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.

[Zia Proulx, Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace Information Directorate, Department of Employment and Social Development]

Good afternoon. I'm Zia Proulx.

I'd be happy to walk you through the key changes. Basically, there are five key things, including in BIA Number 1.

I'll give you just a general overview. They're basically in response to some amendments that were made during the legislative process of Bill C-3, which happened in the fall of 2021, and also stakeholder feedback that we received in March. We did consultations on the implementation of the paid sick leave provisions and on the regulations.

The first key point is that it would simplify how employees earn paid sick leave days. Stakeholders told us that the rules setting out the rate at which employees earn their days of paid sick leave are complex. The rule was that you would earn three days of leave after 30 days of employment, and then you would need to wait another 60 days before being able to earn additional days, but always for up to 10 days per year. The proposed amendment would remove the 60-day period, so it would make it simpler. The earnings model would be simpler for employees, employers and for enforcement.

The second part is that it would align the requirements for the provision of medical certificates for paid sick leave and unpaid sick leave. Bill C-3, which received royal assent in December, created a misalignment between the requirements for medical certificates under the Canada Labour Code for paid sick leave and unpaid sick leave. It was five days for paid sick leave, and it had to be three days for unpaid leave. If the proposed amendment is adopted, employers would be entitled to request a medical certificate if the leaves of absence are five days or longer, regardless if it's paid or unpaid.

The third key point is, as currently drafted, employees whose employers change as a result of a transfer of business or contract retendering process could lose their earned days of paid sick leave, despite working the same job. That is inconsistent with other parts of the Canada Labour Code, like annual vacation, so the legislation—

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1

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

Madam Speaker, I may not be able to say that I had time to study all 500 pages of Bill C-19, but I have a few comments.

There is a lot of talk about work, workers and the importance of employment. I wanted to know what the government had put forward for workers, whether it had an ambitious agenda and vision, and whether it was able to do something tangible to support workers and improve their conditions. After all, at the end of the day, labour is an important part of the economy.

Based on my analysis, I find that the sights are set too low when it comes to workers. I will provide a few examples. In the last budget and in the Minister of Labour’s mandate letter, the government promised legislation to prohibit the use of replacement workers under the fundamental right to associate and to bargain. There is nothing in this bill to indicate any intention or action in this area. What happened with that?

Another issue is fair employment. I do not know if anyone knows this, but the Employment Equity Act was passed in 2018. Currently, in federally regulated businesses, there is differential treatment based on employment status using “orphan clauses”. The Act was passed in 2018, but there is still no plan or vision to move forward with this. What is going on there?

Recently, we passed Bill C-3 here in the House to give workers 10 days of paid sick leave. That legislation will come into effect at a later date fixed by order-in-council, but we still have not found anything yet.

Climate change is one of the reasons we opposed the budget. We want to see an end to fossil fuel production and a just and fair transition to green or clean energy. What is there for workers?

Last week, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development said that Natural Resources Canada and Employment and Social Development Canada were not prepared to support a just transition to a low‑carbon economy for workers and communities. It is serious: There are more than 200,000 workers, and there are no plans or measures to support this just and necessary transition.

I would also say that the government is abandoning health care workers by firmly refusing to increase Canada health transfers, as Quebec and the other provinces are calling for. If we want quality health care, we must rely on these workers. To do this, Quebec needs the necessary subsidies to match the expenses so it can better support the health sector.

I looked everywhere in the budget and found only one paragraph on employment insurance. This is where workers are being totally abandoned, even though comprehensive EI reform had been promised. Once again, the government missed an opportunity to act. In one paragraph of the budget and in Bill C-19, the government announced the extension of pilot projects that provide up to five additional weeks of EI benefits to seasonal workers. That is it, nothing more.

The Minister of Employment's mandate letter clearly states that she is to work on modernizing employment insurance by the summer of 2022. The Prime Minister himself said that he asked the minister to focus her energy on building a more equitable system by June 2022. On January 1, she indicated that this was likely to happen.

Right now, workers everywhere, in all regions of Quebec and Canada, are struggling to qualify for fair and accessible benefits. There are serious shortcomings that need to be addressed. We know what the issues are, we know what it will take to fix them, yet there is still a delay in implementing the changes that are needed.

Surely we do not need to be reminded that the EI system is a social safety net that protects workers who lose their jobs. It also protects them in the aftermath of life events, as the minister said. For example, sickness benefits are still capped at 15 weeks when they promised to extend them to 26 weeks. We are being told that this may not happen in July, as first thought, because the computer system will not be ready. They are abandoning people.

I am quite surprised and disappointed that the orange team did not leave its mark in the budget when it comes to workers; it clearly lacks teeth.

All unemployed workers' groups and labour groups support employment insurance reform. More consultations are on the books. Consultations have been going on for years. When will the government get on with it? This is a broken promise at present.

EI reform is important for workers. I meet with workers, unemployed workers' groups, community groups and civil society groups to look at the economic and social realities in some regions. In regions where the seasonal industry holds a predominant place in the economy, five extra weeks in the event of job loss is not enough. There is the issue of the spring gap, which is when a worker does not have enough weeks of benefits to cover the period between the end of the job and when the job resumes. We could tell workers to go work somewhere else, but that is not the answer; rather, we have to support the seasonal industry when it comes to tourism, the fishery. We know that major sectors are affected. A region's economy depends on that. It is not by once again carrying forward a five- to 10-week pilot project that we are going to to give the regions the capacity to support their economy and give workers the capacity to maintain good jobs and experience. We need to protect the vitality of the regions.

The inequities in the EI system for women and young people are another example of needed reforms. The current rules are outdated and significantly discriminate against them. All kinds of criteria regarding hours of eligibility need to be changed. I think the government needs to send a clear message that EI reform is a priority. It is a priority for workers and for the economy. This program is a social safety net that is very much needed, but what the government is doing is very disappointing.

I want to mention the little note about reviewing the Social Security Tribunal and creating a multi-stakeholder tribunal. All the better, since workers have been calling for this for 10 years.

Since I have just 30 seconds left, I want to conclude by saying that workers are in dire need of support. The Liberal government must send a very clear message in its budgets and financial policies that we are counting on them. If we are counting on them, then they need support and they need it now.

[Dr. Guylaine Lefebvre, Executive Director, Membership Engagement and Programs, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Honourable committee members, I thank you for the opportunity to appear today before this committee to discuss the critically important topic of health workforce recruitment and retention.

My name is Guylaine Lefebvre. I am the executive director of the Office of Membership, Engagement and Programs at the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada.

I join this meeting today from Ottawa and the traditional, unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin nation.

I have been a specialist physician for 30 years. My specialty is obstetrics-gynecology. I have participated as an educator and a leader at many levels of our health care system.

The Royal College, its governing council, our president Dr. Richard Reznick and our CEO Dr. Susan Moffatt-Bruce remain committed to physician burnout and wellness issues. I offer regrets from our CEO who cannot join today. Dr. Moffatt-Bruce is committed to this important work in her capacity as a clinician-researcher as well as her position of CEO at the college.

We represent more than 50,000 physicians and surgeons across the country.

Health care, at its core, is about people. Healthy, supported health workers will result in healthier patients and healthier communities across Canada.

I am grateful to this committee for its commitment to addressing issues relating to recruitment and retention in the health workforce. I'd like to share with you what we've heard and what we know from our fellows, our residents and their colleagues in the health workforce, and what we're doing to support them.

I am also grateful to the government for the passage of Bill C‑3, which protects health care workers from intimidation that they increasingly face in the course of trying to provide care for patients.

While the Royal College represents 50,000 specialist physicians and surgeons across Canada, we're not working alone on this issue. We're working in collaboration with other key stakeholders in health care including the membership of the Canadian Medical Forum with its physician resource planning working group and HEAL—Organizations for Health Action—which represents health care workers from over 40 organizations and disciplines.

We cannot work independently from a system that relies on a team of health care workers, from nurses in the operating room and in recovery to environmental teams that maintain the hospital rooms and clerical staff that look after the entire patient journey. Our physicians are only one piece of the care puzzle, which should always have the patient at the centre of the team.

One in two physicians shows signs of advanced burnout. In late stages of burnout, physicians often lose a sense of professional accomplishment and can contemplate leaving the profession. That's a red flag for all of us.

Throughout the COVID‑19 pandemic, health care workers have stepped up. They have come out of retirement, delayed retirement, worked extra hours, all to keep our families, friends and neighbours healthy.

In a recent story published by CTV, an internal medicine and COVID-19 unit physician explained, “We're going to get to a point where we have skeleton crews everywhere, which is not the way a health-care system can survive.... I would argue that we're not surviving now. We're just barely getting by.”

The reality is that we haven't paid the full price of the COVID pandemic and that day is coming.

Burnout, exhaustion, delayed retirements and harassment of health care workers will all result in people leaving these professions and leaving us short of health care workers at a time when there is a tremendous backlog of procedures and care to be provided.

The demands on the health workforce will only increase and we may not have enough people left to provide the care.

We must also recognize that those who remain in the health care sector are stressed, exhausted and have experienced moral distress and moral injury. During the pandemic, health care professionals have been forced into challenging conditions and have had to make impossible decisions. The pandemic has brought to light many issues that already existed in our health care system and have been exacerbated in the last two years.

This means they're worn so thin that it becomes challenging to offer the type of compassionate care that we all want for ourselves and our families. Health workers who are exhausted and burnt out also don't find the same joy and gratification in seeing their patients do well.

As a surgeon, I am intimately familiar with the hardship of knowing that a patient is suffering and needs surgery, but there is no availability of OR time to proceed. The empathy we carry for the patient's pain, the workload of exploring options for care and the challenges of keeping waiting lists all contribute to the moral distress we see with our physicians. Access to care and waiting lists through COVID have gotten even more difficult to manage, but they have been troublesome for years.

In March 2020, Dr. Mamta Gautam, a psychiatrist, offered to hold daily Zoom calls to offer peer support to colleagues across the country. She had approximately 2,000 physicians contact her to join the group. In the first few weeks, between 30 and 50 physicians on average would tune in to the Zoom call each day. That number sometimes reached 80. In addition, according to a recently released survey by the Canadian Medical Association, nearly half of physicians are presently contemplating reducing their workload.

The good news is that together we can effect change. Studies have shown that to reduce the incidence of burnout, improve resilience and ultimately improve patient outcomes, a health system must identify and prioritize a commitment and dedication of resources to support health care professionals. Our colleagues at the Canadian Medical Association have created a physician wellness hub, which is one such resource to support physicians in prioritizing their own health.

Data is a resource that governments can use to understand the current composition of its health workforce to move our system forward from the pandemic. There are existing health workforce datasets, but these are typically limited to a single jurisdiction, based on self-reporting or for-profit databases that were not designed for health workforce planning.

There are also critical data gaps in existing workforce datasets, such as a lack of information related to equity, diversity and inclusion. Cultivating a health care workforce that is representative of the population it serves is critical to ensure the best health care for all Canadians.

[Stéphanie Bouchard, Senior Legal Counsel and Director, Policy Centre for Victim Issues, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

Thank you for the opportunity to provide information on Justice Canada's measures that support the implementation of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights.

Former Bill C-32, an act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, came into force in 2015. It gives victims of crime statutory rights to information, protection and participation and to seek restitution at the federal level. The 2015 amendments included related law reforms on testimonial aids, victim impact statements and restitution, and introduced a new community impact statement provision.

As required by the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, Justice Canada has established a complaint process to address any alleged breaches of victims' rights, and prepares annual reports on this process.

The development of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights Act was informed by significant input from the provinces, territories and broad public engagement, reflecting the shared responsibility for the criminal justice system. As the committee knows, the federal government is responsible for the development of criminal law and procedure, much of which is set out in the Criminal Code. Provincial and territorial governments are principally responsible for the administration of justice, which includes enforcing and prosecuting offences and providing victims services.

Justice Canada supports work on victims issues through several key initiatives. The department leads the federal victims strategy, which seeks to improve the justice system for victims through funding, law reform and policy initiatives. Since 2015 almost $78 million in federal funding through the victims fund has been invested in provinces and territories to assist them with implementation of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and victim-related legislation, and to develop or enhance victims services. For example, funding has been used to support restitution recovery programs, testimonial aids for adult and child victims and witnesses, training on victims' rights, public legal education materials, and building victims services capacity and accessibility.

Justice Canada is also supporting innovative victims service models, such as the family information liaison units. These are culturally grounded and trauma-informed teams that work with family members of missing and murdered indigenous women. Justice Canada funding is also supporting expanded access to independent legal advice for victims and survivors of sexual assault and intimate partner violence.

Criminal Code reforms since 2015 have furthered the implementation of the Canadian Victims Bills of Rights. A few examples include that in 2018, former Bill C-51 amended the Criminal Code to clarify and strengthen Canada’s sexual assault regime, including building on former Bill C-32 by providing a complainant with the right to counsel during a rape-shield provision. In 2019 former Bill C-75 enhanced measures to better protect against and reflect the serious nature of intimate partner violence, and strengthened the victim surcharge provisions.

Most recently, following the adoption of former Bill C-3 in 2021, in order to be eligible for appointment to a provincial superior court, candidates must agree to participate in continuing education on matters related to sexual assault law and social context.

Justice Canada continues to support broad research to identify trends as well as take note of how victims' rights are exercised in the criminal justice system and the impacts of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. This research informs our ongoing work.

Information-sharing and awareness-raising play a key role in justice system transformation. To that end, the department continues to support various public legal education opportunities and collaboration with partners. In addition to publishing fact sheets on victims' rights and designing new tools for police and other professionals, Justice Canada hosts the national Victims and Survivors of Crime Week, as well as webinars and knowledge exchanges. The victims week has been a huge success. It brings experts together to discuss ways to make our collective commitments to victims more effective.

Lastly, I would note that the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime was created in 2007. It is at arm’s length from the federal government. The ombudsman’s mandate is focused on areas of federal jurisdiction. There have been three ombudspersons appointed to date. A new GIC appointment process is currently under way.

In conclusion, I would say that Justice Canada continues to prioritize work to support victims of crime. Implementing the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights is an ongoing process, requiring actions from all levels of government working within their areas of responsibility in relation to victims' issues and victims' rights, and significant collaboration takes place across federal–provincial–territorial networks to ensure that their measures are coordinated.

We look forward to answering any questions you may have.

[Sylas Coletto]

Thank you very much.

This is my first time doing this, so forgive me if I don't answer in the correct way.

With the experiences of abuse, you never know what's going to come in. You never know what's going to happen on a particular day. I've received training on non-violent crisis intervention, but in the real-world application of that in an emergency room, things can change at the blink of an eye.

When I was working in [Technical difficulty—Editor], a federal inmate got hold of a gun from one of the guards and bullets were shot. There was no way to see that coming. It was terrifying. To make it appealing to young people.... I haven't seen Bill C‑3 work at the hospital level yet. People can start shouting; they get angry and they kind of [Technical difficulty—Editor] sudden, and you have to be very attentive to recognize that happening.

A simple answer would be that it would be nice if someone was close by so that when they can hear someone screaming or yelling, they can come in and assist. Sometimes, that's just not the case, because the distance between me and the next nurse, the next doctor or whoever's down the hall is just so far. They're not right there at the time when they need to be—

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for appearing today. Thank you for your work. Thank you for your resilience, and thank you for supporting so many Canadians throughout the most difficult time that Canadians have experienced. It's certainly the most difficult time that Canadian health care workers have experienced.

I have two questions. The first is for Mr. Coletto. The fact that we both did some boat racing is not why I'm picking on you. You had a really heart-wrenching testimony today and I wanted to come back to ask about meeting the needs of our health care workforce and making sure that young people look to nursing as an occupation that they'd like to choose. It's essential.

It's also essential that that workplace be safe. It's apparent through your testimony today, and through the testimony of others that we've heard, that that's not the case all the time. It provides me with an opportunity to highlight the recent passing of Bill C‑3, which does a couple of things. One is that it creates an offence for obstructing or interfering with someone's access to health care services. It also adds as an offence if any person who's providing health care services is being impeded by another person, and that could be in the context of providing care.

You mentioned that it was difficult to take medical leave. Perhaps it was because of the status of your employment at the time, but Bill C‑3 also adds 10 days of medical leave in a calendar year.

What are your reflections on the passing of this bill? What needs to be done going forward to ensure that young people choose nursing as an occupation, so that those workplaces are safe and free of the type of harassment that you described to us?

Once again, I thank you for your good work in the face of such challenging circumstances.

Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I cannot sing, but it was still nice to hear my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois, with whom we form the opposition in the House.

We are here today to talk about Bill C-8, of course. This is not long before we are actually going to be presented with the next budget, so I think it is very important that Canadians evaluate the past performance of the NDP-Liberal coalition before deciding to even consider approving the next budget.

I want to start by saying that my colleagues and I, here in the official opposition, have been very positive in our spirit of collaboration in the last couple of years as we have gone through the difficult time of the pandemic, but we also certainly have our limits, as individuals and groups must have their limits, in terms of what they are willing to accept.

I look at the beginning of the pandemic, when we passed, in November of 2021, Bill C-2, the first COVID relief package, worth $37 billion. There was certainly a lot of funding there. We went on to pass other legislation in the House with significant price tags, including Bill C-3, which went through the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. That was a $7-billion price tag.

In December 2021, we also had Bill C-8, which we are debating here today, with additional spending of $71.2 billion. These are not small amounts.

I will say that we certainly have done what was necessary throughout the pandemic. Everyone in the House, certainly on this side of the House, supports Canadians and wants to see Canadians get the help they need, but it has certainly become incredibly excessive and even growing, perhaps, with this new NDP coalition. We have to be wary about the items that we are seeing in the new NDP-Liberal coalition, which will cost billions upon billions of extra dollars, potentially.

At the same time that we saw the House helping Canadians, eventually leading to overspending even beyond what was necessary, we can go further back than that to something that I brought up today in question period: the destruction of the natural resources sector. This is something that did not start two years ago. This started seven years ago, when we saw the initial election of the NDP-Liberal coalition government, which continues to play out today.

To start, we saw it in November of 2016, when the northern gateway pipeline was rejected by this coalition. We look to October 2017, when TransCanada cancelled the energy east pipeline project as a result of pressure from this coalition.

This is something that this NDP-Liberal coalition likes to do. They create impossible environments for industry, whereby industry has no other choice but to abandon these projects. Then the NDP-Liberal coalition says that it is not their fault because it was abandoned by industry, when they have made conditions impossible to complete these projects.

We cannot forget January 2017, when the Prime Minister said he wanted to phase out the oil sands. He said, “You can't make a choice between what's good for the environment and what is good for the economy.... We can't shut down the oilsands tomorrow. We need to phase them out. We need to manage the transition off of our dependence on fossil fuels.”

Right there, we see the Prime Minister had committed to his continued path of destroying the natural resource sector, with the help of the NDP-Liberal coalition. This, of course, led to April 2018, when Kinder Morgan halted the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion because of “continued actions in opposition to the project”, which was not surprising.

In May of 2018, we saw the NDP-Liberal coalition buy the Trans Mountain pipeline for $4.5 billion, but it again created impossible conditions for the project to be completed, whereby Kinder Morgan eventually abandoned the project. Once again, the government created impossible conditions for this industry.

Of course, I cannot help but mention Bill C-48, the oil tanker moratorium, and of course Bill C-69, which were both passed in June 2019 and completely destroyed that sector. We often refer to C-69 as the “no more pipelines” bill.

Therefore, I find it very rich that I hold in my hand here a Canadian Press article from March 20, 2022, which indicates that Liberals may find extra spending room in the budget created by rising oil prices. It is reported that it is a position similar to the one the Liberals found themselves in last December when a rosier economic picture gave the government $38.5 billion in extra spending room. Guess what. The NDP-Liberal government quickly ate up $28.4 billion with new expenditures. This extra funding, as a result of the natural resources sector, could be up to $5 billion, but we know that the NDP-Liberal government will eat that up in a moment before spending even more than that.

In fact, the former parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page said, “It would be a policy mistake for the government to assume that higher-than-anticipated inflation will create extra fiscal room which could be used to deficit finance longer-term programs,” many of which we are seeing in the NDP-Liberal coalition. That is very interesting.

We see that the government has a habit of spending any money we give it. It will not pay down the record debt or the record deficit. Instead, it will spend it, so why should we trust it and give it more money? Why should we not look at this upcoming budget with scrupulosity and hesitancy?

More insulting than the government's spending what it does not have, and spending it on the back of the industry that it has destroyed entirely, is that it announced yesterday that now it plans to boost oil exports 5% in an effort to ease the energy supply crisis. This was an announcement that the Minister of Natural Resources made yesterday, following the second day of meetings at the International Energy Agency's annual ministerial gathering in Paris.

He said that Canadian industry has the pipeline and production capacity to incrementally increase oil and gas exports this year by 300,000 barrels per day, comprising 200,000 barrels of oil and 100,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day in natural gas. The Alberta natural resources minister had a response to that. She said:

We can increase production if we can get more infrastructure built and I think that's what was missing in the conversation.... It's really not ambitious to talk about a short term potential of 200,000 barrels when we sit on top of the third largest [oil] reserves in the world.

In addition to that, we have seen a labour shortage. The NDP-Liberal government fired hundreds of thousands of workers when it set out to destroy the natural resources sector, so this sector has been struggling with a lack of workers since last year, according to a Canadian Press story, when rebounding oil prices first spurred an uptake in drilling activity in the Canadian oil patch.

In conclusion, on this side of the House, we have tried to work with the NDP-Liberal coalition. It has shown it cannot handle funds responsibly, time and time again. Now it is turning to the industry it destroyed. Now it has decided it is time to step up given that Ukrainians and Europe are suffering, while Canadians have suffered for a long time under this coalition.

Emergencies Act

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

To justify using the Emergencies Act, he mentioned the fact that several Ottawans, including some of his employees, were bullied.

This past December, we passed Bill C‑3 to criminalize intimidating a health professional and people wanting to obtain health services.

I would like to know what justifies the use of the Emergencies Act now, when it was not justified when we were passing Bill C‑3.

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

Thank you.

Minister, with respect to Bill C‑3, there is something I understand less well. The 10 days of sick leave were adopted so that federally regulated workers would be entitled to them. I understand that, if you wanted to apply this across Canada, given the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces in labour matters, it would not be possible.

So I don't understand why you couldn't change the Canada Labour Code to guarantee those 10 days of sick leave, at least for federally regulated employees, as you did with labour standards. You raised the minimum wage to $15 an hour on December 29, and that applies regardless of the minimum wage rates in other provinces. So an amendment to the Canada Labour Code to provide 10 days of sick leave would at least include federally regulated workers.

You could then continue your consultations in the provinces.

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

Excellent. Let's keep on Bill C-3 then.

Mr. Chair, you'll be interested in this. Prince Edward Island has one day of paid sick leave, Quebec has two, recently British Columbia legislated five days each year for both full- and part-time employees. This was an important piece of your mandate, and congratulations to everyone, including yourself, on getting this passed unanimously in December. This would provide federally regulated private sectors with ten paid days of sick leave.

Minister, could you please explain again why it was so critical to move swiftly on Bill C-3 and what you are going to do to get sick leave implemented? You touched on it a bit. If you could just drill down on that, it would be great.

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Thank you very much, Terry.

Women obviously make up half of Canada's workforce and many were frontline workers through this pandemic, but the reality remains that they face a lot of challenges in the workforce, socially, financially, physically. How do you reduce barriers for women in the workforce? How do you create a more equal and equitable space?

Child care is huge and $10-a-day child care, affordable, high-quality child care, has the potential to add, Minister Freeland says, 243,000 workers to the Canadian workforce. Every dollar invested in early childhood education can generate up to $3 in economic return. That is very real, and that's why it's such a big priority for the government.

Through Bill C-3 we amended the Canada Labour Code to provide five new paid leave days for federally regulated employees who experience a miscarriage or a stillbirth. That was work this House did together.

Under the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Employment Equity Act, employees are protected against discrimination and termination on the basis of pregnancy.

We are strengthening provisions to better support working women. Especially, I think of those who need to be reassigned during pregnancy or while breastfeeding. We're tackling [Technical difficulty—Editor] As I just mentioned earlier, in 2015 the House passed legislation to remove the federal tax on menstrual products and our government now is leading the efforts to provide free menstrual products in federally regulated workplaces.

On pay equity, we will continue to advance the implementation of the Pay Equity Act right across federally regulated workplaces. That's very important work.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for being with us today to talk about the many issues addressed in your mandate letter.

I don't know if you will agree with me, but there is one thing we agree on: the Canada Labour Code needs some love. It needs to be modernized to adjust to the issues that affect the world of work today. There are many challenges. Integrating the mental health component into occupational health and safety seems to me to be a must. This is increasingly documented. It is not only the pandemic that has exacerbated the situation. Psychological trauma at work is a reality. We need to move forward fairly quickly.

My question is simple. When will the 10 days of paid sick leave be implemented?

I know you are having discussions with the provinces, but that is not what this is about. Bill C‑3 was passed to implement 10 days of paid sick leave for all federally regulated employees. Many employees are wondering when they will be entitled to these 10 days, and rightly so. It would be nice if legislation was, in fact, implemented in the short term.

When can we expect this to be done for federally regulated employees?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Absolutely. I'm more than happy to.

I'm very happy with the work we were able to do together, Mr. Aitchison. I think all members of all parties. Obviously, we passed C-3 unanimously. That is not something that happens every day in this country, that's for sure. That's because I was more than happy and willing to work with you on ways we could improve the lives of workers in this country and also increase the number of workers in this country, particularly in places where we need them.

I am more than open to doing that. I look forward to it, actually.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

That's excellent.

Sticking with the skilled trades, I know that one of the other items—one of the specific items in your mandate letter—is to work with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance to introduce a labour mobility tax credit where workers in the skilled trades and construction trades specifically can expense eligible travel expenses for relocation costs.

I'm not sure if you're familiar or not with MP Chris Lewis's private member's bill that he's just come up with that would allow tradespeople to claim travel expenses for work about 120 kilometres away from their residence. It's a bit more than what is in your mandate letter.

I'm wondering if you think there may be an opportunity for you and me to collaborate again like we did on Bill C-3 to see if we can't maybe make that a little bit better.

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee.

I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are joining you from St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, on the traditional territory of the Beothuk people.

Thank you for inviting me to join you today to discuss my mandate letter commitments and some of the important progress that’s been made so far by our government.

First and foremost, I’m proud to say that we have made incredible strides over the last few months to ensure workplaces are fair, safe, and healthy.

For example, this past December, Bill C‑3 received royal assent. This important piece of legislation will provide a minimum of ten days of paid sick leave per year for employees working in the federally regulated private sector. This is huge.

Paid sick leave will protect workers and their families, protect their jobs, and protect their workplaces. This is an important step in the ongoing fight against COVID‑19 and a necessary addition to the social safety net that organized labour and the NDP have long been advocating for.

These changes to the Canada Labour Code are significant, and we recognize that workplaces need time to prepare.

That’s why we’re engaging with federally regulated employers to work with them on the implementation of these changes in advance of their coming into force. We’re also ensuring they have time to implement payroll changes and work with unions to adjust collective agreements as needed.

I’m also meeting with my counterparts at the provincial and territorial level to seek their views on developing an action plan to provide paid sick leave across the country, while respecting their jurisdiction and the unique needs of small business owners. This will be one of the topics for discussion when we meet later this month.

Now, we will build on all of this work, while supporting the fight against COVID‑19 and its variants. We will continue to build a strong middle class and work toward a better future where everyone has a real and fair chance at success.

Mental health is an important concern for Canadians and has become an even more prominent issue as a result of the ongoing pandemic.

As part of my mandate, we plan on amending the Canada Labour Code to include mental health as a specific element of occupational health and safety, and require federally regulated employers to take preventative steps to address workplace stress and injury.

The biggest battleground for mental health right now is the workplace. The line between work and home has become blurred by the pandemic, and boundaries are more important than ever.

With this in mind, we are also getting ready to move forward on my mandate commitment to develop a right-to-disconnect policy. Such a policy would help support better work-life balance and help do away with the informal expectation that so many workers face to remain connected—without compensation—well beyond normal working hours.

The Final Report of the Right to Disconnect Advisory Committee, which was published just last week, will help guide our next steps.

In addition, we will continue to advance the state of equity, diversity and inclusion in federally regulated workplaces. The Employment Equity Act Review Task Force has resumed its work, which is expected to conclude this summer.

I’ve also committed myself to doing everything I can to protect workers from violence and harassment.

To that end, I am continuing to work with my provincial and territorial counterparts to ratify the International Labour Organization’s Convention 190, which will help eliminate violence and harassment in the world of work.

I would also like to mention that I will be working collaboratively with some of my colleagues to eradicate forced labour from the supply chains of Canadian businesses. Through the development of legislation, we will continue to advance concrete action to ensure that companies operating abroad do not contribute to human rights abuses.

The list I’ve covered today isn’t exhaustive—work is ongoing on many other fronts to deliver on other important mandate commitments, such as continuing to advance implementation of the Pay Equity Act and working with my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, to maintain momentum on a just transition to a low carbon economy that leaves no one behind.

The progress being made on these and other key initiatives will help build strong, healthy workforces that are productive, innovative, and resilient.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak to what I— with the support of many—have been and will continue working on to make our workplaces better for everyone.

I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.