Bill C-3 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) create an offence of intimidating a person in order to impede them from obtaining health services, intimidating a health professional in order to impede them in the performance of their duties or intimidating a person who assists a health professional in order to impede the person in providing that assistance;
(b) create an offence of obstructing or interfering with a person’s lawful access to a place at which health services are provided, subject to a defence of attending at the place for the purpose only of obtaining or communicating information; and
(c) add the commission of an offence against a person who was providing health services and the commission of an offence that had the effect of impeding another person from obtaining health services as aggravating sentencing factors for any offence.
It also amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things,
(a) extend theperiod during which an employee may take a leave of absencefrom employment in the event of the death of a child and provide for the entitlement of anemployee to a leave of absence in the event of the loss of an unbornchild;
(b) repeal the personal leave that an employee may take to treat their illness or injury;
(c) provide that an employee may earn and take up to 10 days of medical leave of absence with pay in a calendar year; and
(d) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations to modify, in certain circumstances, the provisions respecting medical leave of absence with pay.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker for recognizing that fact. I was indeed there because I was hoping to be drawn with the high number so I could put forward another private member's bill, perhaps on the disability tax credit or on bereavement leave, which was something the House was able to agree on in Bill C-3, so let it not be shown that we cannot reach some type of accommodation. It actually happened right before Christmas, too. Perhaps we can have a Christmas miracle again this year and have the 30,000 pages of unredacted documents given out to the public so the RCMP and the parliamentary law clerk can see them.

It happened before, in 2021, with my private member's bill that was introduced into Bill C-3, in a deal that was made at the time. Let it not be said that the official opposition, the Conservatives, cannot make Parliament work. I also remind the House that six Conservative private members' bills have been passed into law. I think, actually, in this fall session of Parliament, it is possible that we have passed as many private member's bills, on the Conservative side, as the government has. That might even be a first in Canadian history, because of the Liberals' own decisions to paralyze Parliament and not have it proceed with government bills.

Later in the “open and accountable” document that the Liberals have chosen to ignore now, talking about ministerial relations with Parliament, there is a fantastic paragraph on page 16. I will draw it to the attention of the House. In the PDF document, it is on page 54. It goes on to say:

The Prime Minister expects Ministers to demonstrate respect and support for the parliamentary process. They should place a high priority on ensuring that Parliament and its committees are informed of departmental policy priorities, spending plans and management challenges, including by appearing before parliamentary committees whenever appropriate.

It then goes on to say what these priorities should be and that ministers should give information when the information is needed for Parliament to “fulfill its role of legislating, approving the appropriation of funds and holding the government to account.” This is the current situation. We ordered the production of documents. The government is defying its most basic government policy, the one it keeps referencing in mandate letters.

Like I have said before, this is not the first time; it happens at parliamentary committees as well, including one on which I sit, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, where we now have an order to produce documents on a briefing note on the changes to the international student program. The government has defied the order to produce the documents. We are again finding ourselves in a situation where we are re-ordering the production of documents and more documents.

The most interesting thing that happened is that the Liberal members of the committee tried to throw the deputy minister under the bus and say that if the documents were not released within the mandatory 30 days, the deputy minister would be obliged to appear on the 31st day and explain himself as to why the government did not produce the documents. If anybody out there still believes anything the government has to say about open government, being open by default and doing things on behalf of Canadians and having the best interests of Canadians in mind, they should take a moment to go through the quotations and citations.

The Liberals have paralyzed Parliament. If that were all they had done, then I would say, on the opposition side, that it might not be so bad. However, what they have also done is just blown through an extra almost $25 billion of spending this week. They had the other opposition parties vote for it. It is money that Canadians just do not have, so the Liberals are blocking Parliament and spending billions of dollars like this.

I always have a Yiddish proverb, something appropriate to the particular situation. I know that members wait for it too. There are some I use more often than others. I know that on a three-legged stool, if one of the legs were the word of the government, its solemn ability to fulfill its promises, we would fall right off that stool. We could not lean on that stool and actually trust it so we could sit on it. It is a great Yiddish proverb that is very true.

The current government is the most untrustworthy government one could ever find. It claimed, in 2015, the things I cited; it sloganeered on them. However, it has been incapable of keeping its word to parliamentarians and to the citizens of Canada that it would be, in fact, open by default like its government document claims, that it would work with parliamentarians and ensure that Parliament can meet its accountability function. These things are in the very documents it has never reneged on, never rejected, but it refuses to comply.

There are 30,000 pages of unredacted documents missing. Let us have a Christmas miracle; let us have the documents released.

Canada Labour Code

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

Madam Speaker, when I look at the legislation before us and its principles, I see it as a positive thing. When we take a look in terms of the government's actions, virtually from 2015, what we have witnessed is a government that understands the needs of workers in all regions of our country and has brought forward several substantial pieces of legislation in support of workers.

When the member brought forward Bill C-378, I had the opportunity to quickly go through it. I like what it is suggesting, and I suspect it would be very good to see it get to the committee stage. However, there are a number of questions that I have. Even though I might not necessarily be at the committee, and likely will not be at the committee, I appreciate the fact that the member is going to provide me with answers to some of the details that I posed in my question to her here. I say this because I believe that the bill is in the best interests of the workers.

Over the years, I have had the opportunity to sit at a local restaurant that I go to on a weekly basis. Perhaps half a dozen to a dozen times, I have had individuals come to me, some of them actually in tears, talking about their work environment. More often than not, but not exclusively, it has been minority women who were subjected to a significant intimidation factor. It comes in different forms. I can speculate on some of it, and I can also report on some real-life situations, as I have had the opportunity to listen to victims and do what I could to support them. That is something that I think is important for all of us. This is the reason I posed the question to the introducer of the legislation that we have before us.

It takes a great deal of courage, and I encourage individuals who have been a victim of some form of harassment in the workplace environment to share their experience, whether it is with a family member or with members of a community in which they live or actively participate. I find that talking about it is very helpful, and I would encourage people to share those experiences. I believe, at the end of the day, that the more people share those experiences and the more we see individuals taking action, it ultimately enables more people to do likewise, and we will have better working environments throughout the nation.

We could see the legislation go to committee and, ultimately, it would come back, much like when we passed the anti-scab legislation. I will draw a comparison here and say that in Canada we have two provinces, Quebec and British Columbia, that have anti-scab legislation. The national government has now passed legislation to bring into Canada, at the federal level, anti-scab legislation. I believe that, by the federal government taking such an action, we help encourage and set a standard that will hopefully see other provincial jurisdictions do likewise. For example, the province of Manitoba is now looking at anti-scab legislation. The fact is that when we brought in the legislation, it received all-party support, which I believe speaks volumes. With Bill C-378, I think there is the potential to get all-party support for it as well.

As the Prime Minister and members of the Liberal caucus have talked about in the past and continue to hold today, if there are ideas to the benefit of Canadians, we are prepared to entertain and look at ways in which we can support them, even if it means attempting to move amendments.

This is something we have consistently done since 2015, even on the issues we are talking about today. I think of Bill C-3, for example, which came out of the pandemic and the pressures that were being put on health care providers in particular. Many people were protesting and, in essence, in a different way, instilling in health care providers a fear of doing their job of supporting our health care system when there was a great deal of concern during the pandemic and in the days that followed. Bill C-3 dealt with that by making protests that instilled fear in individuals like health care workers illegal.

I think of Bill C-65, which mandated training about harassment and violence in the workplace. As the member before me made reference to, the government has brought in a relatively modest change, which the member is now trying to have increased from three months to up to two years. These are the types of changes that would protect the interests of the worker.

We need to take a bigger look at it and take a holistic approach to the working environment. I am not sure whether Hansard will get the tail end of my question to the member, because it was getting a little lengthy, but what I was trying to amplify is that it is important workers know their rights, and that there are many different agencies and support networks to reinforce and support them.

What I was referencing in the tail end of my question was to what degree there is a sense of public awareness and to what degree we might be doing something collectively, or the government or governments should be doing, to promote, whether through advertising or other means, the rights of workers. This is something important that needs to be taken into consideration.

With respect to the rights of workers, everyone in the workplace should have the right to be free of harassment and any sort of violence. That is really important. There is a responsibility on employers, whether it is directly through the employer or it is through the manager, to ensure that there are opportunities that are not intimidating for workers to bring things forward. When that takes place, I believe it is healthy for the entire workforce in a particular environment, especially if workers can see there is a genuine attempt to deal with an issue such that the individual who has been slighted is being listened to and the concern is being addressed.

I appreciate the member's bringing forward the legislation. I suspect it will go to committee; we will ultimately see what takes place at committee stage.

Criminal Code

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, first I want to thank the member for Cariboo—Prince George for bringing the bill forward.

I am honoured to speak to Bill C-321, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to assaults against persons who provide health services and first responders, and to the amendments made by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

I also want to thank the committee for its work in developing the bill into a more inclusive and robust legislative measure, one that reflects our collective commitment to the welfare of health care workers and first responders, who put their life on the line each and every day to keep Canadians and our communities safe.

Bill C-321 seeks to address the increase in violence against those who provide health services and against our first responders. It was originally tabled proposing to do so by enacting inclusion of an aggravating factor that would apply to assaults against health care professionals and first responders, as well as cases involving the uttering of threats to the same people.

As a result of its deliberations, the committee concluded that the scope of victims who would be protected by this bill needed to be expanded in recognition of the diversity within our health care services sector. Bill C-321 was amended to replace references to “a health care professional or a first responder” with “a person who provides health services, including personal care services, or a first responder”. This change was made to the proposed aggravating factor, as well as to the preamble and to the title of the bill. This is the same language from Bill C-3, which the Government passed in 2021.

This change in language would ensure that all individuals involved in providing health services, from nurses and doctors to personal care workers, abortion providers and administrative staff, benefit from the same protection against assaults and the uttering of threats while in the performance of their duties.

The committee's amendments also align with the changes brought about by our government's former Bill C-3, which received royal assent in 2021. The amendments ensured that it would be an aggravating factor for any offence of assault or uttering threats to be committed against a person who, in the performance of their duties and functions, was providing health services, including personal care services.

Former Bill C-3 also enacted new offences prohibiting intimidating and obstructing conduct directed at those providing or seeking health services. Bill C-321's proposed changes would expand criminal law measures to include first responders. This reflects our denunciation of workplace violence in these critical sectors, whose workers should never fear for their own safety or feel intimidated as they are coming from and going to work.

The changes are about recognizing the diverse roles of those individuals who contribute to our safety in our health care systems, and about our recognition that they deserve to work in an environment free from the threat of violence. They should never be the target of death threats, whether in person or through social media campaigns designed to intimidate and frighten them, yet this is happening each and every day.

The need for such comprehensive protection is based on the statistics and stories emerging from various sources. For instance, the 2019 report by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health revealed that in just one year, 61% of nurses experienced abuse, harassment or assault.

Firefighters and other first responders have also reported an increase in acts of violence during emergency responses. Behind these numbers are real people facing real threats, impacting not only their physical safety but also their mental health and job satisfaction, as well as, may I add, their families and the people close to them, and their neighbourhoods.

Bill C-321's proposed amendment to the Criminal Code signals to the courts that sentences should be increased to further denounce assaults committed against persons who provide health services or who are first responders. It also acknowledges their invaluable service to society, which sometimes makes them vulnerable to violence while carrying out their duties.

Additionally, this bill, with a broader scope, would provide a clearer response to conduct that disproportionately impacts women and particularly racialized women. By extending protection to all health service providers, Bill C-321 also supports the larger goals of promoting gender equality and safeguarding the rights of minority groups.

The available information regarding violence against first responders, while not extensive, clearly indicates that women in these roles face a heightened risk of gender-specific violence, including instances of sexual harassment and assault.

Our first responders and those in health services are working selflessly in the most trying circumstances to save lives and care for critically ill patients. Their commitment to public service often comes at a personal cost, a cost that should not include violence.

I know that the government remains steadfast in its commitment to addressing the serious issue of violence against health service providers and first responders.

Supporting Bill C-321, as amended by the committee, is a demonstration of our commitment to protect the well-being and dignity of those who serve our communities.

I want to note that it is Sexual and Reproductive Health Awareness Week. It is important to note that this legislation, as with the former bill, Bill C-3, will protect abortion providers. We have seen rises in attacks on abortion providers in various parts of the world and we want to avoid that here in Canada.

I am happy to see this bill provide another level of protection to those providers in Canada. Violence affects more than just the physical well-being of first responders and health care workers. It also has lasting consequences on their mental health. The challenges of the pandemic have intensified pre-existing problems, such as burnout and occupational stress injuries, which are often a result of traumatic experiences, including violence and abuse encountered in the workplace. These work conditions influence the decision of these crucial workers to remain in their jobs, and remain serving our communities.

This bill, in its amended form, is part of a broader conversation about how we, as a society, value and protect those who work in challenging and often dangerous environments. It challenges us to think about the kind of support and resources we provide and how to ensure that every worker in Canada can perform their duties without fear of violence or harm.

Let us honour the work of the people who provide health services, including personal care services and first responders, with actions that match their dedication.

We will continue to work to keep all Canadians safe. I urge all members to support Bill C-321 to pass, ensuring that our first responders and health care workers are protected, and that this goes to the Senate for its approval.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

moved that Bill C-321, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against persons who provide health services and first responders), be read the third time and passed.

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to rise once again in this chamber to speak to a bill that is near and dear to my heart. I rise today to speak on behalf of the hundreds and thousands of brave men and women who are our hometown heroes; they are our nurses, our health care workers, our firefighters, our paramedics, our first responders and our correctional officers.

Bill C-321, an act to amend the Criminal Code, assaults against persons who provide health services and first responders, would amend the Criminal Code by adding section 269.02, which would make an offence against a health care provider or first responder an aggravating factor upon sentencing. Our health care providers and first responders need to be assured that if they are attacked, assaulted or harassed while on the job, there is a strong legal mechanism in place to deliver them justice. As it stands today, that protection simply does not exist.

Bill C-321 would serve three main purposes: one, it would be a powerful deterrent to those who seek to commit violence against our frontline heroes; two, it would signal to frontline workers that we value them, that we are looking out for them and that the justice system will protect them; and three, it would help throw weight behind a national conversation that needs to be had to start making these workplaces safer. To put it more simply, Bill C-321 is about protecting those who protect us. The importance of this legislation cannot be overstated.

Our health care providers and our first responders truly are Canadian heroes. They put their lives and their personal safety on the line each and every day. How many people can say that same? We have fallen far when it is okay to hunt and to target firefighters, who are just trying to save lives; to hunt and to target nurses and paramedics, who are simply trying to provide care to the sick and wounded? These are our frontline heroes, and the reality is that they have to deal with these traumatic occurrences each and every day.

Firefighters, police officers, correctional officers, nurses and doctors put on their uniforms each and very day to serve us and our families. They do so knowing and expecting that they are going to face violence and harassment. They heal our wounds. They run into burning buildings. They run toward danger when others run away. They dedicate their lives to protecting us and those we love: our neighbours, our friends, our families. Who protects them? Right now, there is no one.

Everyone deserves a workplace free from violence and abuse. When one starts a career in health care or as a first responder, one does so to serve one's community and to make a difference. Nowhere in the job description does it say that one should be signing on for a life of violence, abuse and harassment. When did violence in the workplace every become the norm? We cannot tolerate this any longer. We have to act.

Many of our great men and women, nurses and paramedics, firefighters and correctional officers have shared their personal stories with me, and I am sure they have done the same with many of our colleagues as well. We cannot turn on the TV or scroll through social media without seeing yet another story of a violent attack on a paramedic or a nurse.

Recently, I visited a medical facility, and I witnessed the aftermath of a bloody assault on a nurse. It was horrible to see this young nurse absolutely battered. All that nurse was trying to do was to take the temperature of a patient. When I spoke with the supervisor of that particular nurse, I was told that it was the second incident of violence in a month. It is crazy how far we have fallen when our paramedics have to put on bulletproof vests just to start their shifts and to make it through a shift.

When we hear those stories we do not know how to respond. It is difficult to imagine the things they go through. It is hard to hear. What I know is that we need to act. We need to do everything in our power to make a difference in these heroes' lives. Whether they are a nurse, a personal care worker, a paramedic, a firefighter, a correctional officer or a psychiatric nurse who is simply performing their duties, they are all facing increasing rates of violence on a daily basis. We need them to know that they are cherished and that someone is looking out for them. We need them to know that there is somebody who is fighting for them.

We as parliamentarians can be their champions. We have the sole constitutional power to create law, and we must use that power to demonstrate to the world that in Canada, violence perpetrated against health care providers and first responders is unacceptable. We will not stand for it. On the contrary, we will stand firmly against it.

To anyone watching or listening right now, I urge them to go look back at the witness testimony from when Bill C-321 was at the justice committee. Some of the stories these brave paramedics, nurses and firefighters have shared with us were absolutely horrific. I would like to highlight some of the testimony for my colleagues here now.

Testimony from Dr. Elizabeth Donnelly, associate professor at the University of Windsor and a member of the violence in paramedicine research group reads:

Violence against paramedics is wildly under-reported, primarily due to a culture of under-reporting and this idea that tolerating violence has become an expected professional competency.

Violence reporting [has been slowly] increasing, and while it's still under-reported, our research has found that paramedics are reporting violence every 18 hours, are assaulted every 46 hours and experience violence that results in physical harm every nine days.

Linda Silas, President of the Canadian Federation of Nurses Union, said this:

The facts are shocking...In 2023, a pan-Canadian survey of nurses was done. Two-thirds reported incidents of physical assaults over the past year and 40% of those nurses reported physical abuse more than once a month while engaged in their duties.

She also said:

Exposure to violence predicts negative mental health outcomes, including PTSD...78.5% [of nurses] report symptoms of burnout. Similar data is seen with public safety personnel.

Danette Thomsen of the B.C. nurses union said:

What about the nurse in rural B.C. who, last January, entered a female patient's room and was attacked? Can you imagine being held over a chair, receiving punch after punch, with handfuls of your hair being pulled out, while waiting frantically for help to come from the RCMP?

Paul Hills, president of the Saskatoon Paramedics Association and a member of the International Association of Fire Fighters, speaking on the daily experience of paramedics across Canada, said this:

We normally start our 12-hour shift with a team briefing. We check our trucks and then it's go, go, go. We rarely have any breaks. That means no breakfast, no lunch and no supper as compared with the average worker, not to mention all while experiencing some of the most horrific and heart-wrenching situations that exist in society—incidents involving children being stabbed by their parents, or families tragically dying in motor vehicle [accidents].

He went on:

Personally, I've had my life and those of my family threatened by gang members. I've had machetes and knives pulled on me. I've removed guns from patients while attending to their medical needs.

Mr. Hills continued:

In Toronto just two weeks ago, a firefighter attempting to put out a fire in an encampment was attacked with a six-foot piece of PVC piping and hit in the face for no reason whatsoever.

In British Columbia, interactions with overdose patients have become violent or aggressive once we've rendered medical care to save their lives.

In Winnipeg, a firefighter got stabbed in the back while attending to a patient on a sidewalk.

I could spend the rest of the hour sharing real-life events—my partner here could as well—of violent acts or near misses, but the takeaway is that it's real. It's happening right now.

If that is not enough evidence, I am not sure what is, but the violence that our health care providers and first responders face on a daily basis has hidden consequences that go beyond the physical risks. There is a growing body of research showing that increased violence is correlated to higher rates of depression, anxiety, stress, suicidal ideation and burnout.

Critically, exposure to on-the-job violence has been strongly identified with a rising intent to leave the job. We live in a time when we need our health care providers and first responders more than ever, but our nurses, paramedics, firefighters and more are looking to leave their jobs rather than continuing to suffer the abuse they experience. The violence and abuse they constantly face leads to fear, to fatigue and to burnout; and it leads to serious morale and recruitment issues. Why would they not want to leave? How are employers going to recruit somebody with that type of job description, under those conditions? Why should we expect people to keep fighting, day in and day out, for us, with no thanks and no appreciation, if we cannot fight for them?

Our frontline heroes need our support. They need recognition. They need our help. Bill C-321 is the necessary first step to work toward those goals. Many parties have a role to play in addressing this crisis, and those actors and those parties need to step up to the plate. Talk is cheap. As parliamentarians, we are limited in offering solutions, but what we can do we should do. We can do our part by amending the Criminal Code and passing Bill C-321 into law now. I do not think it is a controversial debate. We all want to come together on this in a non-partisan fashion to get things done for our health care providers and our first responders.

We have already heard speeches and witness testimonies that Bill C-321 is complementary to the changes made in the earlier Bill C-3, and we know that Bill C-321 came out of the 2019 HESA recommendations from the report on violence against first responders. We know that the relevant stakeholder groups are overwhelmingly supportive of this legislation. If the status quo on an assault charge were a sufficient deterrent, this debate would be irrelevant, but clearly, as so many witnesses have testified before the justice committee, there is nothing currently in the law that acts as a strong enough deterrent for the increasing rates of violence experienced by health care providers and first responders.

That is why the International Association of Fire Fighters has publicly and vocally supported the legislation, and it is far from the only one. The Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs, the Paramedic Association of Canada, the Ambulance Paramedics of British Columbia, the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, the Ontario Paramedic Association, the Paramedic Chiefs of Canada, the Manitoba Association of Fire Chiefs, the Saskatoon Paramedic Association, the British Columbia Nurses' Union and the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions have all thrown their considerable weight behind this bill. It is imperative that we listen to what these stakeholders are telling us. They are asking us for help, and they are asking us to work toward a solution together.

There are countless regional, provincial, national and international organizations that have come on board, and we know that the Canadian public is highly supportive of this initiative as well, as was reported from an Abacus Data poll conducted in November, which showed that 83% of Canadians support making assault against health care providers and first responders a more serious offence in the Criminal Code.

We must take this first step toward showing our frontline heroes that we hear them, that we are here for them, that we value them immensely, that we will always have their backs, that we appreciate them and that we will fight to protect them. That is our duty. Our health care providers and our first responders need to know that Parliament, the House of elected officials and, more important, the justice system have their backs and will not let them slip through the cracks any longer.

Public Safety

[James Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious issue that requires a serious response. It is not something that should be highlighted in a negative way in the House of Commons.

The Liberal government has taken steps through Bill S-12, Bill C-3 and Bill C-51. We have taken serious measures to address sexual assault crimes, including sexual assault offenders being included on the sex offender registry.

Criminal Code

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise today to speak to Bill C-321, which was introduced by our hon. colleague from Cariboo—Prince George. Before I proceed further, I would like, on behalf of 838,000 Hindu Canadians, to again acknowledge and thank the hon. member for his support for my private member's motion, which enabled November every year to be recognized as Hindu Heritage Month across Canada.

Bill C-321 seeks to denounce and deter violence against nurses, paramedics, firefighters, police officers, including transit officers or special constables, and other frontline health care staff. It would amend the Criminal Code to require a court to consider as an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes the fact that the victim is a health care professional or first responder who was acting in the performance of their duties.

As highlighted in the 2019 report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health, entitled “Violence Facing Health Care Workers in Canada”, health care workers have a four-times higher rate of workplace violence than any other profession, despite most of this violence being unreported. The report also noted that 61% of nurses who participated in a cross-country survey reported experiencing abuse, harassment or assault in the previous year, and 74% of the paramedics reported experiencing multiple forms of violence annually.

The men and women who serve as health care professionals and first responders play an invaluable role in our society. They are the heroes who rush toward danger while others flee, the ones who provide critical medical care in times of crisis and the ones who maintain law and order to keep our communities safe. They face countless challenges and risks, working tirelessly to protect and preserve life, often at the expense of their own well-being. It is deeply troubling to witness an alarming increase in assaults against these dedicated individuals. They are subjected to physical violence, verbal abuse and threats while carrying out their duties. These attacks not only pose a direct threat to their safety, but also undermine the integrity of our health care system and emergency services.

It is essential that we take a strong stand against such heinous acts and provide a higher level of protection for those who selflessly dedicated their lives to serving others. By amending the Criminal Code, we would send a resounding message that assaults on health care professionals and first responders will not be tolerated. We are acknowledging the unique challenges they face and recognizing the importance of their contributions to society. When passed, the bill would serve as a deterrent, discouraging potential perpetrators from engaging in acts of violence against these essential workers.

Furthermore, by considering assaults against health care professionals and first responders as an aggravating factor during sentencing, we would acknowledge the broader implications of such attacks. These assaults not only cause physical harm to individuals, but also have far-reaching consequences for public safety and the provision of essential services. By recognizing this as an aggravating factor, we would ensure that those who commit these crimes face more significant penalties, reflecting the gravity of their actions and the impact on society as a whole.

Some may suggest that existing laws already provide adequate protection for health care professionals and first responders. However, the stark reality is that assaults against these individuals are on the rise and we must respond with targeted measures that explicitly recognize the unique vulnerabilities they face. By enshrining their protection within the Criminal Code, we would send a clear and unequivocal message that their safety and well-being are of paramount importance.

Moreover, this bill reflects our commitment to creating a safe and supportive environment for health care professionals and first responders. It demonstrates that we value their selfless dedication and are committed to ensuring they can perform their duties without fear of violence or aggression. By enacting this bill, we are standing in solidarity with those who risk their lives to protect ours.

In addition to deterrence and enhanced protection, this bill has the potential to foster cultural change. It sends a powerful message to society, urging us to reflect on the value and respect we afford to those on the front lines of service. It encourages a broader shift in attitudes, promoting a collective sense of responsibility to safeguard those who dedicate their lives to safeguarding us.

The amendment proposed in Bill C-321 is similar to Bill C-3, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code, which included as an aggravating factor evidence that the offence was committed against a person who was providing health services. Bill C-3 received royal assent on December 17, 2021. Our government continues to show support to first responders, including with the recent passage of a private member's bill, Bill C-224, the national framework on cancers linked to firefighting act, which passed on March 8, 2023, at third reading.

Bill C-321 applies to the performance of any duty by a first responder or health care worker, not just to cases where the victim was providing health services at the time of the offence. Amendments will make the legislation consistent with the terminology used elsewhere and will provide broad protection so that it does not apply only to health care professionals. As citizens, it is our duty to advocate for the safety and well-being of those who dedicate their lives to caring for us in times of need.

In conclusion, the proposed amendment to the Criminal Code represents a significant step forward in ensuring the safety and well-being of our health care professionals and first responders. By recognizing assaults against them as aggravated offences, we are reaffirming our commitment to protecting those who selflessly serve our communities.

Let us come together as a nation to support this legislation, sending a strong message that we stand united against violence and aggression toward those who sacrifice so much to protect us.

Sitting Resumed

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak this evening—although I must say the hour is late, almost 9 p.m.—to join the debate on Bill C-47.

Before I start, I would like to take a few minutes to voice my heartfelt support for residents of the north shore and Abitibi who have been fighting severe forest fires for several days now. This is a disastrous situation.

I know that the member for Manicouagan and the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou are on site. They are there for their constituents and represent them well. They have been visiting emergency shelters and showing their solidarity by being actively involved with their constituents and the authorities. The teamwork has been outstanding. Our hearts go out to the people of the north shore and Abitibi.

Tonight, my colleague from Abitibi-Témiscamingue will rise to speak during the emergency debate on forest fires. He will then travel back home to be with his constituents as well, so he can offer them his full support and be there for them in these difficult times.

Of course, I also offer my condolences to the family grieving the loss of loved ones who drowned during a fishing accident in Portneuf-sur-Mer. This is yet another tragedy for north shore residents. My heart goes out to the family, the children's parents and those who perished.

Before talking specifically about Bill C-47, I would like to say how impressive the House's work record is. A small headline in the newspapers caught my eye last week. It said that the opposition was toxic and that nothing was getting done in the House. I found that amusing, because I was thinking that we have been working very hard and many government bills have been passed. I think it is worth listing them very quickly to demonstrate that, when it comes right down to it, if parliamentarians work together and respect all the legislative stages, they succeed in getting important bills passed.

I am only going to mention the government's bills. Since the 44th Parliament began, the two Houses have passed bills C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-8 and C-10, as well as Bill C-11, the online streaming bill. My colleague from Drummond's work on this bill earned the government's praise. We worked hard to pass this bill, which is so important to Quebec and to our broadcasting artists and technicians.

We also passed bills C-12, C-14, C-15, C-16, C-19, C-24, C-25, C-28, C-30, C-31, C-32, C-36 and C-39, which is the important act on medical assistance in dying, and bills C-43, C-44 and C-46.

We are currently awaiting royal assent for Bill C-9. Bill C-22 will soon return to the House as well. This is an important bill on the disability benefit.

We are also examining Bill C-13, currently in the Senate and soon expected to return to the House. Bill C-18, on which my colleague from Drummond worked exceedingly hard, is also in the Senate. Lastly, I would mention bills C-21, C-29 and C-45.

I do not know whether my colleagues agree with me, but I think that Parliament has been busy and that the government has gotten many of its bills passed by the House of Commons. Before the Liberals say that the opposition is toxic, they should remember that many of those bills were passed by the majority of members in the House.

I wanted to point that out because I was rather insulted to be told that my behaviour, as a member of the opposition, was toxic and was preventing the work of the House from moving forward. In my opinion, that is completely false. We have the government's record when it comes to getting its bills passed. The government is doing quite well in that regard.

We have now come to Bill C-47. We began this huge debate on the budget implementation bill this morning and will continue to debate it until Wednesday. It is a very large, very long bill that sets out a lot of budgetary measures that will be implemented after the bill is passed.

I have no doubt that, by the end of the sitting on June 23, the House will pass Bill C-47 in time for the summer break.

What could this bill have included that is not in there? For three years, the Bloc Québécois and several other members in the House have been saying that there is nothing for seniors. I was saying earlier to my assistant that, in my riding of Salaberry—Suroît, we speak at every meeting about the decline in seniors' purchasing power. I am constantly being approached by seniors who tell me—

Criminal Code

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to express, on behalf of my New Democrat colleagues, our support for Bill C-321, an act to amend the Criminal Code, assaults against health care professionals and first responders. Once again, I would like to offer my gratitude and congratulations to my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George for his constant attention and care to our frontline responders in this country. This is a continuation of his fine work in this area.

In brief, this legislation amends the Criminal Code to require courts to consider the fact that victims of an assault were at the time of the commission of the offence a health care professional or a first responder engaged in the performance of their duty as an aggravating circumstance when they are the victim of that offence.

I think it goes without saying that no health care worker or first responder, in this country or anywhere, should ever be subjected to violence in the workplace. Bullying, abuse, racial or sexual harassment, and physical assault should never and can never be considered just part of the job. These workers care for us at our most vulnerable, and I think we have a responsibility to care for them in return.

Violence against health care workers in specific is a pervasive and growing problem in the Canadian health care system. Both the number and intensity of attacks are increasing at an alarming rate. Assaulting a health care worker or a first responder not only harms the individual involved but also puts our entire health care system and first response system at risk. Workplace violence is a major factor driving Canada's dire health staffing shortage, and I am sure it is a dissuading and discouraging factor for people pursing this career.

Workplace violence is a pervasive problem in health care settings across Canada. Prior to COVID–19, health care workers had a fourfold higher rate of workplace violence than any other profession. Incidents of violence against health care workers and first responders escalated dramatically during the pandemic. I might say as well that first responders are often the first people on the scene when we are dealing with Canada's overdose crisis, and I do not think I need to point out how pervasive that is in every corner of the country and the danger it presents to them.

In a 2017 survey, 68% of registered practical nurses and personal support workers reported experiencing violence on the job at least once that year. Nearly, one in five said that they had been assaulted nine or more times that year. According to the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions, violence-related lost-time claims for frontline health care workers have increased by almost 66% over the past decade. That is three times the rate of increase for police and correctional service officers combined. First responders, notably paramedics and firefighters, also experienced violence and threats on a shockingly frequent basis.

That is why on February 28, 2019, I introduced Bill C-434, an act to amend the Criminal Code, assault against a health care sector worker. That legislation would have amended the Criminal Code to require a court to consider the fact that the victim of an assault is a health care sector worker would also be an aggravating circumstance for the purpose of sentencing. I reintroduced that legislation in successive parliaments in February 2020 and December of 2021.

Although the present bill, Bill C-321, before the House today is very similar to Bill C-434, it does not define a health care worker as broadly. This bill is limited to an assault against “a health care professional or a first responder”, but does not define the terms. The bill I introduced was specifically drafted to ensure that, when we talk about a health care worker, we include not only professionals, but everybody who works in a health care setting, from the porter who greets people at the door, to the orderly and the admin clerk, many of whom experience bullying, abuse and violence. I know my colleague has already indicated that he is willing to look at a broadened definition, and I thank him for that because we want to make sure that this contemplated measure does not exclude any health care sector workers who are not members of professional bodies.

As has been pointed out by my colleague on the government side, in December of 2021, Bill C-3 was passed in the House, which amended the Criminal Code to enhance protections for health care workers, those who assist them and those accessing health care services, and it received royal assent at that time.

Among other measures, Bill C-3 amended the Criminal Code to make it an aggravating factor in sentencing for any offence when there is evidence that, one, “the offence was committed against a person who...was providing health services, including personal care services,” as a part of their duties or, two, where there is evidence that the offence “had the effect of impeding another person from obtaining health services, including personal care services”.

By the way, I also think it is important to point out that we ensure that this bill is broadly defined to include any setting in which a health care worker may perform health care services, including in the home, long-term care centres or any other non-conventional place other than a hospital.

Unlike Bill C-3, the bill before the House, Bill C-321, broadens that protection, I think very laudably, to apply to first responders who are engaged in their duties but not necessarily engaged in providing health services. This is a welcome improvement. Again, I thank my hon. colleague for broadening this important protection.

Assaulting a peace officer is already a stand-alone offence under section 270 of the Criminal Code. The punishment for assault of a peace officer is no more serious than the legislated sentence for common assault. However, the court is likely to consider that the victim, as a peace officer, is an aggravating factor at sentencing.

The Criminal Code offences in sections 129 and 270 do define public officer and peace officer, but case law on the interpretation of section 2 shows the varying occupations that have been counted as peace officers for the purposes of prosecutions under the Criminal Code in particular contexts. They have been included to define members of the Anishinabek Police Service and military police. However, despite the existence of cases which mention paramedics or firefighters that cite section 270 of the Criminal Code on peace officers, there are none that I am aware of where the person assaulted was a paramedic or firefighter. Therefore, current case law suggests that first responders are not considered peace officers under the Criminal Code. This omission must be rectified and would be rectified by this bill that is before the House.

I have already talked about Bill C-321 employing the term “health care professionals” and how that is not defined in this bill, so we are going to work, I hope collaboratively, to ensure that that definition is broadly expanded. It is similar with first responders, who are not defined in this bill because the Criminal Code does not define this term. Other federal statutes do not either, so it will be important for us to have a good, broad description of that to ensure that any person in this country who is providing first response services in our communities is covered by this legislation.

I want to just mention that this is an important step because the Criminal Code is an expression of society's values and priorities. I think sending a message to the Canadian public that these health care workers are taking care of us, that they deserve to be protected and are inviolate is an important message for Parliament to send.

I am not sure I understood completely the comments by my hon. colleague from the Bloc Québécois. He did mention some important points about broadening this protection to many other kinds of workers, but there is one key difference. Health care workers and first responders do a job that we ask them to do. We ask them to be there for people when they are in trauma, and we are putting them in a situation that regular workers are not often in. They have no choice but to be there. They have to be there. That is why I think it is particularly important to send the message that they are inviolate and we must protect them. We have to send a message that under no circumstances is it ever acceptable to violate those people, either by word or deed.

Finally, I want to recognize that, as important as this bill is, it is only a first step. To keep health care workers and first responders safe, they need resources and tools. We want to prevent them from getting assaulted in the first place so they need proper security. They need proper physical barriers. They need sufficient staffing.

We all need greater mental health supports because we also have to recognize that many times the people who are doing the assaults are in some cases victims and are suffering from mental illness and trauma themselves. We have to recognize that we need a comprehensive holistic approach to this problem so we are doing everything we can to prevent the situations that often lead to assaults from happening in the first place instead of dealing with the sentencing after the assault occurs.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am indeed honoured and very pleased to join the second reading debate on Bill C-321, an act to amend the Criminal Code as it relates to assaults against health care professionals and first responders.

First, let me congratulate the member for Cariboo—Prince George, whom I have had the privilege of working with on a number of projects, especially in terms of mental health. I congratulate him and convey that I will be supporting this bill. It is indeed a pleasure to work with him on this file.

I think all members would agree that health care professionals, personal support care workers, frontline workers and first responders are not just workers. They are co-workers, friends, daughters and sons, and mothers and fathers. They are members of our community. They are the ones who reach out to us. They are extraordinarily empathetic members of our community. Every day, their risk their health to bring a smile to the beautiful faces of our community members. Every day, they risk their lives to save our lives and to protect our communities. They are not just workers; they are heroes. However, these heroes are struggling.

I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to connect with the amazing SEIU health care workers in Richmond Hill, and I learned about the economic, physical and mental challenges that they combat every single day because of the critical nature of their job. Despite all of this, with ever more fascinating courage and resilience, they continue to work to keep their communities safe. Their tireless effort is simply sparked by passion, love and care.

Richmond Hill firefighters are another group and another inspiring example of first responders. They face physical danger not only while on duty but also as they put on their protective gear for firefighting. This is because the PFAS used in their gear cause severe health effects. This is in addition to the mental impacts of living with the uncertainty of what the next mission on the job holds every moment of every day. It is truly hero-like that, every time, they face the uncertainty with the same bravery and notion of service.

Today I met with the Paramedic Association of Canada. I was given one of those coins that we are not supposed to use as a prop. In light of CMHA Mental Health Week, I would like to highlight the fact that, with the vital and high-pressure nature of their jobs, paramedics are exposed to severe mental and psychological pressures. This issue is exacerbated by the increasing violence and number of assaults they face, all while they passionately maintain the health and safety of their fellow community members.

Health care workers and first responders put their lives on the line every day to keep Canadians and our communities safe. They should never fear for their own safety or feel intimidated as they are going to and from work. Bill C-321 aims to respond to ongoing calls to denounce and deter violence against nurses; paramedics; firefighters; police officers, including transit officers or special constables; and other frontline health care staff. The bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code to require a court to consider the fact that the victim is a health care professional or first responder who was acting in the performance of their duties as an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes. The amendment would apply only at sentencing for cases involving assault-related crimes.

In 2019, as the hon. member mentioned, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health studied the prevalence of violence faced by health care workers in Canada. It reported that health care workers have a rate of workplace violence that is four times higher than that of any other profession. What is particularly alarming about this figure is stakeholders' report that most of the violence that workers experience remains unreported because of a culture of acceptance. That is not acceptable.

In its report entitled “Violence Facing Health Care Workers in Canada”, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health made several recommendations, including that the Government of Canada amend the Criminal Code to require courts to treat the fact that the victim of an assault is a health care sector worker as an aggravating factor for sentencing. In light of these calls for reform and the rise in violence against health care workers during the pandemic, our government introduced former Bill C-3, which, when it came into effect in 2021, added to section 718.2 of the Criminal Code an aggravating factor targeting offences committed against any person who, in the performance of their duties and functions, was providing health services. Bill C-321 would complement the amendments enacted by former Bill C-3 by providing additional protection for first responders and expanding the range of circumstances to which the aggravating factor would apply.

First, I want to provide some additional context in relation to aggravating factors. Aggravating factors are circumstances that relate to the seriousness of the offence or the degree of responsibility of the offender and justify the imposition of higher sentences. The Criminal Code contains specific provisions that apply to certain types of first responders. These provisions include, for example, specific offences that capture all forms of assault against peace officers, directing that the sentences imposed for these offences be served consecutively to any other sentence imposed for an offence arising out of the same event.

The proposed aggravating factor in Bill C-321 is consistent with the broad discretion conferred to sentencing judges under section 718.2 of the Criminal Code. The list of aggravating factors provided in this section is not exhaustive, and courts can and do expand the list when recognizing new aggravating and mitigating factors at sentencing. In fact, reported cases in Canada have already recognized that assaulting first responders and persons working in the health care system is an aggravating circumstance at sentencing.

The aggravating factor enacted by former Bill C-3 applies where a victim of an offence was, in the performance of their duties and functions, providing health care services at the time of the offence. However, the beauty of Bill C-321 is that it would apply where a victim was a first responder or health care professional engaged in the performance of their duties. This is a subtle but important difference between the aggravating factor under section 718.2 and the amendment proposed in the bill before us.

The proposed section 269.02 would apply where the victim was performing any other duties, not only those duties relating to the direct provision of health care. For example, even if a firefighter who was assaulted on the job was not providing health-related services at the time of the assault, the aggravating factor proposed in Bill C-321 would still apply.

Our government supports the proposed amendments and would like to suggest replacing the reference to “health care professional” with “person who provides health services”. Our concern is that the term “health care professional” may be interpreted narrowly by the court, which could result in the exclusion of those who work in the health care field but who may not be considered health care professionals. Making such a change would not only result in protection for as broad a class of victims as possible, but the protection they are entitled to would also ensure consistency in terminology between the proposed section 269.02 and the aggravating factor enacted by former Bill C-3 in section 718.2, which applies to persons providing health services.

In closing, our government is committed to addressing the serious issue of violence against health care workers and first responders, such as SEIU health care workers and Richmond Hill firefighters, as well as paramedics. This amendment would, I believe, better achieve the objective of Bill C-321, resulting in expanded protection for all persons working as first responders and working in the health care field.

Justice

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said several times, serious crimes deserve serious consequences.

Our government has taken action on several fronts to ensure that victims of sexual assault are treated with dignity and respect.

Yesterday, I tabled in the Senate Bill S‑12, which will strengthen the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and will also give victims more powers. I hope that all parties in the House will support it.

This is in addition to other measures we have introduced such as Bill C‑3 and Bill C‑51, which will protect victims of sexual assault.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be joining the debate on this bill. I want to begin by thanking my constituents again for returning me to Parliament to serve them, to speak on their behalf and to bring the voice of Calgarians here to Ottawa, to our national Parliament. Every day, I think about how lucky each and every one of us is, all 338 of us, to be able to represent constituents in the House of Commons and work on their behalf.

I also want to start by saying that I am a Canadian who was born overseas; I happen to be one of those who were naturalized back in 1989. I was able to share that story when I was doing outreach activities on the Island of Montreal. I also talked to many new Canadians about their experiences of coming to Canada. I reminded them all the time that anyone could become a member of Parliament if they make the effort, tell the truth and have the work ethic and dedication. Representing people in this country in a legislative body is a great privilege, and we should never forget that.

I want to go over a few points very quickly, just to give an outline of the trouble I have with what is happening today with this concurrence of a report coming out of the immigration committee. There is the issue of timing and how we have come to this point, where the vote would now be necessary. I want to talk about the mover of this Senate bill, Senator Yonah Martin of British Columbia. I want to talk about Senate Bill S-230, the original piece of legislation, and how Bill S-245 is basically the exact same bill.

I also want to speak briefly to process. This is not an issue related to the substance. I think many people agree on the substance; of course, Conservatives agree because this is a Conservative legislative initiative. It is very simple to understand why Conservatives, for example, would not do something like move amendments to a bill being proposed by a Conservative. It is because we all agree with it. We went before our caucus. We had a presentation. Of course we agree with it; it is a Conservative senator proposing a Conservative idea. That idea is the rightful restoration of Canadian citizenship to a particular group of Canadians, and we are talking about a small group that is affected.

The bill is very simple. It is all on one page. It is a simple idea that would address a specific group. This does not mean that others do not have a case for it to be restored. There is a legislative case for it to be done. However, this particular bill has been in the works in two minority Parliaments now to try to fix it. As we know, minority Parliaments are unpredictable, despite there being an NDP-Liberal coalition. Here, we have a government and an opposition party, and we do not know where one begins and the other one ends. We do not know when there could be an election; that would wipe out all the legislative initiatives being considered by the House and by the Senate.

That is exactly what happened to Bill S-230. When the election was called on August 15, 2021, it wiped out all the legislative initiatives that were under way back then. Bill S-230, dealing with these lost Canadians, had already gone through the Senate. It had one meeting of consideration, with expert testimony being provided by government officials; this was useful in understanding that the contents of the legislation were correct and would in fact fix the situation that we are facing. We heard new testimony and new consideration on Bill S-245.

The timing is the issue that I am hung up on. I do not know when an election could come. I want to expedite a bill like this, with no changes, in order to consider new legislation. The House is always free to do that. Any member of the House or any senator could table a private member's bill. In fact, senators can now legislate faster than we can, which I think is wrong. I hope some government members would agree with me on that. It is a separate legislative idea. Maybe there could be changes to the Standing Orders someday.

I know there is at least one member from Winnipeg who would agree with me that members of the House of Commons should be the ones legislating the most often, and senators should not do so as often or as quickly. Now we have a lottery system, and the Speaker drew the numbers. I am going to remind the Deputy Speaker of this, because I think I drew third from last when he was doing the draw. I really think there should have been a recount. I see another member from Montreal, from one of my alma maters, Concordia, saying that she drew a much better number than I did.

Timing is an issue in this matter. This is a group of lost Canadians who could have their citizenship restored. They would be made whole. If we made no amendments to the bill, once passed through the House of Commons, it would receive royal assent from the Governor General and be made law.

Any amendments we make at committee would then return to the House, and any report stage amendments would delay the passage of the bill. The bill could then go again for another set of reviews. I am sure that senators, when they agreed to pass this bill on an expeditious basis, were passing the original bill, Bill S-230. They were passing a bill they had already considered and debated.

They are going to consider the debate that took place in the House. They are going to review why, for example, government officials before the committee in the House of Commons provided different information than some other government officials, though some of them were the same, at the Senate committee two years ago. They will wonder why the advice was slightly different and why they now have a problem with some of the wording in Bill S-245. They say it does not address the issue as well.

When I looked at the titles of these government officials, they are the exact same positions. Some people have been promoted and some have moved to different positions.

I am sure senators will review the bill. That would be months of extra waiting. As the Senate considers the bill, it will have more witnesses come before the Senate committee, and then with whatever potential amendments the Senate might have, it will send the bill back to the House of Commons. I know I am supposed to call it “the other place”, but I feel Canadians at home should know that this might delay and potentially kill the bill. The bill may not become law if this does not get done.

How did we get to this particular situation? We have a terrific vice-chair on the immigration committee, the member for Saskatoon West, who has been negotiating with the other parties in good faith. It is what I hope the government is doing during the public service strike by PSAC and at their negotiations at the table. The member has been negotiating in good faith and providing information to other parties, such as what our voting position is, what our concerns are and what type of subamendments we would consider.

We were considering some amendments that would strengthen some of the ideas we had heard and had talked about before the committee. The motion that was passed at committee, over our objections, broadens the scope beyond section 8 amendments to Bill S-245. The way I interpreted the motion was that it would mean anything in Bill S-245, the Citizenship Act, and that would be concurred in on a vote in the House of Commons. This sounds to me like a statutory review of Bill S-245, so anything in the Citizenship Act could be done.

There are many things I have heard in my travels across Canada in meeting with both new Canadians and people from families that have lived in Canada for generations. They have issues with the Citizenship Act, such as how citizenship ceremonies are organized, and whether they are done in person or virtually, at a click. Some of those are also around the rules of specific lost Canadians. Is it right to put citizenship ceremonies on certain holidays, which were maybe not as major 40 years ago? Those are all issues that members should be mindful of.

When reading this motion, and I am not burdened by a legal education so I read it like a layman would read it, with the words as they are, and it says that it would go beyond section 8, which means that anything else in the Citizenship Act should be eligible for an amendment. We have an opportunity to help lost Canadians. We also have an opportunity to ensure there are no future lost Canadians, who might have missed a citizenship ceremony because of a holiday, travel or any number of other reasons.

We have come here because other parties have not been forthcoming in explaining their position. At committee, I moved a very reasonable amendment that would have provided more time for to consider new out-of-scope amendments. We have no in-scope amendments because we agreed with the contents of the bill.

It would have been good to have more time on out-of-scope amendments, and then we could have provided the amendments. We could have all had time to consider them within our caucuses. That is what our side does. We have a fulsome debate in our caucus where our members of Parliament and senators come to an agreement on different amendments that we might consider, especially if they are major amendments, such as this seems to be, a statutory review of the Citizenship Act.

We can now take a moment to talk about the mover of this bill, Senator Yonah Martin. I think many members of the House of Commons, and I hope of the other place, the Senate, would say that she is a very non-partisan member, a member who is able to work with all members, regardless of political affiliations, on any number of issues.

She has a big heart for the Korean-Canadian community and for the battle of Kapyong. She is mindful to remind us of the battle of Kapyong and how important it is to Canadians of Korean heritage every single year. She has been of huge assistance not only to Conservatives, but also to Canadians of Korean heritage all over Canada, by connecting them with their civic officials, with Canadian political and civic life, and with community organizations.

She has a bill, which she successfully negotiated through the Senate with no amendments. That is unusual. For many of us, when we put together private members' bills or motions, there is always that potential for amendments to come forward that we were not aware of, or were not considering.

This is a member who, at committee, specifically asked that we not make amendments because of the timing issue I mentioned right at the beginning. This is why I want to bring it up. She specifically said, when asked, that she did not want an expansion of the scope of the bill if it would delay the bill. That is what would happen here. There would be a delay of the bill.

She offered a solution, which was new pieces of legislation. The government can always table government legislation to help these Canadians, which they have identified through our witness process, through the submissions the committee received. That would be entirely okay. We could consider the merits.

The House of Commons has expedited bills in the past. We just did it last week. Portions of the budget were expedited through the House of Commons. It is possible to do these things, especially when there is consensus and we work collaboratively, which I heard a parliamentary secretary talk about.

Many members on that committee will agree that our vice-chair and the Conservatives work collaboratively. We were doing that when this was moved. We were working on a draft report in a committee, and at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration no less. We are more than happy to do that. The immigration committee has done a lot of work exactly in that manner, collaboratively, by everybody being upfront about the positions they will be taking and the concerns we have with amendments and different policy issues, as well as where we are coming from. That is another one.

I wanted to make sure I brought up Bill S-230, which was the original version of the bill, in the previous Parliament, because I want to highlight the fact that, the committee on Bill S-230 in the Senate had one meeting to consider the details of the bill. We are going to be adding on basically new sections on lost Canadians. What I have found about the Citizenship Act, and I know many members will agree, especially those on the immigration committee, is how complicated it is. It is easy to make a mistake on dates, years, months, days and specific words, where we could have individuals lose their ability to pass on their citizenship to their children or grandchildren or not be able to retain it in cases of marriage.

I was born in Communist Poland, a country I always say does not exist anymore. It is a footnote in history. As a Canadian who was not born here, I know that the Citizenship Act is something to be mindful of. All my kids were born in Calgary, so they are not affected directly for things like the first generation rule, but others are. I absolutely recognize that, but there is an opportunity to legislate.

Another senator could put forward another Senate bill to address individuals, and we could again have an expedited debate to push it through the House if we could get to the terms and the words we all agree on. Like I said, in Bill S-245, there were government officials who came before the committee in a previous Parliament to say that this wording is the exact wording to address the issue the senator is concerned about. The same government officials, at least with the same titles from the same department, said it actually needs to be changed because it might not do what one says it would do.

Now we are left with not knowing what types of amendments are going to be brought forward at the committee if this concurrence of the report passes of the motion that came out of the immigration committee. We just do not know. Nobody knows now what amendments will be brought forward, except for the mover of the amendment, who will be at the table behind closed doors, potentially in camera, considering these amendments. It will hopefully all be done in public.

It is important to remember none of the parties will be obliged to provide any new amendments out of scope to be considered. Like I said, there are lots of different situations we could look at.

I always have a Yiddish proverb to share. I was in Montreal at a synagogue on Saturday, a very observant one, and there is a great Yiddish proverb: Hope for miracles, but do not rely on one. It is unpronounceable for me in Yiddish, but it is indeed a good one. I always hope for miracles. I hope we can come to some type of consensus that this bill should be expedited in its current form.

I want to vote for it the way it is right now, and I think those on my benches want to do the same thing. We want to help these lost Canadians and restore, rightfully, their citizenship. There is an opportunity to help others, and that is what I hope this place would be good at. I hope it would be able to come to a consensus on new pieces of legislation that address certain things.

I am serving in my third Parliament, and I think this would set a bad precedent. To go into another member's bill, and over their objections, say that we are going to change their private member's bill or their Senate Bill, the idea they put forward, is a bad precedent.

I know it has happened off and on in the past 10 to 20 years. In those particular cases, the individual members have brought it up to me that it should not have happened that way. I really believe that for members who have an idea that they are bringing forward, we should honour their requests and have a simple up or down vote.

Even Senator Yonah Martin said that, if there are particular technical amendments to the way this legislation is worded that keep the intent and the principle she is trying to address, which is helping this particular group of lost Canadians have their citizenship regained, which is in the summary that is provided for the bill, and it uses the term “regain”, then she was okay with that. However, what we have talked about so far, and what I have heard from the parliamentary secretary and the member of the New Democrats, are things that are potentially far out of the scope of the original intent and principle of the bill. Here I have concerns.

I have expressed those concerns. I have made forceful promises. I intend to keep my forceful promises. I have done so at other committees, which I have been on, whether it be at the PROC committee, where I remember serving with other members to ensure that the intent of motions and bills was retained. Members would have a straight up or down vote on particular subjects, and that made it very clear what we were voting for and against.

Again, I see this as an opportunity. We do not know when the election could come. I do not want to send this back to the Senate. The Senate already has had its say on the matter. It has reviewed this piece of legislation. What I want to do is expedite this bill. I was ready to do that at the first meeting on Bill S-245.

We could have maybe considered some particular amendments that were perhaps on the edge of what would be permissible. Looking to my vice-chair, I think it is fair to say that we were willing to consider them.

We had that conversation with the Liberal benches, and we were forthcoming with what our ideas were, what our concerns were and where we wanted to go. My expectation was that we gave it due consideration. We had received valuable insight, information and ideas from Canadians, both overseas and here, who had expressed concerns with different groups of lost Canadians.

We could have addressed those in other pieces of legislation, and then a senator could take up the case, or a member of any party could take up the case in a private member's bill, although probably not me, because, like I said, the Speaker drew me third from last, I believe. I still remember that, so I will probably not be one of those members.

The House can work collaboratively. I will give another example. On bereavement leave, the Minister of Labour was kind enough to work with me before Christmas, and this was 2021, to insert part of my private members' bill on bereavement leave straight into Bill C-3 and then expedite it through the House.

To the parliamentary secretary's saying that they were hoping we could work collaboratively, well, of course we can. There is even an example where we have done that. It was our shadow minister for labour at the time, the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, who did it. It can be done, when people come in good faith at the negotiating table and we hammer out a deal. That deal was done before Christmas and Canadians in federal jurisdiction had bereavement leave provisions provided to them.

Those types of situations can happen. I call them legislative miracles, getting back to my Yiddish proverb. Legislative miracles can happen when people want to make change. That was a private member's bill that likely would have never passed. It had drawn such a high number that it would not have been able to pass. I would not have been able to have the opportunity to have it debated.

With that said, I have laid out my case of why we should vote down this report, and I move:

That the House proceed to Presenting Petitions.

Justice

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, what our hon. colleague is saying is just wrong.

Our government has taken action on several fronts to support victims of sexual assault and to ensure they are treated with dignity and respect.

Ever since Bill C‑3 was passed, all new federally appointed judges must participate in sexual assault training.

Our government also made significant changes to Canadian sexual assault law with Bill C‑51, one of the most progressive pieces of legislation in the world.

We will keep working to protect victims of sexual assault.

Labour

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, protecting and extending workers' rights is a priority for this government, and these rights must never be taken for granted. The House unanimously passed Bill C-3, which established 10 days of paid sick leave for all federally regulated workers.

Can the Minister of Labour tell us when paid sick leave for workers will come into effect and discuss the importance of these measures for Canadians in federally regulated sectors?

Opposition Motion—Ties Between the Canadian State and the Monarchy

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

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

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

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

Protection of Freedom of Conscience Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill C-5—Time Allocation Motion

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill C-11—Time Allocation Motion

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

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

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

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

Bill C-19—Time Allocation Motion

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

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

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

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

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

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

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

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

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

National Nursing Week

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

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

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

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

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

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emergencies Act

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

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

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

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

Government Business No. 7—Proceedings on Bill C-12

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, supporting our seniors is one issue I think all parliamentarians have been quite unanimous on. We saw our seniors throughout all communities, rural and urban, struggle so much during this pandemic. We as the Liberal government put in those measures to provide extra support, and now seniors should not be penalized for taking that extra support. That is really what the crux of this debate is all about.

I do not think that any member in this House disagrees with what we are trying to do as a government here, but we have heard throughout the day from the opposition. They do not disagree with the merits of this bill, Bill C-12, but rather with the process. We are here to debate the process of passing this bill and how we spend our time here before having the final vote on this bill.

The amendment that was moved by the Conservatives proposes that we should try to scramble committee resources to have a meeting on this when they know that committees' technical capacities are pushed each week to the max in order for them to meet. Committees have set agendas and have a lot to achieve on behalf of Canadians. If the amendment passed, they would be sent a motion by this House saying that the Minister of Seniors should be available to appear before them.

Hon. members opposite may know that the motion, if passed, would both not be binding and possibly obstructed, as the Conservatives did on Bill C-3, when the Minister of Labour made himself immediately available to deal with another urgent matter. Conservatives played politics and risked not getting the bill passed quickly, despite the importance of the matter. I worry that they would again play games like this if they were given that opportunity at committee. Having chaired a committee in the past, I have seen those games.

Further, they are ignoring what has been identified already, which is that the Minister of Seniors has been at committee. She was there yesterday. She has answered questions on this and on other issues that were in her mandate letter. Under the Conservatives' proposal, the same committee members would reconvene to debate a bill that I could read in this speech and still have six to seven minutes left over. They would reconvene to ask questions when they had an hour to ask but decided not to.

To me, any technical question could be asked and answered on this short bill through other means, given the importance of passing it through the House with expediency. The government has also offered time with civil servants in an all-MP briefing on this bill. It was held last week, after introduction. I would note that the English briefing only had two questions, that neither was from a Conservative MP, and that it ended in 10 minutes, as opposition members clearly did not see fit to take the opportunity to speak to the officials and the minister's office staff directly.

It seems convenient when certain opposition members say that they do not get answers, as they do not seem to ask a lot of real questions when the time comes. It seems quite disingenuous. They could have asked those real questions that they have, but it is clear that they would rather complain about not having that opportunity, an opportunity that I have identified just now that they had. I will leave Canadians at home to decide why that might be.

As identified as well by the member for Winnipeg North during his remarks, it is ironic to see the Conservatives dispute the process so inconsistently. At times the process matters and at times it does not. Why is that? The member well identified that the Conservatives and the Bloc would rather spend the full time debating and going into the details of a five-line bill just to delay the government. This amendment would only serve to delay these payments to seniors, although I suppose the Conservatives are no strangers to delaying payments to seniors, as we saw that they used their powers to push back the retirement age to 67 to keep Canadian seniors working. To quote most parents at some point or another, and I know my mom says this all the time, “I am not mad; I am just disappointed”.

The debate on how we debate does not make much sense to our constituents, especially on such a simple bill. As an important reminder, we all agree on the merits of this bill. Our constituents want to see Parliament do things, not debate about debating or about how much longer we should all agree with each other on this bill. We agree, so let us move forward. There are many other urgent and pressing things on our government's agenda that we must get to as parliamentarians.

I note for hon. members that we are still in a global pandemic. There are still seniors who are isolated and facing challenges to their mental health and to their well-being. There are still seniors in long-term care environments who are at a higher health risk of pandemic outbreaks and infection. They have hopefully been better protected through our government's rapid response and monumental work to get vaccines available for provinces and territories, and to distribute them.

There are still high costs to stay at home and to stay safe. There are working seniors who still cannot go back to their workplace to supplement their pension benefits with work income. We have continued to make pandemic benefits available to eligible seniors who cannot get to work. It is exactly for that reason that we introduced Bill C-12 in the first place. We know there are seniors who took benefits in 2021. There are seniors who are taking them now. We never know what the future is going to hold. These benefits will count as income this year and affect GIS and allowances if we do not pass Bill C-12.

We obviously hope that we do not need to continue pandemic benefits through to future years, but we want to assure people that they would be covered through this legislation. We said we would be there for seniors for as long as it takes, and that is what this bill is going to help us do. In order to get to this place, we need to let our officials get to work to make the changes needed in the system. As we know, the CRA is really busy through this time of year. ESDC is renewing GIS for 2.2 million seniors at this time as well. They are doing all this while doing a lot of other things too.

We have to respect the work of public servants and not play political games with technical measures that would help them support Canadians in a way that we have all asked them to. It is about respect for their time and their work, and I do not think that the Conservatives remember how important the work is that public servants do. They did not show respect to public servants when they were in power, and that is not really a big surprise.

I think hon. members opposite should consider focusing on what is really important here, which is low-income seniors who are working. These people rely on month-to-month income from pension programs, combined with these benefits. These people want to work, but they cannot. This pandemic benefit income is not normal income, because these are not normal times.

The Conservatives want to spend this debate telling us that process matters while also agreeing that it is an emergency. They cannot have it both ways. The merits of this short, simple matter are clear. It does one thing, and only one thing: It exempts pandemic benefit income going forward for the purposes of calculating GIS and allowances for seniors. If we agree on this matter, we should move forward quickly. Seniors are worried now, but are seeing politicians squabble over the most agreed-upon, simple bills that have ever been presented in this place.

Call me idealistic, but I hope the Conservatives and the Bloc will join the rest of the members in this House to recognize that this is an urgent matter. We need to get that support to our seniors. I hope they can join with us and work together, as we have been able to do in the past, and make sure that this support gets to seniors as soon as possible.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to address a few points that the member across the way has raised and, at the same time, share some thoughts that not only I have, but all members of the House have, in regard to seniors in general. This is a very important and hot topic among my Liberal colleagues as we continue to strive and improve the lifestyle of our seniors and be there for them in a very real and tangible way. I am going to highlight a number of things we have been able to do for seniors over the last six years.

First, I will address the issue of how the Conservative Party wants to twist this issue of process and why the government is where we are today with what is a very important piece of legislation.

The legislation we have before us today is here because of the pandemic. During the pandemic, the Government of Canada, with support and encouragement from different levels of government, from Canadians in general and from MPs who were advocating, came up with a series of brand new programs that virtually started from nothing. They were a direct response to the pandemic. When we brought in programs virtually from nothing, there were, no doubt, issues that would arise. This is one of those issues, and it is an issue that today the government is addressing through legislation because of the impact it has had on our seniors. Some are trying to give the impression that the government is trying to fix a problem it created and that somehow the government has been negligent. However, this is unfortunate given the consistent supports and actions of the government for seniors since 2015 when we were first elected, let alone during the pandemic.

Yes, there have been some issues to deal with, but I suspect, after hearing comments from the opposition, that they will be supporting the legislation. I am encouraged to hear that. However, on the other hand, they are critical of the manner in which this is being processed and of not only the government but also the New Democratic Party. It is interesting that when the New Democrats do something the Conservatives do not like, they say there is a coalition between the New Democrats and the government. I think Canadians would rather see a coalition between the New Democrats and the Liberals than a coalition between the Conservatives and the Bloc. At the end of the day, the Conservatives have this default position: For anything the government wants, just say no. They know full well that they need their coalition to continue to frustrate the government's agenda. They know they can often count on the Bloc, but they get all upset if the NDP does not follow their recommendations. They get upset with the NDP because the NDP will not listen to the Conservative agenda, and then they say it is a coalition.

I can tell colleagues that the government has operated with all three opposition parties, collectively together. At times we have operated with the New Democrats separately, like today, and at times we have operated with the Bloc separately. We appreciate the mandate that we have been given by Canadians, and it is a very clear message: Canadians want us to work together.

We saw a very good example of that back in December with conversion therapy. Members will recall that the entire House recognized the importance of conversion therapy and the legislation before the House. The Conservative Party members were the ones who recommended that we do not have second reading, committee stage, report stage and third reading, the whole process. They wanted to go right to royal assent, and the bill was passed unanimously. This shows that when it is convenient for the Conservatives and they feel it is important, it is okay and debate and committees are not necessary.

It is not the first time they have done that. They even attempted to get unanimous consent when there was no unanimous consent for getting what they believe is priority legislation through the House of Commons. If they disagree, it is anti-democratic, and the government is wrong because they we want to see something. There seems to be a bit of a double standard being applied. On the one hand, the Conservative Party now says this is important legislation and recognizes it is important legislation. After all, its members are going to be voting for the legislation. I understand the Bloc is going to be voting for the legislation too. However, the Conservative-Bloc coalition does not like the manner in which we are trying to get it through. The NDP supports the legislation and has been advocating for significant changes to take place regarding the compensation issue. It also recognizes that it is important to get this legislation through as quickly as possible.

The Conservatives say that the Senate is not sitting this week. As I pointed out yesterday, let us take a look at the legislative agenda. In the number of weeks we sat, we brought in legislation dealing with the coronavirus. The number one issue of Canadians for the last two years has been taking on the coronavirus. We can talk about Bill C-2, Bill C-3, Bill C-8, Bill C-10 and now Bill C-12, which are all legislative measures that deal directly with supporting Canadians and that deal specifically with the coronavirus, whether it is through programs that have been brought in, programs we are trying to extend to continue supports or the bulk-buying of things like rapid tests, which we debated yesterday. All of this stuff is important legislation.

We all know there is a finite amount of time to deal with legislation. It is not like we can debate a bill for 10 days and have it go to committee for two weeks. If it were up to the Conservatives, for anything they disagreed with, and even for things they agreed with, they would try to speak things out in order to frustrate the government. They would want to bring bills to committee for indefinite periods of time, with no commitment to get them through.

We are still in the pandemic. There is still a sense of urgency, even this week alone. Yesterday, we debated $2 billion-plus for rapid tests to ensure the provinces, territories and businesses in our communities have the necessary tests. Today is about seniors and making sure we are there to support them by putting money in their pockets. We still have other important pieces of legislation that have to be dealt with this week, if at all possible. I am thinking of the Emergencies Act. We also still have the opposition day motion from the Bloc party that has to be dealt with, and we have two short days this week.

Are the Conservatives saying that debate on our seniors, the rapid tests or the Emergencies Act should all just be postponed by 10 days or a couple of weeks because it is convenient for the Conservative opposition party? Ten days from now they can come back and ask why it has taken the government so long.

On the issue of the Standing Orders, I approach them not just as a member of government. I spent many years in opposition. I understand the importance of accountability, transparency and the process inside the House. I hope to engage with members in regard to our Standing Orders. We need to modernize them. We have plans and processes in place to accommodate debates, committees and votes. We see that. As I cited yesterday, whether it is on emergency debates in the chamber, opposition day motions, private members' bills or private members' motions, there are all sorts of limits.

What we have seen in the past 10 years, because we have to factor in the era of former prime minister Stephen Harper, is that we need tools to ensure that government bills can also get through in a timely fashion. That is why we are debating this motion today. If members believe it is important to support our seniors by getting money in their pockets, this is a piece of legislation members urgently need to support. The timing is very important.

The Minister of Seniors has met with opposition members and has been before committee. At committee, members can ask whatever questions they want of the minister. She is not shy to answer questions. We saw that earlier today, when the motion was brought forward. The department has provided information for members. Yes, we are making modifications today in order to get the money out more quickly to support our seniors. The department is working overtime to make sure we are there for our seniors in a real and tangible way.

The process we are going into today would have been preventable if, in fact, we could have had support from all opposition parties in saying that we could pass this legislation. In an ideal situation, it would be something that would be negotiated. However, the government is not in a position in which it can hold back on getting this legislation passed. With the support of one opposition party, we were able to ensure that our seniors would get the legislation they needed through the House of Commons. For that, I am grateful.

After 30 years of being a parliamentarian, there are some issues I hold near and dear to my heart, as I know many of us do. Our seniors, and the needs of our seniors, are of utmost importance. We often talk about the fact that where we are today as a society is all due to the seniors who were there before us, and we recognize there are needs that seniors have. I have made reference to the fact that I used to be a health critic in the province of Manitoba. I understand what those needs often require.

That is why it was so important for me personally, when I came to Ottawa, to be a strong advocate for our seniors. I remember one day when I was sitting in opposition. Former prime minister Stephen Harper was in Europe, and there was an announcement that the government was going to increase the age of eligibility for collecting OAS from 65 to 67. We opposed it, and we indicated we would get rid of it.

I remember advocating for the needs of the poorest seniors in Canada and for the importance of our social programs. I use those two examples because in 2015, when we were elected to government, two of the very first initiatives we took were, first, to reduce the age of eligibility for OAS back to 65 from 67. That was one of the very first initiatives taken. The second was to increase the guaranteed income supplement.

For those who understand the issue of poverty in Canada and want to help put more money in the pockets of our seniors, just as this bill does, in 2016 we talked about increasing, and then implemented a substantial increase to, the guaranteed income supplement. That one initiative lifted hundreds of seniors in Winnipeg North alone out of poverty, and tens of thousands across the country.

We will all become seniors, if we are not already. We ensured that the contributions to CPP would be enhanced with an agreement between provinces and the federal government, something that Stephen Harper was unable to do, to ensure that there would be more retirement money for our seniors.

In terms of the pandemic itself, and how the government stepped up to provide, that is why we have the legislation today. In our urgency to support people of Canada through developing programs such as CERB, there were some mistakes. It was not perfect, but it was important to get those programs out as quickly as possible. Now we are making a modification that is necessary to ensure that our seniors would in fact be getting money that they would have normally been receiving, but other benefit programs during the pandemic ultimately caused a problem. This would fix it. That is why it is good legislation for us to support.

During the pandemic, we brought in direct support for seniors, with a special focus on the GIS, again, and the OAS. We did it directly and we did it through other programs, such as the CERB, which is more of an indirect way. Another indirect way we did it was through supporting non-profit organizations that provide support for our seniors. We are talking about hundreds of millions, going into billions, of dollars.

The Government of Canada has been there to support our seniors because it is the right thing to do. From virtually day one, in 2015, until today, we continue to bring in budgetary and legislative measures to facilitate and support our seniors, whether with long-term care, direct money into pockets, mental health or so many other areas.

Health

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

Mr. Speaker, while we see that an impossible amount is being asked of health care workers, they are going in every day to sacrifice to make sure we get through this pandemic. As we see people talking about freedoms, it is important to ask what we all do with our freedom to make life easier for those around us and what sacrifices we are making in a global pandemic to lift people up and to find ways to help our neighbours, to de-escalate tension and to make lives easier for people in one of the most trying times.

Bill C-3, I think, would do so much to protect those health care workers, but it begs a broader question about what each of us is doing in this pandemic.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, in December, the House unanimously passed Bill C-3, which establishes paid sick leave for federally regulated workers and protection for health workers, and those accessing their care, from harassment and intimidation. As a nurse and as someone who recently volunteered at a COVID testing clinic, I can say this matters a great deal, not just to me but to health workers across Canada.

Could the Minister of Labour tell the House what is being done to bring this legislation into force?

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

Mr. Speaker, we passed Bill C-3, which made sure that health care sites, like hospitals, are protected from the types of harassment and the barrage of attacks we are seeing.

We are going to work to make sure that the new law is implemented so that health care workers, who are already carrying such a disproportionate load, are not going to be influenced from not being able to do their jobs by the kinds of horrific actions we are seeing. When we see rocks thrown at ambulances and we see the kind of aggression we have seen from some of these protesters, it is truly shameful, and particularly for our frontline workers.

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

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

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

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

Supplementary Estimates (B), 2021-22

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

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

Bill C-3—Time Allocation Motion

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

moved:

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

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

Bill C-3—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

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

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

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

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

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first time rising in the House since the election, so it is my turn to thank the voters of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun for placing their trust in me for the third time. I will do my best to represent them as their MP.

I would also like to draw everyone's attention to the fact that today is December 6. As a Montrealer, a Canadian and a Quebecker, the memory of what happened in Montreal on December 6 never fails to move me. Fourteen young female engineering students lost their lives. I will do my best to make sure nothing like that ever happens again.

I am pleased to speak at the second reading debate on Bill C-3, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code, which I introduced alongside the Minister of Labour last week. I will focus my remarks on the Criminal Code amendments contained in the bill.

I am proud of Bill C-3, but I will be honest. I am disappointed, as was the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands a moment ago, that we are having to propose criminal law reforms to explicitly protect health care workers and patients against intimidation and obstruction.

Since the start of the global pandemic 20 months ago, the health sector in Canada has faced unprecedented challenges. Health professionals have been working relentlessly and under extraordinarily difficult circumstances to save lives. A Statistics Canada survey revealed that seven in 10 health care workers reported worsening mental health due to the pandemic. However, that is only part of the story.

On top of the strain on mental health, our health professionals are also facing violence in the workplace.

Dr. Katharine Smart, president of the Canadian Medical Association, told Canadians, during a news conference on this bill, that preliminary results from the 2021 National Physician Health Survey suggested that three out of four physicians had experienced intimidation, bullying and harassment in the workplace. She went further to say, “one in three say that this happens regularly. This number jumps to 80% of female physicians.” These numbers are telling me a deeply disturbing story, especially when we look at the impact on people who identify as female in the health profession.

Most Canadians have shown tremendous respect for our health care workers and have followed the guidance of public health authorities. Unfortunately, a small number of individuals refuse to believe the authorities or follow evidence-based public health measures. An even smaller group has even uttered threats, including death threats. These people have also committed acts of violence against health workers who were simply doing their jobs by providing essential care to Canadians.

Violence against health care workers is a long-standing problem. Ever since the pandemic hit, health care workers have expressed concern about their ability to keep doing their jobs. Some have even been forced to quit. Moreover, people who need health care services have expressed similar concern about their ability to keep accessing health care facilities safely.

I cannot stress enough how disappointed I was to learn of this behaviour. There is simply no place in Canada for such conduct, and we will not tolerate it. The ability to express ourselves and to protest what we do not believe is right is a cherished freedom in this country, but Canadians understand the difference between expressing our views and threatening those we disagree with.

We have seen the consequences of this abuse. For example, Dr. Gretchen Roedde of Latchford, Ontario has decided to retire early due to online abuse. This small town could lose a doctor because of this kind of behaviour.

Shockingly, this abuse and harassment even extends to children. Nolan Blaszczyk, a seven-year-old boy, faced a torrent of verbal abuse when he went with his mother to get his vaccine. Abby Blaszczyk was told that she was murdering her son and she was committing genocide. How is this acceptable?

As everyone knows, the Criminal Code includes a broad range of general offences to protect all Canadians. The Criminal Code already prohibits some of the despicable behaviour we have seen over the past year, including assault, criminal harassment, intimidation and threats. Today we see just how urgent it is to go even further.

Enhancing these existing measures by explicitly prohibiting this conduct in the health care sector has become necessary and urgent.

During the recent election campaign, as COVID-19-related protests began to intensify around health facilities, the Prime Minister committed to protecting our health care workers and ensuring all Canadians had access to health care without fear of threat or intimidation. The measures introduced in Bill C-3 would fully address these commitments and ensure a broad range of responses to various forms of harmful conduct facing the health sector.

The bill would create two new offences specific to the health context.

First, a new intimidation offence would be enacted to protect both health workers and health seekers. Intimidation is already criminalized as a general offence, but these amendments would give police and prosecutors additional tools to specifically protect our health care workers and users. Furthermore, they would provide for a higher maximum sentence for intimidation of 10 years. The current intimidation offence carries a maximum sentence of five years.

This new offence would extend to health care workers similar protections to those justice system participants, people like judges, jurors, witnesses, as well as journalists who report on organized crime. Intimidation is treated as a more serious offence when committed to impede them in their important functions.

That specific intimidation offence was created in response to a series of incidents in which prosecutors, witnesses and others were intimidated by criminal organizations to destabilize the criminal justice system. Similar to what we are doing now, Parliament's response then was to enhance criminal law protections for such intimidation with a distinct offence and an enhanced penalty. It is important to protect those who are working to improve our country, whether through the health care system or legal system.

The new intimidation offence would prohibit any act intended to promote fear in health care professionals in order to stop them from performing their professional duties. As noted above, this includes health care professionals working at abortion clinics, other frequent target of threats and intimidation. Anyone who works to assist health professionals in the performance of their duties would also be protected by the intimidation offence. Depending on the circumstances, this could be a professional support worker or clinic staff working alongside a physician or nurse.

It takes a community of health workers to deliver health services in our country, so those who assist health care professionals in carrying out their duties are rightly covered by this offence.

The proposed offence would also protect anyone seeking or receiving health care services. Any behaviour intended to incite fear in individuals seeking health care services, for the purpose of dissuading those individuals from obtaining services, would be expressly prohibited.

Creating this new offence will also allow us to increase the maximum penalty for this behaviour. The new offence will be a hybrid offence and will carry a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison, on indictment. This is a harsher penalty than the general offence of intimidation, which is five years.

Increasing the penalty in this way sends a very clear message that Parliament strongly condemns these forms of behaviour directed at the health sector.

There is another point that I want to be very clear about. The proposed intimidation offence can be committed in person or through electronic means, including social media and other online channels. Media outlets across the country are reporting that health care providers are being threatened and intimidated on social media. Medical associations, including the Canadian Medical Association and the Ontario Medical Association, have confirmed that threats and intimidation are occurring not only in person, but also online. The offence of intimidation would apply regardless of the means of communication.

In addition to protecting the heroes in the health care sector, the bill also creates a new offence that would prohibit intentionally obstructing or interfering with a person's ability to access a health facility. The offence would protect access to any and every place where health services are provided, including a hospital, a mobile clinic, an abortion clinic, a vaccine clinic, a doctor's office and even doctors' homes if that is where they provide their services. This new offence is hybrid and will carry a maximum penalty of 10 years of imprisonment.

I want to be very clear about one thing. Nothing in the proposed legislation would undermine workers' ability to strike or Canadians' ability to peacefully protest. Our government stands by the charter and the freedoms it guarantees, including freedom of speech and the right to strike. That is why this offence would expressly exclude communicative activity that remains peaceful and lawful, such as strike action or peaceful protest, even if it has a minor impact on access. Minor inconvenience for those seeking to get into buildings is a fair price to pay to protect our cherished liberties, but behaviour that is threatening or violent or that creates a major impediment to access is rightly criminalized. This is the current state of our criminal law and the bill would only enhance that.

The legislation provides for a definition of “health professional” to clarify the scope of the offences and how they are intended to be applied to police and prosecutors. A health professional would be defined as a person who is entitled, under the laws of a province or territory, to provide a health service, such as doctors or nurses. Given that the provinces and territories are responsible for the health sector and regulation of health professionals and services, the definition is intended to be broad and capable of being applied in accordance with each jurisdiction's health system.

I would now like to talk about the sentencing reforms in Bill C-3. These changes address the concerns that health professionals have had for a while now, and, in fact, parliamentarians from all sides have presented similar reforms in the past through private members' bills.

The bill would require that, in cases where there is evidence showing that the offence was committed against a health care provider who was carrying out their duties, sentencing courts treat this evidence as an aggravating factor. Aggravating factors will also apply if the offence involved impeding another person from obtaining health services. Individuals on both sides of our health care system must be protected, meaning health care providers and their patients.

Support workers, also referred to as orderlies, are also vulnerable to violence in the workplace. Even though they are not regulated in many regions across the country like health professionals are, they still provide care and essential support to many Canadians. Therefore, the aggravating factors proposed in this bill expressly include personal care services.

These sentencing reforms are based on long-standing calls from stakeholders. Indeed, during our news conference following the introduction of the bill, the presidents of the CMA and the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions affirmed the importance of these measures to our health workers.

The aggravating factors also implement a recommendation of the 2019 report conducted by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health entitled “Violence Facing Health Care Workers in Canada”. The report requested the Government of Canada amend the Criminal Code to require a court to consider the fact that the victim of an assault is a health care sector worker to be an aggravating circumstance for the purposes of sentencing. The same report documented that health care workers have four times the rate of workplace violence than any other profession, despite most of this violence being unreported due to a culture of acceptance.

While the pandemic has created new challenges for health care workers and exacerbated the violence they face, as I mentioned before, those who provide abortion services and the women who access them have also experienced unacceptable threats and violence. It was not so long ago, in the 1990s, that several physicians in Canada were shot because of their work providing abortion services. Abortion clinics have been attacked and blocked. Those seek abortion services have been harassed, threatened and intimidated by individuals opposed to abortion. The safety and security of abortion health care workers and patients continue to be a troubling issue. Our government will protect abortion service providers alongside other health professionals. We support the rights of women to control their bodies and have unimpeded access to abortion services along with other health services.

I hope—like all members here today, I am sure—that health care workers will one day be able to do their jobs free from violence and can feel safe and valued when they are caring for us. The pandemic is not over, as we know, and neither is the need to protect our health care workers.

These workers play a very important role in the lives of all Canadians. Thanks to them, we have been able to fend off this devastating pandemic and make recovery plans for our society and our country. The proposed reforms will enhance existing measures in the Criminal Code and they have broad support within the medical community. For these reasons, I urge all members to support Bill C-3, which is urgent, important and necessary.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chance to speak for the first time in an intervention in this House of Commons in the 44th Parliament.

I am speaking from my riding in Parkdale—High Park, which is situated on the traditional territory of the Anishinabeg, the Chippewa, Haudenosaunee, the Huron Wendat and, most recently, the Mississaugas of the Credit. Toronto is well known as the home of many diverse first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples today.

As I speak for the first time in this chamber on legislation in the 44th Parliament, I want to thank some important people who have brought me to this situation.

First and foremost is my family, my two sons, Zakir and Nitin, and my wife, Suchita, who, when she is not supporting me in these political endeavours, is actually keeping our country safe from COVID-19 as a member of the incredible team at the Public Health Agency of Canada that works on border health and quarantine controls. Thanks very much to Suchita for everything she is doing to keep our country safe.

I want to thank the countless volunteers who helped me get to where I am today.

I want to thank all of the family members and friends who came out to knock on doors, put up signs and do all of the work behind the scenes that made the campaign possible.

It is a humbling thing for a person to be asked by the members of their community to be their voice in Parliament and to have this honour bestowed upon me for the third straight occasion. It is a privilege and responsibility that I do not take lightly. My priorities in this Parliament remain those that my constituents speak to me about and those that I am passionate about. Those are climate action and housing affordability, subjects of key concern for the residents of Parkdale—High Park and things that I have my life work, which are promoting human rights abroad and domestically, and secondly, fighting discrimination and racism wherever they rear their ugly head.

In terms of the Speech from the Throne, what I would say is that in electing this government for the third straight occasion, I believe Canadians made clear their priorities for the 44th Parliament. That is, most fundamentally, to finish the fight against COVID-19 and to build back our economy in a way that is more inclusive than before we had ever heard of the term “coronavirus” or the term “COVID-19”.

Let me turn to health care first in terms of my intervention today, because we are now in the midst of yet another variant, omicron.

In terms of health care and COVID-19, I want to first of all start by echoing some of what we heard in the Speech from the Throne. My condolences to not only the family of the senator who passed because of COVID, Senator Forest-Niesing, but also to the families of 29,714 individuals who, as of early December of this year, have lost their lives due to COVID-19.

We have, by international accounts, one of the most successful vaccination campaigns in the world as of right now: 86% of all Canadians who are 12 and over are fully vaccinated. In my city of Toronto, it is 85% and that surpasses many other major cities such as London, England; New York City; Chicago; and Los Angeles. We will continue as a government to build off the fact that we have provided 60 million vaccination doses thus far, including boosters and first doses to young people.

In terms of young people, members heard me mention Zakir and Nitin. My boys are age 10 and 7, respectively. They got their first dose last Sunday at a walk-in clinic in Toronto, making me and their mom, Suchita, very proud of those two little guys. Instead of exhibiting vaccine hesitancy, they exhibited vaccine restlessness and fought with each other over who would get to go first.

My parents, both nearly 80, are being vaccinated for the third time this week. Now that I am of the tender age of 50, apparently in Ontario I will be eligible for my third dose because that is what is happening with boosters for those who are over 50. I am now part of that little group.

I think what is important is that we have a track record as a government of providing vaccines for free to all Canadians who want vaccines. I am proud of that record and our record of making vaccines mandatory for federal civil servants, federally regulated industries and interprovincial travel.

I am also very proud that one of the first acts that we have taken as the Liberal government was to table legislation, Bill C-3, which would create a new offence for those who intimidate health care workers or seek to prevent someone from accessing health care treatment. I am not just speaking about my wife here. I am speaking about thousands and thousands of other health care workers who have done so much to keep us safe from COVID-19 in these past 22 months. Those individuals deserve our praise and our gratitude, not our scorn or our abuse.

However, I know that ending this pandemic requires investing in our health care systems and dismantling barriers for vulnerable populations. I am thinking about Joyce Echaquan and the indigenous experience in health care in this country. It is also about clearing the backlog of COVID-19 cases. It is about reducing delays, strengthening the protections in our long-term care homes and protecting seniors in care, improving access to mental health and addictions services and I am proud that we now have a minister devoted to just that, and preventing privatization from entering our health care systems.

Members heard me speak about climate as one of my priorities and one of the priorities of my constituents. Climate change was top of mind for voters in this fall's election, not just in my riding, but around the country. Obviously, our thoughts, prayers and hopes go out to all of our neighbours in British Columbia who are, in the span of several months, dealing with wildfires and now dealing with tragic mudslides. Tackling climate change is not a B.C. issue. It is a Canadian issue. It is a global issue. We were elected with a mandate to move on this and that is exactly what we are doing. We heard that outlined in the Speech from the Throne.

We are increasing the price on pollution and the climate rebate, which allows Canadians to make changes in their own personal lives. We are banning single-use plastics. We are making it impossible to buy a new car or light-duty truck that is not electric by 2035, and we are making that more possible by providing generous federal rebates for the purchase of such vehicles and by providing more vehicle charging infrastructure. We are putting a cap on oil and gas sector GHG emissions and moving the entire country to net-zero emissions by 2050 on legislated five-year increments. We are ending fossil fuel subsidies by 2023.

On the electricity grid, we are phasing out coal as a source of energy across the country by 2030. This is something that we, as Liberals, were successful in doing in Ontario over a decade ago by phasing out coal. How does this impact my constituents? In ridings like mine in Parkdale—High Park, we have increased bike shares and bike lanes. There are nine new bike shares to promote active transport. We have provided funding for green infrastructure to the High Park Zoo and the High Park Nature Centre to the tune of almost $4 million for sustainable energy projects.

On housing, we are strengthening our economy by ensuring that housing is affordable. I heard repeatedly on the campaign trail from all sectors about supportive housing, rental housing and those who want to buy. We are delivering for communities like mine through things like the NHS, the national housing plan, subsidies for co-op renters in federal co-ops and $1.2 billion put into TCHC to maintain, repair and renovate units. We have also implemented a rapid housing initiative and expanded it, which has delivered $14 million to constituents in my riding to ensure that new housing is being built. This is critical to that inclusive recovery.

I also talked about human rights and fighting discrimination. I came to this place as a Constitution and human rights lawyer in 2015. The orientation that I have and commitment to protecting fundamental freedoms has not wavered. In these past six years, I have been very privileged to work on many aspects such as settling Syrian refugees, re-enacting a national anti-racism strategy, fighting Islamophobia, securing legal aid for refugee claimants and tabling legislation to combat online hate in the last Parliament.

This is important human rights work and it must continue. I pledge to my constituents to continue to be a strong voice for human rights for those in Eastern Europe who are facing aggression by Vladimir Putin and Russia, including Ukrainians and Poles. I also redoubled my commitment to my Tibetan constituents who seek nothing more than the basic permission to speak their language and practise Tibetan Buddhism from the Government of the People's Republic of China. The Middle Way approach, advocated by the Dalai Lama, can help secure this and I will continue to advocate for that approach.

Domestically, advocacy for human rights must include renewed commitment to reconciliation. I learned so much about where we are and how far we have to go when I was privileged to work on the Indigenous Languages Act in the 42nd Parliament. My constituents, like me, were horrified by the discoveries of the unmarked graves at residential school sites. I have committed to my constituents publicly and I will commit to them here today that my work on fighting discrimination will focus on fighting anti-indigenous discrimination. There is so much more work to be done in terms of boil water advisories and ending discrimination in the child welfare system.

Finally, I commit to the work that is needed to be done with the LGBTQ2 community. We had a historic day in Parliament yesterday with Bill C-4 receiving unanimous consent, but the work is not done until that bill passes through the Senate and becomes law through royal assent. Only then will the equality rights of LGBTQ2 Canadians and all Canadians be fully protected.

This is the work I am committed to in terms of climate action, housing action, fighting against inequality, and fighting against discrimination and for human rights, domestically and abroad. The Speech from the Throne outlines what we will be doing as a government and I am very proud to be partaking in that work.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I thank my hon. colleague across the way for his co-operation. He is right to say there is a good spirit of co-operation. I hope that continues.

This afternoon, the House will continue debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.

Tomorrow, the House will begin debate at second reading stage of Bill C-3, which would amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code to provide workers in federally regulated sectors with 10 days of paid sick leave and make it an offence to intimidate or prevent patients from seeking care. We are going to be continuing this debate on Monday.

I would also like to inform the House that on Monday afternoon, the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth will be making a ministerial statement in memory of the truly tragic events at École Polytechnique de Montréal.

Next Tuesday and Thursday shall be allotted days, and Wednesday and Friday will be days reserved for the address debate.

Finally, I would like to inform the House that the committee of the whole debates, pursuant to Standing Order 81(5), to consider supplementary estimates (B) shall take place on Tuesday and Wednesday of next week.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been on the justice committee for the past six years, and we have done significant work on access to justice. We know that there is institutionalized racism. That is exactly why we introduced Bill C-3: to ensure that judges had that training. It is why we continue to make those investments within the police force and within our justice system to ensure that access is there. The work is being done. The damage was done over 150 years, and we need to make sure that we take it seriously and continue to chip away and push that needle further towards progress.

Justice

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Vimy for her question.

Before I answer it, I want to thank the health care workers. Their efforts and sacrifices are getting us through the pandemic. They should never be subjected to violence or intimidation. That is why we want to amend the Criminal Code to put in place tough consequences for these behaviours.

I look forward to the support of all members of the House in connection with Bill C‑3.