Seamus O'Regan Liberal
This bill has received Royal Assent and is, or will soon become, law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, I applaud the member for Don Valley North in recognizing, as our colleagues have, how important it is to support our health care workers. He has been a very strong advocate for them and I appreciate his comments. I believe that this legislation will also be a very important educational tool, and that it will make the environment safer for both health care workers and patients.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Madam Speaker, this past week in northern Ontario a young mother with a child was attacked outside a vaccination clinic. She was called a “murderer”. This is not something we have ever seen in northern Ontario. We pride ourselves on our social solidarity and the respect that we show for one another. This is something I would imagine in Trump's America, but it is happening in each of our communities.
We had a doctor who had to give up her practice in a small town because of harassment and threats from anti-vaxxers. We hear from medical workers who are being harassed and threatened when they are on the front lines of the pandemic every single day. They are putting their lives on the line and then getting anti-vaxxer harassment.
I would like to ask my hon. colleague this. What steps do we need to put in place to ensure that our health care workers are able to do the job without threats, intimidation and possible violence?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, as elected officials, whether members of Parliament, MLAs or local councillors, we have a significant role to play on this issue. We need to call it out for what it is. We have to be there for the constituents the member referenced, and they have to know that we are there for them. We have to let health care workers know that they have the unanimous support of parliamentarians no matter where they live or what political party they belong to.
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Madam Speaker, what a joy it is to be back in the House and be here for the rare occurrence of hearing the member for Winnipeg North speak. It happens about as often as a full eclipse of the sun. It is amazing. I am going to tell my grandkids that I was here to hear the member speak. It is actually disappointing that the Liberals have so many new members, yet time and again it is the same chap who stands up, as much as I do understand.
I will be sharing my time today with the member for Cumberland—Colchester, who is one of the new members we are allowing to speak.
We are talking about Bill C-3 today. I am glad to get a chance to get a word in edgewise, with the member across the way, but also to speak before the Liberals perhaps prorogue Parliament, call another snap election or use any other of their usual ploys to avoid accountability.
Bill C-3 is probably a needed bill, but it is an odd bill. Half is related to justice and the other half to the Canada Labour Code. I am not sure why the Liberals have put the two of them together instead of presenting them to the House separately. I hate to think doing it this way is a typical Liberal ploy, or that they are hoping someone will object to part of it, so they can scream and yell and say we are anti-health care workers. I know I am being cynical because there is no way in the world they would ever consider doing that. They would never try to wedge folks.
We have heard repeatedly from the government, and our colleagues from the NDP and the Bloc, about how much this bill is needed. Why now? Why not a year ago? Why not six years ago with the Canada Labour Code? Why have the Liberals waited? They have had the backing and support of all the parties during the COVID crisis to put through almost everything with unanimous consent. Why would they wait so long?
The labour changes the bill mentions easily could have been brought in before. Their delay reminds me of a great Seinfeld episode in which Newman, the postal worker and Seinfeld's nemesis, helps to kidnap Elaine's neighbour's dog and eventually gets caught. When a policeman comes to arrest him, he, à la son of Sam, asks what took him so long. I have to ask the same of the government. If it was such a priority, why would it wait?
We could have had this before the House, debated it and sent it to committee long ago. The election took place on September 21 and we waited two full months to sit in the House again. In the U.K., Boris Johnson was able to re-form the House and get its Parliament back to work in six days. It took the government two months just to get us here.
We could have easily dealt with Bill C-2. In the House today during question period, we heard the Liberals tell the Conservatives to get on side and pass Bill C-2. We heard them say in debate that we should help small businesses and pass Bill C-2. Why did they not convene Parliament to get us back to work immediately so we could pass Bill C-2? It is the same with Bill C-3.
With respect to Bill C-4 on conversion therapy, people thought it was Bill C-6 or Bill C-8, because it was brought to the House several times. It was killed when the government prorogued Parliament. It was killed again when it called an early election, which no one really wanted and was not needed, as we ended up the same. If it were that important, why did the Liberals not try to pass the conversion therapy bill earlier? They had six years to bring it in.
One bill I remember they brought through in 2017 as a higher priority than the conversion therapy was Bill C-24. At the time, and I was using another Seinfeld quote, I called it “a bill about nothing”. Basically, the bill changed the bank account the old ministers of state were paid from in the estimates process. I think it also changed the official name on the cheques from Public Works to PSPC.
This was a bill we debated in the House and tied up the committee with. Somehow the government decided that was more important than a conversion therapy bill. They had been paid that way since Confederation. The ministers of state were paid out of one small bank account, and the other ministers, technically the government, were paid out of another. We could have continued doing that and brought the conversion therapy bill then.
The reality is this: The government is not serious about how it puts forward its legislation. It delays, obfuscates, throws it out and then demands that opposition parties get on board and hurry up to pass it, when it could have done that a long time ago.
Generally, everyone supports the first part of the bill, on criminalizing threats toward health care workers. We have all seen, during the election, the blocking of ambulances from getting to hospitals and the harassing of health care workers. We have heard the horrible stories from my colleague for Timmins—James Bay, where a small-town doctor, vitally needed, was chased out of his community by these threats. We just heard from him about the single mother who was horrifyingly harassed just for getting a vaccine.
Therefore, perhaps we need this legislation, but I would like to hear more details. Apparently, a lot of this is covered already under provincial or other laws. I would like to see how the bill would strengthen the protection for our doctors and nurses and, as my colleague mentioned, for people who are just going for a vaccine. There are the doctors and nurses we have to protect, but we also have to protect Canadians who are trying to access health care facilities.
During the election, we Conservatives had, as part of our election plan, the critical infrastructure protection act. This would provide additional security from those protesting vital infrastructure, such as our hospitals and our rail and pipelines. We saw what just happened in B.C., with its supply chain devastated because of the cuts to the CN and CP rails. That was obviously an act of nature as opposed to protests, but protests can be just as devastating, and we have seen it be just as devastating to our health care when we do not have consequences. I hope my colleagues in the House will eventually adopt a law that would protect other vital infrastructure besides our hospitals, and also our supply lines.
Unfortunately, from day one, we have had mixed messaging from this government regarding vaccines and the COVID crisis, and it has led to confusion, fear and anger. None of this, nothing this government or anyone else has done, excuses the violence and harassment of our health care workers, doctors and people trying to access health care. However, what the government has done has not helped. When Canadians needed certainty, leadership and consistency, we got false information from the government, like we saw with the Deputy Prime Minister being admonished for fake news on Twitter.
It is funny. We heard earlier that my colleague, the member for Winnipeg North, when he was out door-knocking, was surprised by the anger from the vax versus the anti-vax people. I felt the same thing. We had people threatening us with a shotgun if we dared come with that. We have all felt it, but he was surprised. I want to read something from the National Post for the member. It said that in January, the Prime Minister had argued against mandatory vaccines as “divisive” in our “community and country”. It said that in March, he mused about the inequality and inequity of vaccine passports. In July, he said there would be no mandatory vaccines. However, two weeks later, apparently led by internal polling that showed he could divide the country for political gain, he announced a mandatory vaccine, cynically just in time.
The article goes on to say that the Prime Minister's “flip flop on vaccine mandates” exemplifies “a governing philosophy based on political calculus”.
This is not governing based on bringing us together, or on trying to get the unvaccinated vaxxed by convincing them of how good vaccines are and how they will lead us out of the troubles we are in. There is nothing about that. It is using it based on polling to create divisiveness in Canada for political gain.
The Prime Minister, when speaking out against protesters, used the term “you people” when describing the protesters. Now, I might perhaps, against some of the people who are blocking hospitals, have used harsher language, but he used the term “you people”. Now, I note for our feminist Prime Minister that the website everydayfeminism.com says “you people” is a racially coded phrase. Again, nothing the Prime Minister has done excuses the protesters and their actions, but nothing the Prime Minister has done has gone to alleviate the divisions in Canada. He has used this to divide the country.
Apparently I am out of time, so I will let it go and perhaps leave it open to questions and comments to address the second part of the bill.
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my respectful colleague's debate, and I get the picture. He is trying to say that the misinformation out there is caused by the government. The viciousness of these protestors is caused by the government.
I want to bring the House back to the last session, where official opposition party members daily and constantly questioned the amount of vaccines we would to get, when we would get them and if they were effective. It was the same thing with the rapid testing.
The message the Conservatives are projecting to the public is to not trust these vaccines. They have had a lot to do with the attitude and doubt we have had in the public. As I said, we saw some Conservative volunteers disguised as protestors.
Now that we are talking about the bill, does he agree harsher sentences should be created through this amendment?
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Madam Speaker, I do not recall reading a single National Post or Globe article stating that the Conservative Party was pushing misinformation or using it for political divide against the Prime Minister. I just read verbatim from a National Post article.
It is disgraceful that gentleman would misinterpret, purposely perhaps, my speech. Nowhere did I say anything that the Prime Minister did justified the protests. I was very clear in stating that. What I did state was that he used this issue for divisive politics.
It is unfortunate, when the parties are getting together, such as today, that he would choose that path instead of promoting a way forward on vaccines and Bill C-3.
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his thoughtful speech. My question is in keeping with what we have heard so far and I, too, will try to ask it in a relatively thoughtful manner.
We are members of the House of Commons. We should be setting an example for citizens. The question about the vaccination status of the members of the Conservative caucus has come up several times. I can understand the debates about personal choices and privacy.
However, is it not true that people could doubt the effectiveness of the vaccine and disagree on their importance because the number of people who have requested an exemption for medical reasons may be higher than the statistical average? Is that not what is happening because of the way the Conservatives have managed this file?
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Madam Speaker, I am disappointed with that question. I have respect for some of the interventions my colleague has made today.
We are talking about trying to bring Canadians together and not politicizing the issue, and that is what we hearing with this question. Our party has been very clear that vaccines are the best way to get us out of this pandemic, not continuing to try to divide us politically between those who are vaccinated and the very small portion who are unvaccinated.
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Madam Speaker, we are very glad to see the Conservatives get on board now to support paid sick leave. One thing the member's colleague, the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, talked about was bereavement. I really appreciate that because most of us cannot imagine the terrible grief of losing a child. It can lead to unresolved grief, anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, addiction disorders, suicide even, homelessness, loss of education and loss of work.
Right now, Canada does not have a national bereavement strategy like the U.K., the U.S., Ireland, New Zealand and other countries. There is no funding for designated supports for bereavement, including for organizations like Camp Kerry Society or local hospices, and the pandemic has made things even worse.
Certain things need to happen. The government needs to allocate funding to exclusively support those who support people who are suffering from the loss of a child. Does my colleague agree that we need to extend supports for those grieving, those parents, and that they should not be at risk of losing their job and—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
A very brief answer from the hon. member for Edmonton West.
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Madam Speaker, we need to do more. A lot of it is provincial jurisdiction. The member talks about funding, and I believe there is funding available. I looked at the wage subsidy, and the billions upon billions that were given to wealthy hedge fund managers and other corporations. That money could have fairly—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester.
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Madam Speaker, I want to make something clear to my colleagues. The reason I decided to change my profession as a front-line health care worker was to come here to Ottawa. I have been married for 31 years to my wife, Deborah, who is a pharmacist. I also have a daughter who is a paramedic, so this bill has really important meaning for me.
I wanted to come here to help create good laws, such as the one around conversion therapy, which we all worked on together. I wanted to help support my constituents to live their version of the Canadian dream, which I have been very fortunate to be able to do. I also want to help return Canada to its rightful place on the world stage, having had the opportunity to serve our great country in the Royal Canadian Air Force for nine years as a flight surgeon. Being here today to speak to a bill to protect health care workers and patients alike, so they can give and receive the care they need and desire, is truly an honour.
This is indeed a terrible situation. It is one I have experienced personally, and it is one I have seen other people experience. The abuse is mainly verbal abuse, threats and sexual harassment. As I mentioned, there are health care heroes. At the beginning of the pandemic, health care heroes were ready to give their lives for the sake of their patients. I think I talked about this in one of my other speeches.
I have often thought about this: Why do some people run into burning buildings and others run away? That is a real characterization of primary care providers and first responders alike.
They provide life-saving procedures and care to many people who perhaps are not ready to receive that type of care and do not know what type of illness they have. My dear colleagues should think of this: When the pandemic began, there was a significant fear that we would get the virus, as front-line health care workers, and perhaps die from it. However, the worse fear was thinking we were going to take it home to our loved ones. I can remember taking three showers a day when I worked on the COVID unit and thinking I would lose layers of skin so that I would not take it home to my family. Also, a lot of us lived separately. Several of my colleagues bought recreational vehicles to live in the driveways of their homes.
I think that COVID-19 has highlighted the importance of health care providers and the care they provide. Our colleague from Winnipeg North talked a little about this. Sadly, though, COVID-19 has also contributed to a mental health decline among health professionals. As we know, violence against health care workers is on the rise, and it often begins at the bedside in hospitals. Sadly, it is often gender-based and racially motivated, although certainly not always.
I can give examples of violence I have witnessed from patients who were admitted to the emergency room, and in my own office. Fortunately, in my office it was often characterized by foul language and demands toward my front-office staff. I want to make it clear to people that in no way, shape or form did I find this tolerable, and I made that clear to those folks who wanted to purport that.
In my opinion, the reason for this rise in violence is multifactorial. It is related to access to our systems. It is sometimes related to things like dementia or unhappiness with the health care system, which is suffering greatly; to differing opinions on the type of care people should have, or desire to have; to the mental health changes associated with isolation, fear, sadness and irritation; or to following multiple rules and mandates and uncertainty.
I have to be clear that some of these things have been made even worse by my colleagues across the aisle with their mandates and uncertain rules for people, as well as by their lack of clarity. Unfortunately, through social media the good graces that many in my age grew up with are gone. That is not to be disparaging to younger folks. That is unfair, but many of those good graces are gone and that is spilling over into real life. It is not just in the virtual world. That, too, makes me sad.
This is also exacerbated by the 24-hour news cycle and the need to report and dissect stories and positions by pundits, politicians, professors and profilers. Does this matter? I think it does matter, because if we also do not examine the root causes of why these people feel like they are not being heard and need to act in the ways we are seeing, then we are not going to be able to act as a good government, make good policies and give folks better direction.
Why does someone become a health care worker? Why do people work in nursing homes and emergency rooms and provide in-patient care? Why is someone a health care technician, nurse, physician, pharmacist or paramedic? The unifying idea here is that they want to help people. They think it is very important that they see people who are sick and unwell, and they are caring at heart. They want to help people get through those difficult times in their lives, whether through things like bereavement, a surgical illness or mental health illness, they want to be there to help.
I also want to make it clear to my colleagues that unfortunately this type of abuse is not only directed at frontline health care workers. We have also seen it directed toward policy-makers. In my own province of Nova Scotia, we have seen Dr. Robert Strang, our chief medical officer of health, subjected to these types of actions. We have also noted that Dr. Theresa Tam has been subjected to it. We know our own colleague, the shadow minister for natural resources and former shadow minister for health, suffered threats and humiliation.
What is important here is giving good direction and clear advice to Canadians, but also to come at that, as we have often talked about here in the House over the last several days, from a position of caring and concern for our colleagues and for all Canadians, and to give them a voice so that we can hear their issues. It is somewhat counterproductive to alienate millions of unvaccinated Canadians with more and more restrictive mandates. Unfortunately, we do hear from them over and over that they are losing their jobs, they are losing their pensions, they are concerned about losing their house and how they are going to provide for their family. Those are not the types of policies that are going to help us fix this situation.
I watched the news the other day. I did hear one pastor say that unfortunately there are people out there who are going to dig their heels in all the way to their necks. We need to support the right to lawful association and for the right to express alternate opinions. As we will likely see in debates coming up in this House in the future, we know that free speech needs to be defended. In the immortal words of Voltaire, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.” Colleagues, this is not about restricting the right to protest. It is about ensuring the manner in which it is done does not harm another person.
On the second part of this bill and being a rookie politician, I am not sure how well they go together or how much it will add to those folks who already have significant federal benefits. I do get concerned about the trickle-down effects this may have on provincial governments and small businesses. We know that small businesses are essential to our economy moving forward, especially in this time of significant inflation, and that is going to be important as we go forward.
I am not entirely sure what the benefit is of having these two together and what benefit the second part of the bill is going to provide. Certainly, it is a worthwhile bill to present and to send it off to committee for further study.
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Madam Speaker, I want to welcome the new member for Cumberland—Colchester. Indeed, we seem to be on similar paths in life, going from being doctors to being here in Parliament. I am really happy that he supports this bill. This week, we have seen some really nice change in terms of all being together on the same page, first with conversion therapy and now with this bill.
I want to ask about something he hinted at in his speech, which is the coming problem of lack of manpower in the health care profession, like doctors and nurses. We had it before, but I think he realizes, like I do, that it is going to be worse after COVID because a lot of people, through age or attrition, are not going back to work.
Can the member comment on ways he thinks we can start addressing the problem?
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his understanding as a physician.
Canadians, as we know, are facing significant health care provider shortages. In primary care in Nova Scotia, for instance, we are lacking care for approximately 100,000 Nova Scotians. Some of the estimates around nursing would suggest that we are short 70,000 nurses. I do not know how we are going to replace them. However, I do think there is some great information out there.
Again, as my colleague would suggest, it is going to take the effort of the entire House to correct this problem. I am not entirely sure that the Prime Minister's promise of 7,500 health care providers is going to be enough. It will take a lot of creative solutions to come up with that, but I am happy to work with my colleague opposite on the problem.