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.

Criminal Code

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

moved that Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

I am proud to rise in the House today on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people as Canada's new Minister of Labour to present a bill that is focused on workers and their safety.

The reality is that the safety of many workers across Canada was undermined during the pandemic. I am sure everyone agrees. However, Canadians deserve to feel safe in their workplaces.

No one should have to choose between staying at home when they are sick and being able to afford rent and groceries. It is clear the pandemic has exposed the gaps in our social safety net, and the time has come to close the gap on paid sick leave.

What exactly is this gap? The Canada Labour Code currently provides employees in federally regulated industries with several unpaid leaves related to personal illness or injury, as well as three days of paid personal leave that could be used to treat an illness or injury. However, if we look at the year 2019, Canadian workers took an average of 8.5 days of leave for illness and issues related to a disability. It has become very clear that three days is just not enough.

With Bill C-3, we are taking measures to ensure that Canadians who work in federally regulated industries have access to the paid sick leave they are entitled to.

The Government of Canada is introducing legislation that would amend the Canada Labour Code to provide 10 days of paid sick leave per year to workers in the federally regulated private sector. The impact of this could be huge.

There are approximately 18,500 employers in federally regulated industries. That includes federal Crown corporations and certain activities on first nations reserves. Together, they employ nearly a million Canadians. The vast majority of them, some 87%, are working in medium-sized to large firms, that is, companies with 100 employees or more.

The federally regulated sector comprises workplaces in a broad range of industries, including interprovincial, air, rail, land and marine transportation, pipelines, banking services, and postal and courier services. These are industries that people rely on every day.

Life during the pandemic has been stressful for so many people right across Canada. I think of my fellow Newfoundlanders who were worried about food and other goods because of the fear that the island supply chain could be cut off. Sometimes it was due to weather, but other times it was due to the terminals in Port aux Basques and North Sydney being closed after already being on limited capacity because of COVID.

These industries must survive and grow. They depend on workers, so we have to support those workers.

The bill before us today not only allows workers in these vital industries to stay home to rest when they are sick, but also prevents the spread of illnesses in their workplaces. More specifically, Bill C-3 would amend part III of the Canada Labour Code to make two changes.

First, in each calendar year, employees would earn one day of paid leave per month of continuous employment, up to a maximum of 10 days in a calendar year.

The second change is to avoid duplicating paid leave provisions relating to illness or injury under the Canada Labour Code. These two changes would impact more than 580,000 employees in the federally regulated private sector who do not currently have access to at least 10 days of paid sick leave. Sixty-three per cent of federally regulated workers do not have access to 10 paid sick days.

Increased paid sick leave would support employees by protecting them in three ways.

First, paid sick leave would protect workers' income. Workers would not have to choose between staying home to get well and earning a paycheque.

Second, it would protect their jobs.

Third, it would protect their health. Additional sick leave would enable them to recover at home, which would in turn protect others in the workplace.

To sum up, we are taking action to give workers and employers the concrete support they need to keep their workplaces safe. Paid sick leave will help us curb the spread of COVID-19 and other illnesses in workplaces right across the country, and it is an important step toward finishing the fight against that virus and ending the global pandemic.

In addition to enabling workers to focus on their health and limit the spread of disease, paid sick leave would also protect our economy.

However, the benefits do not end there. Research indicates that not having access to paid sick leave is associated with high employee turnover. That is on top of increasing an employee's need for health care resources over the long term. These outcomes impose economic costs on individuals, employers, families and the government.

Studies have shown that paid sick leave is financially beneficial to employers and the public health system.

For these reasons, it is clear that the bill before us today should move forward. Paid sick days for federally regulated workers was part of the Liberal platform in the last election. We committed to introducing this piece of legislation within our first 100 days as a government. Today we have made good on that promise.

Introducing 10 days of paid sick leave is just step one of our plan.

We want to see paid sick leave implemented across the country in all sectors. To do that, we need to work with the provinces and territories to take an approach that benefits Canadian workers from coast to coast to coast, because 58% of workers across the country currently do not have access to any paid sick leave.

This brings me to the other aspect of the Government of Canada's commitment. In addition to the measures I mentioned earlier, the Government of Canada will meet with the provinces and territories to discuss a plan to legislate sick leave across the country. Of course, this would be done while respecting jurisdiction and keeping the unique needs of small business owners top of mind.

Today, not every province and territory has paid sick leave provisions. In fact, only Prince Edward Island and Quebec currently have permanent requirements for employers to provide paid sick leave. That being said, British Columbia has recently finished consultations on creating regulations to define a minimum entitlement to five paid sick leave days for personal illness or injury.

It varies from one place to another. For example, back home in Newfoundland and Labrador, there are seven unpaid days of leave for sickness or family responsibilities, and that is after 30 continuous days of employment with the same employer. However, right across the Cabot Strait, in Nova Scotia, workers are entitled to three unpaid days of leave because of the sickness of a child, parent or family member, or for medical, dental or other similar appointments during working hours.

The number of days and the terms are very different depending on where one lives, but it should not be that way. Provisions governing paid sick days directly related to COVID‑19 also differ significantly depending on where one lives.

During the pandemic, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Yukon introduced temporary paid leave provisions for reasons related to COVID-19 and employer rebate programs to offset the cost of the leave. The number of days eligible for reimbursement and the maximum amount available for reimbursement varies in each of the jurisdictions. These programs require employers to pay regular wages to their employees during the leave period but also to apply for reimbursement to the provincial or territorial government afterward. As the economy continues to recover from the impact of the pandemic, some of the provincial programs have already expired, while others are set to expire at the end of this year.

Again, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought the issue of paid sick leave to light. As we move through these challenging times, we have a responsibility to make sure that all Canadians have access to paid sick leave. This is essential to Canada's economic recovery and will help reduce the spread of the virus.

The government is well aware that the changes proposed today would have an impact on the provinces and territories and on employers, especially smaller businesses. Consultation with the provinces and territories is essential, especially when it comes to the unique needs of small business owners and to local realities.

As we move forward with these changes, federally regulated employers and employees as well as other relevant organizations will continue to be valuable partners. They will have the opportunity to share their views on how we should move forward together to implement the proposed changes and what considerations need to be taken into account. With important legislation such as Bill C-3 before us today, the Government of Canada collaborates closely with partners because they know the realities on the ground better than we do.

The Government of Canada is working hard to build back better and bring us out of the COVID-19 crisis. Ensuring that Canadians have access to paid sick leave is an important step in Canada's economic recovery and reducing the spread of the virus.

Paid sick leave can help to stop the spread of illness in workplaces across the country. We are taking action to give workers the support they need to help keep themselves and their workplaces safe and healthy. Bill C-3 can help us do that.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, this bill is about workers and their safety. As has been the case with workers' issues throughout Canada's history, no one has been as effective or shone a clearer light on the importance of this topic than organized labour and Canada's unions. I want to specifically thank these groups, whether they be provincial labour federations, individual members of a local, or national leaders themselves, for the work they have done to make this idea a reality.

Hard-working Canadians across the country are counting on us to make these necessary and important changes. Let us do this for them.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, as this is the first time I am rising in the House, I want to thank the citizens of Chatham-Kent—Leamington for allowing me the honour and privilege to represent them. I also want to thank my family, my EDA and all the volunteers for their support.

I certainly agree with the minister that the pandemic has exposed a number of weaknesses in our social security systems. However, why are we a year and a half into the pandemic before we see this form of legislation?

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

Madam Speaker, we are here now and we are doing it. When the pandemic hit, the government acted very quickly and decisively through a lot of temporary programs, most notably the CERB, which went directly to people to give them the supports they needed directly when they needed them.

As the hon. member pointed out, the pandemic did point out some significant gaps in the social safety net. One of them, of course, was the fact that 58% of workers in this country do not have any paid sick leave. These are people who are capable of carrying the virus, bringing it to their workplaces, propagating it and endangering others. It is just as much a problem for them as it is for anybody who has paid sick leave. It does not matter; the virus does not discriminate. It is therefore incredibly important that we close that gap and that we do it now.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech. The Bloc Québécois, on the whole, supports this bill.

I would like to point out to the House that, once again, Quebec has taken the lead on introducing this kind of legislation, including banning demonstrations in front of facilities that provide medical treatment. Still, I am glad the federal government is following Quebec's lead.

I do, however, have some concerns about protecting the rights of unionized workers. As everyone knows, the right to strike in Quebec is protected by anti-scab legislation that does not exist elsewhere in Canada. This bill is perhaps a bit vague when it comes to health care employees' right to protest.

I would like some clarification from the minister on this. Will there be specific details regarding the right of unionized workers to take part in protests?

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

Madam Speaker, we worked very closely with justice officials to make sure that we incorporated and protected union members' right to strike and to demonstrate. Members will note that the legislation as drafted specifically refers to intimidation and obstruction of health care workers. That is where we define that line.

It is incredibly important that we get that balance right. What this bill does, on that note, is give law enforcement members the tools they need so that there will be no hesitation. They can do what they need to make sure that health care workers get the support they need, are not intimidated and are not obstructed.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister of Labour for his speech. I also want to thank him for the content of this bill.

The NDP obviously welcomes this type of bill, since the idea came from the NDP. In 2020, the leader of the NDP asked the Liberal government 22 times to bring in 10‑day paid sick leave. He was told no at the time.

The Liberals finally saw the light. Unfortunately, this comes as we are in the midst of the fourth wave. We have lost 18 months, and that has jeopardized the health and safety of health care workers.

It is all well and good that this measure is being brought in today, but, in the midst of a pandemic, why were the Liberals so slow to realize that this is a health issue not just for workers, but also for the entire population and society?

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

Madam Speaker, what can I say? Being in the light is a marvellous thing. Here we are, in the light together. We do not have to go toward the light. I am just saying we are basking in it. The important thing, I think, is that we are here now and we are doing it. We do not have to get into past history. I do not think we need to conjure any of that up. Most of mine is well known.

I would say that the pandemic exposed these gaps. We put in place some temporary measures that we knew were very important at the beginning of this. The supports went directly to workers. We knew at the beginning we had to act fast, and we did act fast. Now we have an opportunity, as we are finishing this fight against COVID-19 and as we recognize there may be other threats on the horizon, to make permanent the necessary changes to the social safety net and to make sure those gaps are closed.

This legislation today is an important part of that effort.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to thank my riding for the opportunity to represent them again and for the incredible support I had during the campaign. I am grateful to be able to ask the minister a question today, specifically on this bill.

We know that COVID has been hard on so many people and businesses, and he would know best, I think. My riding would like to know this. Will this impact subcontractors and contractors who are hired to work on behalf of the government in different areas that are independent? They need to prepare, as they have faced the challenges of COVID as well and are trying to get back their feet.

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

Madam Speaker, this will all be brought to bear within the consultations that will take place as we move forward and develop a national action plan with provinces and territories, with a particular note on small business owners. There are, as I have pointed out, some 15,000 employers within federal jurisdiction, so it is incredibly important that we are sensitive to their needs. They have borne incredible expense and anxiety over the course of the pandemic. Making sure we get that right is incredibly important. That will all be borne out as we flesh out a national action plan that also, importantly, respects the jurisdictions of provinces and territories.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to capitalize on the good minister's basking in the light.

We have heard much conversation in the House about collaboration. I have to share with members that our labour critic, the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, and of course our entire caucus has been calling on this government to improve the bill by ensuring that workers do not have to wait 11 months for 10 paid sick days, and ensuring that workers have access to the first day of sick leave after a continuous period of employment of at least 60 days. This is with the goal of not unduly delaying access to the first day of sick leave.

There are many ways in which we can improve the bill before us, and I am hopeful that the good minister, in basking in the light, will work with the NDP caucus to close the gaps in the very porous first draft of this legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, did the hon. member say “porous first draft”? I think the light is dimming.

We have had good conversations with members in the House. We are having a constructive debate today, and I look forward to continuing these conversations as we move this bill forward.

One thing that is clear is that everyone I have spoken to and everyone I have heard from has agreed that we have to get moving on this. That means getting this bill passed. Paid sick leave is a part of what I think will help us finish the fight against the pandemic and prepare us for our needs ahead.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a beautiful place that I come from.

Today is a very important day. As my colleagues have noted, we have been calling for this. Our leader has raised it in the House of Commons over 22 times. The NDP knows full well that people are going to work sick and are not getting the coverage they need.

My colleague for Hamilton Centre just articulated that changes to the bill are needed. We have heard from many medical associations and employers about the requirement for a medical certificate from people who may have contracted COVID-19. The concern is that the power of requiring a medical certificate, regardless of the number of days, is going to be a barrier. This is something they are raising.

Does the minister not believe that this requirement may decrease the demand for leave and increase the possible transmission of COVID-19, especially now that we are in a fourth wave and new variants are imposed upon us?

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

Madam Speaker, I would simply say that getting the balance right between employers and employees, making sure that this is constructive, making sure that we do not spread the virus, and making sure that workers who suffer symptoms do not hesitate to stay home and not go to the workplace is something we will continue to strive and to work for.

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

Madam Speaker, may I request unanimous consent to split my time this morning?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

All those opposed to the hon. member's motion will please say nay.

Hearing no dissent, please proceed.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that and the generosity of all my colleagues here. I will be splitting my time with the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.

I always appreciate the opportunity to stand in the House and speak to the important issues of the day. This is quite clearly an important issue. I congratulate the minister on presenting this and fulfilling a campaign promise.

Of course, we are a little concerned. This is something that other members in the House have already raised. This is something that we have been calling on for some time, and it has been promised for a while. Of course, had we not had an election that was not necessary, and if our committees had been up and running, we could have been doing an awful lot more. In fact, the minister in his press conference pointed out that it may not really have that big of an impact: Most federally regulated private-sector companies, which are among the biggest companies in the country, already have incredibly generous programs to support their workers if they need paid sick leave. Collective agreements already cover an awful lot of these programs.

This is a bill that covers two very different areas. I will be focusing specifically on the labour portion of it. The other issue, of course, is that we are not entirely sure how many workers this will cover, but we are looking forward to seeing more details. We recognize as well that this is an opening toward discussing this further with the provinces and with many more businesses. It is important to keep in mind, as those negotiations begin and as the federal government starts speaking with provinces, the caution that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has expressed. That is:

CFIB urges the federal government and provincial governments to exercise extreme caution when imposing new costs on small businesses at a time when a majority are still not back to normal sales or out from under their COVID-related debt. Small businesses are already facing a significant increase in employer contributions to CPP on January 1, 2022, carbon tax increases in several provinces, as well as other increases in the cost of doing business, including supplies, shipping, and insurance.

Additionally, many businesses may be cut off from accessing any COVID relief due to higher thresholds to access the new wage and rent subsidy programs.

As these negotiations begin, it is important that we keep that in mind. It is important to support workers, but it is also important to remember that small businesses are struggling.

I will say at the outset that Conservatives are generally supportive of this. We believe it is important to support workers, but we also point out that if we had not had an unnecessary election and we had our committees up and running, we could be doing an awful lot more to support workers in Canada.

In fact, during that unnecessary election, Conservatives talked an awful lot about supporting workers in Canada. We talked about a construction mobility tax credit that would allow workers to subtract up to $4,000 per year in temporary relocation expenses from taxable income. It would make it easier for Canadian workers to go where the work is.

Workers often have to leave their homes and families to take on temporary contracts in other parts of the country. Those costs can be significant, averaging around $3,500 for relocation. In some parts of Canada, often in rural and northern regions, they are struggling to find skilled workers and tradespeople, so we want to accelerate the investment and infrastructure that will create jobs and build a more productive and more connected Canada. To do that, we need to help workers get to where they are needed most. We could have been talking about that, of course, in committee.

We also felt that it was important to talk about making sure that infrastructure spending benefits Canadian workers by requiring that equipment and materials for federally funded infrastructure projects be purchased from Canadian companies, or from those countries with which we have agreed to mutually allow our workers to supply each other's infrastructure projects. We could have been talking about that if we had our committees up and running, and making sure that we were protecting Canadian workers that way.

We also could have been talking about another idea that Conservatives had in the election campaign, which was to support union training programs and apprenticeships, and to expand access to them. There is a desperate need in this country for skilled tradespeople, and it is a bright future for young people. We have talked about ensuring workers have the training they need for the jobs of today and, of course, tomorrow by supporting union and similar training programs and encouraging employers to invest in their workers.

We would have proposed, and we will propose if we get into committee, to double the apprenticeship job creation tax credit for up to three years to help create more places for apprentices. We talked about investing $250 million over two years to create the Canadian job training fund, which is another really great idea. If committees were up and running, we could be talking about it.

We talked as well about apprenticeship programs and training delivery agents, such as unions, post-secondary institutions and community organizations, that would give laid-off workers immediate access to training. These programs could reach out to traditionally under-represented groups. This could help tourism and hospitality workers who have been hit hard by the recession. It could support the talent needs of small businesses and help workers get the training they need, focusing on areas where there are shortages of skilled workers.

We also talked about creating the working Canadian training loan to provide low-interest loans of up to $10,000 to people who want to upgrade their skills, which would empower workers to determine what training they need, rather than having a government body tell them, which is another fantastic idea from the Conservative Party that we could be talking about right now if committees were up and running.

In addition, we talked about making sure that workers have a voice at the table. We proposed giving workers a seat at the table by requiring federally regulated employers with over 1,000 employees, or over $100 million in annual revenue, to include worker representation on their boards of directors, an innovative idea that we could be talking about right now in committee.

Conservatives have lots of great ideas, and we are eager to get to work. We are supportive of what the minister has proposed here today, and we are eager to see it happen, but perhaps one of the most important things we could do right now is to add some minor amendments to the bill to capture a private member's bill from the previous Parliament brought to us by the MP for Calgary Shepard.

It was an act to amend the Canada Labour Code on bereavement leave. Specifically, it would have provided three days of paid bereavement leave and two days of unpaid bereavement leave for parents who have lost a child under the age of 18 or a dependent child with disabilities over the age of 18, and for women who experienced a stillbirth from five days to eight weeks. It is not natural for a parent to bury a child, and Conservatives feel it is appropriate for the government to adopt this motion, perhaps including it in this bill to make sure parents have the support and time they need to heal from a tragic situation like this.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have to say it is a relief to finally hear that the Conservatives are on side for paid sick leave, because throughout the pandemic I asked the Conservatives repeatedly if they would support paid sick leave, and they flat out would not respond. People were going to work sick, making a choice between paying rent and buying food or going to work and possibly infecting their co-workers. The mental health stress was compounded on people who were going to work. The impact on businesses, organizations and government agencies has been tremendous.

New Democrats are glad the Liberals are finally seeing the light a year and a half into the pandemic, but my concern is why it has taken so long for the Conservatives to stand up for workers' health. I really do appreciate the member talking about bereavement leave because we support that. There was a great HUMA report on bereavement, and we fully support the recommendations of that report, which even goes further than what the member is calling for, because no parent should be forced to go to work right after losing a child. Parents should have the time to deal with it.

Again, why has it taken the Conservatives so long to stand up for the health of workers? Why have they been encouraging them to go to work sick or making a choice of paying their rent?

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

Madam Speaker, I feel like we are not basking in the glow of warmth and love.

The Conservatives have always believed in supporting workers and making sure they do not have to make the choice between putting food on the table and going to work sick.

I am pleased we are here today. It sounds like we are all singing from the hymn book and working together. Maybe we should just continue to do that and move forward.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, today I heard the word “compassion” come up a lot in my Conservative colleague's speech. He talked about it when he was addressing the issue of leave for parents who have lost a child. If we are talking about compassion, if it is hard for a parent to accept the loss of a child, would a cancer patient not also need better support to recover? Can the member say a few words about that?

The Bloc Québécois intends to raise the issue of extending leave for serious illness from 15 weeks to 50 weeks in memory of Émilie Sansfaçon.

Out of compassion, should a person who is suffering not be entitled to more weeks of leave to recover from their illness?

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

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague's question is one that is very much worthy of discussion and consideration, which is all the more reason why we need to get committees up and running, so we can discuss these important issues.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to hear a pragmatic voice because we really do need more pragmatic voices in the Commons. The hon. member for Parry Sound—Muskoka is an excellent example of one.

I wanted to come back to the question of bereavement leave. The member for Edmonton Riverbend, in the last Parliament, brought forward a bill to increase compassionate care leave. We all came together and increased bereavement leave from five days to 10 days for all family members, including caregivers, so that would include if one were to lose a child.

Can the member please expand on what it is he is now suggesting? Is he suggesting an additional three days beyond the 10 days for parents who lose children, or is he solely talking about people who lose a child in utero?

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

Madam Speaker, I am not exactly certain if I can give much more detail than I have right now. I appreciate the member's kind comments, but they may come to an end since I cannot give him much more of an answer than that.

I will just say it is very important for us to be in committee working on these issues and having these pragmatic discussions about what would be supportive of workers and families.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, hallelujah, we heard here today this hon. member from the Conservatives say the word “union” perhaps more times than he did in all the days of the last session of Parliament combined. I am more than willing, as is the entire NDP caucus, to continue down that line. He brought up specifically a bill that was first introduced by Chris Charlton and then my colleague Scott Duvall on the construction mobility tax credit.

What other possible worker-friendly and union-friendly policies could this member present to us today that we might find some common ground on?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the opportunity to list off many more, but I have run out of time. I am happy to sit down with the hon. member and go through it in great detail. Maybe I can convince him to support all of our wonderful proposals to support workers and families.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, congratulations on your appointment.

It is amazing. I am not sure what is breaking out in this place. Maybe we truly are basking in the light, or our love and affection is breaking out. I heard the Conservatives say “union”, which I will say again, and I heard the NDP use the religious refrain “hallelujah”, so hallelujah to that.

This is my first opportunity to rise in this wonderful House. I want to thank the wonderful people of Northumberland—Peterborough South for once again putting their faith in me. I was first elected back in 2019, and it has truly been a privilege and the honour of a lifetime. I must say, the second election may have given me even more pride and more reason to celebrate, as people had had the opportunity to judge what the Conservative Party had been doing, and they quadrupled my margin. It is a great testament to the work the official opposition is doing, and I greatly appreciate it.

I would also like to take a moment to thank the wonderful volunteers on my campaign. I know it is the same for many members across this place. We had volunteers who knocked on thousands of doors. They came out, talked to people, supported people and gave their time. It is truly the volunteers of our country, political and otherwise, who are the fabric of our great nation. I thank all my volunteers and volunteers in general.

Finally, I want to thank my wonderful son, James; my wonderful daughter, Margaret; and my very patient wife, Natasha. We all say that our spouses, our partners, must be among the most patient people in the world.

To the people of Northumberland—Peterborough South, I am so happy to be back, and I am ready to fight a bit, even though that is not what is going on here today. We are ready to collaborate like crazy here today.

Let us get into the substance of Bill C-3. It is really two pieces of legislation crammed into one bill. One part amends the Canada Labour Code and the other amends the Criminal Code. I will start by talking about the amendments to the Criminal Code. There are two relatively short changes to the legislation, with two primary goals. One is to allow patients to go to any type of hospital or facility free of intimidation or obstruction. The other is to allow medical professionals to get to their places of work so they can do the great work of savings lives.

I would like to pause there for a second and thank all of our wonderful health care professionals. I am blessed by having many in my direct family. I saw first-hand as they went to work throughout the pandemic. While many of us were able to use Zoom or work from the safety our homes, our frontline workers had to work in the hospitals, health care facilities and long-term care facilities, day after day, facing COVID-19 and the threat of infection, not just for them, but also for their families.

Something that has probably not been reported on as much, but having health care professionals in my family, I have seen it first-hand, is the effect of having to wear that PPE for 12 hours a day, day after day. Many health care professionals work shifts that are over 12 hours, sometimes in not the greatest conditions, all while facing COVID-19. We certainly owe all of our frontline workers and health care workers a great debt of gratitude. For these folks who are going in and literally saving lives, I think it only makes sense that they have free, clear and safe passage to their places of work.

However, when we get into the legislation, I really am looking forward to working in committee. I believe this legislation will pass and make it to committee. It is absolutely critical that we get there and get down to legislation.

I would like to say a bit about this legislation. This is absolutely clear, as we have already heard the members of the New Democratic Party discuss it, and I was here in the House and heard them bring this up over and over again. I do not mean to break the spirit of non-partisan basking in the light, but if we had not gone to the unnecessary election, we would have been sitting in the House. By the time committees start, we will have not sat for eight months.

During that time, we could have done some great things. Instead of that $600 million going toward quadrupling my margin, which I appreciate, although it probably was not worth that $600 million, we could have used it for paid sick leave. We could have used it to build new hospitals. We could have used that money to help provinces fund new schools. I look forward to getting to work and getting the bill to committee.

Although the election was in September, we will not have committees until February. We have to do a better job of managing that. We are here to help. In a non-partisan way, I am reaching my hand out to the minister. Let us get to committee as quickly as we can. We need to have the democratic process working. The House is among the greatest in our country and I celebrate it.

When we talk about our health care workers, there is no doubt we need to give them safe passage. However, that should not only apply to our health care workers, it should be all workers across all sectors and in all areas of our country. No worker should ever fear going to work, fear being intimidated or being impeded in some way. We need to ensure that all workers feel safe at all times. Whether it is a doctor going into surgery to save someone's life or someone working on a critical piece of infrastructure that keeps our energy flowing across the great country, all workers should be safe all the time.

One of the things I look forward to discussing at committee and hearing expert testimony on is the right to peaceful protests. I would respectfully say that people should have the right to express their feelings and to protest. It is our democratic right to be able to express our concerns, our fears and even our anger at times, although we have to be careful. However, there is a fine line. When people feel intimidated, their right to freedom of expression stops. I would agree with the minister on that. I want to hear more on that discussion at committee. We need to weigh both the right to freedom of expression and the right to peaceful protest. However, that right ends should any violence or threat of violence be used, which has no place in Canada, regardless of one's place of work.

I will talk a bit about paid sick leave. Times are getting so much tougher for Canadian workers across our great land. We have a 4.7% inflation rate. The cost of nearly everything is going up, and 53% of Canadians are within $200 of insolvency. Many are giving up the dream of home ownership because of the price of everything. We need to get back to making our country more affordable. Certainly, people should not have to put their lives at risk to feed their families. We need to make life easier and more affordable, as well as ensure they are safe.

I would also like to hear a discussion at committee on how we can ensure that Canadian businesses remain competitive at all times. Of course, it is Canadian businesses and entrepreneurs that drive many of Canada's great employment opportunities. Quite frankly, we need more union jobs in the country. We can do that by ensuring Canadian businesses remain competitive and innovative, with the help of the government, while maintaining the safety of our workers.

The bill is definitely a bit disjointed as it contains two very separate pieces of legislation, the protection of our health professionals and the addition of sick leave, but it gives me an opportunity to talk about how Canada can connect on everything. We need to collaborate and work together.

I have very much enjoyed basking in the sunlight today, which is the fourth time I have brought that up. I firmly believe that whether people are working on the oil rigs of Alberta, in the fields in Northumberland—Peterborough South or as fishers in the Bay of Fundy, all work is good work. We should collaborate on opportunities, work together for the collective good and celebrate our achievements together.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comment of my hon. colleague about working together.

My concern in part of the bill is the issue of securing safe places for our medical front-line workers. This past week in my region, we lost a wonderful small-town doctor, who gave up her practice after years because of online harassment from anti-vaxxers. This is a huge loss for us. We had young mothers who were going to vaccine clinics in North Bay being shouted at and called murderers. These things have never happened in the north before, but they were being targeted.

What does my hon. colleague think about the need to have legislation in place to protect front-line workers, to protect families and teachers and those who do the work of vaccinating our children?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry to hear the news about the doctor who gave up her practice.

In general, we need a tone of collaboration and we need to extend to people something that seems to be getting more and more foreign to our culture, which is grace. We need to have more kindness, we need to come together and collaborate, not just in politics but otherwise. We can disagree without being disagreeable.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, it was great to hear from the member opposite about the need to protect all workers, but specifically our health care workers and front-line workers in the health field.

Beyond legislation, what can we do to better protect those health care workers? I hear about it all the time from people working in my community in the health care field that they feel very threatened by some of the anti-vaccine rhetoric. How can we work not only within his party but also within our communities to ensure we create a safer environment that goes beyond simply the laws, and disagreeing without being disagreeable?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is nothing wrong with going into the battlefield of ideas and bringing the best ideas, and even having heated arguments. However, that is no reason for us to ever disrespect each other, never a reason to show that we do not love one another.

We live in the greatest country together. We will work at this together and we will continue to be the greatest country in the world, because we have the best people in the world.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and I more or less agree with what he said about committee work, for example. This morning is a bit unusual compared to most days in the House, in that everyone seems to be happy to work together. It is nice, and everything feels rosy this morning. I am very happy and this should be how it always is. I agree with my colleague that this is what happens in committees.

However, it was kind of alarming to hear him say that committees would not be sitting before February. I agree that this does not make sense. When does he think the committees should start up? What is the Conservatives' position on this? Does he think that our Liberal friends could get to work more quickly? Everyone is nice, good and kind, but it is unfortunate that bills are not advancing right now and nothing is going on.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, we want to get to work. Je travaille.

Yes, we absolutely want to get to work. Let us get this done. Let us get the negotiations over. Let us get to committee. Let us help the people of Canada.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really need to strike while the iron is hot. My good friend from Northumberland—Peterborough South made the bold statement from the Conservative side that we needed more union jobs in Canada, and I could not agree more.

Will the hon. member rise in the House today and join the New Democratic caucus in supporting sectoral bargaining to ensure that more Canadians across the country can have access to well-paying union jobs?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

For a second there, Madam Speaker, I thought he was asking me to cross the floor. While I do respect the members over there, I am completely happy in the Conservative Party where we will, when we form government, get more union jobs in Canada.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, before I get into my remarks, I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to share my time with the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Does the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques have the consent of the House?

[members]

Agreed.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in the House to debate Bill C-3, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code, with my esteemed colleagues.

I would first like to share something with you. In all honesty, today I feel rather excited to again participate in a legislative debate. Indeed, this is the first time in this new Parliament that I have had the opportunity to actively participate in this exercise that is so crucial to the public and democratic life of Quebec and Canada.

Five months have passed since I last participated in a debate. During those five months, we were hurtled into an election campaign, which yielded virtually the same result, almost to the seat. During those five months, we were unable to pass bills that would improve our constituents' quality of life in the midst of a pandemic.

Did the government not think that there were more important things to do in order to support those in need, including the most vulnerable of our society?

My colleagues and I thought that, after those five months, the Liberals would have come up with substantive, strong, straightforward legislative proposals. Unfortunately, the one thing we learned from last week's throne speech is that it is half-baked, inconsistent and lacking in substance.

The bill currently before us is more of the same sad thing. It once again demonstrates this government's modus operandi, which involves a lot of rhetoric mixed in with smoke and mirrors. When the smoke finally clears, we see that the bill is mostly a watered down shell.

Bill C-3 proposes two measures for the price of one, which, I might add, have nothing in common but the name of the bill. On one hand, the government is seeking to amend the Criminal Code to impose harsher sentences on those who intimidate health care workers and their patients and on those who interfere with access to a health care facility to prevent people from obtaining services.

It is a worthy goal, but here again, I have to point out that Ottawa is lagging behind Quebec. In September, Quebec's National Assembly legislated stiff fines for people who protest vaccination near schools and health facilities.

Still, better late than never. With this Criminal Code amendment, Ottawa will give prosecutors the tools to charge people who interfere with health care services.

We have been trapped in the worst public health crisis of the past century for almost two years now, and our health care system is more vulnerable than ever, so we have to do whatever it takes to protect it. Our health care workers have been holding down the fort throughout this trying time, and we, as a society, must keep them safe.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member will have six and a half minutes to complete his speech when we resume debate after question period.

We will now proceed to Statements by Members.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to resume my speech after that fast-paced question period.

As I was saying, we have been trapped in the worst public health crisis of the past century for almost two years now, and our health care system is more vulnerable than ever, so we have to do whatever it takes to protect it. Our health care workers have been holding down the fort throughout this trying time, and we as a society must keep them safe. That is why the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-3, introduced by the government.

That said, there is a very real potential pitfall that will have to be addressed at some point in the legislative process. The proposed amendments must not violate health care workers' rights to peaceful protest and freedom of expression. These fundamental rights are necessary in a healthy democracy and must not be openly violated. Once again, the public can count on the Bloc Québécois to ask the right questions to help Parliament clarify its intentions and to propose any necessary amendments.

The bill seeks to amend the Canada Labour Code to guarantee that every federally regulated employee gets a minimum of 10 paid sick days a year. As a loyal defender of all workers, the Bloc Québécois agrees with this proposal. No one, but no one, should have to go to work sick because they cannot afford to stay home. No one should be forced to make the impossible choice between taking the time to heal and putting food on the table.

What is more, this pandemic we are going through has shown us another, equally convincing argument. Collectively, we are better off when our infected colleagues do not come in to work. That is how we can stop a virus like COVID‑19 or the flu from spreading and prevent unfortunate outbreaks. It is good for workers, it is good for businesses, it is good for everyone.

However, it is important to be realistic about what this bill the Liberals are introducing can really do to transform the labour market in Quebec and Canada. I will explain by considering the entire labour market.

Federally regulated businesses, such as those in the banking, telecommunications and airline industries, employ only a tiny fraction of the workers in this country, only 6%, to be exact. Of that fraction, we have to subtract all the workers whose employment conditions are governed by collective agreements comparable to or more generous than the one proposed in Bill C‑3. In the end, the bill does not amount to much. It is just another well-crafted PR stunt by this government.

That being said, I personally believe that any improvement in the employment conditions of any workers ultimately represents a win for all workers. That is why the Bloc Québécois will support this bill.

In closing, the Liberals have returned to Parliament more than two months after calling an unnecessary election. After delivering such an uninspiring throne speech, they are now proposing a two-pronged bill that seeks to make minor changes to the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code.

The fact that this bill was one of the first ones introduced by this government in the new session eloquently demonstrates that the Liberals are more interested in ticking off election promises than in advancing meaningful legislation, and that they still do not have a clear strategic vision to offer this Parliament, much less a concrete social blueprint for achieving that vision.

In spite of all this, the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑3 so that it can move forward, because, as a wise man once said, nobody can be against apple pie.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that opposition members are coming forward and speaking positively of the legislation, indicating that they would be supporting it. I appreciate the value in that.

This is something that was raised during the last federal election. The Prime Minister made a commitment to it, as the member referenced. Given the very nature of what we have witnessed over the last number of months, the legislation not only sends a positive message but really has some teeth and will make a difference, particularly by highlighting just how important our health care workers have been throughout this process.

Could the member provide his thoughts in regard to why he believes it would be of value to see the legislation pass before the House rises?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if this bill was so important to the government, why did the government not introduce it earlier, and why did it not bring Parliament back more quickly rather than waiting over 60 days?

Yes, this bill is important because it is a step forward and provides protection for health care workers and support for those who do not have access to paid sick days. As I mentioned, no one can be against apple pie, but again, if something is urgent, then it is better to take action than to dawdle.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

The protection and advancement of workers' rights are central policy issues for the NDP. Throughout the pandemic and 2020, we pushed the Liberal government to give people paid sick leave. Of course, we are talking about employees under federal jurisdiction, which does not include everyone. The Liberals were not interested. They told us no or put it off until later. They finally woke up during the election campaign and, 18 months after the start of the pandemic, they are admitting that this was a good idea and are now suddenly in a hurry to do something about it.

Why does my hon. colleague think that the Liberals have finally realized that paid sick leave does not just benefit individuals, but also constitutes a public health measure?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his question.

My colleague knows that the Bloc Québécois has a tradition of supporting workers' rights and that it is also a steadfast ally of unions.

It is hard to explain why the government took so long to propose this bill. We can see that it wanted to put on a dog-and-pony show by making this election promise. Now it is bringing forward this bill, but we still do not understand why.

I am thinking of other bills that the government introduced in the last Parliament that are also very important, in particular the infamous Bill C-10 and the bill on the modernization of official languages. It is difficult to explain or justify the inexplicable.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my eloquent colleague from Rimouski‑Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his very interesting speech.

He said that no one can be against apple pie or the importance of protecting workers while we are still grappling with this pandemic and do not want anyone to infect others. Let us not forget that the purpose of these 10 days of paid leave is to ensure the safety of the individual, but also to protect others.

My colleague also addressed the Speech from the Throne. With respect to workers' rights, the Bloc Québécois notes that this speech makes no mention of the EI reform it has been calling for for months. This issue is being championed by my wonderful colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville. In 2021, it is more urgent than ever to conduct a major reform of EI in order to further protect workers' rights.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Shefford for the question.

As I mentioned earlier, it is impossible to explain the inexplicable.

Currently, someone fighting an illness is entitled to less EI sickness benefits than someone who simply loses their job in the ordinary way. A person who loses their job is eligible for more than 15 weeks of benefits, and that is already enshrined in law.

The Liberals have said that they are aware of this issue and have promised to increase sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 26 weeks. We are hoping for a consensus on this here in the House, because people who are sick are not getting the support they need to heal or to return to the workforce.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my esteemed colleague from Rimouski‑Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his speech.

We are here today to talk about Bill C-3, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code. We are at second reading of this bill, which was introduced by our colleague from St. John's South—Mount Pearl.

Bill C‑3 proposes harsher sentences for people who intimidate health care workers or their patients or who block access to a hospital or clinic in order to impede people from obtaining health services.

The bill also proposes forcing federally regulated employers to grant their employees up to 10 days of sick leave.

Bill C‑3 is good for Quebec, so the Bloc Québécois supports it. The amendments proposed today are in keeping with the legitimate demands of major unions and will greatly benefit employees. As my colleague said, whether it be yesterday, today or tomorrow, the Bloc Québécois has and always will side with workers in Quebec and across Canada.

At the same time, our party has already spoken out many times against the anti-vaccine protests that took place near hospitals and clinics during the election campaign.

The Bloc Québécois is opposed to all forms of intimidation, violence or interference directed at health care workers or anyone seeking care or a vaccine. Bill C‑3 will give police and prosecutors more tools to prosecute offenders who directly or indirectly attack health care workers or patients seeking care.

As it stands, Bill C‑3 contains eight clauses amending two acts, namely the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code. One of the clauses would add intimidation of health care workers to the invasion of privacy offences. Another proposes imprisonment for up to 10 years for anyone attempting to impede the delivery of health care by provoking a state of fear in a patient, professional or support person.

One paragraph prohibits intentionally obstructing or interfering with access to a place at which health services are provided, such as a hospital or clinic. That is one of the things we will have to examine in detail, because we do not want to interfere with health care workers' right to protest.

Another clause states that committing an offence to impede a health care worker in the performance of their duties could be considered an aggravating factor. In short, it is a good piece of legislation, but it really makes few substantive changes.

For one thing, the offences that Bill C‑3 would add to the Criminal Code already exist, because it is already a criminal offence to block access to a hospital. It was not a lack of legal authority that was required to enforce this provision of the Criminal Code, but rather a lack of political will.

In short, the amendments proposed by Bill C‑3 provide a few more tools to prosecutors and the police, and that is a very good thing.

Although the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C‑3, we have to admit that it is more of a PR stunt, as my colleague mentioned earlier, intended to fulfil the Liberals' election promise, than a truly constructive piece of legislation.

It is also important to note that Quebec acted on this matter some time ago. In September, the National Assembly of Quebec passed a bill providing for very stiff fines for anyone protesting against vaccination within 50 metres of a school or health care site. These fines range from $6,000 for a first offence to $12,000 for subsequent offences.

On a different note, the bill before us would amend the Canada Labour Code to add 10 days of paid sick leave for all workers.

According to Employment and Social Development Canada, the Canada Labour Code covers 955,000 employees working for about 18,000 companies. Of that number, roughly 63% of all federally regulated private sector employees had access to fewer than 10 days of paid sick leave, so this will be highly beneficial.

The Canada Labour Code currently provides for 17 weeks of unpaid sick leave, but only 5 days of paid sick leave. It is worth noting that this provision led to a number of regrettable situations during the pandemic. Many employees kept going to work sick, even with COVID-19, instead of staying home, so that they would not miss out on pay. This decision undoubtedly helped the virus spread, with tragic consequences, as we know. Other people became infected, and some died.

That said, many employees are covered by collective agreements that already guarantee them sick leave. Bill C‑3 will obviously not change anything for them. Furthermore, there will be little impact on the lives of Quebec workers, since Quebec currently offers more paid sick leave than anywhere else in Canada.

In addition, it is quite surprising that the bill is trying to accomplish two things at the same time. No matter what the Liberals claim, there is nothing in Bill C‑3 that connects these two aspects of the legislation. They are packaging one uncontroversial topic that most people agree with, sick leave, with a rather complex amendment to the Criminal Code.

I think it is likely that the Liberals and the NDP will want to get this bill passed the easy way, like we did with Bill C‑4, which would ban conversion therapy. However, we are talking about an amendment to the Criminal Code, which requires a serious, in-depth study. This bill would have implications for freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. I sincerely believe that we must not cut the parliamentary process short on a topic like this. We are hearing from the other side that they want to fast-track Bill C‑3. If someone objects, will they be accused of stonewalling?

Whether the Liberal and NDP members like it or not, the Bloc Québécois will be sure to ask the relevant questions in the House to ensure that the legislators can clarify their intentions as to the amendments to the Criminal Code. We want to make sure that they do not encroach upon health care workers' right to protest.

As usual, we will propose amendments to the bill, as needed, to improve it. The Bloc Québécois is always in favour of new, innovative ideas, and we will continue in that direction.

Despite the fact that this bill smacks of cynicism and will have a relatively minimal impact, it does contain some elements that will benefit Quebec workers, especially health care staff.

With that in mind, of course the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-3.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I found it a little strange that he would imply that the NDP would not want the Bloc Québécois to ask relevant questions about the bill. On the contrary, we will welcome such questions—as long as they are relevant, of course. I still think we are moving in the right direction.

I am sure it will come as no surprise to my colleagues that protecting the right to strike, to be able to protest and to form a picket line when the situation warrants it, is extremely important to us in the NDP.

Is the Bloc Québécois prepared to work with the NDP to ensure that Bill C-3 protects health care workers from hostile protesters who try to intimidate them, as well as the right of those same health care workers to exert pressure in their labour relations?

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois always agree when it comes to workers' rights. We believe that workers should always enjoy or be able to enjoy a consistent level of well-being. That is why we will vote in favour of Bill C‑3—as will the NDP, I am sure.

My colleague brought up a sensitive topic about where the line is drawn and how far is too far. I completely agree. Debate is not the time for us to set legitimate boundaries.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for the Bloc Québécois member about an amendment he mentioned.

An amendment proposed by my colleague from Parry Sound—Muskoka could be included in Bill C‑3, either now at second reading or in committee. During the previous Parliament, I introduced Bill C‑307, which would amend the Canada Labour Code to include a six-week bereavement leave for parents who lose a child under the age of 18 and five days of paid and unpaid leave for women who lose an unborn child.

Would the Bloc Québécois be prepared to support this type of amendment?

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very simple question.

Members know our position, which is that we always want to make progress on that front for workers. The Bloc Québécois fully supports examining and analyzing all of that, as it has a major impact. People do not choose to be sick and take leave. We are open to this.

As my colleagues know, we made similar proposals with regard to EI sickness benefits and specifically proposed 50 weeks of leave for serious illnesses. It is now time to continue with our discussions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his excellent speech.

A little earlier, other parliamentarians alluded to how slow the federal government is to act. The election was held 62 days ago, and parliamentary committees will not sit before the end of January 2022. We support the bill, and we hope it will move forward quickly, but Quebec has already passed legislation on this.

I would like my colleague to comment on how things generally work and how we could work better if there were only one government in Quebec.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague answered his own question. It would be much easier for a sovereign Quebec, because there would be just one level of government.

As to the government being slow, I am hyperactive, so watching bills drag on when we could easily adopt them or skip to the next step is something I find supremely frustrating.

I have felt that way for two years and a bit—since my first election two and a half years ago, to be precise. The amount of time wasted in this process is incredible. If the government wanted to, it could move things along.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is my first speech in this 44th Parliament. As many of my colleagues have done, I want to take a moment to extend my sincere thanks to the people of Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie for the confidence they have placed in me to represent them in this institution and to be their voice in the House. It truly is an immense honour to do so for a fourth time. I never thought I would last this long in this Parliament, but I will continue to serve with passion, drive and enthusiasm, to represent the progressive values and principles of the people of Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie.

The House is debating Bill C‑3 today, and I must say that my NDP colleagues and I are extremely pleased to be able to rise in this place and discuss one of the two issues in the bill: the proposal to provide 10 days of paid sick leave for federally regulated workers.

Why are we so happy about this? It is because the NDP has been asking for it for two years, from the start of the pandemic. We are now in the midst of the fourth wave, and it seems like it will never end. There may be a fifth wave, based on what we are seeing in Europe and Africa with the omicron variant.

The NDP has been insisting for at least 18 months that we must give workers 10 days of paid sick leave. In 2020, the leader of the NDP spoke about this 22 times in the House. He asked the Liberals 22 times when this was coming and why they were not taking action, and he reminded them that this change was needed in order to protect people, institutions and our communities. However, the government only kicked the can down the road. It remained evasive, saying that this measure was not needed and that it was doing something else.

Then, in the middle of an election campaign this fall, the Liberals decided that the NDP had had a good idea and that they would act on it. After dragging their feet all through 2020 and 2021, after calling a pointless and costly election, and after waiting two months to recall the House, the Liberals threw together this bill at the last minute and now want to push it through.

The 10 days of sick leave is a protection for workers that the NDP has been calling for for a long time. The Liberals were a bit late to the game, but they finally saw the light, had a road to Damascus moment, had a revelation. This is a good thing and a victory for the NDP, which has been calling for this for months, for nearly two years.

I would still like to take a minute or two to talk about the context of this pandemic. Let us go back to March 2020. I remember that time very clearly. We were hearing about what was happening in Wuhan, China, where it all started. Then, we watched as the virus spread like wildfire around the entire planet.

At one point, the governments decided to shut everything down because things had become too dangerous. People were told not to go to work if they did not have to. They were told not to go out, not to see anyone, and to stay at home because it was too risky. They were told to wear masks and wash their hands. The economy was put on pause, something that has never happened before and I hope will never happen again.

I live near Saint‑Laurent Boulevard in Montreal. I no longer heard any cars going by, but I could hear birds singing, which never happens on that street. That shows how society just shut down all of a sudden and became paralyzed.

Sick people who had a cough or a fever but did not want to miss a day of work had to make an impossible choice if they did not have sick leave. I am referring to people who were allowed to go to work because they had essential jobs in the supply chain, the food sector or health care.

That had a major impact on everyone, on families. It was definitely a collective trauma. I hope we are past it now. I hope that we are heading in the right direction and that, together, we will be able to move on to the next step.

In a crisis, people die. People suffer. Thousands of people died. Tens of thousands of people were infected, and thousands overcame the disease. However, some people will experience serious, long-lasting effects for the rest of their lives. This shows how society was and continues to be shaken to its very foundation.

This crisis was revealing. I want to talk about two different aspects of it.

The first is the fragility of our health care system. We are very proud of our accessible, universal public health care system, but we have noted some major shortcomings. For example, our long-term care homes were not ready. The working conditions of health care workers were sometimes not good enough to convince employees to continue working and to come to work. We saw how ill-prepared and ill-equipped we were.

We did not learn any lessons from the SARS epidemic in 2003. The recommendations made at the time were not implemented. We therefore found ourselves with no vaccines and no gloves, masks or personal protective equipment. We saw how vulnerable that left us. Our health care system was undermined. I hope that we have learned from this pandemic, so that we will be able to deal with the next one. Let us be clear. We are trying to get out of this pandemic as quickly as possible, but in the years to come, there will inevitably be another one. That is why it is so unfortunate that, under successive Liberal and Conservative governments, we lost all our national vaccine production capacity. The NDP has proposed creating a Crown corporation, if necessary. That way, if the private sector is not interested, we will at least have the collective public capacity to produce vaccines to treat people.

Our health care system was fragile. There were problems with working conditions, staffing and preparedness. We have collectively been dropping the ball for years.

The second aspect is our social safety net. Earlier, I spoke about the holes in the health care system. The holes in our social safety net are more like abysses or craters. We quickly realized that the current EI system was leaving many people with nothing when businesses closed, people were asked to stay home, jobs were lost and things were falling apart.

The EI system already excluded 60% of workers. This means that of all the workers who pay EI premiums, more than half do not have access to benefits when they lose their job. That is unbelievable. It is pretty much the dream of any private insurer that does not want to pay. EI is a public tool that we collectively implemented in order to help people who lose their jobs and fall on hard times. However, it is just not working.

As I explained earlier, it was even worse with the pandemic and the ensuing economic crisis. People who contributed to EI were not able to access it, and on top of that, others who did not contribute, such as contract workers, self-employed workers and freelancers, had nothing. That is why the NDP demanded that the government provide direct assistance to offset the gaps in this deeply flawed program. We demanded that the Liberal government increase the Canada emergency response benefit from $1,000 to $2,000 a month, so that people could safely pay their rent and grocery bills. What the Liberals had originally proposed was not enough. We then wanted to expand the benefit to people who might still have been getting a small contract or a couple of hours of work here and there, so that it would cover freelancers and self-employed workers, who had been excluded from CERB. We made it so that people could work and earn up to $1,000 while receiving CERB. We also took action to help students, who had been completely forgotten.

We saw that our social safety net was not good enough and that many people did not have sick leave. I want to emphasize this, because, in the context of a pandemic, sick days are a solution to a public health problem. Sick leave is a social benefit. It benefits the worker. Workers benefit personally from being able to stay home and rest instead of going to work sick, and it is better that way. Everyone wants that.

If someone unfortunately does not have access to paid sick leave and they cannot afford to take a day or two off work because their budget is too tight and they have bills to pay, they are sometimes faced with an impossible choice. They have to choose between buying groceries and staying home to take care of themselves. If they choose to stay home to rest, they might not be able to pay their rent at the end of the month.

It is not just that person's health at stake, but the health of everyone, because we are in the midst of a pandemic. If that person has symptoms of COVID-19, if they are coughing or have a fever and they go to work anyway, they might spread the virus to the other people in their workplace.

Personal sick leave therefore become a tool and a collective method of self-defence. This is a public health issue. Sick leave lets people make rational decisions and protect others, including their family, neighbours, community and co-workers.

While I deplore the fact that the Liberals dragged their feet and took so long to come up with this concrete proposal, I am pleased to see that we can take a leadership role, take a step in the right direction and perhaps encourage some other provinces to adopt similar mechanisms, so that all workers can eventually be protected.

Let us talk about those mechanisms. We see room for improvement. Bill C-3 can be improved. I would even say that it must be improved. That is why it is really important that there be a parliamentary committee that studies the bill one day where we will be able to discuss, debate and propose amendments.

In this version of the bill, people have to work one calendar month to be entitled to one sick day. After five months, they will be entitled to five sick days, and so on.

I see two problems with that. The first is the notion of calendar months. For example, someone hired on February 6 would not get their first paid sick day until April. That person will not have worked every day in February, so they have to wait until they have worked the whole month of March to get their first paid sick day, which they can put in their leave bank. That means they would have to wait six or seven weeks to get that first paid sick day. Why not go with a certain number of days worked consecutively, regardless of the hiring date or start date? Why not base it on an actual month and not make people wait six or seven weeks? I think that is the first thing we need to fix.

The second thing that needs fixing is the bank of 10 days of sick leave. It was people in the health care sector who talked to us about it, including representatives I met with this week from an organization called the Decent Work and Health Network. They are concerned that a new employee has to wait until they bank enough days of sick leave before they can stay home sick. It can take a while to accumulate enough days. According to a U.S. study these representatives cited, it takes at least six days of sick leave for the leave to become truly accessible. That is when the person can really take them, or even dares to take them. It was reported that people with at least six days of sick leave banked take sick leave more than people who have banked only a day or two.

We need to explore the possibility of having a minimum number of days available from the start, before the banking process begins to reach 10 days of sick leave. I think that is something the parliamentary committee could do.

We are talking about technicalities, but they can make a big difference in people's lives. When people get sick, one day is rarely enough. The Decent Work and Health Network also talks about a survey that found that the median duration of leave for influenza is four days. If someone has only a day or two of leave banked, it may not be enough.

With regard to the mechanisms, I would also like to talk about how the employer is allowed to ask the employee to provide a medical certificate for a day of paid leave. For just one day of leave, the employer could require the employee to consult a physician in order to obtain a medical certificate justifying the absence. I believe that it is important to show good faith and to trust employees. Allowing this type of mechanism implies a presumption that abuse and fraud will take place. Is a doctor's note needed for just one day of leave, as opposed to four or five?

We need to ask ourselves this question because this mechanism could be a barrier. A person who suffers from gastroenteritis and who cannot go to work for a day could be asked for a medical certificate two weeks later. This complicates things. Not only will they have to take one day of leave, but they will have to make a doctor's appointment two weeks later to ask for a medical certificate.

That will clog up the health care system. The doctor we met with who was part of the group I mentioned told us that he had better things to do than sign papers for someone who took one or two sick days. His job is to treat people who are sick right now, not to prove, after the fact, that someone was previously sick. Furthermore, this group did a survey and found that the requirement to provide a medical certificate for taking a sick day was an impediment for 82% of workers. That is a lot.

This requirement outweighs the benefits of paid sick leave. It may seem silly, but the NDP believes that we cannot ignore that this is an obstacle for 80% of workers. This is something we need to take into account.

I want to move on from talking about the first part of the bill to the second part of Bill C‑3, which would amend the Criminal Code. Under Bill C‑3, threatening or intimidating health care workers or impeding them from entering their places of work, such as hospitals and clinics, would become aggravating factors. The bill would allow for harsher punishments to combat these forms of intimidation.

Unfortunately, over the past two years and especially in the past year, some very aggressive people who are against science, public health and vaccines have acted in a disgraceful manner. They intimidated and threatened health professionals who were going to hospitals to take care of our parents, grandparents, children and neighbours. It is mind-boggling. The NDP agrees that we need to implement a measure to address that issue. We said during the election campaign that we needed to take steps to protect health professionals. This is a major problem, and we cannot let people intimidate and threaten the workers who take care of us. That does not make any sense. We need to take steps to protect them, so this change to the Criminal Code is a good thing.

That being said, we must not infringe on these same workers' right to use pressure tactics when they are on strike as part of a collective bargaining process, for example. I think we need to take that into account and be very vigilant. In any case, the NDP will stay vigilant, in order to preserve the right to picket and strike as part of a labour dispute.

The NDP stands up for workers. We want to stand up for them so that they do not have rocks thrown at them by anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists. However, we also want to protect workers' rights so that when they are on strike because of a labour dispute, they can express themselves, demonstrate and make their demands and the reason for the labour dispute known.

That aspect is very important to the NDP. We agree with the principle of the bill, but we must be sure not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We need to ensure that the right to picket and the right to demonstrate are protected in the event of a labour dispute or strike. For the NDP, this will be very important to see.

I thank the members for their attention, and I am ready to take questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member can pick up on the point that when the national government brings forward good initiatives and ideas, it often has a positive impact in the different provincial and territorial jurisdictions. When we talk about the 10 days of paid sick leave, let there be no doubt that the bigger pool of workers is not under federal jurisdiction, so by taking up an initiative such as this, Ottawa is setting the stage for the provinces to start to follow suit. I would like to get his thoughts on that issue.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is a good question, and I thank my colleague for asking it.

For starters, I would just say that it is true now, and it was even more true 18 months ago. My colleague is right, but I do not know why his party did not think of this before, especially when we firmly insisted that the change be made.

The premise of his comment is absolutely right. Only 10% of Canadian workers are federally regulated, which means that the vast majority of workers are governed by provincial labour laws and codes. My Bloc colleagues pointed this out earlier, and Quebec certainly does have an excellent system, although there is room for improvement.

Nonetheless, I think the federal government has to show leadership. This affects hundreds of thousands of workers, and access to these sick days will really, truly help them. Yes, we are raising the bar even higher, because we want to see progress and better working conditions. I am glad the government is finally getting that.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the conversation that was held here in regard to protecting our infrastructure, and of course it is important. I, as well, support people protesting. It is their right to be able to voice themselves, and of course that applies as well to our doctors and nurses.

What does the member think about the fact that we have laws in our Criminal Code regarding blocking key infrastructure? In the past, we have had that circumstance of blocked rail lines. Does he see that the government failed to act when we have laws that are available to protect Canadian citizens in the midst of protests that may get out of hand?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is true that we need to protect health care workers. We completely agree on that. We have to maintain a balance between freedom of expression and freedom to protest.

Recognizing the aggravating factors of a situation is something that has been done in the past, including when the Criminal Code was changed to better protect bus drivers who were victims of a growing number of recurring assaults for years. The NDP worked on that file at the time and we still support that cause today.

The Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions is asking that attacks on health care staff and professionals be considered an aggravating factor. In 2019, this union told us that 60% of nurses had been victims of violence, harassment or assault in their workplace. To better protect them, we need to improve their working conditions and schedules, of course, but we also have to ensure that they are not assaulted on their way to the hospital or the clinic where they work. The proposals we are looking at today are intended to do just that.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie talked about the importance of supporting certain workers during the ongoing pandemic. My thoughts are with the workers in the cultural sector, who will continue to struggle for a long time to come because we are not out of this crisis yet.

The Liberals are good at dragging their feet and throwing the ball in someone else's court, like the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Finance are doing when it comes to Bill C‑2. Will someone consider helping our cultural sector workers?

Is my colleague prepared to work with the Bloc Québécois in committee to advance the file of workers in the cultural sector by proposing measures in Bill C‑2 specifically adapted to their needs?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Shefford for her important question. The cultural sector is definitely among the hardest-hit sectors in recent years. I can attest to that, and it is certainly the case in my colleague's region as well.

The cultural sector of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie was vibrant, full of life and truly dynamic. Those people have suffered a lot but, unfortunately, they have been forgotten by the Liberal government during the pandemic. This government has done very little other than come up with band-aid solutions at the last minute.

Whether it is about improving employment insurance, giving direct assistance or providing a guaranteed minimum income to workers in the cultural sector, I would be pleased to work hard and collaborate for the betterment of artists and artisans.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who, as our labour critic, has been incredible in raising the alarm around the issue of contract flipping. One of the concerns we have about this bill is that it raises questions about the entitlement to sick days for workers subject to contract flipping.

Would the hon. member care to comment on how, in principle, workers doing essentially the same work despite a possible change in employer should have their work standards and sick leave entitlements preserved?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the deputy critic for labour in the NDP caucus, for this important question.

We do have concerns about this. Over the years, we have seen this issue at airports, for example. There is a void in the Canada Labour Code and when a contractor or subcontractor moves to another company, the collective agreement no longer applies. People lose their rights and their pay scales. They have to start all over again. One of the rare situations where we have seen working conditions decline in the past ten years involves this type of contract for contractors and subcontractors working at airports. We do not want the same thing to happen to the sick leave of federally regulated employees.

My colleague is absolutely right, we must protect their rights. We must clearly establish that in cases where people who are working in the health care sector for a contractor have accumulated a certain number of sick days, this bank of sick days must be transferable to the new employment contract with a new employer, so that it does not roll back to zero every time.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, in British Columbia, the NDP government has already introduced a five-day sick leave regime. Obviously, the federal one is 10 days.

I would like to ask the member whether he believes the B.C. NDP's five days is too low, or the federal one is too generous.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think there is a consensus that 10 days of sick leave is ideal. According to the Decent Work and Health Network, six to nine days of sick leave is ideal, so that employees feel comfortable and able to take them, especially considering that it often takes three or four days to recover from the flu or gastroenteritis, for example.

Earlier, we talked about leadership and the role the federal government must play in raising the bar and encouraging the provinces to do more and to work towards improving working conditions for everyone. That is our job, and we in the NDP are proud to do it here in the House.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's speech was such an honour to hear, but also it is such an honour for me to get to work with this member, who has worked so hard for working people across this country. He spoke about how the New Democrats have said 22 times in the House that we need 10 sick days for people.

Can I ask the member why he thinks it has taken the Liberals so long to come through with that legislation?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona for her question and for the excellent work she has been doing for two years now. She now has a new mandate and I congratulate her on her re-election.

That is a very important and troubling question. We have known for six months, for a year, even for a year and a half, about the realities of the pandemic and the dangers of going to work while sick. Even though the NDP has been urging the government to do this for workers, for our public health and public safety, it took all of this time, a pointless election and a new Parliament for the Liberals to introduce Bill C‑3.

I think that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Order. Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will just continue with one of the most recent questions, as I thought it was of interest. The member just made reference to five days and 10 days. The idea of paid sick leave for workers is something that is important to all of us, and we recognize that. In fact, the member might make reference to the number of asks by the leader of the New Democrats, but he should remember that in 2019, the government actually instituted the three-day paid sick leave for workers. As it was pointed out, B.C. has seen to bring it up to five days.

One of the things the Prime Minister has consistently talked about over the last number of months, and probably from the beginning, is that we can try to learn things through the pandemic. That is why we are seeing before us the legislation that we have today. I will get into that in more detail shortly.

I wanted to start off by underlining what I think is a very important point. Everyone, whether they are a health care provider or a health care client, should feel safe when going into a health care facility. That is one of the two motivators for all of us to get behind this legislation and pass it through.

I am quite encouraged. To say it up front, in the last few days we have seen a great deal of optimism on the floor of the House of Commons. The other day, we passed the conversion therapy bill unanimously through second reading, committee stage and third reading. That could not have been done without the support of every member inside the House of Commons.

Yesterday, Bill C-2 got to the committee stage. Members recognized that it was important, because it continues to provide the supports Canadians need. This includes for small businesses, individuals and the communities we all serve. It was great to see the debate collapse and Bill C-2 go through.

This morning we have another wonderful debate taking place. From what I have heard thus far, we have had Conservatives, the Bloc and New Democrats talk positively about the legislation, believing this is the type of legislation that it would appear everyone can get behind. I can appreciate there are members who have some ideas in terms of amendments, and we will wait and see what kinds of amendments surface. I suspect there might even be some amendments today. Members are waiting for the bill to get to committee, where they will propose the amendments.

Having been a parliamentarian for a number of years, I have always thought that one of the best ways to get amendments dealt with is to share them as much in advance as one can, or do that consultation with parties on all sides of the House, making sure the department is aware of it. This is, as are the other two initiatives, a very important piece of legislation.

I reflect on the last election, and having gone through a number of elections as a candidate, I can tell members that it is not that often that we get real anger at the door. On the issue of vaccinations, what surprised me was the degree to which so many people were very upset. We could see the divisions even within a household.

I can recall at least two or three occasions when I was talking to a person at the door and the individual would be getting visibly upset. Someone else from the household would come and ultimately save the day, if I can put it that way, and lower the temperature. We have to try to get a better understanding of why that is taking place.

During the election we really started to see the protests. When I was at the doors, I would often to say to people that, whether it is members of the Green Party, the Liberals, the Conservatives or the New Democrats, we are all saying that people need to get vaccinated. All political parties, with the exception of the People's Party, were encouraging that.

People would ask about their individual freedoms, the Charter of Rights, and so forth. I suspect that, if the federal or provincial governments were denying people those basic human rights, opposition parties of at least one of the two levels would have stood on their feet to say we had gone too far. However, I am not familiar with any political party or individual member of Parliament sitting today who is saying that people should not be getting vaccinated. Yes, there are some concerns that some are not, but at the end of the day, to the best of my knowledge, I like to think that positive message is getting out.

One has to ask why the anger is out there. We need to expand upon that. What brought us to the point we are at today where that aspect of this legislation is necessary?

We can go back to March 2020, when very few people had an in-depth understanding of what the coronavirus was and its long-term impact, let alone its short-term impact. It was not that long ago when we were just told to wash our hands” Health care and science experts, at the beginning, were not saying that we had to wear masks. There was a learning curve, and it was very steep.

As we proceeded through the pandemic, we learned a great deal. Today, as a result, we find that people will continue to wear masks. I envision it will continue even after a year. Someone was saying to me that, if they were to have a cold, they would be inclined to wear a mask, as a consideration. I believe that masks will continue to be worn well into the future for different circumstances. It is not just something that will be gone two years from now.

I believe that people have a far greater understanding of why it is important to wash their hands. The 95% alcohol sanitizers are going to be selling well into the future because people will continue to use them. In the long term, this will actually save health care costs.

I used to be a health care critic in Manitoba, as well as a critic for a number of other portfolios. I would take tours of facilities, and I do not recall seeing people using the type of PPE that we have today. I suspect some of the things we are seeing now will linger into the years ahead, as it should. We have learned many measures through this pandemic.

If we look back to March of 2020, we were trying to get a better sense of the science. Health experts came together to make sure the advice they were giving to Canadians was right on the mark. That is why I consistently told people, virtually from day one, that I am not a health care expert, so the best thing they could do was follow what our health care experts were saying.

What we provided, as a government and as members of the House of Commons, was a first-class, second-to-none website presence through Health Canada, which was constantly being updated to provide the necessary information, so people could have a sense of comfort in knowing that the professionals were out there and there is a science to this. By clicking in, or by phoning their member of Parliament, Canadians could get an understanding of what was taking place and be brought right up to date. Provincial and territorial entities across the country, in all regions, also did likewise.

The problem was false news and people intentionally spreading misinformation. This is what fed into the whole anti-vax mentality. It somehow gave additional strength to anti-vaxxers. I was concerned when we started seeing rallies with people being bold enough not to wear masks in situations where there was a high concentration of people. People were coming together without masks to say that vaccinations were not the way to go. I would suggest that to think that did not have an impact would be wrong.

That is why each and every one of us has a role to play. The outcome of that misinformation, which provided an empowerment of sorts to those anti-vaxxers, was that it enabled them to espouse garbage, which is the best word that comes to my mind. We started to see protests. Let us imagine, if we can, some of the most vulnerable in society, the sick in a hospital facility, or those wanting to visit them, as there were limitations, and there were people protesting, making it more difficult for them.

Health care workers have really stepped up, working long hours and overtime, some of which was never ever claimed. Many health care workers got into that profession not because of the money, but because they truly care about the health and well-being of people. They want to contribute.

Those health care workers, and I am using that in the broadest terms, as I am talking about the cooks in our hospitals and the workers who kept our hospitals and long-term care facilities open, as well as the registered nurses, doctors, nurse practitioners, nurses aides and lab technicians, saved thousands of lives. All those wonderful people ensured Canada's population was, as much as possible, being provided the services that were absolutely critical to getting through this crisis situation. They prevented thousands more from ever having to go into ICUs. They were there, providing advice so people could ensure they could minimize the chances of people getting the coronavirus in the first place, whether it was testing, bed care in an ICU or the care provided in a long-term care facility. These are the heroes who took us through the pandemic.

I find it appalling that there are some in society who would actually protest people's entry into facilities, and the screaming and the yelling that was taking place. Whether they were protesting health care providers and workers, patients or visitors, they need to really reflect on that behaviour. We have to think about the roles we all play. During the election, there was no hesitation in my mind. When people would bring up the issue, I was right there, recognizing that people should not be protesting in the manner in which they were protesting. It was not right. Canadians recognized that, and this legislation deals with an important election promise.

I see I only have two minutes to go, and I have not even talked about the 10 days' paid leave. I am going to hop right over to that and maybe address more on it during questions and comments.

The federal government, a couple of years back, brought in three days of paid leave. In the last 18 months, the Prime Minister said to Canadians, and to Liberal members in Parliament on so many occasions, that we need to build back better, and this is a good example. Let us take a look at what Bill C-3 is doing. This is giving more social benefits to workers in Canada. This is something that is very strong and positive, and all of us should get behind it.

People who are sick should not have to go to work. This extends what we previously did in 2019. It was nice to hear that B.C. is following suit. If Ottawa were to pass this legislation, I do believe it would send the positive message to our provinces and territories that we could have better labour laws. If the provinces and territories get onside and support this type of legislation, then all workers in Canada, not the minority but all workers, would be able to benefit.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear my hon. colleague stand up in this House. There was an interesting point that he did bring up and that was the issue of false information. During the election campaign, the finance minister and deputy leader of the Liberal Party was found to have engaged in false information on Twitter. In fact, she was marked as having manipulated the media for spreading falsehoods against her political opponents.

I wonder if he has a comment about that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, due to the wonderful mood earlier in the chamber, I was not going to use this quote, but I would like to share it with the member based on his question and the heckling he gave earlier.

On Wednesday, Premier Heather Stefanson, Manitoba's new Progressive Conservative premier stated:

I've been very clear about where we're going with this, I have indicated that to cabinet and caucus,...

It's up to them.

The vaccination mandate will coincide with the day that everyone entering the Manitoba Legislature must be fully inoculated.

To solve the problem with the ultimatum to all MLAs, they should either get vaccinated by December 15 or be removed from her caucus and cabinet. That is the type of leadership that I think is important for all elected people to take.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear the eloquent speeches given by my colleague from Winnipeg North, who, in the midst of the pandemic, has reminded us of the importance of disinfecting our hands with Purell or another liquid sanitizer.

To come back to a more serious subject, the Bloc Québécois believes that workers' rights are important and incontrovertible. However, this bill mainly proposes changes to the Criminal Code.

I would like my colleague from Winnipeg North to assure me, very clearly and very plainly, that workers will still have the right to protest near health care facilities.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, absolutely there will be opportunities for people to conduct peaceful protests. We do live in a democratic society and it is important.

The member made reference to labour laws. Virtually from day one, this government has brought forward positive labour legislation. As a government, we support workers in Canada. I think that, not only from a legislative perspective but also from a budgetary perspective, ample examples can be found that show how the government supports labour in Canada.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, at the beginning of the pandemic and throughout the pandemic, we heard very clearly from medical health professionals. They said that there are two things that are of top priority to protect the health of people in our communities: to get vaccinated and to have governments bring forward paid sick days, so that employees are not infecting colleagues when they go to work or having to make a difficult choice between paying their bills or going to work.

It is great to hear the minister today talk about seeing the light and it is good to hear Conservatives, the official opposition who sat on their hands on this issue, finally getting on board.

The CBC cited that 100,000 women have actually completely left the work force; 10 times that of men. We know there are many reasons for that, including the lack of child care and social supports for women throughout the pandemic that have surfaced.

One thing we know, and hopefully my colleague can agree, is that many women will be coming back to work in precarious jobs. They are going to be coming back on contract. Many will not meet the 11-month threshold, so they will not be able to get a full 10 days of paid sick leave when they come back to work.

Does the member agree with the fact that it is going to take workers 11 months to access the full 10 days of paid sick leave will disproportionately impact women even more? They are already facing challenges, while being at a greater risk of skills erosion and potentially hampering their ability to get rehired. Women will also have to face a transition to different roles in the economy, as a result of them disproportionately being impacted by COVID-19.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, given the general will and sense of co-operation in the House, I am very optimistic that the bill will pass and go to committee, where I am sure the critic for the NDP will no doubt be raising this issue in more detail. There will be a more detailed answer there.

Suffice it to say that the government brought in paid sick days in 2019. The provincial NDP government in B.C. recently followed with five days, as opposed to the three days we suggested, which is fantastic. Now this government has made a commitment to bring it to 10 days. That is a good thing for workers, particularly in B.C. but also across Canada.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my great colleague and friend, the member for Winnipeg North, debating on the bill. He brought me back to the days during the campaign when we saw vicious attacks on health care workers coming from protesters. We all saw the protests on television.

In my riding of Don Valley North, we did not witness any of those gatherings, but at the door I did have conversations with some anti-vaxxers. Some of them were friendly and sophisticated and some were very angry, so I can understand what the member was talking about.

It also took me back to the news stories in which we saw that the Liberal leader had been targeted and was fighting a battle on two fronts: first with the opposition parties and the election, and also with the protests. Sometimes the opposition volunteers were disguised as protesters, or vice versa.

Now, when I read the bill I see that we will recommend increased penalties for those who commit this crime in the future. Would this be a good opportunity to educate the public at large on the severity of their actions, should they choose to target health care workers?

[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.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, my regards to my colleague, and congratulations on his election, his commitments and his speech. I have two quick questions for him.

First, in his opinion, should the government have convened the House shortly after the election rather than waiting two months? That would have given us time to take a closer look at bills like this one and do a more effective job.

Second, as he pointed out in his speech, should the government have introduced two separate bills rather than address two very different issues in the same bill?

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, of course we should have come back to the House sooner than 63 days after the election. That would have been crucial to enabling the House to do its work, especially seeing as there will be lots of important things to do in the days to come, I believe.

I also agree that it is not appropriate to deal with the two different issues we are discussing in one bill.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the new member for winning his seat in the last election.

I want to follow up on one of the questions that was asked by my colleague from Thunder Bay—Rainy River on the availability of health care workers. He spoke about his daughter, who is a paramedic, and I know that in Alberta there is a real shortage of paramedics. I have spoken to paramedics on their doorsteps, and the sadness, anger and exhaustion they expressed to me is really quite heartbreaking. We are hearing that from paramedics, from doctors, from nurses, from all health care workers.

I wonder if the member could speak a bit about the plan to get more health care providers in our system and to make sure that our health care system is more robust, with a better balance between federal transfers and provincial transfers, so that we have the publicly delivered, universally accessible health care that all Canadians need.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is important that we relook at the health care system. We know it is failing Canadians, and as part of team Conservative, that is one thing I heard at the doors over and over again during the election. People do not have the access they need. As I said previously, we also know that the mental health of health care professionals is suffering, and we need to work on this for all Canadians to strengthen the system we have.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Hochelaga.

I would like to acknowledge that I am addressing the House today from the ancestral, traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin nation. It is a unique opportunity to rise in the House today, surrounded by my colleagues who I am really happy to see again, to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-3.

I will spend the time available to me today to provide some more details about the proposed legislation.

First, it would amend the Canada Labour Code to provide 10 days of paid sick leave per year to workers in the federally regulated private sector. This would affect nearly a million workers in Canada, most of whom work for larger enterprises. However, we also have to take care of the smaller operators and the impact this will have on them. I will have more to say about that in a bit.

Those employed in the federally regulated sector for private enterprise would include interprovincial transportation companies, pipelines, banks, postal services and broadcast outlets, among other things. These are all industries that people count on every day, yet workers in these jobs cannot necessarily count on appropriate support if and when they become ill. If they get sick, they feel the pressure to go to work, because putting food on the table is not a choice. Paying the rent or the mortgage is not a choice.

I know from my past, too many people want to be the hero. They want to go to work and they drag themselves there. As a broadcaster, I remember fighting my way through blizzards and alligators and dungeons and dragons to get to work so I could tell everybody to stay at home. This kind of heroism looks good on the surface, but when it comes to an illness, especially one as critical as COVID-19, it is really not a good attribute to have.

The bill we have before puts people first. As the Minister of Labour has said, people have always been at the heart of Canada's labour program.

Let us talk about the Canada Labour Code. It sets out rules that protect worker health and safety. Today's bill would amend part III of the Canada Labour Code, which sets minimum labour standards for the federally regulated private sector, and it is in part III that we will find the provisions dealing with things like standard working hours, leave, holidays, wages and important issues like sexual harassment. However, today's bill has to do with the leave provisions.

Currently part III of the code provides employees in federally regulated industries with a number of leaves related to personal illness or injury. I will mention three of them now.

The first is personal leave, which provides employees with up to five days of leave per year, the first three of which are paid. This would be for things like personal illness or injury or urgent matters concerning themselves or their families.

The second is unpaid medical leave. Workers have up to 17 weeks if they are unable to work due to personal illness or injury or medical appointments during working hours. Employees may also take up to 16 weeks of unpaid leave as a result of quarantine.

The last leave that I will mention today is leave related to COVID-19. In March 2020, the Canada Labour Code was amended to create this new leave provision. Prior to its repeal law November 20, it allowed for employees to take unpaid job-protected leave for up to four weeks if they were unable to work for reasons related to COVID-19. This leave was designed to align with the suite of Canada recovery sickness benefits, and workers have been able to file claims for income support under that law.

On November 24, the government introduced legislation under Bill C-3, the one that we are debating today, that would reinstate the leave, extend its maximum length to six weeks and ensure it would remain available until May 7, 2022.

Ultimately these leave provisions mean that employees cannot take more than three days sick off work that are paid by the employer. It is clear, especially since the onset of the pandemic, that three days are not enough. Even looking at 2019 data, and that is pre-pandemic, Canadian workers took an average of 8.5 days of leave for illness or issues related to a disability.

What would Bill C-3 do? With Bill C-3, we are taking action to ensure Canadians in federally regulated industries have access to paid sick days. It would amend the Canada Labour Code to do three things.

First, it would make a change to repeal the personal leave that employees may take for treating their illness or injury. This is to avoid duplicating paid leave provisions relating to illness or injury and to set people up to use the new leave that would be created.

Second, on the new leave, the bill would provide that employees might earn and take up to 10 days of paid medical leave in a calendar year. They might take these sick days in one period or more.

Third, the bill would have some built-in flexibility. It would authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations to modify in certain circumstances the provisions respecting medical leave of absence with pay.

Before I conclude, I would like to pause on what is a bit of a sticking point for some. It is one I referenced earlier, namely that the changes proposed today would have an impact on employers, especially of smaller businesses. The government wants to make sure that employers have some lead-in time to handle these changes. That is why the coming-into-force date would be fixed by order in council. We would also commit to engaging in consultations with federally regulated employers to better understand the impact of these changes on their local realities.

There are a few other mitigating factors. The workers covered by these new amendments mainly work in medium- to large-sized businesses where the financial impacts would be more diffuse. For example, 87% of the workers impacted by this are in firms of 100 employees or more. That leaves 13% in smaller companies who would likely feel the pinch of paid absences more acutely. They can also request a medical note from employees when they use their sick days. Again, this is obviously an opportunity, for smaller employers especially, to make sure that the leave being taken is legitimate.

In addition, if an employee has used up all of the leave in the previous calendar year or is a new employee, the employee would start to accumulate paid sick leave at the rate of one day per month. This reduces the exposure for employers. For employees who do not use 10 days in a year, the proposed legislation allows for a limited carry-over of days. This means that the employee is not starting from scratch in a new year. However, the maximum number of paid sick days for the year remains at 10.

The Government of Canada is working hard to finish the fight against COVID-19. However, as we have heard regarding the other part of the bill, there is resistance to this and there are impediments. There are people who, for variety of reasons, be it fear, ideology or just plain stubbornness, do not necessarily want to contribute to the most fundamental of Canadian values: acting for the common good.

Bill C-3 would help both come through. It would make sure that nearly a million more Canadians at least have access to enough paid sick days. This would be more in line with what some of the provinces are doing, such as British Columbia, which allows for five paid sick days and three unpaid sick days. The idea, of course, is that if somebody is sick, they maintain their position in the company, ensuring ongoing employment, especially for employees who are hard to find, talented and technically able. They would be maintained even if they do have to take time off when they are sick.

Bill C-3 would make sure a million or more Canadians have access to enough paid sick days. As the Governor General said in the Speech from the Throne on November 23, “As we move forward on the economy of the future, no worker or region will be left behind.” Bill C-3 is intended to do just that, and I believe the debate and comments we hear from all sides of the House seek to enrich, inform and make this legislation better.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I usually talk about the protection of wild salmon together. It is nice to see him back in the House, and I certainly look forward to working with him on that.

I am grateful to the Liberals for finally getting on board when it comes to paid sick leave. Today, the New Democrats have talked a lot about the gaps in leave for workers, and one thing that has come up again is bereavement leave. We do not have a national bereavement strategy. We know that people who lose a child, in particular, do not get enough time to grieve the loss. There are huge mental health and illness effects that come with losing a child if people are forced back to work. HUMA did a really important report on bereavement and recommended that parents should get 12 to 15 weeks of paid sick leave so they can deal with and grieve the loss of a child.

Does my colleague agree that we need to do more to ensure there are better supports for parents who have lost a child?

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will use the privilege of not being in cabinet to say, yes, I absolutely agree with my hon. colleague and it is something that I would encourage the government to work towards.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells and like my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni, I worked with him on the fisheries committee for a number of years.

Could the member explain how the bill would apply to companies that work or contract to federally regulated employers? We know that it applies directly to federally regulated corporations that are under federal regulations, but how does it apply to companies that contract and work under those federally regulated organizations?

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, the short answer is I do not know. I think that is something that needs to be fleshed out in terms of the review of this legislation. That said, how far do we go, contractor to contractor, the aunt of a wife of an uncle of a contractor? There obviously have to be some boundaries.

The focus here is on employees working in federally regulated jobs and that is a good start. Whether or not it is expanded is worthy of further consideration.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to come back to something that is very obvious to everyone this afternoon. Sick days are good for workers. Sick days are good for the workplace. Sick days are good for the community during a pandemic.

Therefore, I am very pleased that the Liberals have seen the light. Why did this recently become a good idea in 2021, when it was a bad idea in 2020, in the midst of the pandemic?

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is an example of how things morph over time just like the COVID-19 virus itself. New challenges are presented. We have been dealing with a moving target now for quite some time. What this demonstrates is the government's willingness to be flexible, to be innovative where necessary and certainly to be informed by the arguments presented by our colleagues in the opposition.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke about compassion and about how this bill is an important way to help people who might be suffering during the pandemic.

It seems strange that the government is in such a big rush now to help these people, yet it called an election in the middle of a pandemic. This election slowed down our work in the House, which should have resumed this fall, and it interrupted and prevented the committees, which will not resume until February, from studying bills and topics that could help people.

Was it necessary to call an election in August, in the middle of a pandemic, and to halt our work here in the House at a time when people needed all of us to work together?

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. colleague that throughout the time up until we came back to the House, we had the Canada sickness recovery benefit that was in essence a backstop to this. To the other point, I think that election was necessary for precisely the reason that we are here talking about this today. We had to examine what role government should play.

The finance critic for the official opposition when the larger programs were first rolled out said that is not something Conservatives would do. Well, we would be in pretty tough shape as a country if that in fact was what we took forward in managing the pandemic.

Yes, Canadians in the election answered the question about what government is for and what government should do. This is the government they chose to do it.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will make it quick because the member already responded that he does not know how this legislation will apply to companies that contract to federally regulated corporations.

Had the government not thought about how the bill was going to apply to Canadians? It is another example of legislation put forward that is not fully thought out by an inept government. Why was it not thought out—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Fleetwood—Port Kells has 10 seconds to respond.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, the government has acted as quickly as possible because of the need to get the supports in place. We had supports, and those supports and their legislative rules came to an end. We had to move, and we had to move quickly. However, we have always been prepared to refine as necessary to make sure the legislation does its job.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am addressing the House from the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

I am proud to rise in the House today to support the new Minister of Labour in introducing Bill C‑3, which will better protect Canadian workers and, most importantly, help keep them safe in their workplace.

It is unfortunate that some workers cannot afford to stay home when they are sick. It is a fact, and I have seen it many times right in my riding. Many workers across Canada cannot afford to lose income, not even for a few days. They have to cover the mortgage, pay the rent, pay the power bill, buy groceries and cover all the other costs that come with supporting a family.

Because of that, they risk their health and the possibility of spreading a virus. Forcing workers to face this dilemma is simply unfair. Now is the time to fix that and fill the paid sick leave gap.

The Canada Labour Code currently provides employees in federally regulated industries with three days of paid personal leave that can be used in case of illness or injury. If we look more carefully at the numbers, we see that, in 2019, Canadian workers took an average of 8.5 days of leave for illness and issues related to a disability. It is clear that three days of paid leave is just not enough.

With Bill C‑3, we are taking measures to ensure that Canadians who work in federally regulated industries have access to the paid sick leave they deserve.

Our government has introduced a bill that will amend the Canada Labour Code to provide 10 days of paid sick leave per year to workers in the federally regulated private sector. That will have an enormous impact. There are approximately 18,500 employers in federally regulated industries. That includes federal Crown corporations, as well as certain activities on first nations reserves. Together, they employ 955,000 people, the vast majority of whom work in medium-sized to large firms, that is, companies with 100 employees or more.

The federally regulated sector includes workplaces in a broad range of industries, including interprovincial air, rail, land and marine services, banks and postal services. These are all important industries that people across the country rely on every day.

The bill before us today not only allows workers in these vital industries to stay home to take care of themselves when they are sick, but it also prevents the spread of illnesses in their workplace.

More specifically, Bill C‑3 amends part III of the Canada Labour Code to make two changes. First, an employee would earn one day of paid sick leave per month of continuous employment, up to a maximum of 10 days in a calendar year. The words “treating their illness or injury” will be repealed from the list of reasons for which an employee can take personal leave. This is simply to avoid duplicating paid leave provisions relating to illness or injury under the Canada Labour Code.

These two changes would impact roughly 582,700 employees in the federally regulated private sector who do not currently have access to at least 10 days of paid sick leave.

Increased paid sick leave would support employees by protecting them in three ways. First, paid sick leave would protect workers' income. As I was saying earlier, I have seen workers and employees in my riding who were unable to take sick leave.

Second, it would protect their jobs. Third, it would protect workers' health, which is, of course, the most important thing.

Furthermore, studies have shown that sick leave benefits employers, because it helps prevent turnover, and it also prevents the public health system from getting overwhelmed.

The good news is that this means paid sick leave also protects our economy.

For these reasons, I think it is clear that we must move forward with Bill C‑3. By adding 10 days of paid sick leave to the Canada Labour Code, the government is taking the first step in its plan.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)

The House resumed from December 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to stand in this House of Commons in the 44th Parliament to deliver my speech. To begin, I would really like to thank all of the constituents of Elgin—Middlesex—London who re-elected me to come and be their voice here in Ottawa.

I am going to switch right into the debate today because it is a very important debate that we are having. Bill C-3 has been introduced. It has a lot of merit when it comes to some of the important efforts that we are trying to make. I will start by reading a quote that I read on Facebook. This quote is from September 13 and was posted by the London Health Sciences Centre.

“We are the people who deliver your babies. We are the people who heal your injuries. We are the people who help you live with chronic diseases. We have worked tirelessly through the pandemic to keep you safe.

The vast majority of Londoners have shown appreciation for our work and respect for our people. But a small minority has taken its protests to our hospitals, putting our patients, staff and physicians at risk.

While everyone has the right to free speech, our patients, staff and physicians have an equal right to seek and provide health care without harassment. We have important work to do to care for our patients. We have therefore enhanced security and are working with London Police Service to keep patients, visitors and staff and physicians safe during today's planned protests. We are closely monitoring this situation to ensure the continuity of patient care.”

I bring this forward because occurred in my region back on September 13, just days before the federal election. As COVID continued to grow, we continued to see these types of things. In Ontario, there were protests at 10 different hospitals that day.

The post was brought to my attention by Jason DeSilva, a friend of my husband. He was diagnosed with cancer, and thought, “What am I going to do?” When we see places like this and we are in pain and suffering and in critical illness, it is important to know that there is access to those types of buildings.

It was brought to my attention, and all I could think of were the people being impacted. I continued to read through all of the different comments. There were something like 968 comments, and I cannot even imagine the number of retweets. People were talking about this. Following that, there was a comment made by one of the patients, who said:

“Never ever protest at a hospital.

I've lived out the worst days of my entire life inside of a hospital when I needed healthcare workers the most.

I've had my insides cut apart, ovarian cancer painstakingly scraped out of my abdomen, multiple organs cut apart and stitched back together, a crushed femoral nerve as I took each step in agony to make it into the car for my long ride home after cancer surgery, all while wearing a diaper as my insides continued to bleed and leak.

Never ever protest at a hospital no matter how you feel about things right now. People going through the hardest days of their lives, and the staff that care for them, shouldn't have to deal with you. (There are other places to go if you feel you need to do that.)”

With this, it had “#beatcancer” and “#beagoodhuman”.

Another message that came from the post was this:

“Thankfully, my husband's appointment at the London cancer clinic was the next day.... Please know that the majority of people were appalled that such a protest would be carried out at any hospital...and we all know that the very people that showed up at this protest would be welcomed and treated with compassionate care in their time of any medical need at the very place where they protested...that's what makes it even more sad.... I hope they realize that this was a mistake and will never do this again....hank you to all our London hospitals for being there for us all.”

This has been a very trying time. When we talk about things like protests at hospitals, we all can agree that when someone is going to the hospital, in many cases it is their family and the individual who are driving. There is a great concern as they are driving there. Who knows what type of treatment they are going for? Maybe they are going to speak to a doctor to get a treatment plan, looking forward. Maybe it is cancer. Maybe they are having a new baby. Who knows what it may be? We recognize that this time is extremely stressful. Not being able to get into that type of facility is extremely concerning for so many people.

We can thank our health care providers. Throughout this pandemic and the last 20 months, we have seen the finest of the finest really step up. I think of the health care workers at the St. Thomas Elgin General Hospital; I think of the people at the London Health Sciences Centre and all across this great country, all of those people who stepped forward.

They heard there was a virus and a potential of being killed, and we saw health care workers put extra gear on and take extra caution. They served at the time when people needed them the most, when there was so much unknown and so much angst. Those people stepped up for us.

This is why I am so passionate in ensuring that those health care workers, who during the last 22 months have been there on the front line helping us, are not put in this situation. It is not fair to the health care workers, it is not fair to the staff who work there and it definitely is not fair to the patients and their families.

I also want to say it is not just those people who have helped us out. Across this country we have seen volunteers and organizations that have really stepped up. Because it is my first time being able to really talk about this, I want to thank my staff: Cathy, Jena, Scott, Jillian, Charli and Raghed. We really believe in service over self, and that is exactly what we see here. We see, in our Parliament, in our health care fields and in anybody who has stepped up during this pandemic, this service over self.

Returning to the debate on Bill C-3, I want to talk about a rational discussion, where we can recognize that we can have peaceful protests, but never lose critical services. The protests in London took place on September 13. I was going through the newspapers looking at those days and I was reminded of something. This is a quote from a London Free Press article on September 13, written by James Chaarani, “When asked why they chose to protest at a hospital,...the executive director of the London chapter of Vaccine Choice Canada, said it was a busy intersection and the group wanted to show support for health care workers. 'It's an opportunity for people of London to drive by this intersection and see that not everybody agrees with what the government is doing, and often our voice is not heard'”.

I am not here to try to debate whether they are right or wrong; that is not my choice for today. I recognize we have to look at the big picture. We have to look at what happens when this is critical infrastructure and what happens when this is going to have an impact on our people.

I would like to inform the House that I will be splitting with the member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte.

These are ultimately critical times for families. I think about myself, because following this protest my mom fell ill. She fell ill two days before the election. It is very personal, because when I talk about the health of my mother, that is what always comes first to me. I apologize to my mom because I know she is watching today. When I went to see her that day, I thought she was dead. I walked in there and kept rubbing her to get her awake. When I finally got her awake, I called my sister who said to take her temperature. I called the MPP Jeff Yurek, who said to take her temperature. However, what I needed to do, ultimately, was get her to the hospital.

I wonder what it would have been like. I know what I am like. Anyone in this chamber, as well as anyone at home, knows the passion I have for my loved ones. I think about what would have happened to me personally and what would have happened to others, and I cannot even imagine being in that type of situation.

These are feelings that are very strong. I know that throughout Canada, protests continue to happen. It is important to have the right to protest, but there is a time and place, and when it comes to projects and people's health and safety, that is not the time to put people at risk.

I am going to quickly switch gears and talk about the other part of this, about extending health benefits for sick days to federally regulated employees. Here in Canada we have approximately 910,000 federally regulated employees, and the majority of them are here in our government. We know that there are 18,000 employers whose labour rights and responsibilities are defined by the Canada Labour Code, and these types of organizations include our Crown corporations, Canada Post operations, port service, marine shipping, ferries, tunnels, canals, bridges and pipelines.

I think it is very important, as we saw through this pandemic, that when we are sick we have the ability to take time off. It is very important that when we are looking at this we understand that, if somebody is sick, they do not go to work. We do need to have some sort of backup plan. I know in many of the federal government policies that there is time and space for that, but for others, not so much. I think it is a great opportunity to have this discussion.

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

Mr. Speaker, we owe a great deal of gratitude to our health care professionals. In fact, thousands of people from Saskatchewan and Manitoba came to Winnipeg yesterday to witness the Western Semi-Final where the Bombers were very successful and prevailed in beating the Saskatchewan Roughriders. It so encouraging to see my friend and colleague from across the way, the member for Regina—Lewvan, wearing a Bomber jersey, and if I could ask him a question I would.

However, to my colleague across the way, would she not recognize that this wonderful game took place yesterday because, in good part, of the health care professionals and the fine work that they did, and the fact that Canada is doing so well on full vaccination?

By the way, let us look forward to the Grey Cup next Sunday.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is the nicest question I have ever had from this member, but he has to remember that I am from Ontario, so “go Ticats”.

However, it is absolutely the case that, because of our scientists, health care workers and all of those essential services, we are able to be here today and that so many of our children are able to go back to school. I would like to thank each and every health care worker and everyone on the front lines throughout this pandemic.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think what is happening in Canada is deeply troubling.

We pride ourselves on our willingness to be good neighbours, that is who we are as Canadians, and yet we are seeing with the anti-vax protest a really disturbing rise in toxic behaviour. This past weekend in Edmonton, a mob attacked a children's store. What is with that? In my region, a small-town doc who was a hero to so many people shut her practice because of online harassment. We have had young mothers attacked at vaccine clinics in my region. I could never have imagined in a thousand years that a mother and her child would be attacked and shouted down by a mob for trying to keep her child safe.

We have legislation here for our frontline health workers, but I want to ask my hon. colleague about the larger level of toxicity and this kind of anti-science violence that we are seeing that is targeting families and people who are trying to get through a really difficult time.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe all members probably went through the same thing throughout this election. In my riding of Elgin—Middlesex—London, unfortunately, one of my constituents is being charged for throwing gravel at the Prime Minister, and I should not say “unfortunately”, because he needs to be charged. This is just not the behaviour that gets things done. This is toxic behaviour, and it needs to be dealt with. Those are things that I do not support. We saw that type of temperament throughout the entire campaign in Elgin—Middlesex—London, and we had to be aware of it.

Safety of Canadians has to be first, and if we could get back to less divisive discussions and more of a willingness to work together, we would have a better country once again.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, some areas in my riding, such as the Kelowna General Hospital and the Penticton Regional Hospital, have been built up to the footprint of the road, and there is not a lot of space. Again, I am very supportive, as is the member, of freedom of expression and the ability to share one's political views regardless of what they are. We are a free and open society, but let us bear in mind that these particular infrastructures are not built for those kinds of protests.

I would like to hear whether the member has other examples of infrastructure where it may not be appropriate for people to utilize those spaces.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, any time we have critical projects that are going to be good for this country, we have to very cautious, and safety is one of those things.

It is interesting when we watch people who start to protest, because it can start off very soft and calm and then the next thing we know we have a person up in a tree throwing stones. This is about common decency. I wish people would recognize that when they want to have their voices heard they should do so, but just be respectful.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise here today for my first speech in the 44th Parliament as the member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte.

As this is my first time rising to speak during this new session of Parliament, I would like to use this opportunity to share my sincere thanks to my wife, Lisa, and my sons, Wyatt and Luke, for their unwavering support. I would also like to thank my campaign team and the many volunteers who selflessly gave countless hours of hard work, my dedicated EDA, and the residents of Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte for once again placing their trust in me to represent them here in Ottawa. I am and will remain committed to working tirelessly on behalf of my community, both locally and in Parliament.

I am pleased to be speaking today to Bill C-3, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code.

Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte is home to the Royal Victoria Regional Health Centre, also known locally as RVH. RVH is known as a place for receiving safe, compassionate, advanced care. It is a place of exceptional health care, led by an unwavering commitment to safety and quality. RVH was awarded accreditation with exemplary standing in 2019 by Accreditation Canada. That is the highest level of recognition awarded, and it is achieved by only 20% of Canadian health care organizations.

Among many other local, provincial and national recognitions, RVH has also received a gold quality health care workplace award from the Ontario Hospital Association for its continued focus on fostering a healthy and safe workplace that promotes a positive work-life balance.

The current president and CEO of the Royal Victoria Health Centre, Janice Skot, has led the health centre for 17 years and has recently announced her much-deserved retirement. I personally want to wish her the very best in her future endeavours. Alongside Ms. Skot are a visionary board of directors, an exceptional senior team and leaders, skilled physicians and nurses, compassionate volunteers and a supportive community.

Hospitals across Canada, including RVH, are places of healing. They are places where we face difficult days, seek treatment, and say hello and goodbye to loved ones. They are places of solemn solace and of beautiful beginnings.

My wife, Lisa, and I were thankful to welcome our two sons in the birthing unit of RVH. When my youngest son required immediate neonatal care, it was the wonderful health care workers of RVH who supported and cared for our family. During my son's 17-day stay in the neonatal intensive care unit, it was imperative that we had unencumbered and free access to the hospital throughout the day to provide our son with much-needed nourishment. I am pleased to say that over 16 years later and completely healthy, he will be graduating high school next year.

Hospitals should remain peaceful places for staff, patients, visitors and volunteers alike. I truly believe that harassment of our frontline nurses, doctors and health care workers is completely unacceptable. We all owe a huge debt of thanks to these frontline workers, who have been health care heroes both before and throughout this pandemic. They deserve unending appreciation and respect.

Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Katharine Smart, president of the Canadian Medical Association, said just last month that this past year, there has been an unfortunate escalation of hate directed towards the medical profession and all health care workers.

Linda Silas, president of the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions, said that before the pandemic, 90 percent of nurses reported being exposed to physical violence at work, and during the pandemic, 60 percent of nurses reported that the level of violence had increased.

Shamefully, as recently as September of this year, staff, patients, visitors and volunteers were faced with a rally against COVID-19 restrictions, which took place outside of the hospital's doors. Regrettably, RVH was among the hospitals that were targeted.

Janice Skot, president and CEO of RVH, said the following in a statement:

People have a right to peacefully express their opinions, but these rallies in front of hospitals are disheartening, frustrating and offensive to health-care workers who have worked tirelessly throughout this gruelling pandemic.

While protesters lined our sidewalk opposing the safety measures intended to keep our communities safe, exhausted staff and physicians inside RVH continue working long hours under extremely difficult conditions, caring for sick patients—including those with COVID-19.

Skot went on to say that a crowd of largely unmasked protesters is also extremely intimidating for the patients coming to RVH to seek care. Dedicated health care workers should not be the target of angry protests. A global pandemic is a time when Canadians should, said Skot, “stand with our health-care workers, not protest outside the building in which they are doing heroic work.”

Since the pandemic began, RVH has cared for over 600 COVID patients. Skot says many of them have been critically ill and some have spent months recovering in hospital. Sadly, 98 have died due to COVID-related complications. She says, “Our employees and physicians have seen first-hand the tragic and heartbreaking impacts of this virus, and RVH supports any effort to keep our patients, our team, and our community safe.”

Dr. Colin Ward, the chief of surgery at RVH, echoed Ms. Skot's concerns regarding Bill C-3. He said, “The last two years have been extremely challenging for the health care community as we have worked tirelessly to provide health care under difficult and sometimes heartbreaking conditions. We appreciate the efforts made by Bill C-3 to help protect both the patients and all of the workers who provide care for them.”

RVH was not the only hospital affected by these protests. Hospitals in Toronto, Ottawa, Sudbury and London were also targeted by protesters.

Our health care centres are essential infrastructure. Access to them must not be blocked for any reason. The staff delivering critical care in these centres must be allowed to access the resources required to deliver necessary life-saving care, without threats, intimidation or harassment. Jaime Gallaher, a Canadian emergency room nurse, shared her experience working as a nurse while protests were taking place outside of hospital doors. She said, “One of our patients actually passed away in emerge, behind a curtain with his family, which was gut-wrenching because that should never, ever happen. They had no privacy to mourn.” Ms. Gallaher also explained that the protesters could be heard in the ER and called the disruption “a slap in the face” to grieving families and patients in need of emergency care.

Likewise, Dr. Rod Lim, a pediatric emergency room physician in London, Ontario, had this to say about protests outside of hospitals:

The protests are demoralizing. There’s a lack of common decency, to protest in front of a hospital, to delay people who are trying to get the care that they deserve. They have nothing to do with the protests, nothing to do with government policy, and they’re being adversely affected. This is absolutely maddening.

As a past member of the Barrie area physician recruitment task force, I am aware how difficult it is to recruit medical staff. With current labour shortages, human resources teams are currently facing a very competitive job market, which is a challenge for recruiting new frontline employees. Vicki McKenna, president of the Ontario Nurses' Association, said, “Prior to COVID, we had hundreds of RN vacancies. That hasn’t improved—it’s gotten worse. RVH is no different than any other hospital; they have vacancies. It’s tough out there.”

Having protesters outside of health care settings does not help this issue. I know freedom of speech is an important right for Canadians, but the foundational principles of Canada are peace, order and good government. When protests turn into blockades and threaten people's ability to access services critical to their lives, the government must appropriately step in, not to diminish or destroy our liberties, but to ensure that people are living to enjoy them.

The staff at RVH and at hospitals across Canada have been working tirelessly throughout this pandemic to care for our communities. Staff from RVH and other healthcare settings across Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte spent their off hours during the pandemic staffing COVID-19 testing centres and vaccine clinics. They have risen to the challenge of supporting us through this pandemic, and they deserve our support, now and always.

Health care settings are not an appropriate place for protests that threaten patients' well-being, disrupt quiet recuperation or block access to much-needed medical services. Slowing down or not permitting health care professionals to gain access to their places of employment is completely unacceptable. We need to respect the health care heroes who have supported and cared for our communities before and throughout this pandemic and who will be there for us long after this pandemic.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since I have not yet had the opportunity to do so, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment. I am sure that you will be up to the task of ensuring that the debates run smoothly.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on something that I have been thinking about.

Does he not believe that, had the government not taken so long to bring Parliament back after calling an election ostensibly because there were things that had to be taken care of right away, we would not be here two months later dealing with a bill that covers two completely different areas?

Is it because the government is determined to pass two bills in one?

If the government had brought the House back right away after the election, about two weeks after, for example, then we could have been debating two different bills. With regard to the Criminal Code, the bill is redundant because the offences already exist.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will go one step further: We do not feel there should have been an election called in the first place. We should have remained here working throughout all of that, so yes, we should have been here working over the summer and much earlier in the fall. I agree that we could have been here dealing with this over many weeks prior to this.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, during the pandemic, medical health professionals were really clear that they wanted us to social distance and wash our hands, but they also wanted politicians to implement paid sick days and people to get vaccinated. Here we are, 20 months later, and finally we have Conservatives and Liberals implementing paid sick days.

I think about the other health crisis that was happening previous to COVID, which is the opioid overdose crisis that is taking place in our country. Health professionals have been saying they want to see decriminalization and a safe supply as immediate first steps, and we need to listen to the sound advice of these health professionals.

Does my colleague agree politicians have failed in listening to medical health professionals and that we have lost lives as a result, whether it be by not implementing paid sick days or not implementing policies to address this overdose crisis happening in our country? I would like to hear his perspective on this.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, hindsight is 20/20 on a lot of issues. We can look back and say we failed on many things, but as long as we are trying to do our best, that is very important.

Speaking of the opioid pandemic, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte has been devastated by this. Right now, the City of Barrie is looking at opening up a supervised consumption site. I will take all information into account regarding that and try to make a proper decision, while keeping good words like the ones my fellow colleague mentioned today. I always try to get all the information I can together for making valid, true and honest decisions, and I will go forward that way. That is the way I have always tried to conduct myself, and I will continue to do that going forward.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be able to enter into debate on this important subject today.

I have heard from a number of colleagues and a number of parties, who have raised concerns that this bill addresses two very different issues. Although both are very important to discuss and debate in this place, the fact is that they are quite different. One is related to protecting health care workers from being restricted from entering hospitals and whatnot, and then the other is regarding paid sick leave.

I am wondering if my colleague has any comments about whether these two distinct issues should be debated separately and if there is value in that to ensure it has the fulsome discussion required to make good policy that comes from this place.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we sometimes have to deal with what we have been given, and they are together in this one so we will do our best to come together and deal with them. Hopefully, if and when they go to committee, they will be able to be dealt with properly.

We do have to look at what we have been given, and I concentrated more on the health care portion today. I am looking forward to getting that implemented. Knowing there is such a large health institution in my area that was given a very rough ride in the summer with protests, I am looking forward to seeing that get passed as soon as possible.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be speaking here in Ottawa from the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. My riding of Parkdale—High Park, which I am proud to represent in this chamber, rests on the traditional territory of the Haudenosaunee, the Wendat, the Métis, and most recently, the Mississaugas of the Credit. Toronto is now home to many first nations, Inuit and Métis people.

These past 22 months, it goes without saying, have been defined by the global COVID-19 pandemic. These past 22 months have also been defined by exemplary work on the part of health care professionals working extremely hard to keep all of us safe. The first thing I want to say in addressing Bill C-3 is a very heartfelt and sincere thanks to all health care professionals who have been doing so much for all of us in our time of need.

I am speaking of doctors. I am speaking of nurses. I am speaking of auxiliary health staff. I am speaking of researchers who have brought us vaccines. I am speaking of the people in my riding of Parkdale—High Park at St. Joseph's hospital, at the Parkdale Queen West Community Health Centre, at Four Villages and at Runnymede rehab. I am speaking of all of the countless nurses, practitioners, doctors and other health care professionals who call my riding home.

I am also speaking very personally about my wife and her team at the Public Health Agency of Canada. I have spoken about Suchita before. She has the distinct duty, during this pandemic, of being in charge of quarantine and border health controls for the Public Health Agency in all of Ontario and for the north. It is a critical job at the simplest of times, but during a pandemic it is a pivotal job for what we do and keeping all of us safe. I thank Suchita for what she has been doing consistently for the past 22 months.

All of these people deserve our appreciation, our gratitude and our respect, yet things have unfortunately been inverted in these last several months. Those who should have been receiving praise are receiving scorn. Those who should be empowered to keep us safe are being actively prevented from entering hospitals and clinics. They are sometimes being threatened, harassed or even assaulted.

It extends beyond just those who provide health care. It also applies to those who are seeking health care. Patients are being intimidated and prevented from entering some of these health care facilities. The impact is severe. Health care professionals feel they have gone from heroes to villains, and it is indeed demoralizing.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook. We can tell it is a new Parliament because I am off my game.

I was talking about the impact. The impact is that health care professionals feel they have gone from being heroes to villains, and it is demoralizing. It is also an impact that has been borne by Canadians who are seeking to do the right thing in following public health guidelines, in accessing care to keep themselves and our communities safe. They are at the same time being vilified for daring to follow those public health imperatives.

How has it come to this? How have we gotten to this state of affairs in Canada in December 2021? There are those who have embraced the science behind COVID, the public health measures that are needed to help keep all of us safe, and the utility of vaccines in the fight against this virus. There are those who have not and those who challenge the utility of vaccines, science, scientists and all of the health care professionals who support these endeavours.

Let me be clear about one thing that is pivotal in this chamber of all places: the democratic right to disagree and to dissent. That is what freedom of assembly, freedom of association and freedom of expression mean as protected under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which I had the privilege of defending for 15 years while I was a practising lawyer. That is the hallmark of any democracy, let alone this democracy.

There are and always have been limits to such expressive rights. There is an old legal adage that says a person has the right to swing their arm, but that right ends at my nose. The notion that it conjures up is that one's expressive rights end when they can cause harm to another individual. It encapsulates the idea that threats, harassment and physical assault have always been against the law and remain against the law in this country.

Through this important piece of legislation, Bill C-3, we are proposing to enhance these very protections, particularly in the case of health care workers and those who seek access to health care. With Bill C-3, we are proposing to take decisive action by amending the Criminal Code as well as the Labour Code. I am speaking today of the Criminal Code amendments.

The amendments to the Criminal Code would ensure significant consequences for those who use fear to prevent health care professionals from doing their jobs and for those who prevent patients from receiving such care. Bill C-3 would create a new, specific offence for intimidation of health care workers and those who seek health care, as well as an offence that would prohibit someone from obstructing a person from accessing health care facilities.

Individuals who intend to use fear to stop health care workers from performing their duties, or to prevent people from accessing health services, could be charged with this proposed new offence.

In the Criminal Code, aggravating factors are considered for sentencing. An aggravating factor would be added to require courts to consider more serious penalties for any offender who targets health care workers engaged in their duties or who impedes others from accessing health services.

A new sentencing provision would also be created that requires courts to consider more serious penalties. There would be up to a 10-year maximum, compared with the current five-year maximum in the Criminal Code, for offenders who target health care workers engaged in their duties or who impede people from obtaining health care services.

In precise terms, that is what Bill C-3 would capture. For those who are still skeptical, let me be crystal clear about what Bill C-3 would not capture. It would not capture peaceful demonstrations, or the right of health care professionals to protest to improve their own working conditions. Instead, it would protect such people from the unfortunate violence they are currently facing and would help to ensure safer workplaces than they have right now.

The freedom of Canadians to voice their concerns and protest in a safe and peaceful manner is critical, as is obviously the ability of health care workers to take labour action and organize themselves. That would be respected by these proposed changes in the criminal law, because a communication defence is being entrenched in Bill C-3. That would help ensure that there is a balance, as there has always been due to how the charter was designed in 1982. There would be a balance between the protections we need and the protection of the expressive rights of Canadian citizens, including the health care workers and those who would peacefully protest against them. That balance is the legislative change we need to see in this country, because what we are seeing unfortunately is an escalation of hate. Let us call it what it is. It is hatred directed toward these workers and those who would access their services.

The right to protest and to dissent is one thing, and as I have outlined it is critical. However, obstructing patients and health care personnel and trying to strike fear into their hearts and minds is something that cannot and should not be tolerated in this country in 2021. We have seen people getting in the faces of vulnerable patients who are trying to access care, yelling and spitting at them, or following health care professionals to their cars and vandalizing their vehicles. We have seen health care professionals targeted by death threats: those same health care professionals who are always working not only to keep us safe, but to keep us alive in this pandemic. These death threats, whether made in person or through social media campaigns, are designed to intimidate and frighten those people. It is an unacceptable state of affairs.

What I would inject in these final two minutes is that we are not just talking about COVID. When we talk about the health care apparatus, we have to think about all the health care services that are provided and not just those that address the pandemic. The impacts extend to all those who seek other medical treatments at hospitals and clinics across this country: those who rely on nurses, physicians and surgeons to perform things such as transplants, hip surgeries and knee replacements. The list goes on. Right now, those Canadians are being victimized by the type of escalating hatred we are witnessing around the country, because these surgeries are being delayed or cancelled outright because of the chaos being unleashed at health care facilities around the country. The result is that Canadians awaiting such surgeries are forced to wait that much longer, prolonging their pain and suffering. It is an untenable situation.

Health care workers have taken the Hippocratic oath. I am sure that 22 months ago, they thought they understood the contours of that oath to serve other people, to care for them and provide them assistance. That has been turned on its head over these past 22 months with COVID. I want to underscore this, and we have heard it from other speakers in this chamber: At this time in particular, these people deserve our gratitude, appreciation and respect. If I see somebody wearing scrubs in my riding, I have made it my personal mission to point them out, to stop them and ask them where they work and to thank them for what they are doing, because these people are always brave in the face of adversity. They are always selfless and devote extended hours to their craft. Now they need our support more than ever. That is what Bill C-3 would achieve, which is why I hope all members of the House can get behind this important bill.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me my first opportunity to speak in the House since the election.

I would like to take this opportunity to also thank the health care workers who serve us all the time, and especially during this difficult time with COVID.

The hon. member said that Bill C-3 would provide a balance between the rights of people and the protection of health care workers, the facilities and so forth. Where does he see the bill strike that balance? Could the hon. member advise us on that?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome my friend opposite back to the House and congratulate him on his re-election.

The balance is both in the legislation and in the Constitution. That is the twofold answer. The legislation entrenches a defence of communication, and communication for the sole purpose of expressing dissent in a peaceful format is entirely protected within the contours of this bill. It is also subject to what is called the “saving clause” in the charter. The charter has section 2 expressive rights that are protected, and the saving clause in section 1 allows for reasonable limits on such expression. That is the balance carved in the Constitution as it has been interpreted by the jurisprudence of our Supreme Court.

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously no one is against apple pie. We are legislating this morning to put an end to the intimidation and harassment being faced by health care workers outside of hospitals. I think everyone agrees on the principle.

However, I am wondering why the government chose to talk about this this morning. We are in the midst of a global pandemic. Quebec's health care system, like those of the other provinces, has been gutted. There is not enough funding. We have been talking about the underfunding of the health care system for a long time.

The Bloc Québécois thinks it is time to reinvest massively in health to take care of people. Health care workers are leaving the health care system in droves because they are overworked. If we really want to take care of Quebec's health care workers, is it not time to do what the Bloc Québécois has been calling for and reinvest massively in health care?

The federal government is currently only paying 22% of costs. Should that not be raised to 35% to take care of health care workers?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague opposite, and I congratulate him on being re-elected.

I would say it makes perfect sense to talk about this bill now. Earlier this fall, during the election campaign, we promised to start working on some of our priorities right away. One of those priorities was making sure we provide better protection to Canada's health care workers. We are keeping a promise we made.

I think my colleague's suggestion about health care system funding is a good one worth examining.

We support health care workers. We are always listening to them so we can help them and meet their needs.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, throughout the health crisis we heard from health professionals who said two really critical things. The first was that people should get vaccinated. The second was that governments should bring in paid sick days, so that people were not making the difficult choice of not paying their bills or going to work sick and spreading sickness to their colleagues. As a result of this, people actually died.

I think about the parallel health crisis that is taking place: the overdose crisis due to fentanyl poisoning. Medical health professionals have made it very clear that the first steps are decriminalization and safe supply.

Would my colleague support moving forward with his own Health Canada expert task force on substance use and support decriminalization, or is the government going to wait for more people to die? The government needs to take action. It needs to listen to the health professionals giving it guidance on policy, and it needs to take action on the steps that are recommended.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of paid sick days, obviously we legislate in areas of our jurisdiction.

Many of the responsibilities the member has identified relate to the provincial level of jurisdiction. What we are doing for the federally regulated sector is offering 10 paid sick days, as promised. We are committing to that promise.

With respect to opioids, our perspective has always been with respect to safe supply, safe injection sites and meeting people where they are with a harm reduction model. That is the policy I will continue to advocate for.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations on your new role in the 44th Parliament. I know it will be an unforgettable experience. I wish you four good years of service, assuming that is how it plays out.

I am very happy to speak to this bill. I feel it is a very important bill about peace, order and good government.

I am very pleased with the comments and questions by the opposition, as it is clear that all members of the House are looking at the bill as being an extremely important bill to move forward. We will be making amendments to the Criminal Code to protect health care workers and those who are accessing their services. I will speak at length about that as well. The second piece is the change to sick leave with the Canada Labour Code amendments, which would allow us to implement sick leave.

However, before I go into the bill in depth, I want to share with the House some comments about the pandemic. As my colleague said earlier, 22 months of a global pandemic have been challenging on every country in the world and have been challenging on every Canadian. It has been difficult not just for those who have had bad luck, but also for all of the families, friends and colleagues around them.

When I think back, I remember my dad telling me many years ago about the Spanish flu that hit Canada and the world between 1918 and 1921. That was a really big challenge. What has come out of all the pandemics we will talk about is, of course, the heroes: the health care workers, the individuals who have done their part and more to support Canadians and their neighbours, families and friends. This was crucial, and I want to talk about it a bit.

I remember my dad telling me that in our community, if someone was exposed to the Spanish flu, they could die within days. However, there were people in the community putting their life and their families' lives at risk to try to help their neighbours and friends. That by itself is just unbelievable. I cannot say enough about those individuals and the health care workers.

I also want to talk about polio between the twenties and the fifties. Most Canadians would have heard about polio as well. This was a global pandemic. We have seen and heard all kinds of stories on it, but I have a personal one to share, because as my mom would tell me often, my grandfather was a doctor and some felt he should have been able to do more. I am sure he wanted to do more, and that is one of the challenges.

My mom's brother, whose name was Leo Patrick, contracted polio, and contamination exposure could lead to death. Two people eating from the same spoon was noted as a possible transmission process. I remember my mom telling me that when she would feed her little brother, once in a while, because he did not want to eat since he was not feeling well, she would have a bite to show him how to do it. Then he would laugh and take a bite as well. I lost my uncle, whom I have never seen of course, but I remember the story from my mom like it was yesterday. She said for some reason she never got polio even though she had done things like sharing a spoon.

I guess the family always tries to keep life going to some extent, so one of my brothers is named Leo Patrick. They wanted to continue it, I believe, and he is a very special person as well. There are heroes everywhere in our country and in the world.

I read an article on April 20, 2020, of a lady in Halifax, Gloria Stephens. She was a nurse in Halifax at the Victoria General Hospital. She talked about her experience as a nurse, a job she did for 46 years, if members can imagine. There were similarities between polio and the global pandemic, and she shared some of them. I was really touched by that. She would wear a mask, a gown and gloves, and she would work 12 hours a day and then remove all of that clothing. When polio took place, similar to the pandemic, in some pockets of the country schools and playgrounds were closed. It brings us back to those times and also reminds us of our health care workers and what they have been through.

In April, May, June, July, August and September 2020, people were scared to leave their homes. They did not know what they were risking. However, every day, doctors, nurses and frontline workers would leave their homes and do their jobs. That is special, and those are the individuals I want to thank personally. It is one thing for them to risk their lives, but it is another thing when it is at a job they are doing every day where exposure could lead to greater difficulties for themselves and their families. It is just unbelievable.

I think about the people protesting and stopping workers from going into hospitals to help others and offer services, and even the individuals wanting to access health care and being unable to do so. This is unacceptable, and the bill would allow us to move forward. Intimidating health care workers or individuals who are accessing care is unacceptable. Obstructing their access is unacceptable. This bill deals with that.

We have also increased the sentencing to up to 10 years rather than five years, which is extremely important. I know there are lots of questions around the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but again, there are places to protest, and doing it to health care workers and to people accessing health care is absolutely unacceptable.

In closing, on the 10 days of sick leave, people are asking if there is a link. There is absolutely a link between both parts of the bill, which touches on the Criminal Code and on the Canada Labour Code. The Canada Labour Code is about sickness during the pandemic, going to work and the possibility of bringing the illness to co-workers and colleagues in a department. That is not what we want. We want people to stay home if they are sick. By moving forward on this, we would ensure that the safety of Canadians is our top priority.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to put on the record how strongly I support this bill and the Greens support this bill.

The hon. member spoke so movingly of the Spanish flu. I am named, actually, after my great-grandmother, who died in the Spanish flu epidemic. I am really concerned in the here and now with our nurses. I am concerned with health care professionals, and particularly the nursing profession, which is feeling beleaguered and unappreciated. We are losing nurses because we have not done a good enough job as a society to thank them and support them. This bill may be even more important for what it says to nurses across Canada about our respect and gratitude.

Does the hon. member have any thoughts on the current situation of nursing in Canada?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, exactly as my colleague said, this would be, in my opinion, one quick way of showing nurses and frontline workers that the role they play is important. We need to do this as a government to keep them safe and keep all Canadians safe. This is another indication of how we appreciate our health care workers.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today is important because it will protect health care workers as well as patients. The scope of this bill extends well beyond vaccination. For example, it will also cover intimidation that takes place at family planning clinics.

Nevertheless, intimidation is still a crime regardless of a person's status or job.

Why the hurry to specify that this applies to health care services now, especially considering that it should apply to everyone, everywhere, period?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her important question.

The bill we are introducing, Bill C‑3, is meant to protect all Canadians. Yes, it targets the health sector for the moment, but we are talking about a bill that will help all Canadians. We need to ensure that no Canadians are subjected to intimidation, and we need to be there to protect everyone.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, for almost two years workers have been forced to work sick. As is the case in many constituencies, in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith many constituents rely on their wages to feed their families and keep a roof over their heads.

We have lost too many lives as a result of government inaction. Does my colleague find it acceptable to have forced workers for almost two years to report to work while unwell by refusing to provide them with the sick leave they need to keep everyone safe?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to share with my colleague that in 2019 we moved forward on three-day sick leave and then we had the sick leave benefit. Here we are moving it to 10 days, so I believe we are doing exactly what she is proposing.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if this legislation would help people who have contracts. Does it extend to people who have contracts with the Government of Canada, or would it be just the employees of the government?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to listen to my colleague's speech this morning, which I much appreciated. I know she does great work in the House, and I want to thank her for that.

My understanding is that federal employees are already getting these benefits. These would be for federally regulated employees, so this would be an extension. The objective of our government is to have discussions with the provinces and territories so that we can move forward with the private sector to find ways to support all Canadians so they have access to sick leave.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the House allow me to share my time with the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable. I also congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker. I think it is fantastic, and I think that you are doing a fantastic job.

We are here, and some of us have already spoken in the House, but some have not had the chance to yet. This is my maiden speech of the 44th Parliament, and it has been quite a journey over the past two years. It was also quite a journey just getting to this place last night. Many of us are probably going on two and a half or three hours of sleep, but we are here, regardless. We are tired, but we are here.

Before I get into Bill C-3, it is important that I thank a few people.

First and foremost, as I did in the 43rd Parliament, I thank my Lord and Saviour for the opportunity to serve Essex and for my health. Without my God, I would not be here.

I thank my family. Probably my greatest supporter is my mother, but she is also my biggest critic, and she is probably watching right now. I love my Mom and thank her for keeping tabs on me and for all that she does.

I also thank my wife. I am only afraid of three people in this world, and they are in this order: my Lord and Saviour, my wife and my mother. My wife, Allison, is probably not watching, as she is most likely taking care of Levi, our grandchild. However, I love Allison dearly, and I thank her for giving me the freedom and the opportunity to come here to represent Essex and do what I know in my heart of hearts is right. I thank her for the sacrifices she has made for this country along the way. I love her so dearly.

I thank my staff, who have been working tirelessly. They are tired, and have had two years of being tired, with hundreds of thousands of phone calls, emails and text messages. Each and every one of them is absolutely fantastic, and I thank them for serving our constituents so well.

I thank my colleagues, those I have grabbed dinner with in the House, and I do not necessarily mean just Conservative colleagues, but those across the aisle as well. They have made a difficult time a little easier and a bit more enjoyable, so I thank my colleagues. As well, I congratulate all those re-elected. I encourage those who have been elected for the first time to hang on because it is a lot of fun up here. They will be able to do some great things. I congratulate each and every member.

I thank our Hill staff. The onboarding during a pandemic, compared to the onboarding during normal times in Ottawa, was second to none. To our Hill support, for the onboarding process, I thank each one of them. I thank them for their sacrifice and for making our jobs a whole lot easier on the Hill.

Most important, besides my Lord, are my constituents in Essex for giving me the honour to serve them in their seat. It is not my seat. It is theirs, and I thank them for the honour. I thank them for sending me back to Ottawa, and I promise my devotion to each and every one of them.

Bill C-3 should also have a Bill C-3.1 because, in my opinion, it really should be two bills. The bill talks about harassment, which falls under the Criminal Code, and it also talks about labour, which falls under the Canada Labour Code. I will speak to harassment first, and then I will finish with the labour issue.

On the day of the election, I had an unfortunate accident when, just so the world knows, I fell off my horse. I was spending time with my wife, and I was a little more banged up than perhaps even she knew. Long story short, I went to the hospital in Leamington, the Erie Shores HealthCare. The doctors were second to none. The nursing staff was second to none. I have actually had meetings with the CEO of the hospital to try to advance this forward.

Then I went to the Windsor Regional Hospital. In a couple of months, I will go to get shoulder surgery. My orthopaedic surgeon is second to none.

I was a firefighter. I know what frontline service is all about. I am really blessed to say that my aunt Eva was nurse of the year on a couple of occasions. My mother was a nurse as well.

Before I jumped on the plane that finally got me here, after hours and hours, through no fault of Air Canada, I held onto my grandchild, Levi, for about an hour. As he slept there so peacefully and innocently, I thought about this debate today and the influence I could have to leave the world a better place than I found it. I thought about what I could do for Levi today to ensure that he comes into a world that has less hatred and less harassment, and that respects all genders and respects our frontline workers.

I am excited about the harassment side of Bill C-3. It is something that we, as a generation, have perhaps lost a little focus, or perhaps a lot of focus, on. I also think, to a greater extent, that we all, in this place, agree with. That is something very monumental.

I am also a freedom fighter. I believe in the freedoms of Canadians. I believe that Canadians have the right to voice their opinions. I believe they have the right to protest. I also know that with that freedom comes nothing less than responsibility. What is absolutely vital, right now, is that people are not shamed into doing something against our frontline workers who are ultimately taking care of our parents and grandparents and, in my case, me. We need to give them full access and full support. It is absolutely not acceptable for the folks in this profession to have anything less than this House's support.

With regard to the Labour Code, in my capacity as deputy shadow minister for labour, I very happy to be able to stand here and speak to this today. I started my speech saying that many of us are tired. I can only imagine how tired our frontline workers are, the ones who get us on the planes, our air service personnel and the ones who get us here on Via Rail. They are not only tired physically. They are also tired mentally. This is to ensure there is a floor of 10 days, but many of these companies already have more than 10 days, so quite frankly it would not affect them.

They also deserve nothing less than this House's support. We are all tired. I am not saying that from a function of, “Oh, boo hoo, Chris had to spend some time on a plane”. No, I am saying that as a country, as a world, we are tired. Now is the time to bring the support forward, whatever that support looks like, and ensure that it gets done.

Rest assured, Conservatives will certainly be here for labour. Conservatives will be here for physicians, nurses and support staff. I am very proud to be back in the House. I thank Essex for sending me back to this place.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, qujannamiik..

In Nunavut, we do not have much access to health care. We only have one hospital for all of the 25 communities, so the rest of the 25 communities have to get health care services through health centres. Not many of them have doctors. Most have health nurse practitioners.

A lot of the patients from Nunavut, when they are looking to access the same level of health care as everybody else in this room, just as the member spoke so eloquently about before, they have to go on medical travel and be sent to places like Ottawa, Edmonton, Winnipeg or Yellowknife. When these strikes are happening in these other major centres, they are also impacting patients from my constituency, so this is an important issue for me.

Knowing health care professionals in the south are being impacted by protests and are not being able to take up to 10 days of paid sick leave is a great concern. Does the member agree it is time for a 10-day paid sick leave?

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a dynamite question.

Just yesterday WECHU, the Windsor-Essex County Health Unit, and I believe this to be true, was the first in Canada to come down with more restrictions for Windsor and Essex, which is a very sad thing.

The Erie Shores HealthCare I was speaking of earlier is actually pleading with people to go to a different area to get care if they can do so. It is brimming and flowing over the top.

All of Canada, quite frankly, deserves to have proper health care and proper physicians. We need to ensure we put the proper guards in place to make sure everybody is dealt with equally. I really hope, for the member's sake, the situation in her riding gets better.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my friend from Essex on his re-election.

What I heard in his speech was a message of unity dealing with the challenges we are all facing together as a country. If he could somehow elaborate on that, it would be great.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague nailed it. It is exactly what I am talking about.

I congratulate my colleague on the fantastic outreach he does, not only in Canada, but also across the world. I thank the member for that.

Absolutely, if there was ever a time for unity, a time to rally the troops, or a time to pull together and stop the divisiveness, now is the time. That is our responsibility. It is one of the things we can actually bring to our country through this House. With his help, we will all endeavour together to ensure that takes place moving forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, congratulations on your re-election, as well as your appointment to the chair.

Bill C-3 does not really change much. The offences in question are already covered by the law. As stated earlier, intimidation is illegal everywhere, and this bill simply reiterates that. It seems that Bill C-3 is really more about creating the perception that the government is doing something on the health care file.

However, there is something far more important the government could do, namely, restoring health transfers and increasing them to 35% of total spending, as Quebec and all Canadian provinces are calling for. What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, it kind of goes like this: If there had not been a $600-million election, which nobody wanted, we would be in committee discussing these things, and we would be moving this agenda forward. Unfortunately, that has not happened. I would strongly suggest we get back to committee, back to the business of the House. Then we could perhaps address many of the things my hon. colleague has brought up.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Bow River.

As this is my first opportunity to address the chamber during debate, I will first express my appreciation to my fellow parliamentarians on selecting you, Mr. Speaker, as our Speaker. You have also selected an excellent group of parliamentarians to serve us in your stead, so thank you very much.

Before I proceed with my points on Bill C-3, please allow me to also thank the fine people of Red Deer—Mountain View, who have honoured me with the privilege to serve as their representative once again here in the House of Commons.

None of us makes it to this place on our own, and from that perspective, I wish to recognize not only the numerous volunteers and staff who have supported me, and many throughout the five campaigns I have been in, but also my devoted family, who have stood steadfast beside me. Although serving my community is a tremendous honour, it can also take a toll on my family, and I am eternally grateful for their support. My wife Judy; our son Devin and daughter Megan; our son-in-law Hanno; and our grandchildren Julian, Serena and Conrad are indeed the inspiration for my service to my community.

I would like to particularly highlight Julian, who will be turning eight this month, and put on my proud grandfather hat for a moment. Julian has a skill that I wish I had as a politician. When he asks someone their name, whether they are a clerk in a store, people at a library or teachers and students in his school, he knows and remembers their names and, with that, everything they would have spoken about in conversation. That ability is every politician's dream.

Throughout Julian's journey in the health care world, he has never hesitated to put a smile on the faces of those caring for him. He has bravely faced procedures that most would struggle with and has never complained. He can manoeuvre his electric wheelchair better than most truckers, and I have seen first-hand the impact his nurses and doctors have made on his physical health and sense of security while in their care.

It has been through this journey that Julian has given me the greatest pause to reflect upon the legislation that we have before us. I have a passion not only for everyone who seeks help in our health care system, but for those amazing individuals who help us through some of the most difficult and turbulent times of our lives. Indeed, they continually go above and beyond any part of their job description so that we can feel safe in our most vulnerable moments.

My family, like most, is no stranger to all sides of the health care system. Because of this, I have looked intently at the legislation presented by the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, legislation that would enact amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada to create offences around the intimidation, obstruction and interference of health care workers. The commission of such offences against a health care provider or against someone seeking to obtain such health services is to be treated by the courts as an aggravating sentencing factor, thus giving the courts specific directions at the time of sentencing.

Since the start of the pandemic, we have seen a more urgent need to protect those who care for our loved ones when they are defenceless in the face of illness. The stress that accumulates around health care professionals in the best of times is overwhelming, and we must have the full weight of the law behind us to stop intimidation, obstruction and interference as they work tirelessly to do their jobs. Working without the threat of intimidation should be the most basic of rights that we afford to the most valuable assets of our health care system.

We need to thank our health care workers with actions, not words. Even though the changes Bill C-3 seeks to address within the Criminal Code are not a new problem, we must send the bill to committee for further study and modifications to try to better protect our health care workers and patients. I am aware the Criminal Code already covers similar offences, such as intimidation, harassment, assault and incitement of violence, so if the courts already have authority and responsibility to assess the severity of the crime in sentencing, what are we really hoping to achieve?

Believe me, no one wishes more than I do that we ensure the safety of our medical professionals and reduce the stress they may endure. However, will this legislative tool help? We will not know unless we send it to committee to study it further and, if need be, amend it.

Recently I was sent the stories of 40 health care workers from central Alberta. What stood out was the number of times the words “stress”, “harassment”, “overworked”, “burnout” and “anxiety” were used as they spoke about their work environments. If the pandemic is to teach us anything, it is that we must look in depth at the giant holes we have in our system, holes that fail to protect the people who help us navigate our health care needs. More than ever, we see the importance of studying the protections already outlined in the Criminal Code and discussing the consequences of those harassing and vilifying patients and workers.

With respect to the need to protest, it cannot come at the expense of our health care workers and patients. We cannot allow threats and bullying to limit access for those seeking and providing health care. We must study the bill at length and make sure we can strike a balance between our right to be heard and our right to be safe.

Getting to know so many nurses, doctors and staff motivated me to follow in my father's footsteps as the chairman of the Elnora General Hospital board. I speak from both my heart and my experience when I express the need for this bill to be sent to committee, as it is crucial that unintended consequences of potential laws are investigated.

There has always been an ongoing debate about omnibus legislation and, sadly, this bill is a shining example of how this process can sometimes be abused. However, we cannot let this technicality limit the wide-reaching potential the bill has and interfere with opportunities for debate and scrutiny. We must not lose sight of the one basic principle which ties together all of the proposed enactments: the principle that our health care professionals deserve more.

I want to thank Sarah, a registered nurse providing care for patients in rural Alberta hospitals. She reached out to say that she did her very best throughout every single understaffed, overworked, stressful mandated shift, even when supplied with inadequate PPE. We owe Sarah our very best for further scrutiny of Bill C-3.

Although she wishes to remain anonymous, my gratitude goes out to a registered nurse of 22 years who currently works at the Red Deer Regional Hospital Centre. She expressed that the last 18 months have been eye-opening, heartbreaking and exhausting. However, despite the difficult year, she has never wavered from her work at the labour and delivery unit. Not once did she put her fears and needs above those of her patients.

I also thank Suzanne, who told me that being hired as a social worker at the Red Deer Regional Hospital Centre was one of the proudest moments in her life. Despite the unprecedented stress and anxiety she faces, she still loves her job as much as the first day she started.

These are the stories of the heroes we could honour and further study with this bill. These are the voices that encourage me to stand here today and speak. As I mentioned earlier, I know from a profound personal place the importance of caring for those who care for us. We must ensure their safety and reduce the stress and anxiety that our medical professionals endure. It is time to send Bill C-3 to committee so that we can vet it at every possible stage.

In closing, I once again thank you, Madam Speaker, for your service and for allowing me to thank the people who are most special to me. I thank you for letting me highlight the health care professionals who took the time to share their stories.

I hope that as parliamentarians we can look for common-sense solutions to the potential overreach and unintended consequences regarding places where medical services are provided. I also hope the well-being of all involved is taken into consideration so that our doctors and nurses can concentrate on the myriad diseases and conditions that are taking their toll on the physical and mental health challenges facing society today.

We must remember who we are fighting for and that they have never failed in fighting for us in our times of need. Health care workers may be human by birth, but they are heroes by choice.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, once again, congratulations on your appointment.

I have been listening to the debate for several hours now. I believe everyone knows the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill. We are always there to support workers.

I would like to ask my colleague a question. What does he think of our legislative agenda? We waited 65 days to be back in the House of Commons despite the urgent need for action. Today is December 6. Anyone who, like me, listened carefully to question period can see that we have a lot of problems to address.

Why can we not get moving on these urgent matters right away?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, truly, the fact that the government decided we would take a number of months off for the most expensive cabinet shuffle we have had in a long time is rather frustrating because there are so many things we could have continued with and done. There are many issues, and perhaps some of the bills the government would have come forward with would have helped us in a lot of different areas.

I was happy to hear these particular motions and that we have the chance to talk about them. The irony, of course, is that we do not have our committees set up yet. Our intent is to get to that as quickly as possible. It is just another one of the unintended consequences of having an election.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, since the beginning of the pandemic, the Conservative Party has not pushed for nor won anything for workers. In fact, the Liberals and the Conservatives have consistently opposed paid sick leave. For almost two years, the Conservatives did nothing to push for 10 days of paid sick leave.

Why did the Conservatives abandon workers when they needed help? Have they now seen the light in supporting 10 days of paid sick leave?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, the bill sets a floor for paid sick days, with 10 days for federally regulated private sectors such as airlines, banks, telecoms, etc. We are looking at this. It is something that of course we would need to study at committee to find out whether it really affects a lot of people. That is one of the things we have been told.

It might make some difference, but the intent would be to push it back onto the plate of the provinces for them to have to worry about. If we want to respect all levels of government, we should make sure they are in that discussion as well.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my hon. friend and colleague's comments regarding the irony that the government, which promised a number of elections ago to never introduce omnibus legislation, is in fact addressing two very, very different types of issues within this bill.

The member for Kingston and the Islands said earlier that it was not important to address access to other critical infrastructure such as pipelines, ports and maybe schools. It is unfortunate to see that the bill does not go further in ensuring that Canadians can not only have access to their workplaces and health care, but can also feel safe going to other critical infrastructure across our country.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, one thing we need to be aware of, which is part of the discussion of course, is how we will pay for some of the things we have. When we have the overall discussion about trying to keep our economy going, comments like the one the member mentioned are really to the point.

When it comes to what we are going to do to look at these particular circumstances, that is what we have in front of us and it is the thing we will have to deal with today.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour and always a privilege to rise in this House. This is the first time that I have been able to do this in the 44th Parliament. This being my first official speech, we all need to remember that there are 338 seats in this House and every seat is a great seat, other than yours, Madam Speaker. That one is special and we understand that the Speaker has that exception and a different seat.

Please allow me to give thanks to the many people who helped me earned the trust of the great people of the Bow River riding for the third time, particularly my family for their support.

Allow me to indulge a little and share some of the great things I am proud of in my riding. There are 60 communities covering approximately 24,000 square kilometres and home to over 115,000 proud Albertans. Bow River is truly a pearl of the country because of the people in this riding. We are fortunate, for example, to have the largest irrigation districts in Canada. Irrigation ag farms make up 4% of the arable land in Alberta, but they produce 28% of the Alberta ag GDP.

It is an energy-rich area. When the railroads were built through in the early 1980s, they would have had camp fires to cook their food. They would have done a little digging and found they had more fire than expected. This was not because of the wood, because there was a lack of wood in the Bow River riding, but because of the natural gas so close to the surface. They had huge fires to cook with just by poking in the ground. This riding is rich in natural resources.

When people talk about electric vehicles, the proponents need to understand that these types of vehicles have much more plastic than the current ones that we drive. Where is that plastic going to come from? It will come from natural resources.

There are new technology investments in our riding. The largest solar farm is being built in this riding. There is carbon capture, utilization and storage. There is drilling for helium, which my friend's rig is doing in my riding currently. I will be visiting it soon to see how they are drilling for helium. It is much better than having his rigs working in Texas. They are working here. However, he is short of truck drivers, which is a challenge these days in my riding. On the horizon, clean energy projects like hydrogen are coming.

However, my riding has not been without strain, especially in the last few years. Urban Canadians need to understand where their food comes from; no, not just from a grocery store. I have a very upscale farming operation that grows heritage carrots and tomatoes in my riding. During the summer, they provide tours. On one of those tours, they dig the carrots and give them to the people to eat. The owner of this property was really set back when someone said, “I have never eaten anything that has come out of the ground before.”

Food ag producers and natural resources are not located in urban Canada. About 60% of this country's infrastructure, the roads and bridges, are in rural Canada, like the Bow River riding. Rural riding infrastructures bring production to urban ridings to consume and export. That is in the Bow River riding. The government and urban people need to understand this much better. The work we have done for the betterment of this nation has been thanked with demonization of Albertans and energy, and the castigation of our farmers and ranchers.

During COP26, there was an academic who said we should not have cattle on the great Prairies of North America, we should grow trees on it. They have to be kidding me. The buffalo mowed that Prairie land for thousands of years, it grows Prairie grass, and he thinks they can have trees on the Prairies. It is a challenge when people do not understand the environment in my riding.

Nevertheless, our people are steadfast in their pursuit of achievement, bold in their ambition, and caring for their neighbours and friends. We have some large populations like centres in Chestermere, Strathmore, Taber and Brooks, and also smaller villages and hamlets like Milo, Looma and Patricia. If someone has not gone to the Patricia bar, they should go. It is an experience in itself. I am proud to call this exceptional riding home and represent this riding in the House.

I see my friend for Kingston and the Islands is wondering if I am going to talk about Bill C-3, and yes I am going to. Bill C-3 is an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code regarding protests and medical leave.

In 1935, the Alberta Health Insurance Act was the first Canadian health insurance act to provide public funding for medical services. It is considered an early step toward the medicare system and toward laying the groundwork for the 1969 universal health insurance program.

The history of nursing in our province dates back to 1895 where programs to train nurses began close to the Bow River riding at the Medicine Hat General Hospital and at the Calgary General Hospital. The success of these training programs led other Alberta hospitals to bring their own training programs. By 1915, there were 10 programs in existence across Alberta. These training programs prepared nurses to work in both hospital settings and private practice. Today, nursing is both a degree and diploma program offered in universities and post-secondary institutions across the country. They provide specialized training for these careers that are so vital to our health care system, which brings me to the issue regarding the legislation before us.

Canada's protection for the freedom of peaceful assembly is enshrined in our charter and in our legal status. In recent years, it seems as though we have seen the lines between peaceful protests and riot being blurred. However, it is important to note that peaceful protest is a right.

I have experienced some of those challenges that we had in the 1960s. I remember being on Parliament Hill in 1967 in a protest against the Vietnam War. Not long after that, I was in Detroit where the riots basically destroyed much of that city, and some of it has never recovered. These riots had to do with the Vietnam War and civil rights issues in the 1960s. I saw, numerous times in the United States, where it degenerated from protest to riot.

Speaking of nurses and doctors, my neighbour is a nurse who just retired in the last month. Over the years, I had the opportunity to have many conversations with this nurse. She is a fantastic person and a great neighbour with stories of working in the health system, and it was a challenge during COVID. This is a person who was in charge of the ER and saw the challenges before COVID in emergency care and during the COVID pandemic in the ER. We had conversations about the challenges, and it was always interesting and gratifying to listen to her commitment to the patients in our community.

My doctor, Dr. Erik, is one of many who came from South Africa, and whom I have known very well from the first day he came. Dr. Erik, his wife and small child had to leave South Africa with nothing, because South Africa would not allow them to bring anything. Both sets of grandparents were left behind in South Africa. Dr. Erik is not only my doctor, but he is committed to the community and service in the community. Our rural GP doctors are incredible with the services they provide. During COVID, there was a lot of stress and many challenges.

Respect of law and having some moral high ground would presume that protests should not be occurring in front of health buildings. We saw people out banging pots at different times of the day, we saw the parades and we saw the banners, but we also saw people getting more restless during the pandemic, not knowing which way the rules were going. It was a frustrating time. However, protesting in front of hospitals may prevent those who really need to access this critical piece of Canadian infrastructure from getting the care they need, which is the critical piece for me.

I trust my health care friends and neighbours. In the election campaign forums, I spoke in anger against hospital and health facility protests. We do not have laws to protect, but I want to stand to say again in this place: Do not protest at health facilities or against our health care workers.

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

Madam Speaker, I heard the member speak a little about Bill C-3, but I was really intrigued about the comments he was making before that. The reason I had my face in my hands when he looked over at me was because I was thinking about the comment he made about how electric vehicles, and I drive one, use a lot of plastic to make. Indeed, that is the case. There is no doubt a lot of petroleum products go into that process.

Does the member not agree that with incredible human ability we might be able to strive to develop new technologies that do not require petroleum or does he think we are just inevitably forever stuck in this state of needing oil? Does he not think that perhaps we will be able to evolve our way out of this dependency?

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, one of the things we have always talked about regarding industry is transition. The guys with the buggies and the buggy whips transitioned.

One of the things we do know is natural resources will be used for decades. What I know is in my riding and in my part of the country, those resources are huge in the amount of GDP they create for our country and our citizens.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Bow River. I had the pleasure of serving with him on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage last year, and I have a great deal of respect for him, even though we differ on some issues.

My colleague from Bow River mentioned that he trusts the health care system, health professionals and his doctor and is opposed to protests against health restrictions outside health care facilities. Do his views on prohibiting demonstrations and the obstruction of health professionals also apply to other areas of care? I am thinking, for example, of abortion clinics. Does he agree that these rules should also apply to people trying to enter abortion clinics?

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I served on committee with my colleague and we had many different comments to make, and many of which we agreed on. We also share a common name, which is also great.

As I stated earlier, I have been involved in protests. I know how to carry a placard. It is a critical charter right. We have to be able to guarantee people have the right to lawfully protest against things they feel are not right for them, but they need to do it in a lawful way.

I learned a long time ago throwing rocks at windows and breaking things unlawfully does not further the cause. We need to do it respectfully, like the debate we have in this particular forum.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate the opportunity to learn more about the uniqueness of other ridings and the constituents' needs within those ridings.

Unfortunately, people know the Conservatives have always made life harder for working people. Constituents in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith still remember the Conservatives getting in the way of unemployed workers who need help.

Can the member name one single gain his party has made for workers since the pandemic began?

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for learning more about constituents in our country. A great thing in this particular forum is that we are able to learn about where our colleagues are from and about life in their particular part of Canada, because it is a great country. When she talks about what I do, I will give her this: I was a negotiator for a union and negotiated a lot of things for employees.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Nickel Belt.

Before I begin my formal comments, I would like to tell the member for Bow River that he does indeed represent a beautiful riding. I have enjoyed many trips to his part of the country, and it is a beautiful part of Canada.

I am thankful for the opportunity to discuss Bill C-3, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code, which I am proud to support. As we continue the fight against COVID-19, this legislation is particularly important. It is important because it protects federally regulated workers when they get sick with 10 paid sick days. It is important because it serves to protect those who have served tirelessly and continue to do so, preserving and protecting the health of each and every one of us.

The Criminal Code amendments proposed in this bill have become an unfortunate necessity given the behaviour of a small number of Canadians who are not supportive of the public health measures put in place to protect the health and safety of our communities and to ensure our future recovery.

The vast majority of Canadians have shown tremendous appreciation, gratitude, kindness and support for our health care workers, just as all members of this House have done and continue to do. They, like us, believe in the right to peaceful protest, but those out there who have chosen violence and intimidation have put the mental and physical well-being of our health care workers at grave risk.

I am certain that many members of this House find it hard to fathom that at a time like this, during a pandemic, when health care workers have given everything for us, in some cases their lives, that anyone would threaten or harass them as they try to care for us. I find it difficult to understand why anyone would seek to obstruct their fellow citizens from getting vital treatments, whether for critical emergency cases, cancer treatments or necessary surgery.

My riding of Vancouver Granville is home to many of Vancouver’s health care workers and hospitals, such as Vancouver General Hospital, BC Women’s Hospital and Health Centre and BC Children’s Hospital. It is the epicentre of British Columbia’s health care infrastructure. Those who work in the health care field seek nothing more than the ability to do their jobs safely.

This summer, my community, Vancouver Granville, was ground zero for anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers, who harassed and threatened health care workers and patients at VGH. They endangered the safety of our exceptional health care workers by making threats, inciting others to violence, obstructing passage into health facilities and intimidating patients from accessing vital health care services. In short, they decided to put themselves, and their selfish views, ahead of their fellow Canadians. This type of behaviour is intolerable, particularly at a time when access to health care services is more essential than ever before. We cannot have our health care workers driven from their profession due to unsafe working conditions.

Like many in this House, I have spoken to health care workers in my riding who have shared the unacceptable violence and harassment they have experienced on the job. One nurse told me that she had never, in 23 years, feared for her life until this summer. Trying to get through a protest to her shift, she was jeered, called a sheep and a traitor. She was coughed on, pushed and physically prevented from entering VGH. She told me that she does not want to be made a hero. She just wants to be able to do her job safely.

Another health care worker, a recent immigrant to this country, told me he thought that in Canada we believed in science and in taking care of one another. That was why he escaped to come to Canada for a better life. He said he just could not believe what he was seeing around him. He shared that he had been harassed verbally, shoved while trying to help a doctor get through to the doors of the hospital and had his mask ripped off his face a number of times.

These are the kinds of acts that the existing Criminal Code and the proposed measures in Bill C-3 target. No Canadian should fear for their safety when seeking or providing health care services, especially those who have been on the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic. The incredible health care workers at VGH, the BC Women’s Hospital, the BC Children's Hospital, and all facilities across Vancouver Granville and Canada, deserve our gratitude, our care and our protection.

While the pandemic is the immediate context of concern, these forms of harmful conduct in the health care sector are not new. Studies show that health care workers experienced high rates of on-the-job violence long before the pandemic. We know this problem is widespread and well established. The measures proposed in Bill C-3 aim to provide better protection for these workers and to secure safe access to their services of all of us who depend on them.

The measures proposed in the bill are designed to strengthen existing protections in two primary ways. First, two specific new offences are being added to the Criminal Code. The first new offence is intended to prevent intimidation of health care workers when they are performing their duties and of individuals requiring care or obtaining a health service.

The second new offence would prohibit obstructing any individual from entering a health care facility, because every Canadian has the right to unimpeded access to health care services.

The second set of measures would add aggravating sentencing factors, because the health care sector has advocated for years to protect its workers in the event of assault.

These measures respond to the concerns of health care workers across the country. As we continue to address the evolving challenges of COVID-19, we need to support our health care workers by ensuring they have an accessible and safe working environment, one free from harassment, intimidation and violence.

The COVID-19 pandemic has put a major strain on our health care system. We must ensure that the people who work in this sector can continue to provide critical care to keep Canadians healthy and safe. This is exactly what these Criminal Code amendments would do.

I would be remiss not to mention again another important piece of this bill, which would ensure that all federally regulated workers would have access to 10 paid sick days. No one should have to make the difficult decision between going to work sick and not feeding their families. Paid sick leave would provide vital support to workers, their families and the health of our communities, as we continue to face new challenges in the fight against COVID-19.

Access to paid sick leave is crucial to our economic recovery and to strengthening the social safety net Canadians rely on. Together, these measures would help Canadians as we come out of this pandemic.

I know all members of this House care deeply about our health care workers, and I ask each and every member of this House do what we know is possible and come together across party lines to pass this important piece of legislation without delay.

Through this pandemic, we have referred to our health care workers as heroes. Now let us do our part to protect them.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the concerns I have is for those people who are working with a federal contract and ensuring that they too are covered by this.

If a person under a federal contract were to go out and work, would they still be protected?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do not know the answer to that question, but I am sure we will be able to get back to the hon. member with an answer.

If we are working together on this legislation, we should be able to protect those workers as well.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑3 is obviously very interesting. I would like to add a few comments to the debate. Health care workers have risked their lives and overcome danger to protect us.

It is unacceptable for the majority to be controlled by a certain minority that wants to rule the streets. In this case, health care workers need to be protected. The right to demonstrate is very important. It is a form of freedom of expression that we hold dear. However, one part of the population cannot be held hostage for the sole purpose of expressing disagreement that is not unanimous.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member makes an important point.

We are in a place right now where we do need to be thinking about those people who are taking care of us. Health care workers have put themselves on the line, tirelessly and constantly, throughout the pandemic. They have done so before and will continue to do so after the pandemic.

It is our job as parliamentarians to ensure that those health care workers are protected at their place of work, and that those who are coming to access services feel safe and secure. Our job is to make sure that Canadians are able to access the rights and the care to which they are entitled.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are all deeply concerned about these attacks on health care workers, particularly those who are already suffering through the pandemic, as they are on the front lines. We have certainly seen it across the country at hospitals and with paramedics.

It now looks as though the anti-vax extremists are shifting gear and moving away from hospitals. We saw a horrific incident in Edmonton this past weekend where they attacked a toy store. The idea of these brutes showing up at a toy store at Christmastime with their anti-vax conspiracies suggests to me there is something more insidious taking place with extremist behaviour in Canada.

How do we as parliamentarians start addressing this if, after we protect our hospitals and frontline workers, they decide to shift to schools or toy stores? This is a serious issue. I would ask my hon. colleague for his comments.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely right. It is becoming insidious. During the last election, many of these very same protesters chose to attack our office. They harassed young people who were volunteering in the office. They intimidated people who were trying to come to have conversations with us.

I think all of us need to do exactly what the hon. member said. We need to recognize that this is a very serious and real problem. It is going to require all of us to come together, regardless of the party we belong to, to say with a firm voice that it is unacceptable to harass people this way, particularly when we are talking about our health care workers and when it comes to giving children a hard time. It is unacceptable as Canadians for us to think that, in this day and age, we would obstruct these people from doing what they are trying to do, which is help Canadians stay healthy.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Victoria, The Environment; the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove, Infrastructure; the hon. member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, The Economy.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Official Languages]

Madam Speaker, first let me congratulate you on your appointment.

I would also like to take this opportunity, in this 44th Parliament, to sincerely thank the constituents of Nickel Belt for placing their trust in me for a third time. I also want to thank my wife, Lynn, for her unconditional support. It is not always easy to be the spouse of a member of the House of Commons. We also work very hard in the community. I want to give a big thank you to my mother, family, all the many volunteers who worked in the community, and my staff, Rebecca, Anne, Kaylie, Sheri, Sabrina and Stéphanie, for their support.

It is an honour to follow in my father's footsteps as the member for Nickel Belt and also to take up my new duties as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Official Languages.

Today, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-3, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code, at second reading stage.

Bill C-3 proposes reforms to the Criminal Code that would respond to the issues that have come to the forefront of the pandemic. The bill would seek to enhance protection to health workers and those who need their services at a critical time in Canada. I firmly believe that the proposed reforms show restraint in dealing with the very difficult circumstances that have arisen, particularly due to the small minority of COVID-19-related deniers and individuals engaging in serious and harmful conduct during anti-vaccination protests targeting the health sector and, as indicated earlier, retail and other sectors. I am proud of the way this government has dealt with this issue.

Bill C-3 proposes reforms that are targeted in nature and demonstrate the utmost respect for our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Today, I would like to speak about the events that we have all witnessed and that have led us to this important reform to criminal law. I will also speak to why our government’s commitment to enact these reforms is crucial in protecting not only our health care workers, but each and every Canadian who is in need of health services.

Currently, the Criminal Code provides a wide range of general responses to threats, intimidation and other forms of violence directed at all persons. However, new explicit offences are critical to send a clear message that such conduct is never appropriate.

We have all seen what has been reported in the media, stories about health workers being targeted directly and threatened over social media platforms, including Twitter, because of their work in promoting public health measures and treating those fallen ill to the pandemic. Health care facilities across the country were specifically targeted last summer and early fall, with images and reports of some ambulances being surrounded by a crowd and health care professionals being confronted when accessing their workplaces, as well as patients needing police escorts to access certain facilities.

In a November 5 tweet by Anthony Dale, president of the Ontario Hospital Association, he reported that one hospital CEO had received death threats because of the implementation of a mandatory vaccination policy. Other physicians and medical associations are reporting death threats against health care professionals. I am deeply troubled by these accounts.

Vaccine misinformation has unfortunately caused many to distrust and attack the medical community.

Examples are popping up near my riding of Nickel Belt and other parts of northern Ontario. Recently, Dr. Gretchen Roedde, a family physician from Latchford, a small community in northern Ontario, was victimized online, at home and reported by a growing anti-vaccination movement. Dr. Roedde has given in to these pressures and has decided to close her practice, leaving many in the community without adequate care. This is a chilling reminder of the challenges faced by our health care providers.

The Ontario Medical Association, OMA, and the Canadian Medical Association, CMA, have recently said that abuse and harassment of doctors during the pandemic is growing and is unacceptable.

Another worrisome trend we are seeing is that parents and children going to vaccination clinics are being subjected to threats and intimidation. On November 28, a woman from North Bay went to one of these clinics with her seven-year-old son, who had just become eligible for the COVID-19 vaccine. She later reported that she had been subjected to a torrent of verbal abuse from anti-vax protesters while entering and leaving the clinic. The protesters went so far as to shout that she was committing genocide and poisoning her son, and they yelled out false information about the vaccine in front of the seven-year-old child. Such behaviour must stop.

I know that the members of the House support the right to protest. However, we must all agree that this is neither the way nor the place to do it. It is totally unacceptable.

While I believe all Canadians accept that we have differences of opinion, very few Canadians accept this behaviour toward health workers and people who try to obtain health care services. While the charter protects the right to express opinions and conduct peaceful protests, it does not protect against violent forms of speech and activity. I am confident the bill reflects the rights and freedoms enshrined in the charter by ensuring that activity that is purely for the purposes of communicating a message and that remains peaceful is not criminalized.

We must ensure that every Canadian can safely get vaccinated, especially children who are now eligible for the vaccine. Every Canadian also deserves to have safe access to essential health services and not fear being attacked or intimidated as they make their way to a hospital or vaccination clinic. This bill is about federal leadership to ensure that our health care heroes can safely do their jobs, free from obstruction, intimidation and threats.

I would like to touch on another matter that is important to me and many in our country. We cannot forget the significant struggles and hardship that women have faced, both legally and practically, in accessing abortion services. Many of those challenges continue, as women encounter barriers in accessing abortion services, including aggressive, intimidating, disturbing and even violent anti-abortion protest activity. Abortion service providers and their families have also been subject to similar conduct in Canada during its history. The bill applies to health services in general and the amendments will support and protect women in making their decisions for their own bodies without obstruction, intimidation or fear.

The bill would also make it an offence to impede another person from accessing health care facilities. No one should be prevented from accessing health care.

I firmly believe that the Criminal Code amendments proposed in Bill C-3 are imperative to give protections to those who undertake to care for Canadians during their most dire time of need. There is no doubt that Bill C-3 proposes reforms that are carefully crafted and responsive to the harms facing the health sector in Canada.

For those reasons, I urge all members to support Bill C-3.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about how this bill very clearly articulated some of the challenges that existed, but on Friday, November 26, the Minister of Justice said that the challenges the bill tried to address were not a new problem. As I read through the bill and some of the challenges it attempts to address, terminology like “minor disturbances” raises concerns. There is a lack of clarity—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Somebody who is online virtually seems to have the microphone on. I would ask those online to be very mindful of whether their microphone or video is on.

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot with a brief ending to his question.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have no doubt that the member was passionately suggesting that he had the the same question I do.

I have some concerns about how terminology like “minor disturbances” might be widely interpreted. It is a term that could be very subjective. I wonder if the member has any comments about that term and maybe some of the other challenges where in committee this terminology might be able to be tightened up.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the work he is done on the health side.

As to the question about terminology in the bill, that is why we have to get it to committee. Then we can look at specific concerns about certain terminology, the legal terminology, which is why it is important to get this through the House. At the committee level, I am looking forward to ensuring we review some of this terminology and make it right. We will work together to ensure the legislation passes.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by congratulating my colleague opposite on being appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Official Languages. He can count on the Bloc Québécois to keep him busy with work.

Bill C‑3 does not really change things, since the offences that the government claims are being added to the Criminal Code already exist. They are not being added.

What this bill does do, however, is bring in harsher penalties for some criminal offences. Paradoxically, in 2018, the Liberal government introduced Bill C‑75, which, unlike today's bill, was designed to reclassify about a hundred offences to relax the penalties.

How does the Liberal government justify or explain this about-face? Is it just following the latest trends and keeping with the times, or did it have an epiphany about the need to make the punishment fit the crime?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. I look forward to working with him on the official languages file as we take a closer look at the status of French across Canada, including in francophone minority communities.

Regarding Bill C‑3, a question about terminology has already been raised. This bill offers progress on the health care file. Some things have been split off and others have been brought in, such as provisions governing court decisions.

I look forward to working with my colleague in committee as we examine certain details and make sure we improve this bill to protect health care workers.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague recognizing Dr. Gretchen Roedde, who gave up her practice because of harassment. I called her before the story broke. I could not believe how tired and dispirited she was. This is a woman who has gone through child soldier roadblocks in Africa to get medical supplies, a doctor who would take the freighter canoes up Lake Temagami. She has never been tired or intimidated and she loves the north.

I want to ask my colleague what he thinks is happening when in small towns like ours, this kind of disinformation and extremism is causing such damage to front-line medical workers like Dr. Roedde, paramedics and the nurses who are just so tired of what they have faced throughout the pandemic.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the work he does in all of northern Ontario. I do not have a specific answer other than I know people have anxiety and are concerned. Social media plays a role with hate and misinformation, which we have to address. In smaller areas, maybe rural towns, the reliance on social media is probably more prevalent, but we have to find ways together at the federal, provincial and municipal levels to ensure we look at the misinformation being shared through social media.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the first privileges we have when rising in these opening weeks of a new Parliament session is to be granted the opportunity to acknowledge the honour that has been bestowed upon us by our respective constituents as either newly elected or re-elected members of Parliament.

With the Speaker's indulgence, allow me to begin my intervention, as many of us already have, with a brief reflection on the deep gratitude I owe to the people of Hamilton Centre, who have put their trust in me to return to this 44th Parliament to continue the important work of ensuring that the working-class values of Hamilton Centre continue to be well represented in the House of Commons—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. The hon. member for Drummond on a point of order.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, there is no interpretation, and I wonder if that might be because my colleague is not wearing the headset required by the House of Commons, which may be a problem for the interpreters.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I too thought there was something different about the sound.

I am not sure if the problem is because of the headset the hon. member is using. It does sound different at this end, so there is a problem with interpretation. The member might want to unplug his headset and then plug it in again to see if the computer is picking up the right microphone.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, is this better now?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The sound is not good enough.

I have some points of order to address.

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I understand the member's frustration. I would simply ask for unanimous consent to allow him to switch places with the next speaker. That would give him 15 minutes or so to work with IT in order to figure out the technical difficulty and address it accordingly.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have another point of order before I go back to the hon. member for Hamilton Centre.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, if we are not able to sort out the technical problems for the member for Hamilton Centre, we have the member for Courtenay—Alberni, who would be prepared to take his place and give a speech. We would not agree to passing on the NDP slot for this important debate.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We are going to try one more time.

The hon. member for Hamilton Centre.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate your indulgence and the suggestion from the hon. member from the Conservative side. Is my microphone okay now?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

No, it is not working. The hon. member will have to get a House of Commons headset.

There is a point of order from the member for Don Valley East.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, can you explain what the problem is? I can hear him perfectly.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The problem is for translation.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I would suggest that as the member for Hamilton Centre does his work to try to get a better level of sound, we simply move to the member for Courtenay—Alberni.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Because of where the time slot is, I will go to the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to speak to this important bill, Bill C-3. It is great to see both the Liberal Party and, it seems, the Conservative Party coming around to see the importance of paid sick leave. I have talked about this in the House quite significantly and so has my party. In fact, the leader of my party raised this 22 times throughout the pandemic. Here we are, 20 months after the top medical health professionals in our country decided that outside of social distancing and washing our hands, the top two things we could do to stop the spread of the virus and combat COVID-19 were to get vaccinated and for governments to implement paid sick days. It is really great to see that everybody is coming together today to do that, to protect workers, so that people are not spreading the virus.

We talk about people going to work while knowingly showing symptoms of COVID-19 or being unsure whether they should go to work or not. For many of these people, their spouses have perhaps lost their jobs because of COVID-19 or are unable to work, or they are the sole breadwinners in their homes and are scraping to get by even at the best of times. Whatever their circumstances, they are worried about how they are going to pay their bills, like most Canadians. Fifty per cent of Canadians were within two weeks of insolvency prior to the pandemic. We can think about how many families were terrified at the beginning of and throughout the pandemic about missing any work at all and how they were going to pay their bills and feed their families. Paid sick days are absolutely critical.

There is one thing we have not talked about a lot here. I was really honoured to be the small business and tourism critic for the federal NDP for the last six years, and to stand up and fight for small business. We do not talk about how important paid sick days are, not just for workers but also for employers and small business. I was always mystified when Conservatives would not support paid sick leave, because they say they are strong defenders of the economy and small business. I know Liberals were always patting themselves on the back throughout the pandemic on the important needs of small business, but throughout the pandemic, whether it be on the CERB or another program, we had to fight to make sure small businesses would be included. Initially, proprietors were not even going to be allowed to collect CERB.

Initially, people were going to get $1,200. New Democrats were able to put pressure on the government so that people could get $2,000. We brought forward the idea of a commercial rent assistance program. Of course the Liberals bungled it initially. They made sure it was set up and designed so that people had to have a mortgage to be able to apply for rent support. It was landlord-driven instead of tenant-driven. It was a completely broken program. We found out that there were some Liberal insiders delivering the program for the government and we were glad to put pressure on the government to fix that broken commercial rent program. My colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby and I brought the idea to the government. I am glad to see that it finally fixed it.

When it comes to paid sick days, people were going to work unsure of whether they had the virus or not. They were terrified and governments at different levels did not have their backs to make sure people stayed at home instead of bringing COVID-19 to the workplace and possibly infecting co-workers.

Whether it is in the private sector or in government, it is extremely costly when people get sick and spread the virus in the workplace. One would think it would make economic sense to provide a social safety net, so that people who were sick would stay at home, not spreading the virus in the workplace or ending up having to close throughout the country and shut down government services to Canadians. We do not talk enough, not only about the workers, but also about the impact on businesses and the economy. That is a really important argument for why this is absolutely critical.

As much as we appreciate the legislation before us, there are flaws that are apparent in it, such as a person having to work for 11 months to get access to the 10 paid sick days.

The Liberal government said it would restore the cuts to the federal public services that the Conservatives made. I mean, we can look to Veterans Affairs as a great example. The Conservatives gutted one-third of Veterans Affairs Canada under the Harper government. As a result, the backlog has grown to over 40,000 veterans who have been injured serving our country.

The Liberals said they were going to fix it. What did they do? They outsourced and brought people back in on temporary contracts instead of hiring people and sending the message to veterans that they are committed to them in the long term and are going to end the backlog forever and not just outsource for temporary jobs.

The Liberals are notorious for this and do it all the time. They are outsourcing throughout the government, and this is creating a huge problem, because we have contract flipping going on. Obviously, we do not want this practice to continue. We want the government to hire people and make sure they have job security and benefits they can rely on so that the people they are serving, like veterans, can count on the services being delivered to them. We want to make sure the government is open to amendments that all federal subjurisdictional workers have access to the 10 paid sick days. It is very important that we cover that.

The other thing I have not talked about is the fact that women are being disproportionally impacted. With a lot of the outsourcing and temp jobs in our country, women have been disproportionally impacted by COVID-19. Social services have failed people across Canada, and the lack of child care has had a huge impact. CBC reported that 100,000 working-age women have completely left the workplace since COVID-19, which is 10 times the number of men. We talk about having an employee work approximately a month to achieve one paid sick day, but this is disproportionally going to impact women if it takes 11 months to accumulate 10 days' sick leave.

I really hope the government will consider amending this situation, because we know that people who have been working at a job need that security. Also, we do not want them coming to work sick. We do not want them spreading the virus. We are in the fourth wave right now, and we do not know what the omicron virus, which is spreading quickly, is going to look like. We want to make sure we have workers protected throughout.

We also saw how fractured the health care system became throughout the pandemic. I could speak all day about the things we saw that were highlighted in the pandemic. However, when it comes to paid sick days, it is absolutely critical. This is a victory today for health care workers, workers across this country and professionals.

We are going to continue to ensure that workers across this country have support from us as parliamentarians, but I question why it took so long. Why did Liberals and Conservatives sit on their hands against medical health professionals' advice? Members have heard me talk a lot about the government failing to listen to medical health professionals, like in the opioid crisis. The medical health professionals have made very clear and sound recommendations. Even the government's own officials are asking it to decriminalize and provide a safe drug supply, but it has not done that.

The government does not listen to its health professionals when it comes to sick days or to the other crisis that is happening, which has taken more lives than we have seen in generations. However, I am hoping the government will act swiftly, start listening to its health professionals when it comes to developing policy, and act with much more urgency in the future.

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

Madam Speaker, a lot has been said today about the need for such legislation. However, given that it has come out of the rise of this anti-vax movement and people who are so dead set against accepting the realities of what is going on in our country right now, I have to be honest: I cannot help but think that some of it has to do with the fact that there are so many people out there who are willing to play footsies, so to speak, with the proponents of these conspiracy theories that suggest that their liberties are being taken advantage of.

I am curious to hear the member's comments on what he sees as a leadership role when it comes to the anti-vax movement. How important is it for members of this House to stand up and say what is right and what is wrong, and how important is it to lead by example?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, the reality is that we need people to get vaccinated, and not just to protect each other. For example, in this place I am thinking about all the staff: the security, the pages and the clerks who are here. It is our duty to protect each other.

One part I really like in the legislation is about protecting health care workers at their workplaces so that people are not protesting outside of them. This is also about their patients and ensuring that people get safe access to the hospitals or where they need health services.

It is absolutely critical that we stand up and defend each other, and make sure that people are getting vaccinated and that we are protecting health care workers along the way. I appreciate the point the member made.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He mentioned that the bill is not quite good enough. I would like him to go into more detail about why it should be improved.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a good question. There are a number of improvements. We want to ensure that workers do not have to wait 11 months to access 10 paid sick days. As I said, this would disproportionately impact women, for sure, and workers who have been outsourced.

With regard to ensuring that workers have access to their first day of sick leave after a continuous period of employment of at least 30 days, the goal of unduly delaying access to the first day of sick leave is not okay. The government needs to relax the requirement to provide a medical certificate so as not to discourage applications for sick leave. This has been supported by medical health professionals.

We need to listen to medical health professionals. The Liberals continue to not listen to medical health professionals in a timely fashion and it is costing lives. If they mean to table this legislation so that it actually benefits those whom it is targeting, they need to make sure they are listening to health professionals and need to do it in an expeditious way.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, is the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni open to elaborating specifically on the point about women's participation in the workforce and paid sick days? Would he like to elaborate on an amendment that he thinks would improve the legislation?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague, as I have not had a chance to do that in the House.

I have articulated fairly clearly that women have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. Again, women are disproportionately more likely to do temp work and to be outsourced. That being said, they are going to be recycled through this and will miss the opportunity to get 10 paid sick days if they do not work for 11 months straight. We need to amend the bill so that workers do not have to wait 11 months and so they can do the right thing should they have signs and symptoms of COVID-19 or be exposed to it. They should not have to wait six months.

We cannot afford this, actually, as a society, and their workplaces cannot afford it. Certainly no one wants to go to work and potentially infect one of their colleagues with COVID-19.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, I remember very clearly that a couple of weeks into September, about a week before the election, we saw protests happening at the hospitals and health care centres across this country. As a brand new mom and a federal candidate, I remember thinking about how scary it would be if I were going into labour and trying to get to a hospital that was blockaded by protesters. I know many watched in horror as these protests happened all across the country.

In Alberta, we saw those protests happen at two of our major hospitals: the Royal Alexandra in Edmonton and the Foothills Medical Centre in Calgary. I am very proud to say that luckily we did not have any of those protests in my riding of Fort McMurray—Cold Lake at our amazing health centres and hospitals. However, we very easily could have.

One thing I am really proud of is that the Conservatives' campaign plan actually had a protection proposal for Canada, the critical infrastructure protection act. It would have prevented any protesters from blocking infrastructure such as hospitals, roadways, rail lines and pipelines.

As some members in the House have already pointed out in this debate, these protests are evolving. A few months ago the protests were happening in hospitals, but this weekend we saw protests in the West Edmonton Mall. We do not really know what the next place for these protests will be, and while I believe that all members on this side of the House support the idea of peaceful protests and understand that it is a fundamental right here in Canada to peacefully protest, many of these protests, unfortunately, have been very violent. It is these violent protests that are the problem.

I remember watching as traffic was being directed around the Royal Alexandra and the Foothills hospital. I watched it on the news. Police officers were allowing ambulances to get through, and I cannot imagine what that would have meant for me had I had a family member who was trying to access one of those hospitals at that point in time and was delayed in getting there. I think there is overall agreement on this, but the bill is a bit too narrow because we are only protecting certain small locations.

One thing that is critically important to do is thank our health care workers. Our health care workers have stepped up. They have brought us through this pandemic by smiling through their masks, by protecting us and by serving us to the best of their ability, often working extra shifts to make sure that all patients had the very best of care.

I am someone who is generally quite healthy and I do not go to hospitals. However, having been pregnant this last year, I probably went to the hospital more often than I had gone in the 10 years prior. I was very grateful that each and every time I went to the hospital, I was greeted by friendly, amazing health care workers who really did step up. That is one of the big pieces.

In my hometown of Fort McMurray, we saw countless acts of kindness toward our health care centre, the Northern Lights Regional Health Centre. At the very beginning of the pandemic, flooding hit the community of Fort McMurray and hundreds of people stepped up, filled sandbags and protected the hospital from flood damage. We saw people putting the needs of the many well ahead, and it was spectacular to watch.

We also had some pretty unexpected health care heroes who stepped up and helped us in a way that really hit close to the heart of so many, me included. We had help come from far away. We had a team of seven spectacular health care workers: two doctors, four nurses and one nurse practitioner. They flew to Fort McMurray all the way from Newfoundland and Labrador to help us in our surge capacity.

We welcomed them with open arms. We did everything we possibly could as a community to make sure these health care professionals knew they were supported and welcomed in our community. I think there needs to be more done in general to show our thanks.

I remember chatting with Brian, a constituent of mine, during the campaign. He decided that he was going to show his support for our health care workers, so he and his company bought hundreds of donuts from Tim Hortons on the National Day of Truth and Reconciliation and brought them to our hospital to thank our nurses and doctors. He said it was a double win because the money went toward amazing charitable organizations to help further truth and reconciliation, and it was a tangible way of thanking our nurses and health care professionals. Little acts like the one by Brian need to be done more often. We need to show kindness, compassion and a level of respect.

I am blessed to have some amazing friends who are nurses working at our hospital. They are always there. I know many of them have given up their evenings and weekends and have taken on extra shifts. They do that gladly because they are there to serve.

I think of one particular friend, Katie, and all of the amazing work she has done in going from team to team to make sure that our health care centre, our hospital, has all of the nurses in the right places at the right time and with the right training. I think about the nursing students who joined our hospital before finishing all of their schooling so they could help in our time of need. It is these kinds of things that really are important. It is about compassion and kindness, and they need to be shown. Often when these protests were happening, they turned quite violent, and respect and kindness were not witnessed. It is therefore critically important to make sure we find a balance so that peaceful protests can happen.

However, I do not think a hospital or health care centre is necessarily the best place to have protests of any form, to be perfectly clear. Most people who go to hospitals are not going because they choose to go, unlike our health care workers. Most people are going because they are under some kind of duress or in distress. They would rather not be there, so seeing these protests probably does not make their lives any easier.

The bill, as some of my colleagues have mentioned, is a bit of an omnibus bill that clashes together many pieces, and I think we should bring it to committee to explore all of its different pieces and consider its intent. I have heard some great speakers on the other side explain some of the rationale behind the bill, but I really think it would benefit from further exploration at the committee stage to ensure that we are always putting forward the best possible legislation for all Canadians so we can serve Canada as a whole.

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

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on being a new mother. I understand she was previously in the Alberta legislature, so I welcome her to the House.

When we talk about what fuels the individuals who engage in harassment-type activities in front of hospitals, I cannot help but think there are certain elements about this relating to the roles that leadership play. I think of the new caucus that has been formed in the Conservative Party, the liberty caucus. I wonder what the member's thoughts are on that caucus and what it tends to promote. Does it fuel the rage and frustration of the people who participate in these activities?

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think the member's question was very misplaced, but I will thank him nonetheless.

Our caucus has shown a great deal of leadership, as have all members of the House, in following all of the rules and acting with that leadership space. I was previously a member of the provincial legislature in Alberta. I shared some of my personal medical history. I actually got my first dose of the vaccine when I was 20 weeks pregnant. I very proudly did so, because I thought it was important for women across the province of Alberta, as well as across the country, to see that their leaders were making those decisions. Based on medical advice that I had received from my health care team, I made that decision. I encouraged others to talk to their doctors. That is one of the things I think is really important: to make sure that everyone is taking that time.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, unless I missed something, it is hard to determine whether our Conservative colleagues are going to vote for or against Bill C‑3.

After all, there are a few contradictions. The English-language media has been reporting that the Conservatives consider it unnecessary to amend the Criminal Code. In the French-language media, however, we sometimes heard the member for Mégantic—L'Érable bring up the notion of prohibiting demonstrations near hospitals and key infrastructure like railroads or pipelines, which is part of the Conservatives' platform.

Furthermore, we have not really heard anything from the Conservatives about the proposed 10 days of paid sick leave. I would therefore like to know if my colleague can shed a little more light on these issues, because I would really appreciate it.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, during the last election campaign, we included protecting critical infrastructure such as hospitals, pipelines, highways and railroads in our platform.

It was a really popular issue, as we saw in many provinces across the country, including Alberta, where I am from.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji.

As I mentioned earlier today, another example of the lack of health services has to do with three communities in Nunavut: Igloolik, Gjoa Haven and Sanikiluaq. Each of those communities has a population of over 1,000 people.

The services I have been talking about and the paid sick leave are all very important. I am trying to hear how difficult it might be for paid sick leave days. My question is very similar to what the other member just asked about paid sick leave.

Does the member agree that it is time for 10 days of paid sick leave for our workers?

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member has raised a very important question in regard to this bill. It is a question that we really need to take to committee to be able to study further and to see some of those answers.

We have not been able to have members from the other side of the House give us any clarification as to whether this piece would actually apply to contractors or other federally mandated and regulated employers. That is important—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am here to talk about the government's proposal to amend the Criminal Code to criminalize certain behaviour, which I believe most Canadians thought was already against the law.

Before speaking to Bill C-3, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the fine people of Langley—Aldergrove for endorsing me for a second term. It is a great honour to be re-elected. I have promised my constituents that I will be a clear voice for them in this Parliament.

I want to thank my wife, Inga, and my extended family for their ongoing support. I also want to thank the many volunteers who helped me throughout the campaign and made my success a reality. Politics is a team sport.

Moving onto Bill C-3, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code, I am going to focus on the Criminal Code aspect of the bill, which would make harassing health care workers illegal if the intent is to prevent them from doing the work of serving the public.

As I said, many people think that this is already against the law. There are provisions in the Criminal Code that the police and prosecutors could rely on to prevent this type of anti-social behaviour. One thing we have learned through the pandemic is that we must value our health care workers as they are essential to the full and proper functioning of our society and our communities. We owe them a debt of gratitude.

Everybody in this House knows a health care worker, is related to somebody who is a frontline health care worker, or is a neighbour to one. I have two family members, a daughter and daughter-in-law, who are. One is a care aid in a seniors home and the other is a nurse in a hospital. Every day they go to work, and they are eager and happy to serve their patients to the best of their abilities.

Sometimes they are in very stressful situations, such as situations of understaffing or having to be moved from one ward to another on very short notice. Sometimes they have to work extended shifts due to a shortage of health care workers. Sometimes they have to work in the COVID ward. I think not only of the health care workers, but also of the family members, who share the risks, stresses and strains of health care work.

This law is a step in the right direction. It is a gesture in support of our health care workers. A more constructive and substantive way to support our health care workers would be by hiring more nurses. The shortage of nurses is a long-term problem that we knew about long before the COVID pandemic, but it has been exacerbated by that.

I met with members of the Canadian Federation of Nurses Union. I have a quote here from a publication they shared with me. It states, “Many risk factors for burnout have been exacerbated during the pandemic, including increased patient acuity, understaffing...increased overtime...reassignment to unfamiliar roles”. It goes on to say, “Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, severe burnout was typically found in 20%-40% of healthcare workers.” In the spring of 2020, at the commencement of the pandemic, that percentage increased to between 30% and 40%, and by the spring of 2021, it was more like 60%.

The publication goes on to say that job vacancies for registered nurses had the largest increase of all occupations over a two-year period. This is what is happening to our health care workers. There is a shortage of them and that shortage is increasing stresses and strains. The best thing that we could do for our health care workers would be to hire more health care workers.

I asked the people with whom I met with whether there is a shortage of people who want to be in the nursing industry, and I was told absolutely not. There are many applications to universities and to nursing schools across the country, but not enough seats in these nursing schools. I am thinking of Trinity Western University in my riding. The nursing school has a very good reputation across the country and around the world, and it would love to open up more chairs. That is what we need to do. We need to increase the supply of nurses.

Let us go back to Bill C-3. I am happy to listen to the debate. There seems to be a consensus developing that we are all in support of this bill. I am happy to hear that we want to support our health care workers, but I am hoping there is also a consensus forming around the right of protest.

Long-standing democratic rights in our society include the rights to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom to protest; however, they need to be done in a balanced way. No rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are absolute. They are always subject to such reasonable limitations as defined in law and as are demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. The question for the committee would be to determine whether we have found that right balance in Bill C-3. It is an open question.

The effective paragraph in the bill states:

No person is guilty of an offence under [the relevant] subsection...by reason only that they attend at or near, or approach, a place referred to in that subsection for the purpose...of obtaining or communicating information.

We are allowed to have information pickets. I agree with that. I think everyone in the House is going to agree with that, but the right of protest does not extend to interfering with the proper functioning of society.

I am going to pivot to something that was in the Conservative platform in the last election. Reference has been made to it by several of the previous Conservative speakers. We are proposing to introduce a critical infrastructure protection act that would prevent protesters from interfering with infrastructure projects, whether they are hospital construction, transit construction or pipeline construction. Yes, we have a right of protest. No, we do not have a right to interfere with legal projects that Canadians have determined are essential for our society. I am very pleased that we are introducing Bill C-3 because not only would it protect health care workers, it would also set a good precedent for us going forward.

I look forward to an opportunity, at some point, to introduce something like what the Conservatives were proposing: a critical infrastructure protection act. The work that the committee would do, and that Parliament is doing right now around Bill C-3, is going to be precedent-setting for legislation going forward that would regulate how protesting is to be done. Peaceful protesting is allowed, but getting in the way of society's functioning is not.

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

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to our health care workers. It goes without saying just how much we collectively appreciate how our health care workers have stepped up to the plate.

Many years ago, I was the health care critic in the Province of Manitoba. We found that for many health care workers it was more than just the demand of getting more nurses into the profession. It was the way in which human resources often allocated staffing years and things of that nature at different institutions.

I am wondering what the member thinks of the Standing Committee on Health looking at this as a possible study, going forward, on health care workers and how Canada can provide some national leadership on the whole health care resources file, with a special focus on nurses.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, it starts with having enough people in the workforce. Right now, there is a shortage of health care workers. We are focusing particularly on nurses. We need to solve that problem. We need to get enough people in the workforce working in hospitals and in the many other fields where nurses serve their patients and keep Canadians safe. That is where we need to start. I would certainly be open to any suggestions about how hospital administrators allocate those resources, but the resources need to be there first.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am having a hard time understanding what is going on. We hear about the need for health transfers and funding. I hear my colleague talking about what can be done to address the labour shortage, to maintain and respect the work of nurses, but we know that the solution is to increase health transfers and let the appropriate jurisdictions do their work.

On the subject of protests, which we heard a lot about during the election campaign, what happened? Quebec took the bull by the horns. As recently as September 2021, the National Assembly took direct action on protests.

What does my colleague think of the solution of increasing health transfers and giving Quebec and the provinces the authority to respect our health care workers?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member's question gives me an opportunity to talk about jurisdiction and Canadian constitutional law. I am not talking about the federal government taking over jurisdiction. Of course, we are going to work with the provinces. Health care is a provincial matter. The federal government needs to work with the provinces to find the best way to increase health care resources.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, since the pandemic, the NDP asked the Prime Minister 22 times to fix the old version of the paid sick leave so more workers could access it. Constituents in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith have had to choose between their health and paying rent. This is a choice that no one should have to make. The Conservatives and the Liberals have also voted against making life-saving medications more affordable through pharmacare.

Could the member share when they will start putting the health and wellness of workers, and families first and will my colleague support the much-needed 10 paid sick days for workers?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, as other speakers have said, this needs to go to committee to be studied. We do not have a lot of detail about the government's plans in that regard. I do know that many unionized workers working in federally regulated industries have paid sick leave in their contracts, and I believe in the sanctity of contracts. I would certainly be willing to look at gaps where further assistance is required. However, that is for the committee to look into.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour to speak while your are in the chair. I congratulate you on your appearance before the House.

In short, I support the bill going through second reading and moving on to committee. Like my colleague for Langley—Aldergrove, after a few brief comments I will focus on the proposed Criminal Code amendments.

Canada's Conservatives, and our recent platform on this point really bore it out, will continue to be the voice for working Canadians, especially those who have been left behind by the current government.

I will now move on to what is very important not only in my riding but in a number of ridings, which is the implication of Bill C-3 when it comes to health care workers.

It is a pleasure to appear here on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. Our riding is geographically diverse. Places like 100 Mile House, which has a small hospital, or places like Barrière and Clearwater are often underserviced and it is important that we recognize and protect not only the contribution those health care workers in that area make, but also recognize the tremendous importance they have.

In my own experience, during the election, I drove through a protest at Royal Inland Hospital. Two of the fellow candidates, the candidate for the Liberal Party and the candidate for the Green Party, had partners who were critical health care workers, so this was very close to my heart and mind during the election. It really emphasized the strain that the pandemic had placed on health care workers.

I want to emphasize for my colleagues in the House that time and again I commend what our front-line health care workers have done. We have seen them step up. I know at the beginning people would go outside and would frequently ring the bells every night as a commemoration to the health care workers. Slowly, those things started to disappear. Then, I believe it was nightly, there would be a procession of all first responders, such as the police, the sheriffs and the ambulances. Then that went to weekly. It can be very easy to forget the sacrifices that have been made by our front-line health care workers. I want to appreciate them as the member of Parliament for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo as well as simply a citizen of Canada. I appreciate all the work they have done.

A number of people in my riding have really risen to the occasion during this time, for instance, the workers in specific facilities with outbreaks, seniors homes and the Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops. Nurses in 100 Mile House stayed in hotel rooms in order to protect their families. Volunteers ran immunization clinics smoothly. People like Dr. Shane Barclay and Laura Bantock lobbied for and obtained a testing centre in Sun Peaks, which is vital to our community, our tourism, our fabric and our recreation in Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. It is critical that we see tourism thrive in a place like Sun Peaks and eradicating the pandemic from Sun Peaks is obviously of critical importance. With that, it is a pleasure that people do not have to travel to Kamloops to have a safer place to work, worship and play.

The Criminal Code offers protections to a number of groups. There are already provisions with respect to threatening and intimidating, but Bill C-3 goes one step further. Even in these discussions, the Hansard that is created is important to reflect what the House believes. As somebody who practised law for a number of years and spoke about sentencing on these types of issues, it is important that what we say here reflects the consensus and the issues before the House.

The Criminal Code already reflects that it is an aggravating feature to threaten, assault or intimidate certain groups. I think about section 270 of the Criminal Code with respect to assaulting a peace officer. It is an offence to assault anybody, but Parliament has said that when one assaults a peace officer, one has gone one step further and the offence is recognized with a greater level of seriousness for obvious reasons.

It is the same thing for children. There are offences that relate specifically to children to reflect the seriousness of committing an offence against a child. Similarly, when it comes to intimidation and obstruction of justice, there are offences that protect justice system participants, reporters and people who carry out their justice system practice.

With what I have already said, health care workers are integral to the functioning of our society. Various colleagues on both sides of the House have noted already the strains they are under, so I will not repeat them. However, I wish to note that it is very important that we do protect these groups.

I am in favour of studying these issues further at committee. I am therefore speaking in support of the bill going to committee.

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

Madam Speaker, during the course of the debate today, we have heard at least a couple Conservative colleagues try to draw a parallel between the protests that are happening outside hospitals with those that occurring along pipelines.

I wonder if the member thinks that when this does get to committee, we should draw that comparison and try to further the legislation to include looking at protests along pipelines.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, Canada relies on infrastructure. At this point, what is before the House is the protection of health care workers. I certainly would be in favour of looking at legislation that protects any critical infrastructure, not just pipelines. Infrastructure is just as critical to Canadians as health care is, so I am in favour of any legislation that extends protection to our system functioning smoothly.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji.

First, it is my first opportunity to congratulate the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo on his election. I noticed that his speech was silent on the amendments to the Canada Labour Code, yet he spoke passionately about the importance of health professionals.

According to Statistics Canada, my riding of Nunavut has the lowest ratio compared to the rest of Canada for the national average of doctors to residents, which is 85 doctors per 100,000 people. Because of the many issues that we have facing health care in Nunavut, I am particularly interested in what the member's position is on allowing medical certification to be relaxed. Bill C-3 talks about the requirement for medical certification and I would like to hear his position on relaxing the provisions set out in Bill C-3.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I live in a riding where there is a significant doctor shortage, but it is nowhere near the shortage that my colleague from Nunavut mentioned.

With that, I support anything that is going to get more people into health care facilities. I am open to discussing this at committee so we can dive into it more. Hopefully, we can all come to a consensus so there can be more doctors and nurses. It would be helpful because, simply put, we are just not turning out enough doctors and medical practitioners.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have to just shake my head when I hear my colleague talk about finding solutions to help regions experiencing a shortage of health care workers.

There is a very simple solution. Health falls under provincial and Quebec jurisdiction. We therefore reiterate the unanimous request of Quebec and the provinces to increase health transfers, without conditions. That is the best way for Quebec and the provinces to take charge of recruitment and ensure that all regions in each Canadian province and in Quebec will be well represented and have the staff they need.

Does my colleague agree that the government should commit to an immediate and unconditional increase in health transfers, as called for by Quebec and the provinces?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, a part of our Conservative platform was actually an increase in health transfers. As my colleague for Langley—Aldergrove pointed out, this is a jurisdictional issue, health care is provided by the provinces, and the federal government does provide funding for that. As set out in our platform in the most recent election, we were all for increasing health transfers to the provinces given our aging population and the need for ongoing care.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is certainly an honour and privilege to once again rise and enter into debate in this place.

If members will indulge me, I will share a few thanks and a few thoughts prior to getting into the substance of what we are here to debate today, which is the Liberal's new bill, Bill C-3. It truly is an honour to serve, and along with that there are some thanks that I need to pass along.

First, I need to thank my wife Danielle, who has stood through what has been a very interesting first term in Parliament. Of course, when we had that discussion about whether or not I would let my name stand again, she was very supportive, and we hope that we can see a return to at least some level of normalcy as we move forward. I send my love to my wife, Danielle, and to my boys Matthew, Emerson and Winston. I love them, and I am so thankful for the support that they give. Even though sometimes it may be a little hard for the boys to understand, as they are five, three and soon to be six months, I am so thankful for that love and support.

I thank my staff, my campaign team, my EDA and all those who help make an election happen.

I would also like to take a moment to thank, in what was undoubtedly a difficult election in many ways, those other candidates who ran and showed up. There was one party that notably did not even show up in this last election, and that was a travesty for democracy in central Alberta. Anyone who puts their name on the ballot deserves thanks and respect, and I have that for those who ran in Battle River—Crowfoot.

I thank all those poll workers and local individuals who helped to make sure that an election could happen, even though it was an election, I would suggest, that nobody really wanted except for the Prime Minister who sits across the way. However, they also deserve our thanks.

Of course, I am deeply grateful for the people of Battle River—Crowfoot for once again sending me to be their voice in our nation's capital to ensure that the interests of rural, east central Alberta are heard, and that is certainly what I plan to do.

I will share a few thoughts and observances from the election. I found it very interesting that just two or three months prior, the Prime Minister's itinerary came out saying that there was a visit to the newly appointed Governor General's residence, and I could not help but think that he would be going back on his word. Now, it would not surprise many within this place and many Canadians that we cannot take the Prime Minister's word all that seriously. The signs were already there for a fourth wave, yet he put his personal political interests before the lives of Canadians. It is a shame. I have some unparliamentary language that comes to mind, but I will spare members that.

Over the course of the summer and during the election, I had a chance to speak with many constituents who brought up a myriad of concerns. One constituent, a man by the name of John Dillon, brought forward something that I told him I would share in this place. I had spoken with him during the previous election, and I was reminded when I went to his door again. This 40-year Air Force veteran asked a question about why parliamentarians get preferred treatment over the men and women who wear our nation's uniform. Why does it take him decades to qualify for his pension while it takes a politician six years? We continued to talk over the course of a fairly extended period of time about some of the frustrations that he has, and about the hypocrisy and the frustration with the political status quo in this country.

I hope to get to as much in as possible in 10 minutes, which is not a lot of time. I also spoke to constituents who were frustrated beyond belief on all sides of the political spectrum, and about how divisive and polarized politics are in this country. A number of times, I would encourage constituents I was speaking with to make sure that they looked a little beyond Facebook in terms of making sure that we were having dialogue. Certainly, there is politics and partisanship in the House, and that is okay, but we also need to make sure that we are always working for the best interest of Canadians.

The concerns around western alienation are very real. I have talked to many people who have given up hope on Canada. It is heartbreaking to speak with many constituents, more than I can count, who suggest that an independent path forward is the only option. I pleaded with them. We spoke about the issues and talked about how it is not too late, and to not give up hope on this country in spite of the many frustrations.

We heard rumours that the Liberals would be mandating a reduction in fertilizer, which could very well take away the livelihoods of farmers in my constituency. We heard rumours about further activism when it comes to the oil and gas sector, which turned out to be more than accurate when the Prime Minister appointed a criminal activist as his environment minister, and the Prime Minister went to COP26 and decided that the only justice in a transition was to put my constituents out of work. That is shameful.

From COVID challenges to the challenges with our economy, it is Canadians who are paying the price. I certainly look forward to being able to stand up for their interests.

Now on to the substance of Bill C-3. It is interesting that we see an issue that Conservatives have actually talked a fair bit about and provinces have taken action on, and that is access to critical infrastructure. Almost all Canadians would agree that a health care professional going to work or a patient needing care should not be denied access to a hospital. I would hope that is simply common sense, although as I am often reminded by many, including my father, common sense seems to be not so common anymore.

What I find interesting is that in the midst of this debate being part of this two-part bill, and I will get into that in a second, it is in the political interests of the Liberal government to now bring forward something that it saw a political opening for, whereas Conservatives had actually called for this sort of action when critical infrastructure had been placed at risk. Supply chains had been put at risk in the past, and a number of Conservative governments across the country have actually taken action to ensure that critical infrastructure is protected.

I would suggest that is a good thing, although I do have a few concerns about some of the ambiguous wording. I found it interesting that the Liberals are quick to defend the appropriate balance that needs to be had to ensure freedom of speech but also to ensure safety of health care workers. I am glad that there are some Liberals who are encouraging that discussion to take place. Certainly, when it does not fit their political best interests, they will try to shout down any freedom of expression that they can. As this bill, I would suspect, goes to committee, it certainly is one of those issues that we need to keep at the front of our minds.

Before I get into the substance of part two of this bill, I think it is interesting that we have what is kind of a mini piece of omnibus legislation. We have two very different subjects that are addressed within this one bill. I would suggest that this goes against, certainly the spirit, if not directly against what the Liberals promised back when they ran for election first in 2015.

There are two very distinct issues, and I would certainly be encouraged if the Liberals were willing to send it to the two different committees where this could be addressed. When it comes specifically to the issue of paid sick leave, I have some very basic questions. How many people does this affect? One would think that, if the government is planning on implementing paid sick leave for all federally regulated industries within the country, that question would be one of the first to be answered. However, I have yet to hear a Liberal member articulate the answer to that question.

There is some further ambiguity about what this actually applies to in terms of contractors or simply federally regulated services, but if a contractor works in a federally regulated service but that service itself is not regulated, what is the application? That is, quite frankly, why it is concerning that these two very distinct issues are put together in one bill. Had they been separate, it would have been certainly more—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It is time for questions and comments, but before we go there, I would like to remind the hon. member to perhaps think before accusing certain members of the House of certain things.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, I will stay away from what the member might be trying to impute with his comments.

Within the legislation, we have the 10 days of paid sick leave, and no doubt there are a number of questions regarding that. We are hopeful it will go to committee, where those questions will be posed and responded to. It is important that we recognize that Ottawa plays a strong national leadership role on this. In British Columbia, I understand the provincial NDP government is now proposing five days of paid leave.

Does the member not recognize or see the value in Ottawa implementing legislation such as this, and the positive role and impact it could have on other jurisdictions?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, if that member can clearly articulate some of the questions I have expressed about this particular part of the legislation and is willing to see it split up and sent to both committees to be studied, he is absolutely right: Ottawa plays a role.

I also hear daily from constituents, who are quite frankly sick and tired of hearing an Ottawa-knows-best strategy about all aspects of public policy within this country. There certainly is a great deal of frustration with how the Liberal government seems to only call for a team Canada approach when it has failed. I am fearful that is exactly what we are starting to see as this legislation goes through the process.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot about urgency, about the importance of various issues. We heard about it during the election campaign and we prepared for 65 days. Considering the legislative agenda of election promises, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on whether Bill C-3 has come at the right time, when there are other emergencies.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc is absolutely right. In fact, I find it tragically ironic that the day of the election was meant to be the day the House was back in session. That took weeks upon weeks, let alone the administration required to set up committees and whatnot. Even at this point, that sees us with only a few committees being set up and months of delays.

This is in addition to the prorogation the Prime Minister promised he would never do and all of that, but the Liberals will say that is simply old news and it was different because they are Liberals. Delays have cost Canadians and have probably cost Canadians' lives. I would suggest that Canadians demand leadership. They certainly have not seen it from the Liberal government.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for recognizing his own family. It is really important to recognize the service of people serving the public.

My colleague talked about urgency, and he talked about people's lives being lost. Medical health professionals, again, have decided that people need to get vaccinated and governments need to implement paid sick leave.

We have not heard from the Conservatives when it comes to whether they support paid sick leave. Are they going to stand up for workers or are they going to let them continue to go to work sick and make that difficult choice? When it comes to vaccines, we still have not received a clear answer from them on that, either.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I find it very troubling that we would have the Liberals' coalition partners, the NDP, playing into the divisive vaccine politics we saw during the election. This caused a level of division and, quite frankly, mistrust when it comes to such an important issue and is something that should have been the definition of not political. The government decided it was more important to play politics than to do what was right for Canadians.

When it comes to the reality faced by so many Canadians, including workers, I find it rich that the NDP is standing up and saying it supports workers. Thousands of workers within my constituency are having their livelihoods shut out because of the activism of a Liberal-NDP coalition.

In fact, more Canadians decided Conservatives would be a better option than any other party in this country when it came to a plan that would get our economy working again. It is unfortunate that the Liberals would rather play politics and put people out of work than stand up for what is best for Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was listening attentively to my hon. friend from Battle River—Crowfoot, and I thought I heard him say something very unparliamentary. I did not interrupt the course of questions and comments because I was not sure I had heard it. I would ask you, Madam Speaker, to check the record.

If our hon. colleague referred to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change as a criminal, then that does violate our rules. It is not only inaccurate; it is spurious. I do not know if it is possible at this point to get a ruling or if the Speaker heard it. It certainly was unparliamentary.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I thank the hon. member for the point of order. I did actually call upon the member, right after his speech, concerning the subject.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, if I said anything that was not true, I unreservedly apologize.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on Bill C-3 this evening. It is a very important piece of legislation that requires not just the attention of Parliament, but also committee scrutiny.

Let me begin by saying that I believe that Bill C-3 should have been split into two separate bills. We are dealing with two separate issues here, one as it relates to health care workers and protests outside health facilities, the other as it relates to federally regulated sick days and the provision of 10 days for federally regulated workers. I am hopeful that, when this does get to committee, it is going to get the scrutiny that it deserves.

Let me also say that we are so fortunate in central Ontario to have an incredible regional health facility. The Royal Victoria Hospital is world class in its ability to provide care, not just acute care but all kinds of care led by Janice Skot, who is the CEO of the hospital. She recently announced her retirement next year and I wish her all the best. She certainly has seen the transition of the Royal Victoria Hospital over the 17 years that she has been there into this world-class facility.

In fact, just recently I was fortunate that we were in Innisfil to talk about the expansion of the Royal Victoria Health Centre into the southern tier of our municipalities of Barrie and Innisfil. It is expected that, by the time it is fully functional, it could service up to 250,000 people a year. This is an important part of our community. It is an important part of all of the regions of central Ontario and does a great service to our communities.

I consider many of the people who work there friends of mine; doctors, nurses, great people who do terrific work and have been there on the front lines since this pandemic started with great adversity, great anxiety. I cannot imagine, at the height of the COVID-19 situation, these doctors and nurses and all of those who work in this health care facility not only having to worry about looking after the patients coming into the facility, but also having the anxiety about how to protect themselves and their families. I heard many stories of health care workers going home and changing in the garage. They had moved their washer and dryer into the garage so that they would limit the risk of potentially transmitting COVID-19 to their family members.

When vaccines came, it was a sense of relief for many health care workers. There was a challenge in the beginning. I recall having a discussion with the then minister of health, in fact I would call it an emergency meeting, when our community was running out of vaccines, not just for health care workers, but also for long-term care facilities. We can talk about anxiety. Many health care workers who were in the process of getting their second vaccine were told that their appointments had been cancelled. I called the health minister to ask her on an emergency basis if we could get the vaccines that were needed within our community not just for health care workers, but also for the long-term care providers as well.

Let us not just look at the health care workers and the work that they have done and how they should be free of intimidation and harassment in their workplace, but let us also acknowledge the long-term care workers within those long-term care facilities because they had equally anxious times during the height of COVID-19.

I want to focus on a couple of things, not the least of which is the divisive rhetoric that has gone on. We saw this at the height of the election campaign when there were not just protests in front of health care facilities, but there were also protests on the political front as well. We saw some of those protests play out on the nightly news. We saw them in health care facilities. I believe that every health care worker should be free of any form of harassment, particularly when they are going in to do the job.

How did we get here? There is this divisive rhetoric, and we are now in a position where we are talking about implementing legislation to protect health care workers when we have never been in this point before.

Obviously, we have heard through other speakers today that we have criminal legislation on the books for dealing with protests, much of which is dealt with at the local level. Regarding this divisiveness that has gone on, I certainly saw it through the election campaign. There has been misinformation, and I would suggest that there has not been enough information on the part of government to allow people to make an informed decision on the issue of vaccines. I happen to think that everybody should be vaccinated. I am vaccinated; in fact, I have my booster shot scheduled for December 19. Vaccines are an important tool in the tool box in ensuring that people are safe.

However, there are many people out there, almost five million Canadians over the age of 12, who have not received a vaccine at this point for various reasons. I have been dealing with this in my office, with people calling. They are not anti-vaxxers; they are just concerned about their health and the potential risks associated with vaccines. Perhaps they do not have enough information to make an informed decision.

This is where the role of government comes in, to provide as much information as we can to people so that they make the right decision, to get vaccinated. Many of them right now are in a position where they are at risk of their lives and livelihoods being lost and actually being unable to provide for their families.

A year ago, when we did not have vaccines, we had lots of other tools in the tool box. We were talking about rapid testing, physical distancing, wearing a mask and washing our hands. Rapid testing seems to have fallen off a cliff right now. To accommodate those who perhaps still have that vaccine hesitancy and are not getting a vaccine, it is an important tool in the tool box that we need to be using.

I talked to someone in my riding about this recently. His entire family is vaccinated at this point, but he still has that hesitancy. I am using this example among many that I have received. He was told recently by his employer, after working there for 25 years, that as of this past November 1, he would have lost his job because he was unvaccinated. He has actually been extended now to January 29, and the reason he was extended is that his company is entering into a very busy Christmas period, so it cannot afford that loss of employment. In the meantime, the company has told him that it is going to rapid test him throughout that whole process.

Therefore, he is living with the backdrop of losing his employment and, quite frankly, he is scared, because he has family, including grandchildren. That reasonable accommodation that I spoke about still needs to happen today when it comes to making sure we are reasonably accommodating those individuals who at this point have vaccine hesitancy. We can do a much better job of educating and encouraging people to get vaccinated.

The other part of this legislation relates to the federal regulation on providing up to 10 sick days. I would agree with my hon. colleagues that people should never have to choose between going to work and staying home without pay when sick. Making sure we can accommodate those people who are in the unfortunate position of making that decision needs to be addressed as well.

As it relates to federally regulated industries having this requirement, there are many collective agreements that cover sick leave, but a small percentage do not. Those collective agreements can speak for themselves when dealing with this issue, but I will be interested to see, when this goes to committee, what we hear from all the stakeholders as it relates to the sick days.

In conclusion, a tremendous amount of anxiety still exists among everyone in this country, whether they are vaccinated or not. We have to tone down the divisive rhetoric. We have to make sure that in all cases, unequivocally, we are supporting our health care workers, who are doing such tremendous work to keep us safe. However, we also have to tone down the rhetoric and make sure we educate people that it is important to be vaccinated in order to deal with this crisis.

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

Madam Speaker, the member asked how we got here, and he seemed to imply that the reason there is a lot of misinformation out there has to do with the lack of ability or desire of the government to share information. I will be the first to say that information sharing is critical, and we should always do as much as we possibly can. However, the member seems to have completely glossed over the fact that there are a lot of people who are providing misinformation and who are questioning the science.

With all due respect, he gave a very reasonable speech today, and I am so glad he got vaccinated and he is getting ready for his booster shot, but there are so many people within his own caucus that feed this misinformation. I am wondering if he has had the opportunity to look inward and have these conversations with some of the members who, quite frankly, are in his caucus and spreading—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Could members please give other members the opportunity to ask their questions?

The hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, to my point about this divisive rhetoric, there is no greater example than what we just saw.

I will go ever further. The Prime Minister has fed into this divisiveness. Members may recall when earlier this year the Prime Minister said that there would be no requirement for mandatory vaccines. Then, the day before he called an unnecessary election, he said there would be a requirement for mandatory vaccines.

One thing I have found out in my life is that, the more we push people, the more they lean back. Instead of the divisive rhetoric, which we just saw a perfect example of, why are we not working with people to better educate them and encourage them even more? If they are still hesitant, why are we not accommodating them? Why are we not accommodating them even more?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am also confused by my colleague's comments, especially on what we should do with people who are still hesitating.

I am in favour of dialogue, and I think that we must have discussions and educate people. There are scientifically proven methods for dealing with the COVID-19 virus, including mask wearing, vaccination and ventilation systems. The COVID-19 vaccine is the most tested vaccine in the history of vaccination. More than 7 billion doses have been administered around the world. The numbers from the scientific community, reliable scientific sources, show how effective the vaccine is against COVID-19. At this stage, I do not see what more it will take to convince those who are hesitating to get the vaccine. In a way, I wonder if it is a lost cause.

What does my colleague think we should do with those who are going to reject the vaccine no matter what? We are putting ourselves at risk.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I made it very clear in my speech this afternoon just how important vaccines are. It was important for me in terms of my community and my family. I believe in the efficacy of vaccines, but the difficulty lies in the fact that there are still people who are unconvinced. I do not know what their reasons are. I use Scott as an example. His whole family is vaccinated and yet he is still a little concerned from a health standpoint.

Why are we not encouraging those people with more information, encouraging them to get vaccinated with proper information instead of this divisive rhetoric. That is the point I am making. There is too much divisiveness. Let us work to encourage people to get vaccinated. That should be the role of leaders in this country.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, qujannamiik.

It is clear now that my whole focus in my line of questioning has been to find ways to ease the burden on the health system. Nunavut has three main regions. Kitikmeot is one of them. With Kitikmeot, Cambridge Bay is the regional hub. Outlying those communities are Qikiqtaaluk, Kugluktuk, Kugaaruk and Gjoa Haven. They all rely on visiting doctors. There are no full-time doctors available to them. They do have available to them on-call physicians, who are available by phone to assist the nurses.

This bill, the amendments to the Canada Labour Code, would give the employer the power to require the employee to provide a medical certificate for any paid sick leave, regardless of the number of days—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I apologize, but I have to give the hon. member the chance to reply, and we are already over time.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, there has been growth in the ways in which medical assistance has been provided. We have certainly seen that through COVID, where we have seen more online or phone call assessments. Those things have played a very important role throughout COVID.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour, as always, to stand in the House, representing the people of Timmins—James Bay, and to be here in the House tonight as we, from all parties, attempt to pass legislation on what is coming close to the second anniversary of the pandemic.

If someone had said to me in March 2020 that we would be in the House debating the need to get 10 days of paid sick leave or to have laws in place to stop the harassment and threats of medical professionals by people who are our neighbours, I would have said it was simply impossible.

COVID has taught us, and COVID is a very hard teacher, but it has been clear from the get-go that it is something bigger than anything that was within our human imagination. Our generation has never seen anything like this. Throughout COVID, I find myself going back to Albert Camus's The Plague. I have been reading it and rereading it. He wrote:

Our townsfolk were like everybody else, wrapped up in themselves.

He went on:

They disbelieved in pestilences. A pestilence isn’t a thing made to man’s measure; therefore we tell ourselves that pestilence is a mere bogey of the mind, a bad dream that will pass away. But it doesn’t always pass away and, from one bad dream to another, it is people who pass away, [especially those who] haven’t taken their precautions.

When we are talking about the need to have 10 days of paid sick leave two years into a pandemic, I feel like we have found ourselves in some kind of dark, dystopian Groundhog Day, that what we are repeating again and again are the same mistakes, and we are still having difficulty learning the lessons of a pandemic. The pandemic does not care whether we believe in it or not; the pandemic does not care if it is fair, and the pandemic certainly does not care about the short-term goals of various political leaders like Jason Kenney, who decided to announce that last summer was going to be the greatest summer ever, because he was simply going to ignore health protocols in order to make his party look good. He plunged Alberta into medical chaos and caused the deaths of too many innocent people.

I think of Doug Ford. As people were dying in warehouses in Peel, Brampton and the 401 and 905 areas, he was not willing to put paid sick leave in. In fact, he recently said he believed that come January there would be no need for vaccine mandates. This is a man who is still refusing to learn lessons.

We know here of the culpability of the Canadian government in fighting at the WTO against the right of the global south to create vaccines. Did anyone think that omicron would not happen, and that we would allow ourselves first-wave and second-wave boosters and protect ourselves but not ensure adequate vaccination in other parts of the globe, and that somehow the pandemic would not go there and come back? Now we are dealing with omicron.

Camus says that we have learned that the pandemic has made us all share the same collective fate. It is a hard lesson we are learning.

I remember how everyone rose up in the first wave and how hopeful it was. People took up hobbies and people were going to get themselves physically fit. Camus said, “At first, the fact of being cut off from the outside world was accepted with a more or less good grace, much as people would have put up with any other temporary inconvenience that interfered with only a few of their habits. But now they had abruptly become aware that they were undergoing a sort of incarceration.”

I think, in the isolation and difficulties, the vast majority of people carried on. This morning, when I walked through the snowstorms in Ottawa, I saw almost every single person wearing a mask. The vast majority of people have taken up what they know is going to be a difficult and maybe long-term issue. Sure, they complain. They have a right to complain, but they carry on.

In the first and second waves, people phoned our offices daily. We tried to help, we tried to give them answers and we tried to keep businesses going. Those people had legitimate fears, fears about the future of their business, fears about health care, fears about all the disinformation and falsehoods. They were all legitimate questions because we were dealing with something bigger than ourselves.

I found by the fourth wave that things had shifted to a sullen tiredness in the vast majority of people. However, a small minority of people had gone to a different place, a kind of radicalized sense of self-isolation and self-entitlement, a belief that somehow the government, the medical institutions and their neighbours were all against their right to go and do what they had always wanted to do. They were not doing their share, so the rest of the population was doing it.

Then we started seeing these terrible images that compared the mass murder of the Jewish families in Ukraine with the fact that Buddy could not go to East Side Mario's because he refused to get a vaccine. Then they began to turn on front-line medical workers. I talked to paramedics who said to me, “What is it about us?” These paramedics were out in the middle of the night on the highways at accidents, or were helping during the opioid crises, or were on the front-lines at the hospitals. They wanted to know why they were being targeted. In my region, a doctor was harassed and gave up her practice.

There is something deeply wrong when we have to come here at this point. Finally, after two years, we recognize the fundamental medical principle that if people are feeling sick, they should not go to work. That is the most common-sense way to stop the spread, particularly now with omicron variant.

The fact that we need to have a law to protect workers from harassment is deeply concerning. We will stand up for the medical workers and we will bring that law in. However, in doing that, let us not forget and let us not diminish the fact that there is incredible fortitude among the Canadian people.

I was very disheartened to hear my Conservative colleague talk about how we had to accommodate people who denied science, people who denied the need to have a collective responsibility for their neighbours, as opposed to saying no, that we stand for the right of people to go to work and be safe, that when people go to work, school or the hospital, they can go home at the end of the day even in these hard and uncertain times because they know their government is taking every step possible. That is part of what we are here to do tonight.

We need to address the need to change the TRIPS waiver. Canada has to stop being a laggard on the international stage. It has to show leadership. We are, as Camus says, all collectively in the same boat when it comes to the pandemic.

I would like to end by quoting Camus again, because what isolation has taught me is the power of family, the power of community and certainly, for me, the power of live music, which I hope comes back. Camus writes about the people in the village and says, “They knew now that if there is one thing one can always yearn for, and sometimes attain, it is human love.” He said that out of the plague that affected the people in his town, that he realized there was so much more to admire in people than to despise.

Finally, and I find this so powerful because I am so tired and disheartened and hurt by what COVID has done to the fabric of our communities and our sense of confidence and our ability to see each. Camus says, “What's true of all the evils in the world is true of the plague as well”, because it helps people “rise above themselves.”

We are in the fourth wave or the beginning of a fifth wave, I do not know how many waves, but we are not out of the COVID pandemic. It is with us now, but we do not have to give in to it. We do not have to give in to fear and we do not have to give in to stupidity. There are smart ways. It is the only way we can take on COVID and restore that sense of human community and the bond that keeps us together.

I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to compliment my friend from Timmins—James Bay for an excellent speech that makes a number of really important points. I wish I had time to delve into all of them. I hope he will forgive me for using the opportunity of asking him a question to make something very clear. There have been a lot of allusions in today's debate that somehow equate non-violent civil disobedience against pipeline construction, which is an effort to protect human health and to save our planet and why I was arrested in that activity, and harassing health care workers.

I would like to ask the hon. member if he does not agree that the equivalency is around the kinds of protests and that no protest should be in any way threatening or violent to any kind of worker. That is where we draw the line. It is not about whether it is infrastructure or a hospital. It is about the activity of the protesters. For some reason, anti-vax protesters have been allowed to conduct themselves in ways that were appalling while indigenous protesters were violently arrested.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I found it deeply concerning that my Conservative colleagues throughout this discussion, where we were all coming to terms with the need to protect health care workers, have continually insinuated that there is something reasonable about anti-vaxxers and that we should accommodate them when we have threats being made against children at toy stores, and then equating that with the right to protest of indigenous peoples.

The right of indigenous peoples to defend their lands and their territories is a fundamental principle that we have to stand up for in this House. I will always stand up in this House and say the right of indigenous peoples to defend their territories is a fundamental, universal principle whether the Conservatives and some of their anti-vax supporters like that or not.

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

Madam Speaker, there are two aspects to the bill. I agree with many of the words the member has said about health care workers, the whole idea of the protests, how our health care workers stepped up to the plate and the revolting treatment that some people feel they are entitled to give them.

My question is with respect to the other aspect of the bill and that is with the paid sick days. The NDP have implied that they have some concerns in regards to it. Can the member give any indication, from his perspective, if there are some specific amendments that they already have in mind? What are the concerns that the member would have with regard to that aspect of the bill, assuming that the member does support the bill in principle?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, certainly, I think the deepest concern we had is that our leader pushed the Prime Minister 20-some times in the House on the need to have 10 days paid sick leave as the first, second and third waves were hammering people and we saw such massive deaths particularly in the for-profit, long-term care system, and we saw no action. It was not until the election was called that the Prime Minister suddenly had that come to God moment where he realized, “Please re-elect me and I will bring in something” that we had been asking for all along.

I am glad that we are bringing it in now. I am glad that we will get to committee to make sure that it works, but I think of all the people in long-term care who could have used this when the government refused to act.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for his great speech. I just want to take an opportunity to thank all the health care workers who are in my riding and our frontline workers who have been working so diligently through the pandemic over almost two years now. On Friday, I actually had the opportunity to be in Wallaceburg where the Chatham-Kent Health Alliance has announced that we are going to be building a new hospital in the riding. It is very exciting to see great health care coming into the riding to replace the old infrastructure.

I am just wondering if the member opposite shares the same sentiment that I have of thanking health care workers and making sure that we protect critical infrastructure, whether it is hospitals or beyond, and if he thinks that we should take this bill to committee so that we can study that to make sure that we are protecting all critical infrastructure.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, let us always remember the incredible work the health care workers are doing. In Parry Sound the paramedics are going door to door right now to help people. They are doing home visits. That is how we step up in Canada. We have to be there for all our health care workers and all our frontline workers in every capacity to protect them from the kind of harassment that is ongoing.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and debate this important motion. I want to break it down because it really should be two bills. We are dealing with a Criminal Code matter and also a paid sick leave matter.

I listened with some amusement when a Liberal MP stood and said these bills should be connected because we are talking about protecting hospitals, but people also get sick and they need sick leave, so really it should just be one bill. By that justification, maybe we only need one bill in the House for the whole session because everything deals with money, so just one bill is needed. That is an aside.

This legislation is important. I will start off by saying that our doctors, our nurses, the clerks and all of the staff at hospitals work incredibly hard. I have a lot of family in health care. Both of my grandmothers were nurses and my father is a nurse. Having a safe workplace is a right for all people.

During the last election, we heard a great deal of rhetoric in this country over the issue of vaccines. This rhetoric led to unacceptable activities. People crossed the line from peacefully protesting whatever their viewpoint was on a subject. We have the constitutional right to peaceful protest protected in this country. I was pleased to see language in the bill that emphasized that Canadians have a right to peacefully protest: they have a right to take placards to events to state what they believe. That is a fundamental right in this country.

However, when someone is harassing or intimidating health care workers, and in some cases we saw that health care workers were assaulted, that really crosses the line. We have Criminal Code laws that deal with this, but it is critically important that this legislation sends a strong message that this is unacceptable activity.

Thankfully, we have not seen these protests continue in recent days and in the weeks since the election ended, but if people feel the need to forcefully protest, I invite them to come to my office. I am a politician. We are here in the House, and this is where we make the decisions. It is not the nurses and the doctors who make the decisions, it is the politicians. Whatever my stance is on a subject, come to my office. People can protest at my office. I will invite them any day. I will argue with people. I will debate with people. That is what democracy is all about. Come to my office and leave the health care workers alone. That is a really important part of this bill.

We also have to talk about unnecessary rhetoric leading into this thing. We just need to lower the rhetoric on this situation so that we can bring Canadians together again. We had a divisive election. The pandemic crisis is causing people to suffer from mental health issues. This has been talked about by all members in the House, and I think we need a lot more understanding.

A lot of times when I listen to the Liberals, it seems like they are not understanding or recognizing the fact that they say in the House all the time that there is a mental health crisis, there are people who are feeling left out, there are people feeling lonely and there are people who have lost their jobs because of this pandemic. There is not a lot of understanding coming from the government.

It does not mean that I agree with the stances that people take, but when we have a government that is raising the rhetoric and demonizing individuals, it is no surprise that we see unacceptable activity like this happen. We need to talk about uniting Canadians again. On the Conservative side, we are focused on uniting Canadians.

The second part of this bill is talking about paid sick leave. We have heard a lot about 10 days of paid sick leave in the House. I was perusing the Internet, and the wonderful thing about the Internet is that once something is on there, it never really goes away. The first time I could find the government talking about paid sick leave was May 26, 2020. For those who were not here, that was a couple of months after Friday, March 13. I remember that day. I was giving an S.O. 31. That is when the Prime Minister's wife contracted COVID.

That woke everyone up in the House to the fact that the pandemic was a really serious thing. It was starting to hit us and we needed to take action. There was a lot of scrambling. People did not understand what was going on. It was just a couple months later that it was recognized. The NDP fought for this and said that people needed 10 days of paid sick leave in Canada because people felt like they needed to go to work, but they might be sick with COVID, and the NDP did not want these people going to work and spreading that sickness around.

It was also around the same time that we were talking about bringing in a virtual Parliament. The NDP stood up very strongly and said they were not going to approve this virtual Parliament unless the Liberal government supported 10 days of paid sick leave. Here we are, well over a year later and in an entirely different Parliament, and we are debating this piece of legislation. It is literally just one page.

How difficult was it for the government to come up with this legislation? In the May 26 article, the government said it would be implementing this without delay. It has been over a year and a half. We have had an election, and we have had two throne speeches. The government has still not implemented the legislation. We are just targeting it now.

The Liberals were saying they had to work with the provinces about this. I do not see anything in this legislation to indicate why it would take the government over a year to negotiate with the provinces to get 10 days of paid sick leave. Now we have this one-page document, which is not even important enough to the government for it to warrant its own legislative number, as it has been grouped with a Criminal Code amendment. Obviously, it was not that complicated.

Why did it take the government over a year to implement paid sick leave? I think it is a bit ridiculous that it was talking about this May 26, 2020, and it is now December 6, 2021. There has been an election and two speeches from the throne. Now that we are talking about this in the House, Canadians are finally seeing action.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Order. Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Kenora.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate on Bill C-3. Although this is not my first opportunity to rise in the 44th Parliament to give a speech, this is my first opportunity, not just in this Parliament, but since I was elected in 2019, to deliver a speech with my fiancée, Danaka, watching live.

I wanted to acknowledge that and acknowledge Danaka for her continued love and support, especially through the turbulent times of election season. I have to say that going through two elections in two years is more than enough for an MP, but it is also important that we recognize the impact it has on our loved ones, so I thank Danaka for her continued support.

There are two very important aspects of the bill. It really is two bills in one, with amendments to the Criminal Code and to the Labour Code. It is very important that we talk about both of these things separately, considering how different they are. I will, time permitting, have the opportunity to touch on both of those aspects, but I also want to acknowledge the tremendous work of our shadow ministers on this file. The member for Fundy Royal has done a great job representing our position and working with our colleagues to move forward on this. As well, the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka on the labour side ensured that our party was well represented.

When it comes to the Criminal Code, of course Bill C-3 would make it an offence to intimidate health care providers or impede individuals from obtaining health services, and this is something I do not think anyone in this chamber would take issue with. I think we would all support that and the idea behind that.

We know health care workers face incredible hardships at the best of times, especially in northwestern Ontario, where they have limited staff, limited resources and policies that do not adequately account for our unique needs in rural and remote northern Ontario. These are challenges I have heard of first-hand from constituents across the riding.

Of course, this has all been exacerbated by COVID-19 and the pandemic we are continuing to fight through. Hopefully we are at the tail end of. We have seen more clearly than ever before how important our frontline workers are. They are our doctors, our nurses and those who went to work every day, risking their own safety, to ensure that all Canadians would remain safe and have the service they need. That is why so many people in the Kenora riding, across northern Ontario and across this great country were outraged by the news when they saw these protests and the harassment of health care workers throughout the course of the pandemic.

I wish I could sit here and name everybody, but there are a couple of health care workers in particular I would like to make note of, one of whom is Dr. Sean Moore at the Lake of the Woods District Hospital in Kenora. Dr. Moore has been a champion for our region throughout the course of the pandemic. He helped organize and arrange all of the COVID protocols and the COVID response at the Lake of the Woods District Hospital. With many concerns around the availability of beds and shortages of PPE, he remained steadfast in his commitment to ensuring everyone had the support they needed.

He continued to also keep me up to date on what was happening on the ground and offered advice to me to pass on to the government and my colleagues on how to best move forward through the pandemic. I would say as well that his consistent public advocacy for best practices in ways to keep ourselves and our loved ones safe has just been incredibly beneficial for everyone across our region, which is something he continues to do.

I want to make a quick mention of a health care provider who is very important to me, my mother Charlene. My mother is a nurse at the Lake of the Woods District Hospital and I know first-hand from her the challenges during the best of times at the hospital in delivering health care services in the Kenora riding. Having to deal with the additional protocols and challenges that COVID-19 brought on was difficult for her and her colleagues. Not once did any of the health care workers in my riding, or across the country, hesitate. They were always there to continue to serve and work for everyone's safety. I am happy to share that today.

There is another side to this. It is not just the health care providers. It is not just the doctors and nurses. It has also been a very difficult time to be a patient. I know many people who have had to bring their children to a hospital and only parent has been able to be with them or their loved ones. It has been incredibly difficult for families to deal with challenges to their health given the COVID restrictions.

I know the thought of any of these individuals being harassed or targeted in a protest that could be happening outside of a hospital would not sit well with anybody in the chamber. We need to look at that important aspect of the legislation as well.

As I said, apart from the Criminal Code side, there is also the labour side of the bill, which is very important as well, with the proposed 10-day medical leave in federally regulated sectors. Frankly, many companies are already going above and beyond that, as many members of the House have noted.

I believe the Minister of Labour has noted that the change he believes the bill would make would be minimal. It is important to note that, in many ways, this could be seen symbolically, but it is an important floor to work toward. However, we cannot take away from the great work that so many companies are undertaking already.

Although it is viewed as a minimal change, I do not think we should accept that without proper scrutiny. We all know there are huge labour shortages across the country. We see that in my riding at the Lake of the Woods Brewing Company, for example. It has not been able to stay open all days of the week. Many restaurants have been forced to close or are only open for short periods because they cannot find staff.

When we are talking about changes to the Labour Code, it is also very important that we have a wholesome examination of it, so we can understand all the potential impacts the legislation could have. That is why I want to see the bill get to committee. I want to see both sections of it get to appropriate committees, because they are quite different, the Criminal Code side versus the Labour Code side.

I hope we will see that from the government, that these sections will be examined separately and thoroughly. That is part of the concern I have with the time allocation motion. We have two very important sections in the legislation that need to be discussed and examined, and the government has unfortunately decided that it would rather not have those discussions.

I look forward to any question or comments my colleagues may have, but I appreciate the opportunity to share some thoughts on Bill C-3 this evening. I want to reiterate that there are two very important sections to the legislation. We need to examine them. Let us get them to committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, the feedback I have received on the legislation has been very encouraging, such as health care stakeholders recognizing that Ottawa parliamentarians see and understand what they have had to go through with the protests. During the debate, I found out that the Province of British Columbia was also bringing forward paid sick leave. I believe it is for five days. The federal legislation covers a much smaller percentage of the workforce.

Would the member agree that by the national government providing action on sick leave, we could see provincial jurisdictions following suit and, to that end, workers across Canada would benefit? Could he just provide his thoughts on the leadership role that Ottawa can play on progressive legislation such as this?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we all appreciate the thoughtfulness and willingness of the member for Winnipeg North to engage so often in this chamber and share his thoughts on a number of topics. He definitely has a great respect for this institution.

That is a good question, but it is a bit hypothetical. I suppose the quick answer would be yes. It definitely could be something that the provinces could look to and be encouraged by it. The point is that many sectors are already above and beyond this. From a federal point of view, the 10 sick days could be looked at as a floor rather than a ceiling.

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

Mr. Speaker, what I appreciated about the speech by the colleague who just spoke is the great compassion and empathy he expressed for health care professionals and social services workers.

In the name of wanting to protect them, all of a sudden it is urgent that Criminal Code be amended.

If we are looking to support and protect health care workers, does the member not agree that it would be more urgent to provide federal health transfers to Quebec and the provinces so that they can organize their health care systems in such a way as to ensure that they have workers, that they are able to offer good working conditions and that workers do not experience burnout?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, we called for and continue to call for increased health transfers to the provinces. Again, as I mentioned, in northern Ontario. and I am sure in northern and rural Quebec it is a similar situation, there is underfunding. There are not the appropriate resources considering the distances that people have to travel and considering the unique situations that northern and rural regions have. Having more supports available to the provinces will certainly help fix that situation.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order, please. It being 7:25 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, the recorded division stands deferred until Thursday, December 9, 2021, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I may have been misinformed about there being an opportunity for a speaking slot at this point for me, on behalf of the Green Party, to speak to Bill C-3.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We ran out of time on Bill C-3, and I interrupted so we could move on to the next order of business.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 7:40 p.m. so we can begin committee of the whole.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to order made Thursday, November 25, the House will now resolve itself into committee of the whole to study all votes in the supplementary estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022.

I do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of the whole.