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.

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

I'm firmly of that view. I think that's what we did when we made changes to the system. We do consider professional training and experience, and judgment as well. We look at these individuals' engagement in society, their careers and other necessary qualities, such as wisdom and maturity. These are qualities that we look for.

Furthermore, in the wake of former Bill C‑3, we look at judges' training. That's now a prerequisite for candidates. We did it through contracts. It should also improve the quality of decisions.

Opposition Motion—Ties Between the Canadian State and the Monarchy

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all day long, both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party have been trying to dodge the issue. They say it is not the right time to talk about this and we should talk about inflation and fighting the pandemic instead.

Over the past few weeks, however, we have talked about bills C‑3, C‑5, C‑9, C‑20 and S‑4, none of which have anything to do with inflation or fighting the pandemic.

Does my colleague think we waste our time in the House every day? Should we talk about nothing but inflation and the pandemic? Can we not walk and chew gum at the same time?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

If I could, Madam Chair, because it's an important point, let me give credit to Mr. Deltell in the work that he did in compromising on BillC-3 and BillC-4. What a pleasure it was to work with him, with somebody who was able to do something other than obstruct and be partisan.

Let me say that I'm hopeful that with Mr. Scheer right now—

Protection of Freedom of Conscience Act

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-230, the protection of freedom of conscience act. I appreciate the contributions of the member for Carlton Trail-Eagle Creek to medical assistance in dying, or MAID, which is a complex and deeply personal issue to many Canadians.

First, I want to acknowledge that the aim of the bill, which is to support the conscience rights of health care professionals, is indeed laudable. The government has always supported conscience rights, which is why, since the very beginning of Canada's MAID framework in a former bill, Bill C-14, these rights have been specifically recognized and acknowledged. However, at the same time, the criminal law is a blunt instrument that should be reserved for the most serious situations.

In my remarks today, I want to raise some questions about whether new offences are an appropriate solution to the legitimate concerns raised by the bill's sponsor. In this regard, it bears recalling the primary reason the criminal law is concerned with MAID in the first place, which is to provide the necessary exemptions to ensure that persons who choose to provide or assist in providing MAID do not face criminal consequences for doing so. The MAID provisions found in the Criminal Code were carefully crafted to respect the autonomy of Canadians, respond to the evolving issues and protect vulnerable persons. In other words, the involvement of criminal law is necessary to permit MAID while ensuring it is carried out in a safe, responsible manner.

However, Bill C-230 seeks to involve the criminal law in two very different ways: first, to create a new MAID-specific intimidation offence, and second, to create an employment sanctions offence. With respect to the former, the intimidation offence, it is worth reiterating that the Criminal Code already provides provisions for several offences that would be available to respond to situations where a health care professional is a victim of coercive or threatening behaviour, including the intimidation offence in section 423 and the extortion offence in section 346.

To me, it is not evident that an additional specific offence is required to protect conscience rights. I should also say that I am not aware of any evidence of health care professionals facing threatening circumstances in the context of refusing to provide MAID or that there is a specific gap that needs to be filled in our law.

I have taken note of the fact that the proposed intimidation offence in Bill C-230 would be a summary conviction offence, which, if enacted, would stand out from other intimidation offences in the Criminal Code. The existing offences are either straight indictable or hybrid offences. In addition to being duplicative of existing offences, the fact that the proposed intimidation offence would only be prosecutable by summary conviction may suggest that intimidating conduct is less serious in a MAID context, which seems counterintuitive.

To further highlight why I have concerns about creating a specific intimidation offence as proposed by Bill C-230, I would like to draw members' attention to a recent example that offers a clear contrast. Last year, as members will recall, unfortunately in some parts of our country there was a threatening atmosphere of intimidation present for many health care professionals who were simply trying to go to work and care for members of their communities during the pandemic. That is why the government responded with Bill C-3, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code, which provided new criminal law tools to protect all health care workers and all Canadians who are seeking their care.

I believe Bill C-3 was an appropriate criminal law response to the credible threats to the safety and security of health care professionals and Canadians, but I am not convinced that a similar response is necessary when it comes to the situation of conscience rights and the provision of MAID. It seems to me that the charter and existing criminal law offences already provide the necessary protections for those rights, alongside the specific provision in the current MAID framework that expressly states that nothing in the federal law compels an individual to provide or assist in providing MAID. There is simply no obvious need to supplement what already exists.

Turning to the employment sanctions offence, I am struggling with Bill C-230's proposal to create a new offence that would exclusively target employers who dismiss or refuse to employ health care professionals who choose not to provide MAID. Moreover, in my view, Bill C-230's employment sanctions offence would not address the concerns described in the bill's preamble regarding conscience rights and certain requirements for professionals to make effective referrals for MAID.

As members are aware, in some jurisdictions, the professional orders that regulate health care professions have established requirements that their members provide effective referrals for MAID. While there have been cases where these requirements were challenged, the courts, including the Court of Appeal for Ontario, have upheld them, noting that this is a difficult issue that involves taking into consideration the conscience rights of professionals and the needs of their patients.

I do not believe it would be constructive for Parliament to intervene by creating a new criminal offence such as the one proposed by the bill. Rather, a more productive approach is for the government to continue its efforts to work closely with the provinces and territories on the implementation of MAID in a manner that supports persons who may be considering it and the health care professionals who provide exceptional care to their patients.

For the reasons I have mentioned, I have significant concerns with Bill C-230. While I agree wholeheartedly with protecting the conscience rights of all health care professionals, including those who choose to participate or refuse to participate in MAID, I am not persuaded that the two offences proposed in the bill are necessary or desirable.

Bill C-5—Time Allocation Motion

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, to my hon. colleague, I will say that it is certainly not my preference. When we started, we actually had a really good beginning, I think, working with the Conservative opposition on Bill C-3 and on Bill C-4, where ideas came forward. We were able to work together and we were able to find middle ground. Then there was a change. All of a sudden, with Bill C-8 as an example, it took over four months. Consistently, we were told “just a couple more speakers, just a bit more time”. Four months disappeared, and an enormous amount of House time was used.

At a certain point in time, I had to come to the realization that there was no earnest effort to move things through the House, that the interest was in obstruction. We saw that in Bill C-14. Bill C-14 is a bill that the Conservatives support. Even though they support it, they were moving amendments to hear their own members, shutting down the House, moving concurrence motions and using them to obstruct. I am left with one of two choices: get nothing passed or use time allocation. As they obstruct, on the one hand they block any legislation from moving forward and not even allow that as an option; on the other hand, they criticize the only tool we have to actually get legislation done, a tool they used with great frequency.

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

Madam Speaker, I would say that we diminish democracy when we talk to fellow colleagues in the way the member opposite just did. To talk about working collaboratively as parliamentarians and to categorize it in the way the member did is disrespectful to this place.

We had a minority government that was elected in the last election, and there was an expectation that Canadians had of us that we would come together, work collaboratively, reach across the aisle and try to find common cause and common purpose, and that, even as we criticize each other and even as we are in different parties and often have different views, we would respectfully try to find middle ground.

I would suggest that out of the gates the Conservatives were doing that on Bill C-3 and on Bill C-4, but somewhere along the line that disappeared. Suddenly, collaboration of any kind, working together in any way, is seen as undemocratic. That is preposterous. Having votes in the House of Commons is not undemocratic. Moving legislation through the House of Commons is not undemocratic. It debases this institution to say that it is, and it particularly debases this institution when the Conservatives themselves use time allocation more than anybody else in any government that has ever been, so it is dishonest—

[Zia Proulx]

I can speak to that. There is no identified risk to flag at this time, but I would go back to December, when Bill C-3 was introduced and passed. Some employers raised the fact that they needed time to implement these changes in their systems and collective agreements. These amendments now bring the coming into effect date to December 1, 2022. This should provide them enough time to make payroll changes and discuss with unions to adjust their collective agreements.

[Zia Proulx]

One change that we included in C-19 was to make sure that employees whose employers change as a result of a transfer of business or a contract retendering process would not lose their earned days of paid sick leave during the year if they're working in the same job. That was one of the changes proposed in BIA 1 that was not proposed in the original Bill C-3, which received royal assent in December.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you.

As I was saying, that was an incredibly comprehensive review.

Perhaps I can share my two critiques here, even though they will not go into the testimony of the review of this bill. The first one was that there was no timeline, despite the comprehensive evaluation of the EI consultation.

The second part was that there was no idea as to how the EI benefit would fit into the entire suite of benefits that the Canadian government provides. Again, I think this is something that Canadians would be interested in.

The part on the benefits related to employment is particularly ironic for this committee, because this was part of the Bill C-3 discussion, and again I think one reason Monsieur Boulerice was brought into this discussion was specifically around the negotiation of benefits—sick days there, but benefits in particular. I can imagine all sorts of witnesses who would have been so important to have here to talk about these types of benefits and the use of the benefits.

I guess the irony too is that I think these topics would be specifically relevant. Again, Madam Chabot recognizes this, I think, coming from a labour union background, so I'm a little bit surprised that this isn't more important to the NDP on this committee.

Another thing, again coming back to the labour code and division 29, is that I really think of the NDP historically as the party of labour. Just the fact that they potentially would not want to study this amendment to the labour code as outlined in Bill C-19 and—

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

As I was saying, we were going to have three meetings, and I thought moving it down to two meetings was a reasonable option. I think two is the reasonable compromise between one and three.

I don't know why we can't have a compromise, and as I said, if I had the option, I would actually prefer to probably have four meetings, one for each part of the section. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to expect that. These are all very important parts of the budget.

I don't buy the idea that the finance committee has this and that as a result we just say that it's not a big deal. They wouldn't have referred it to us if they didn't want us to do a thorough examination. Really, when we're thinking about four hours out of the next week, it's a good compromise between the six hours we were looking at originally and the two hours that have been proposed.

Mr. Chair, it's the principle of it. We made a decision on Monday that we all committed to three meetings and the ministers. I'm not surprised the ministers aren't here. There were too many outs, and they were taken, and now this additional out is being taken in going to one meeting. I'm not sure if the government thought that only one meeting was going to be available or that no meetings were going to be available, but lo and behold, they had space for two meetings, and as a result of that, we are seeing this occurring.

It's the principle of it. We voted on those motions in good faith and we passed those motions in good faith, and now we have the government being backed by the NDP, it would seem. It's usually the non-speaking committee member indicating support of the government position, which is understandable, considering the agreement the two parties made, and it's usually my expectation, very honestly. It's just disingenuous and it's unfortunate, because I think that two meetings are really an acceptable alternative to the three meetings that I had originally suggested.

We're getting into this late period of the parliamentary season when we have to go through all of these processes, which really are just like a delay or a push-through, with democracy being shut down and no opportunity to speak, no opportunity to examine all of the information. That is very disappointing. It's certainly not what our constituents expect of us. It's just disappointing that we're at this point, and I don't know why we just can't have two meetings.

It's an important opportunity to have the witnesses we put forward show up to this committee and give their testimony. We put witnesses forward, and in fact I think the Bloc put witnesses forward, did you not, Louise? I believe the Bloc put witnesses forward.

It's very interesting that the NDP did not put witnesses forward. I'm not sure if they didn't recognize they had to do that or if they also thought perhaps there wouldn't be any meetings next week, but that's simply not the case, as we're seeing.

As well, I was even thinking sincerely about the clause-by-clause study, which I now understand we no longer have to do. I was just mentally preparing for it, because I know that when we went through Bill C-3, I wasn't really given the courtesy of being able to read line by line to truly understand it, which again is something I think my constituents expect of me. I thought it was just disappointing and ungracious not to allow the opportunity to do that.

Once again, given the way we see patterns emerging in this committee and as we see them across the House, and given the behaviour we can expect from different groups and different individuals, I was also preparing for the clause-by-clause study. I wanted to really have a good understanding of that, since I didn't expect we would have the time or that I would be given the consideration to read every single word.

As well, I know that last time Ms. Zarrillo was subbed in by Mr. Boulerice. When I saw him in the House this week, I thought, yes, that's probably going to happen again. It's probably going to be Mr. Boulerice, as the labour critic, who steps into the role again for the review, especially since there is a part pertinent to the Canada Labour Code. We will see him here again, and understandably so, because it takes time to familiarize yourself with these processes, as I've come to learn in my five years here. I must say that I'm really only getting the hang of it after all this time.

I know my colleague Mr. Lobb has much more experience in reviewing these bills. I would just like to take a moment to congratulate him on the passing of his bill yesterday, at a time when the opposition parties worked together in an effort to provide good legislation and a thorough review for Canadians, but that definitely was something I was expecting in the clause-by-clause consideration.

As for the witnesses, as I mentioned, I thought we could potentially have one meeting on each of the divisions. Those divisions, again, are 26, 27, 29 and 32, and we could have witnesses on each of them, because each is definitely significant within the budget.

Regarding the Employment Insurance Act, I went to the employment insurance consultation presentation, and I was the only parliamentarian there, other than your parliamentary secretary, Irek, whom I really like. He is a really nice guy. I was very impressed by the comprehensiveness of the presentation that was made. I think even the information we saw there would be relevant to this, but my more important point is that this is the kind of information we could expect to see—

Bill C-11—Time Allocation Motion

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, what I absolutely will offer is the opportunity to sit down, as I have always said from the beginning of this, to work as we did on, as an example, Bill C-3. I have to say that the Conservatives came forward with a number of proposals on Bill C-3 to improve the bill, and we were able to do that. In so doing, we also created a calendar for when we were able to adopt it, to make sure we got Canadians the support they needed, both for the pandemic and to make important changes that the Conservatives brought forward.

I would say to the member opposite, as I have said to their House leader many, many times, that, if they want to bring something forward, if they are looking to improve a bill, or if they are looking to give us concrete information on how long they want to debate something, we would absolutely work with them.

I can tell members that in my time as House leader that has happened exactly zero times. Since we started this session in January, there has not been a single offer of that nature. There has been nothing put in front of us to improve a bill or to work with us on anything.

Bill C-19—Time Allocation Motion

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, I spent a lot of time in opposition, and one of the things that I think is really not becoming of this place is to use that kind of language toward any other member. The reality is that the NDP House leader and I have our differences, but we both recognize that we were elected in a minority government to find ways to get things done for Canadians.

I would reflect back to the member that we had a really great start. I mentioned Bill C-3 and Bill C-4, but there were a lot of things that were put forward by the Conservatives that were reasonable and that we were able to work with. What I am experiencing now is nothing but obstruction. I do not have anything to work with, and after four months of this place being bottlenecked with obstruction, we had to recognize there was no interest in actually having more debate; there was just an interest in unilaterally shutting this place down and sticking it in the mud.

No party should try to do that from the position of having a minority of elected seats. The Conservatives talk about the elected will of Canadians. The elected will of Canadians is for this chamber to work, and to work together.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree. Sometimes in the thrust and parry in this place, we can lose the purpose for which we come here. Again, I would go back to what we did with the Conservatives on Bill C-3. That was a great opportunity to work together. We absolutely have a supply and confidence agreement with the NDP. We are working on a lot of important issues, from affordable housing to the environment to the dental care plan that the member referenced, but I would suggest to the members opposite that, just as we did in Bill C-3, there remain opportunities for every member in the House.

This is the fifth minority government that I have had the privilege to serve in. I have seen it done all ways, and I can say that when I was in opposition I spent my fair time both criticizing the government and trying to obstruct at different moments. However, when I lost, which I did in 2011, the reflections that I had were the opportunities that I had to get things done.

We are going to be here for a while, is my guess, and, instead of moving things to obstruct every day, I would invite Conservative members to come and have a conversation with us about the things they are hearing from their constituents that they want movement on. It is totally fair that they are going to vote against some bills and totally fair that every once in a while, to make a point, they might want to obstruct, but I hope they will also reflect that when we were trying to deal with a bill like Bill C-8, after it being dragged out for more than four months, this is where we wind up. It is not healthy. There is a better way to work together, and I extend that bridge. I thought that we had a really good start and I would like to get back to it.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, after more than four months of dealing with Bill C-8, which was dealing with the previous fall, it became apparent that we would be lucky to get to the coming fall if we had not used measures to move it forward.

There were critical supports there for teachers and for workers. Similarly, regarding the budget implementation act, it is not just that there are important measures in it to be taken on everything from housing, to banning foreign investment, to labour mobility and reducing, by half, corporate and small business tax breaks. There are so many things that are essential here. It is everything that also flows behind it. We have a responsibility to that.

I would say that at the onset of my time as House leader, going back to December, the Conservatives came forward with good proposals on Bill C-3, and we were able to work together. We had an opportunity when they came forward on Bill C-4 to move it forward because we recognized it.

We are in a minority government, and how we comport ourselves is a choice for each of us. As the government House leader, I recognize the minority status that we are in and that we are going to be in the House for a period of time. I would imagine that Conservative MPs want to do some things here and want to get some things done.

I can imagine that standing up every day on dilatory motions and obfuscating has to get pretty old for you guys at some point. You want to take some things back to your constituencies, and I am willing to work with you on that. Come forward with stuff.

National Nursing Week

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Madam Speaker, this coming week, Canadians will be celebrating and thanking our nurses for all the hard work, dedication and care they provide to our communities. From assisting with life-threatening crises to delivering beautiful babies and caring for the elderly, nurses perform many of the most strenuous and difficult tasks in medicine and health care.

As professionals who perform essential points of health care services, nurses serve as the first point of contact for many Canadians. Throughout this pandemic, we have seen countless nurses step up and take on a new role and additional responsibilities to ensure that Canadians have access to stable health care, hospitals and treatments. Our government pushed for anti-harassment legislation to protect our health care workers in Bill C-3 so they could go to work and did not have to worry about violence in the workplace.

We all owe a debt of gratitude to nurses for their invaluable work in our communities, so I thank all nurses.

Madam Speaker, happy Mother's Day, and of course I give a special shout-out to my mother Linda, my wife Lisa and my mothers-in-law Carol and Claudette.