about this figure is that stakeholders in this area also reported that most of the violence that workers experienced remained unreported due to a culture of acceptance.

In its report entitled “Violence Facing Health Care Workers in Canada”, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health made several recommendations, including that the Government of Canada amend the Criminal Code to require courts to treat an assault against a health care sector worker as an aggravating factor for sentencing. In advancing this recommendation, the committee heard testimony from the Canadian Federation of Nurses Union that such an amendment would serve as a deterrent for individuals perpetrating violence against health care workers.

The sentencing amendments in Bill C-3 would respond to the long-standing calls from health care sector stakeholders and to the recommendation of the committee to codify assaulting health care practitioners, who are acting in the course of their duties, as an aggravating factor at sentencing and would reflect the common law in this area.

Let me take a moment to explain why. Existing sentencing laws already provide sentencing courts with the broad discretion to account for all relevant aggravating and mitigating factors in determining a sentence that is proportionate, having regard to the gravity of the offence and degree of responsibility of the offender. The list of aggravating factors provided in section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code is not exhaustive and courts can, and do, expand the list by recognizing new aggravating and mitigating factors at sentencing. In fact, reported cases in Canada have already recognized assaulting persons working in the health care system as an aggravating circumstance at sentencing.

Consistent with this existing treatment by courts, Bill C-3 would create two new aggravating factors applicable in the health care context, which would apply when a person is being sentenced for any criminal offence.

The proposed measures in the bill would include an aggravating factor where the offence was committed against any person who, in the performance of their duties and functions, was providing health services. The concept of health services would not be defined in the bill, but the courts would have the flexibility to apply it in appropriate cases. The aggravating factors also make clear that personal care services are captured within the concept of health services for aggravating factors.

Personal support workers provide health services that are essential to the well-being of all patients. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Health reported that an alarming 89% of all personal support workers had experienced physical violence on the job based on a poll commissioned by the Ontario Council of Hospital Unions. Codifying this aggravating factor signals Parliament's view that criminal conduct directed at personal support workers must be recognized and denounced.

There is a great deal more I could say on this issue, but I want to emphasize that this is important legislation that stands up for health care workers who are essential for Canadian society to recover and thrive, especially during a global pandemic. This bill is long overdue and delivers on an important commitment the government made to Canadians.

For all the reasons identified above, I urge all members of the House to support the swift passage of Bill C-3.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her fine speech and I congratulate her.

We are currently in the midst of a serious housing crisis. In Quebec alone, 500,000 households are in core housing need. In addition, we have a global climate crisis hanging over our heads, and there are some really significant issues related to the health care crisis. For example, we need to overhaul the way the health care system is funded.

In addition, we are experiencing a major language crisis in Canada. We are not talking about this issue yet, but it will be addressed in the House soon, I hope. In Quebec, we are witnessing a major decline in the French language. In short, these are all very important issues that we should be tackling now.

I would like my colleague to talk a little bit about the appropriateness of talking about Bill C-3 here today, when there are so many other pressing issues that we could be discussing.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Beauport—Limoilou.

Furthermore, as today is December 6, the 32nd anniversary of the tragic Polytechnique massacre, in which 14 women were killed just for being women, I would like to offer my support and solidarity and say that we remember.

Let us return now to Bill C-3, which is currently under consideration. This is a two-pronged bill: it amends the Canada Labour Code, and it amends the Criminal Code. These two statutes do not address the same issues.

What we do know about this bill is that it stems from a commitment the government made during the last election campaign, the one that should not have happened. During that campaign, the government stated that it wanted to increase the number of sick days for workers who have none and strengthen the Criminal Code with more severe penalties for people who impede the provision of health care or intimidate health care workers.

Since we are talking about two jurisdictions here, and since this bill will definitely be worth studying in committee, I am wondering which would be the best committee to study it.

The government thought it would be a good idea to significantly strengthen the measures set out in the Criminal Code that penalize people who intimidate or harass patients and health care workers, but is that the right solution to this problem?

We will need to examine this bill to be able to answer that question properly. We understand the purpose of the measure, which is to make it clear to health care workers and those who need access to medical care that we will never allow them to be intimidated or afraid to get care. I think everyone understands the message, which may have been necessary.

However, as a health care worker, even though it has been some time since I worked in the field, what I am wondering is whether our labour laws, our workplace health and safety laws, also protect the workplace from acts of violence, intimidation and harassment.

Perhaps that should have been considered. Besides the incidents that we all witnessed in Quebec and the provinces, the major unions have been long calling for stronger measures against violence, intimidation and harassment to be included in our labour laws, because employers also have an obligation to provide a safe workplace.

In Quebec, anti-vaxxers have protested in front of primary schools. They have also protested to a lesser extent in front of hospitals and vaccination clinics. The Government of Quebec did not wait for the federal government before it significantly increased fines and public safety measures. That is why we wonder if strengthening the Criminal Code is the right solution.

The Canadian Labour Congress made it clear, and we agree, that we must avoid depriving individuals of the fundamental right to associate, to unionize, to strike, to picket and to mobilize. It is a major right guaranteed by the Constitution, and we must ensure that it is included in this bill.

As for the Canada Labour Code, the Minister of Labour stated in his speech on Friday that there are gaps in the social safety net. That is not news. Canada's antiquated labour laws are sorely in need of attention. Fifty-eight per cent, or 580,000, of Canada's workers do not have paid leave, and it is time to give them 10 days of paid sick leave. We could also amend the Canada Labour Code to increase the minimum wage as the government promised in the last budget. That would send a clear message in the current circumstances that we are protecting workers, who should have good working conditions and good wages.

Speaking of gaps in the social safety net, the government has forgotten one important aspect, namely, the employment insurance system. I am thinking specifically of people who are sick. The government is failing thousands of people who have no paid sick leave, no wage loss program and only 15 weeks of sickness benefits. This really is a gap in the social safety net.

Why is the government introducing a bill that targets the Canada Labour Code and the Criminal Code, which are two different systems, rather than strengthening labour laws and the EI system to protect people who are sick and have nothing to fall back on when they become seriously ill?

Why did the government not ensure that the constitutional right to protest and to freedom of expression were properly protected in the Criminal Code, if that were its intention? It will be important to study those two matters in committee.

We support the bill in principle, with a bit of fine-tuning.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. It is always a pleasure to work with him on different projects, including on medical assistance in dying.

In a democracy, it is always important to canvass the people directly. That is what we do when we have an election. We have a Westminster parliamentary system, and it has been working well for Canada and the provinces for years. Elections are part of that system.

I can assure my colleague that we will work hard on Bill C-3 and on all of our common goals in other areas, such as medical assistance in dying, which we want to improve by taking another look at what we did in 2016 and 2020. I can assure my colleague that we are here to work together.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec government did not wait for the Liberal government to pass a law to deal with these types of protests held near institutions. That said, I would be remiss if I did not remind my distinguished colleague of the reason why we find ourselves discussing Bill C-3 about two weeks before Christmas.

Earlier, the government referred to the 2019 report from the Standing Committee on Health on violence faced by health care workers. The report, issued two years ago, pointed out that seven out of 10 workers were experiencing deteriorating mental health. The fear and intimidation is only going to worsen their situation if they return to the system.

We are clearly in favour of the principle of such a bill. However, why do we find ourselves today with a government that called an election, dragged its feet on recalling Parliament after the election, and consequently delayed other very important bills, in particular the bill in memory of Émilie Sansfaçon, which sought to give people with cancer up to 50 weeks of EI sickness benefits?

This also had an impact on the work of the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying. It had one year to submit its report, but it will have barely four months to discuss such a critical issue. Does my colleague not find it hard to be part of a government that puts off critical and important problems like these?