Bill C-3

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

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

[Douglas Wolfe]

This was a subject that was passed in Bill C-3, as you may recall. That bill received royal assent in 2021. What is here is aligned with Bill C-3, which was never brought into force. All the provisions were exactly aligned with that bill.

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.

[Linda Silas]

Personally, I think it's enhancing Bill C-3. Bill C-3 is only two years old. We have to do education on it. We've been working with the justice department on how we can promote it. It has to be talked about.

[Linda Silas]

It's recognizing that there's a problem. It's a question of respect. You know, to change the Criminal Code, the first one with Bill C-3 and even the framework on PTSD, we had to talk to our own colleagues. They actually didn't believe that a sick patient or an angry patient should be charged or that a nurse should be calling the police. There was a lot of education to be done there. They really thought it was part of our job.

We changed that. With the work with MPs, like all of you, we were able to change that. Now we need to do the education on it.

[Linda Silas]

Yes, I've heard of it.

As I said, in September, we received a news release alerting us that a man driving a red truck had assaulted nurses and health care workers in Ottawa. That was the first time in history we had received such an alert. It was the only time we were ever informed of an incident like that.

What Bill C‑3 was missing was an education component, and we talked about that with the former justice minister. If you talk to a police officer or a lawyer in your region, you will see that they have no idea the provision exists.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Yes, I think it was Bill C‑3.

[Linda Silas]

Just to clarify, are you referring to the change that was made through Bill C‑3?

[Linda Silas]

To change a culture, every level of government needs to speak about it and to take it as a priority. That's what we're seeing now.

We talk about hope. Last September, for the first time in history, a police alert went out in Ottawa for a man driving a red truck. He had assaulted health care workers and nurses in a facility. It was the first time in history. That was the success of Bill C-3. Now we need to go further than that; that's the only one we ever heard.

For the first time in history, a man in New Brunswick went to jail for two years for assaulting a nurse. She will never work again, but for the first time in history there was criminal justice. That created a ripple effect to cause more prevention, more occupational health and safety methods to prevent violence, by tagging family members and by tagging patients. When I say “tagging”, it means that if they have a past behaviour of violence, there are special rules the team needs to know.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you.

I'm going to pick up on what Mr. Brock was asking, because I was going to go down the same path.

Ms. Silas, you said something along the lines that we need to look further, but you talked about prevention versus the Criminal Code.

Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm just pontificating here a little bit.

When police are encountering somebody, it's probably that someone is engaging in a criminal act. However, when people are dealing with health professionals, like nurses or paramedics, those may be people who are in circumstances that don't involve a criminal act or criminal behaviour, but those are still the ones who are involved in some of the conduct we're talking about.

We're all in agreement, I think, on this bill, frankly, and I want to thank Mr. Doherty for bringing it forward. It's further to Bill C-3, as you pointed out quite rightly. Is this going to be enough? There seems to be a much bigger problem, so I'm not sure that amending the Criminal Code to say that if you spit on a nurse, as the example you used, the amendment is going to act as a deterrent.

What else needs to be done? As parliamentarians, what else can we do to create an environment where we can prevent that type of behaviour? I'm asking because the numbers I'm hearing are staggering.

[Linda Silas, President, Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions]

Good afternoon.

Sorry, Elizabeth. That bell is the worst part of the job.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, committee members, for the invitation. It's a privilege to be here.

As you know, I would like to acknowledge that the land that we are sitting on is the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. I'm a proud New Brunswicker from the beautiful land of the Mi'kmaq people.

I'm here as president of the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions and on behalf of my 250,000 members. I'm proud that Danette, one of our leaders in British Columbia, will be presenting soon.

We're the working nurses. Like the paramedics, we're there 24-7, taking care of the sick.

Canada's nurses believe that the language in Bill C-321 complements the existing protections and Criminal Code changes outlined in Bill C-3, which is now two years old. I'll get to that soon.

The Criminal Code changes found in Bill C-3 aimed to ensure better safeguards for health care workers, including nurses. Now Bill C-321 proposes expanding the language to include first responders. We welcome this proposed change to the Criminal Code. We recognize that violence against any health worker or first responder when they are performing their duties is an aggravating factor to sentences.

The facts are shocking. You heard Elizabeth talk about the paramedic field. 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.

All workers deserve a workplace free of violence and abuse. It should not be tolerated. Sadly, nurses and health care workers experience it routinely. We have to look at these. We have to bring in new measures, such as changing the Criminal Code, but we will also talk about prevention modes.

Many people in Canada are aware that public safety personnel—peace officers, police officers, firefighters and corrections officers—have high-risk jobs and often face violence. Most would be surprised that the same ratios exist in the health care field. Our health care facilities and our health care system are not safe places to work.

In addition to physical injury, workplace violence is strongly correlated with negative impacts on workers' mental health and has been seen as an issue facing nurses for many years. Exposure to violence predicts negative mental health outcomes, including PTSD. From our survey of working nurses, three in four, or 78.5%, report symptoms of burnout. Similar data is seen with public safety personnel.

A similar study was done by CFNU in 2019. Nearly one in four nurses screened positive for PTSD symptoms. MP Doherty will remember all the work we did in 2019 on a federal framework on PTSD, which included health care workers, such as nurses and paramedics.

Sadly, violence and abuse are normal in the health care system. Such a high rate of violence would be unthinkable in any other profession. It needs to be stopped. The health care risks are often accepted.

The House of Commons committee on health, HESA, tackled the challenge of rampant violence against nurses for the first time in a 2019 study. Bill C-3 came out of this and came into law in 2021, as one of HESA's recommendations. Bill C-321 will expand these protections.

Nurses are in solidarity with paramedics on this, but we need to go further than this. We need to be clear that this is not enough. We have to make the public and lawmakers aware of the changes in the Criminal Code and work on better protection for our health care workforce in order to work safely in our health care facilities and in our community. Thank you so much.

While we're encouraged by all this work, we know that many more recommendations of the HESA committee have to be done there.

We support this piece of legislation, but we encourage all MPs and all committees to look further to make our health care and our community safer for those who take care of the sick and the injured in their work.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll answer your questions.

[Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu]

You are absolutely right.

A judge must show extreme sensitivity in cases of domestic violence, violence against children and sexual assaults. A bully, when in the presence of the victim in court, continues to bully. The perpetrator establishes a power relationship through which he exercises control over his victim, and that continues, even in the courthouse. That's when the judge's role becomes important. The judge must establish a relationship with the victim and give the victim as much discretion as possible if she wishes to talk about the conditions she wants to include in the recognizance to keep the peace, because she is the person who knows her abuser best.

It is therefore important to listen to the victim to know what conditions she wants to be safe and to feel safe. It's very important for the judge to be sensitive to the victim's needs. That's also why Bill C‑233 raises the matter of training for judges. You no doubt remember Bill C‑3, which was about training judges in matters of sexual assault. I had put forward an amendment to include domestic violence, but it was not accepted. Now, Bill C‑233 acknowledges that judges need training in this area.

[Paul Hills, President of the Saskatoon Paramedics Association, International Association of Fire Fighters]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, committee, and fellow witnesses. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss Bill C-321. As stated before, I am Paul Hills, president of the Saskatoon Paramedics Association. I represent IAFF Local 3270.

On behalf of over 27,000 paramedics and firefighters across Canada who belong to the IAFF, we strongly support Bill C-321. I personally have been coming to the Hill and advocating on this issue for over a decade. I've been a medic for over 25 years and a strong advocate for my profession for over 18. I serve one of the busiest cities per capita in Canada for EMS. I'm here personally because I have been a victim of violence and witnessed external acts of violence in the workplace.

I'll give you just a quick snapshot of what a shift look like for a paramedic. 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 collisions.

The IAFF supports this bill because we believe that this legislation and the tougher penalties it proposes will build a strong foundation to address the growing trend of violence towards first responders and health care workers across Canada. The Criminal Code rightly addresses acts of violence against peace officers. This is now an opportunity to address acts of violence against paramedics and firefighters, almost a daily occurrence.

As a paramedic, I've seen many new pieces of safety equipment added to our ensemble over the years. The one piece of equipment coming out of school that I never thought I would be issued is that of a bulletproof vest. We've been wearing them in Saskatoon for over 15 years. This is not a piece of equipment that I as a paramedic should be issued. Last I checked, it's for military and police officers, not frontline health care workers.

An IAFF survey has shown that 13% of departments experienced at least one act of violence toward on-duty personnel at structure fires in the past five years, while 40% reported acts of violence toward personnel during medical calls in that same time period. I know first-hand that violence and threats against us are on the rise. There is no shortage of examples.

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. My best friend was in a house and had a patient with a nine-millimetre beside him in the chair. He had to choose: Possibly get shot in the face and have a chance to fight back, or run away and get shot in the back. Luckily, things turned out safely.

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.

We must acknowledge that the consequences of violent calls aren't just physical injuries. There may be long-lasting mental health injuries. In Montreal, for example, a Local 125 member was chased by a man with a large knife. He had to barricade himself in a room. Although he was not physically injured, he was never able to return to work after 10 years of disability.

The IAFF understands and supports the overarching need to address root causes behind violent acts towards paramedics, firefighters and health care workers. These may stem from societal issues, such as economic inequality, addictions and mental health. In the meantime, we agree that there is a role for the federal government to play in protecting paramedics and firefighters and health care workers from the real threat of workplace violence in the form of tougher Criminal Code penalties.

To me, it isn't just about accountability for those who perpetrate violence against us or other health care workers. To me, it's about closure for the victim. The closure comes from a recognition of decision-makers that we deserve better by caring for those who care for all of us in our time of need. We need to use all the tools in the tool box, as we've discussed, whether it be Bill C-3, Bill C-321 or Bill C-324, to help deter the violence and help the helpers.

Bill C-321 will definitely help in this mission. We urge the committee members to support this bill going forward, with any amendments that are necessary.

Thank you for this opportunity. I look forward to answering any questions.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

I agree with you wholeheartedly. We have to not only make people like your daughter want to do this job, but we also need to make people like your daughter understand that we have their backs and we're there for them.

We talked about first responders during the pandemic. Everybody, rightfully, was thanking first responders. You can never thank them enough.

I had a paramedic come to my office one day, and she didn't come out and say it, but she sort of suggested that paramedics were always left off that list. It left a very, very powerful impression on me.

That is my way of saying thank you again for doing this. But I want to get on to the second panel. I know we have some paramedics here, so I will stop there.

You made it very clear that you're willing to accept amendments. There's a consensus around this table. It's readily apparent that we support the bill. We just want to avoid any overlap potential with Bill C-3. I think you've already agreed, as Ms. Brière pointed out, to the amendment that would mirror the language with respect to health care professionals and those providing health care services so that could be accomplished.

You're right. You want to capture everybody, not only people who are on the job, but people who might not be on the job or are providing these types of services in another capacity or at another time.

I will leave it there, so we can move on. I thank you, Mr. Doherty, from the bottom of my heart.

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

Thank you, Mr. Garrison. It's good to see you.

I wish I knew. I wish I had a crystal ball. I wish I had the answers.

My daughter is a psychiatric nurse—and I'm going to get emotional doing this. You guys all know me to be a big baby. She was involved in a bad car accident two days ago. She's a mobile care nurse, and so she goes to where her patients are. This patient was in a tent city on the side of a highway. Once she finished administering treatment, she had to cross the highway to get back to her office. She was broadsided by a semi-truck.

I was never concerned or worried about my daughter going to and from work. I was concerned about my daughter at work when she told me she was going to become a psychiatric nurse. I was concerned when she would show up...and she's just a tiny person. She definitely didn't get my genetics. She is good looking though. That is the very real thing that we live with now each and every day, and not just our family but every family.

He knows. He has the kleenex box. Thanks.

But that's the reality of the families who have loved ones who are first responders or nurses or health care providers.

Mr. Garrison, to answer your question, I don't know what has caused the rising rates of violence in society as a whole. I have so much colourful language that I'd like to use. We've just gone bonkers. It used to be you would see somebody with a uniform and you thanked them for their service. How do these...? I don't even know. I'm asking our committee.

Why would anybody want to do that? These are honourable professions, but why would you want to put yourself in the line of fire, so to speak, each and every day? But they do. They sign up so they can help and heal and make sure our communities are safe and secure. Instead they worry about their life each and every day. They worry about whether they will be able to come home safe and sound or at all.

I wish we didn't need Bill C-321 or Bill C-3 or Bill C-345, but the reality is we do. The reality is we need to send a strong message to society that we value the work these individuals and the nurses and the doctors and the people who are on the front lines put in each and every day. Violence is never okay.

I probably ate all your time. I'm sorry.

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

Our bill complements that very clearly. I believe that's from Bill C-3. Our bill, and Bill C-3 and Bill C-345—I believe by our colleague in the NDP—are all bills that complement each other. There isn't just one tool in the tool box that legislators or our legal society need.

Our bill doesn't.... The victim is not doing a job at that time, but the bill recognizes that the act of violence is against a nurse or a paramedic. What if they're off duty? What if they are still wearing their uniform and are coming from work, travelling on transit or going to their car? Can it be said that they are performing their duties at that time? We have witnesses right now who are wearing their uniforms. What if they're walking down the street and there's an act of violence perpetuated against them?

The fact of the matter is that Bill C-321 covers the fact that that victim is either a health care worker or a frontline first responder and that they are protected. It sends a clear message.

[Maria Richard]

You're right in saying that the federal government has to steer the ship, but it ultimately becomes province-wide. Each province will have its unique needs.

If we look at the introduction for violence, Bill C-3 is governed by the federal government, and that's helped us here in the province. It has helped our nurses feel more.... Yes, there's work to be done. We need to work on educating prosecutors, public safety staff and the RCMP on the Criminal Code changes. There needs to be more enforcement. Yes, we need to have a campaign.

The fact that the federal government made that change has helped. That's why we're looking at the federal government to look at safe patient ratios. If it's not safe.... Just like the government has done with aviation and transport, set an number of hours after which a nurse has to stop, because at the end of the day, it's not safe. When a nurse has worked 24 hours, if they're lucky, they might get an hour of sleep. We don't call that sleep.

The thing is that the federal government can, with the pan-Canadian workforce planning, look at retention, look at recruitment and look at how we can better help nurses come back in the system and stay in the system.

[Maria Richard]

I think there were nine recommendations that came out in 2019 from the Standing Committee on Health. We would encourage them to have a public awareness campaign to sensitize the public to the fact that it's happening and to make them realize that yes, when they are in front of a health care professional, when it's an emergency and they're at the ER and things are not going well, that the nurse, that the health care professional, is a person. Yes, these are stressful times, but by sensitizing Canadians, maybe we will diminish the amount of abuse—verbal and physical—that nurses and other health care professionals are facing.

We are also looking at a pan-Canadian framework on preventing violence in health care settings, similar to the PTSD framework that was enshrined in federal legislation. We're recommending targeted funding to upgrade infrastructure in health care facilities, which would include devices linked to security for nurses and personal alarms.

We know that patients come in with.... We've had in Moncton, at a hospital here, a patient who had a machete in his pack. If this person has psychological problems, it might get dangerous.

We commend the government for Bill C-3, but we realize that we must better inform prosecutors and public safety personnel of this updated Criminal Code to strengthen protection for health care workers and ensure that these changes are enforced. I think some of them are not cognizant of it, so it's not being enforced.

[Maria Richard, First Vice-President, New Brunswick Nurses Union, Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions]

Good morning. My name is Maria Richard, and I am the first vice-president of the New Brunswick Nurses Union. I am here today on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions, or CFNU.

The CFNU brings together nine provincial nurses unions from every province except Quebec, as well as the Canadian Nursing Students' Association. As Canada's largest nurses organization, the CFNU is the voice of 250,000 front-line nurses and nursing students. We work tirelessly to protect the quality of health care for patients and our public health care system.

Canada’s nurses face an extremely dire daily reality. Currently in New Brunswick, we have approximately 1,000 nursing positions vacant. For a nursing union that represents 8,500 members, this is a huge vacancy rate. At the same time, nurses are being asked to care for more patients. Retention of mid-career and late-career nurses in the province is a problem.

Nurses are tired of working overtime and being short-staffed. We know that they are leaving public health care at alarming rates. Why has New Brunswick seen an increase in the use of agency nurses in the past years, something that has never been the case for our province? It's because the retention of nurses is suffering. Not enough nurses are being hired. Nurses are burnt out and leaving the profession. Something has to give. According to a nationwide survey conducted earlier this year, four in 10 nurses intend to retire, leave their jobs or leave the nursing profession entirely.

No single province or territory can steer this ship on its own—federal leadership is needed. Budget 2024 provides a unique opportunity for the federal government to build on its historic investments in our health care systems in 2023, with targeted and strategic supports that are urgently needed to address the nursing and broader health worker shortage crisis.

In its brief to the committee, the CFNU outlines six recommendations for the 2024 federal budget. In the interest of time, I will simply list each of them, but I would be happy to elaborate on them during the discussion with the committee members.

Canada's nurses recommend that the federal government introduce a tax credit for nurses and other health professionals that incentivizes the retention and return of health professionals to the workforce.

We also recommend that the government provide funding in the amount of $8 million over four years through the Public Health Agency of Canada to tailor and pilot an Internet-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy program for nurses.

We recommend as well that the government work with the provinces and territories to set legislative limits on consecutive hours of work for nurses.

We recommend that the government include measures in the bilateral health agreements with provinces and territories that phase out private nursing agencies from provincial spending, ensuring federal investments aren't wasted on private agency profits.

We recommend that the government earmark $10 million in funding to establish a health workplace violence reduction plan that includes key recommendations from the parliamentary health committee's study from 2019, including a national public awareness campaign, a pan-Canadian framework for the prevention of violence in health care settings, targeted funding to upgrade violence prevention infrastructure and training, and appropriate training of prosecutors and public safety personnel to enforce Bill C-3.

Finally, we recommend that the government lead a national nursing retention strategy in partnership with provincial and territorial governments that advances proven retention, return and recruitment initiatives, including adopting safe staffing measures, expanding nursing programs and supporting students with mentorship and paid preceptorships, supporting nurses across their careers through initiatives such as bridging programs and flexible schedules, and expediting registration and workforce integration for internationally educated nurses through an ethical framework.

Thank you. I look forward to receiving any questions or comments on our recommendations.

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.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Greetings, fellow committee members.

Minister, thank you for being here today.

I would like to begin by commending two things you mentioned.

First of all, there was the entry into force of Bill C‑3, which, among other things, provides 10 days of banked paid sick leave. This is a major step forward. The Bloc Québécois is proud to have helped make it possible.

In addition, the International Labour Organisation's Convention No. 190 on violence and harassment in the workplace has been ratified. We know that this is an ongoing phenomenon in the workplace. In order to make workplaces safe, it is absolutely necessary to eliminate this issue. We now need to ensure that our labour codes and standards, both at the federal level and in Quebec and the provinces, comply with this convention.

There is another high-priority issue that workers care deeply about, and that is the issue of anti-scab legislation. I know that this is included in your mandate.

On January 30, as consultations on this issue were winding down, there was a demonstration on Parliament Hill. The demonstration was held in front of Parliament Hill and was attended by workers from the company Océan remorquage Sorel, in the port of Sorel-Tracy, who have been on work stoppage since last June. The employer is in no hurry to resolve the situation, given the presence of scabs since the beginning of the conflict. This is unacceptable. I would have liked to be there to greet them, but I was in Geneva at the time. This issue is a priority for the Bloc Québécois. We have already introduced 11 bills to address it. I tabled the most recent one. If you wish to take it on, we would be pleased.

Now that consultations are finished, when can we expect to see the introduction of a bill on anti-scab legislation? Can you give us a deadline?

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?

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

Thank you. I was waiting for the very good follow-up that came, so thank you.

We've begun to take that into account with Bill C-3. It was the old private member's bill originally proposed by Rona Ambrose, which we took on and, I think, we improved. In this, we can now require newly appointed judges, as part of their application, to agree to go through precisely this kind of training, largely as a result of another case in the Bill C-9 file with former Justice Camp. We're increasing from the get-go the sensitivities and the abilities to understand what victims have gone through on the part of judges.

Chief justices have told me that Bill C-3 and the work that the National Judicial Institute has done now in developing these kinds of courses will give them leverage over existing judges; because of the principle of judicial independence, we can't force existing judges to go through training. Chief justices are now saying that because we've done this with the incoming group of judges as a matter of requirement, they can now exert more moral authority on the part of sitting judges to go through these kinds of courses.

Mr. Caputo, I share your concerns. I want to do anything we can to better train judges for precisely these kinds of cases and precisely the kinds of facts you have brought forward, and I continue to be open to good ideas.

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

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

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

Opposition Motion—Ties Between the Canadian State and the Monarchy

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

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

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

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

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

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

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

Protection of Freedom of Conscience Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill C-5—Time Allocation Motion

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Zia Proulx]

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

[Zia Proulx]

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

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill C-11—Time Allocation Motion

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

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

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

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

Bill C-19—Time Allocation Motion

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

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

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

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

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

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

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

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

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

National Nursing Week

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good afternoon. I'm Zia Proulx.

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

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

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

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

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

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We look forward to answering any questions you may have.

[Sylas Coletto]

Thank you very much.

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

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

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

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

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emergencies Act

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

You could then continue your consultations in the provinces.

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much, Terry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absolutely. I'm more than happy to.

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

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

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

That's excellent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

[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.

[Dr. Stephen Lucas]

We recognize the incredible contribution that health care workers have made and continue to make during the pandemic. The government took action to protect health care workers through amendments to the Criminal Code under what was called Bill C-3, which was passed prior to the holiday recess. This is an important step to ensure that they are free from intimidation and harassment to enable them to do the critical work that they do day in and day out.

Criminal Code

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise quite sheepishly, having not received the memo on the festive tone of this afternoon's debates, so I will ask members to indulge me. In my community, plain talk is not bad manners, and I have prepared a full speech that does identify some gaps, which I think are germane to the conversation. This is not intended in any way to end off on a bad note or a sour note, but to really contemplate deeply what is at stake here in the House. It keeps me up at night, like many members I am sure, and it wakes me up early in the morning.

While there remains much to be said about the timing and need of the last election called by the Prime Minister, I have to admit the opportunity for me to retreat from this place of privilege and return to the doorsteps of my constituency provided me with an invaluable grounding for what is at stake among these future proceedings of the session. This is a monumental day, and I do not want to take anything away from that. It is a burden that we carry. In fact, we have asked millions of Canadians to carry a very heavy burden in order to make it through this COVID pandemic.

While returning to this topic and supporting Bill C-3, having heard the various interventions pertaining to the same, many members have questioned the relationship between the first two parts of this bill, which would amend the Criminal Code, and the third part, which would be establishing something under the Canada Labour Code.

For those from the public, and who may be tuning in to this debate through livestream, or perhaps reading it in the Hansard, I will provide a summary of Bill C-3. The first two parts would amend the Criminal Code by creating two new offences relating to the protection of health care professionals and patient access to health care. The first offence would apply to any act of intimidation that is intended to cause fear in a patient, health care professional or any person who supports them and prevents them from accessing or providing health care services. The second offence would also cover intentional acts that prevent a person from accessing services provided by a health care professional. Both offences would be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of up to 10 years and up to two years on a summary conviction.

Part three, which seems to be where perhaps some people have the disconnect between these two, pertains to amending the Canada Labour Code to establish 10 days of paid sick leave. This leave would be available each calendar year to employees in federally regulated private sectors who have been continuously employees for more than one month.

In fairness, perhaps on the surface these two policies under different acts may not appear to be connected. It is in fact my intention today to offer my support for the deep relevance between these two interconnected parts. I would argue that the deep despair and well-documented societal impacts of four consecutive waves of COVID, each with its own circumstances of social isolation and economic hardships, are ultimately due to all levels of government's failure to adequately respond to the scale and the scope of this pandemic.

The utter fear, uncertainty and doubt experienced by segments of our population have made them especially susceptible to this anti-science, anti-government and, by extension, anti-health care movement, from which come many of the targeted and vile attacks we are now legislatively responding to

Since the beginning of the pandemic, health care workers have faced a high risk of infection and violence. In fact, since long before the pandemic health care professionals are four times more likely to experience violence in the workplace than other profession. Unfortunately, many of these acts of violence go unreported. According to the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions, in 2019 61% of nurses reported experiencing violence, harassment and assault on the job, and because women make up a significant portion of the health care workforce, they are disproportionately victimized by these acts of violence.

To discourage these acts of violence, the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions has recommended amending the Criminal Code, which is what is before us today, so I commend them on their long-standing work. This request was also the subject of a 2019 health committee recommendation. Specifically, the committee recommended amending the Criminal Code to require that it be considered an aggravating factor in sentencing if the victim of assault is a health care worker. This recommendation was based upon the NDP's bill, Bill C-434, introduced by my dear friend and NDP caucus colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

As it pertains to putting the 10-day paid sick leave issue into context, people should never have to choose between their income and their health. Since the beginning of this pandemic, the NDP caucus has been demanding that the Liberals provide workers with 10 days of paid sick leave.

After winning an initial concession on this leave by offering it to people with COVID-19, we succeeded in forcing the Liberals to offer two weeks of federally funded leave through the CRB sickness benefit. The New Democrats not only support 10 paid sick days, we led the calls for it in the House. My hon. colleague for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie fought hard at committee, where he tabled four amendments, two that were unanimously supported and two that were rejected.

I feel it important to note on the record today that the NDP fought for amendments that were accepted unanimously. One is that an employer cannot request a doctor's certificate for less than five consecutive sick days. This is major because stakeholders say that asking for a doctor's certificate is a barrier to its use and people would rather go to work than chase an appointment. Plus we know that it clogs up the health care system when it does not need to.

The second amendment that passed due to the hon. member is after 30 days of employment, the employee gets one day of sick leave. In the original version of the law, it was at the beginning of each month, which would have meant that someone hired on January 1 would have to wait until March 1 for their first accrued day.

Both amendments were intended to make sick days more accessible and the NDP forced the issue to make the program more accessible to workers and more responsive to their needs. This is a victory. The five consecutive days before the employer has the option to request a doctor's certificate will make a significant difference.

We did, however, have two other amendments that failed. The first amendment opposed by the Liberals was that all employees, upon hiring, would have access to four paid sick days. They would accumulate another six, one per month, as proposed in the bill, of up to 10 per year. Having four days right from the start is very important because stakeholders tell us that very rarely do people take a day off work and an illness often requires a few days off.

The minister, in his testimony yesterday morning, said that he was open to such an amendment, speaking of the urgency of the current omicron context. By voting against the amendment, the Liberals have refused to speed up access to paid sick days in the midst of another pandemic winter. Workers will continue to go to work sick since they will not have access to enough days to isolate themselves at home until next November at the earliest. This is irresponsible.

The second amendment that the Liberals opposed was that all employees with two or more years of seniority would get 10 sick days when the law came into effect. This would have provided access to the full strength of the program immediately for the majority of employees under federal jurisdiction. Since this amendment was rejected, all employees will begin accrual as if they were newly hired. I suggest that this is precisely because of these types of gaps in our social safety nets that we ultimately remain in this mess of targeted attacks on our hospitals and health care workers.

Last week, called on the hon. member on the Conservative side to join our calls for more advances and protections. We have the opportunity to take a first step in the right direction in the House today as an informal form of sectoral bargaining for workers. We know this is going to be a vital protection.

This past election allowed me to speak to my constituents on their doorsteps. It is heartbreaking to feel as though people who I know to be rational, family members and classmates who I grew up with, neighbours I have known to be caring and compassionate, have been manipulated by the rhetoric of right-wing populism, grifters and agitators who would seek to turn this profound moment of suffering into some sort of personal sales pitch or nationwide tour targeting our front-line health care workers fighting the onslaught of successive waves of COVID.

For those caught up in this fear and confusion, I offer to endeavour to work harder as a member of Parliament to ensure that their basic needs are met and the most current evidence-based information is communicated without political interference or manipulation.

I call on the members of the House, who have rightly identified the divisions in our country, to recognize its root cause. It is the failure of all levels of government to adequately take care of the basic needs of all people, not just throughout COVID but in the decades preceding it.

I will close with the simple reassertion that these three parts of Bill C-3 are the cause and the effect of the social isolation, political estrangement and economic isolation felt by everyday people and, most unfortunate, targeted at our front-line health care workers. In taking better care of them, we will take better care of each other.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was not planning to speak today, but I would like to after all. I listened to my colleagues' wonderful speeches, including the one by my colleague opposite. I believe that what we are doing today is very important.

I lost my daughter at birth 30 years ago. She was stillborn. I do not want to talk about that event specifically, but I do want to talk about what happened at work, where people had a hard time understanding what I was going through. That was 30 years ago, of course.

I would like to ask my colleague how Bill C‑3 will change the workplace experience for the men and women dealing with this kind of situation. Why is this bill important for them?

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

moved that Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply grateful for the leadership shown in the House today. All parties supported Bill C-3 at second reading; all parties supported Bill C-3 at committee, and all parties are now supporting the passage of Bill C-3 with reasoned amendments from the opposition.

I want to recognize my opposition critics: the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie and the member for Thérèse-De Blainville. We worked with urgency and with openness.

I want to thank the members of HUMA for taking up this bill with the swiftness it deserved and giving it due and reasoned consideration.

I also want to recognize the House leaders, as well as the Minister of Justice, for their work.

I want to recognize all the officials who worked diligently on this legislation.

The pandemic has shown us that many workers do not have paid sick leave.

No one should have to choose between staying home when they are sick or being able to afford rent and groceries.

We are proposing amendments to the Canada Labour Code to provide all federally regulated private sector workers with 10 days of paid sick leave.

We are working with the provinces, territories and other interested stakeholders to develop with an action plan to legislate sick leave across the country.

Approximately 955,000 employees, approximately 6% of all Canadian employees, are working for 18,500 employers in federally regulated industries. In 2019, about 582,700 employees, representing 63.3% of all employees employed in federally regulated industries, had access to fewer than 10 days of paid sick leave to treat a personal illness or injury. Statistics from 2019 show that Canadian workers took an average of eight-and-a-half days of leave for illness and issues related to a disability.

As a government, we moved quickly and urgently on this bill, and parliamentarians of all parties and in both chambers have done the same. The last two years have shown us the cost of what further inaction would be: people forced to choose between going into work sick and risk spreading the virus to others and being able to afford groceries or rent, productivity loss, quarantine, shutdowns, lockdowns. The cost of inaction is too great. However, beyond the current pandemic, Bill C-3 would put in place an enduring protection for workers in our country.

I will speak briefly to the amendments, both those made at HUMA and those made today in the House. No medical certificate would be required for five days or less of paid sick leave. Requiring a medical certificate for each day of paid sick leave taken would have been too much of a barrier to access. I heard that from the House and Senate committees undertaking this bill.

An Ipsos poll that was taken just before the pandemic shows that 82% of Canadians would rather go to work sick than obtain a medical certificate. Workers would earn 10 days of paid sick leave throughout the year, but would have three days after the first 30 days of continuous work. This is something we heard again at committee, both in the House and Senate, and we deemed it important to provide.

Finally, anyone experiencing the loss of an immediate family member can feel shock and grief in addition to having their well-being and effectiveness at work impacted. Bill C-3 now includes 10 days of leave for the loss of an immediate family member. The loss of a child is devastating. It is a devastation no one should know. There is an amendment to Bill C-3 to provide eight weeks of leave for parents who are confronted with this unspeakable tragedy. Our government took steps to ensure that when workers experienced such a tragic event, there would be supports now in place.

There is a lot more work to do. We must continue to move not only with speed, but with accuracy to implement this legislation. This has to be done right, but it has to be done quickly. The pandemic is relentless, but so are Canadians and the members of the House. We will engage urgently with stakeholders to do the necessary work to ensure workers in Canada have access to paid sick leave as soon as possible.

As has been the case with workers and their issues throughout Canada's history, no one has been as effective as, or shone a clearer light on the importance of this topic than, organized labour and Canada's unions. I want to specifically thank those groups, whether provincial labour federations, individual members of a local, or national union leaders, for the work they did to make this idea a reality.

I would also touch on the proposed Criminal Code offences and those amendments that would target intimidation and obstruction of health service workers. It was made clear that it is not an offence for people to attend or approach a health care facility simply to communicate information and to do so peacefully. We have all seen the necessity of those Criminal Code amendments.

I will close with two observations. One came very early on in my time as the labour minister when meeting with front-line workers. Someone asked that we stop calling them heroes and start treating them like human beings.

The other is a quote from Jim Stanford, the economist who wrote in The Globe and Mail earlier this month. He states:

It would be reckless and short-sighted to return to a pre-COVID “normal” that compelled sick workers to show up, regardless of the risk to others.

Today, members of the House said they unanimously agreed. The government and the House met the moment. This legislation will be a permanent support for workers and will help us fight, and finish the fight, against this pandemic.

I thank all the members of the House who supported this legislation and all those who have worked so hard to find a reasonable and honourable way forward. The message they have sent to Canadian workers and Canadians in general about how seriously we take the fight against the pandemic was written in their vote, which was unanimous.

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Jeneroux.

Shall clause 8 carry? It will be a recorded vote.

(Clause 8 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

Shall the title carry? It will be a recorded vote.

(Title agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

Shall the bill as amended carry? It will be a recorded vote.

(Bill C-3 as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 )

Shall the chair report the bill as amended to the House? It will be a recorded vote.

(Reporting of bill to the House agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill as amended for the use of the House at report stage? It will be a recorded vote.

(Reprint of bill agreed to: yeas 11, nays 0)

Thank you, committee members. That concludes the clause-by-clause reading of Bill C-3 and the approval to proceed from here.

I want at this time to thank the committee members for their work, and especially the staff of committee members and the minister's staff. I know that a lot of work has gone into this. It was a tight timeline, and this committee achieved consideration and approval of the bill. Thank you very much.

Mr. Ruff?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

I do.

I'll remember the consideration given to other members of this committee when they ask for some type of consideration.

Chair, thank you very much.

It is that Bill C-3, in clause 2, be amended by adding after line 25 on page 1 the following:

(2.1) Every person commits an offence who engages in any conduct with the intent to provoke a state of fear in a critical infrastructure worker in order to impede them in the performance of their duties.

By replacing line 2 on page 2 with the following:

tion, (1) or (2) or (2.1) is

By replacing line 7 on page 2 with the following:

(4) No person is guilty of an offence under subsection (2) or (2.1)

By adding, after line 13 on page 2, the following:

(6) In this section, critical infrastructure worker means a person who conducts or supports operations or services that are essential to the health, safety, security or economic well-being of Canadians including in relation to food supply, electricity grids, pipelines, communications and transportation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Committee members, I will call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number three of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Today's meeting is in hybrid format. Today's meeting is to begin a clause-by-clause reading of Bill C-3.

I'll remind you that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. When you're speaking, please speak slowly and clearly.

As I indicated, Bill C-3 is an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code. Pursuant to the order of reference on Thursday, December 9, the committee will resume its consideration of Bill C-3.

Before we begin clause-by-clause consideration, there is a matter to discuss regarding the routine motions. Specifically, it is the routine motion governing orders of reference in the House respecting bills. Is it the will of the committee? That's notwithstanding the routine motion adopted by the committee for 48-hours notice. We dispensed with that routine motion for this meeting. The part dealing with 48-hour notice to file amendments at the start of clause-by-clause shall be waived.

I see agreement from the committee. Thank you, committee members.

(On clause 1)

We will begin with clause-by-clause, beginning with clause 1. Shall clause 1 carry?

Clause 1 is carried and we move on to clause 2.

[Andrew Brown]

Thank you for the question.

As the minister said, [technical difficulties] is indeed open to the idea of amending that aspect of Bill C‑3.

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

I have another question.

Bill C‑3 says—in subsection (1.4), I think—that we can accumulate days of leave. In other words, if someone has accumulated 10 days in their bank of leave and they are fortunate enough not to be sick, the bank of leave days can be carried forward to the next year and can be used in its entirety, as I understand it.

But does the counter go back to zero in terms of accumulating days of leave? I understand that you can't have more than 10 days. That's fine, it's a choice.

How can we make sure that people are not penalized in terms of accumulating days of leave in the following year if the 10 days per year in the previous year have not been used?

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you.

I've had the opportunity to contact Arden Krystal, the president and CEO of Southlake Regional Health Centre, in my riding. I asked her for her thoughts on Bill C-3. Ms. Krystal is, by and large, supportive of the legislation, particularly the changes to the Criminal Code related to intimidation and impeding access to services.

I am happy to see that we're collaborating on making this commitment we've made to Canadians a reality. Is it possible that there may be some confusion as to what the bill targets? Could you tell this committee what it doesn't target?

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for taking the time again to join the committee and to answer our questions.

Bill C-3 is so important to strengthening Canada's safety net and ensuring that Canadians don't have to worry about staying home if they're sick or about being unable to pay their bills.

I also want to take this opportunity to quickly say thank you to the health care workers in my riding and across Canada who've been working day in and day out in an already overwhelming environment to keep us safe and to protect our health.

Since 2009, the government has created greater access to paid sick leave for Canadians. Could you walk us through a brief timeline of the work that the government has done since then?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm pleased to address you on this important bill, Mr. Minister. I thought it was interesting to hear you talk about your sense of urgency to get it passed so that we can provide this sick leave capacity for federally regulated workers.

Right away, I must say that I wish that sense of urgency had been there 12, 18 or 24 months ago when the pandemic was hitting full force. I feel that would have protected people and perhaps prevented the spread of infection and the overcrowding in our health care system. It is not as if the NDP didn't ask for it, because our leader has asked for it 22 times in the past year. It finally happened. We have talked about it before in the House. I understand that you are looking forward, but I feel this has dragged on a little over the past 18 months.

In your response to a question from Ms. Kusie, you opened the door for workers to have a few sick days already available. What Bill C‑3 is currently proposing is one day off per month, but it offers no leave bank to begin with. So to get two or three days of sick leave, it could take two or three months or maybe a little more if the employee was hired in the middle of the month, for example.

I'd like to hear your comments on that. Health experts tell us that people very rarely take only one day off when they are sick with something like the flu. Instead, they take two, three or four days off. Would you be open to the idea of setting up a bank of leave, maybe not all 10 days at once, but a small bank, so that the bill would be more realistic given how long people get sick for?

[Sandra Hassan, Deputy Minister of Labour, Department of Employment and Social Development]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you for the questions, Ms. Chabot.

You alluded to some of the provisions in Bill C‑3, namely the accumulation of leave at a rate of one day per month, the issue of continuous service and the fact that the bill provides that employees could take a half-day, but the employer could also ask them to take a full day. Those provisions are currently in the bill.

Yesterday, our minister showed some openness to considering amendments to the bill. He would be very interested in receiving suggestions for wording related to requests.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Minister.

Today, you are reiterating something that you mentioned in the House when the bill was introduced, which is the goal of strengthening the social safety net. That's also part of our objectives.

Giving 10 days of paid sick leave to all workers who are not entitled to it is a positive thing. I see this as one of the significant benefits that all employers should consider, because it helps attract and retain staff.

However, let me tell you that when it comes to the social safety net, we are wide of the mark. When I think of individuals with serious illnesses receiving only 15 weeks of sickness benefits under the employment insurance system, and the fact that barely 40% of workers are eligible, I can see that we have a long way to go.

My question is about the 10-day paid sick leave bank. I feel it's important that it be clearly articulated that this is a right.

I also have a few questions about the implementation of this measure. We need to make sure that after one month of service, workers will be able to use these 10 days of leave immediately, and that they will not be accumulated at the rate of one day per month.

You should also clarify what you mean by “continuous service”. Does it mean that if, during the course of a month, a worker needs to be absent for some other reason, they will not be considered to have provided continuous service?

In my opinion, you should clarify that people could take half-days of leave, while Bill C‑3 provides that the employer could require them to take a full day. To give this bill its full effect, unless it's not necessary, would you be willing to clarify provisions that would impede the accumulation of leave?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Minister. It's great for you to be here with us today.

Good morning to all of my colleagues around the table.

I'll say just a few words at the start here about what we've all been through, all of us from all parties, over the last couple of years. Obviously we're in unprecedented times. We know, as the minister just said, that omicron is upon us and it's a game-changer with regard to what we're dealing with for the future. I'm very proud of my government. I'm very proud of all MPs across all party lines and how we have collaborated over the last two years. We've delivered programs. I'm proud of what we've done. No one knew in March 2020 what we'd be faced with, and whether it was the CERB, CEBA, the wage subsidy, rent support, business loans or what have you, we were there as a government for Canadians. We were there to support Canadians.

Certainly one thing that was missing—it's bothered me really for over a year now—is that I would have people coming into my constituency office and they were sick. They had to make a decision between going to work sick or staying home and not being able to feed their family, pay their mortgages or what have you. The fact that we're coming forward with Bill C-3 and the fact that it's going to give people who are sick the opportunity to be home, get better and not spread COVID, or what have you, around the workplace is profoundly important.

Minister, thank you, and I apologize for yesterday. I know there were some delays. I know your time is precious.

My first question to you, Minister, is this. From your side and the department's side, can you describe the necessity of paid sick leave and how you've come to where we are right now?

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Good morning, everyone. I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number two of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. The webcast will always show the person speaking, rather than the entirety of the room.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind all participants to this meeting that screenshots or taking photos of your screen is not permitted.

To ensure an orderly meeting I would like to outline a few rules to follow.

Members and witnesses may speak in the official language of their choice. Interpretation services are available for this meeting. You have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of floor English or French. If interpretation is lost, please inform me immediately, and we will ensure interpretation is properly restored before resuming the proceedings. The “raise hand” feature at the bottom of the screen can be used at any time if you wish to speak to the chair or alert the chair, or you can simply raise your hand in the room.

For members participating in person, proceed as you usually would when the whole committee is meeting in person in a committee room. Keep in mind the Board of Internal Economy's guidelines for mask use and health protocols.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself. For those in the room, your microphone will be controlled as normal by the proceedings and verification officer. When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. When you are not speaking, you mike should be on mute. A reminder that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair.

With regard to a speaking list, the committee clerk and I will do the best we can to maintain a consolidated order of speaking for all members, whether they are participating virtually or in person.

As you are aware, we are studying Bill C-3, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code. Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, December 9, 2021, the committee will commence its consideration of Bill C-3, an act to Amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code.

We will wait until we have the minister, who is doing a sound check.

I will suspend momentarily while we await the arrival of the minister, virtually.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, I'm speaking to the surprise with which we find the minister here. I was also thinking that we could perhaps get the amendment in both official languages, as I think it would be very useful. Certainly, I know that this is something that is laid out in our routine motions.

I'll continue my remarks in French. I have a little more to say to the committee about the presence of the minister today.

As I just said, it was really a surprise to see the minister here all of a sudden. We think that it's very important to make sure that Bill C‑3 is adopted in the committee, of course, but also in the House before the Christmas break. That said, it's really difficult for us if we can't do our job properly. Our job is to review the bill so that we're ready for the minister's appearance. As I just said, I think that the minister also wants us to be ready to ask him questions.

I think that it's really important to look at the bill beforehand, as we've always done in the past with other bills. Canadians deserve to have bills properly considered. In order to properly study Bill C‑3, we must have the opportunity to ask all the necessary questions and hear from all the relevant witnesses.

I want to check with the chair and the clerk of the committee to see whether the two proposals, meaning the amendment and the motion, are available in French. I would feel more confident if the two proposals before us were in both official languages.

I certainly support my caucus colleagues from Quebec. I'd also like to say that in addition to seeing the amendment and the motion presented in both official languages—

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

—do. To sit here through Christmas, for certain.

Again, Bill C-3 is very relevant, and it's wonderful that the minister is here to—

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

It will be fun. Thank you very much, member for Edmonton Riverbend.

As such, I really think that, when we consider the sacrifices we are willing to make, we can reconsider if in fact the minister can take a look at his schedule. I think this was a reason the government was so intent on bringing a virtual Parliament back to the House of Commons. It's so we can have these types of flexibilities to be able to insert ourselves anywhere at any time—at the last minute even.

If the minister is able to put aside his activities of the day—at the last minute, I'm sure—in Ottawa, which might have been a nice luncheon or, in Newfoundland and Labrador, perhaps an afternoon tea—an Earl Grey tea maybe—certainly he can re-evaluate his schedule again and look for another possible time.

Again, I really hope that he might possibly do that, because certainly it would allow us to have some time to prepare, and we could certainly head into the holiday season with Bill C-3 going back to the House and perhaps even passing, with the confidence that we had addressed all of it. I would certainly feel a lot better finishing my Christmas shopping and doing my Christmas baking knowing that we had evaluated this in its entirety. I think everyone else would as well.

I know the member for Edmonton Riverbend is a relatively new father once again, and I'm sure he would feel better preparing for the holidays with confidence, knowing that we had given this evaluation as well.

I think everyone in this room definitely feels as though Bill C-3 is a priority. We have many members, including our own shadow minister for labour and shadow minister for justice, who believe in this legislation and believe it is important to get it passed. Certainly, it is our duty and obligation to have done a solid evaluation of it.

With the minister's last minute arrival here, I have not even had an opportunity to consult with those shadow ministers to get their ideas as to the kinds of questions they would like to have answered, and what their thoughts might be before we return this bill to the House. We are considering that as well, and it would also be good to get their input.

In addition, we have another colleague who was considering an amendment based on some legislation he was evaluating. It would be great if we could have a conversation with him as well in an effort to try to figure out if we can implement his ideas into the bill, but again, given that we just found out about the minister's appearance this morning, we won't be able to do that in a timely fashion. That's very disappointing, and it will also be a disappointment to this member of our caucus.

As an individual, I always like to be really expedient and get things done as soon as possible. I would like to compliment my colleague, MP Long, for being able to get the minister here so quickly. However, there are also some times when expediency must give way to careful, prudent and thoughtful evaluation, particularly when we're talking about Canadian legislation. This would definitely be a case where it's important to do that.

In fact, the official opposition has shown very good collaboration with the government since the beginning of the pandemic. I recall my previous time in HUMA when we were called at the very last minute, almost in the middle of the night I'll say, in an effort to pass the initial legislation dealing with the pandemic. You know, I think that was also like Bill C-3. It was very valuable and very necessary, and as the official opposition, we did what we had to do to serve Canadians and get things done.

We even did that again when I held the role of shadow minister for families, children and social development in terms of what I saw with the CERB and the CRB. There were different permutations of the legislation, because with every amendment that was made, in fact, another subset of Canadians the legislation did not serve was identified. At that point, we had to go back and amend the legislation again.

I would argue that we're even seeing that again with the CCPD, and unfortunately as well—I know my NDP colleague will agree—with the GIS clawbacks based on the CERB. I'm seeing some mild nodding of heads.

My point is that we've always been agreeable to come and do what was necessary to pass legislation and to get that legislation for Canadians. In fact, we would do the same here, because this is the spirit in which we like to do things, to get things done and to move things forward.

I guess that's why we're so very surprised by the appearance of the minister here today, which, again, is fantastic. As my colleague said, sometimes it's very difficult to get ministers to appear, which has been my past experience.

This minister in particular I know is a very warm, accommodating individual. I know in his previous role as minister for natural resources, a role that's very dear to my heart as a member of Parliament from Alberta, he certainly went out of his way to make all sorts of accommodations to work for both me and my citizens, as well as the citizens of Alberta, and the natural resources sector as well. I certainly can see that he is doing the same thing in this role, by being available to speak on Bill C-3.

I'm sure in his previous career as a journalist, he also had to exhibit the flexibility he is showing here today in being ready and available to talk about Bill C-3, particularly so early in the morning. I've heard from other friends who were anchors and such that you had to get up at 3 a.m. That I'm not sure I'm willing to—

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to thank my colleague for putting forward this amendment, which to me seems incredibly reasonable.

Again, we were not prepared for the minister to come here today and present to us on Bill C-3. Again, it's just very disappointing. I certainly was prepared to have this discussion over this week.

I want to clarify for my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound that I certainly would sit here until the new year. I just said it was not my preference, but certainly, if that is what is required, I would be more than happy to do that.

I think we really should think about the precedent this sets and about the respect we have for each of the members of this committee, in that they would come here and be prepared for the minister. As well, I'm sure that the minister, as a good minister and a strong minister, would want to ensure that he heard from all of the members of the committee and was prepared to take their questions on any matter in the bill. I certainly believe that's what he would like to do so that, when we bring this legislation back to the House, he can do it with the utmost confidence that it was evaluated in every way possible.

We're here on day one, heading into hour two, and we're already in this position where, on this side of the House, we're made to feel uncomfortable. I'm sure that our NDP colleague, who I see has been replaced, is also wondering if this is normal. I certainly can assure her that it is not. I think it's very important that we consider the amendment by the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

Certainly, it's a busy week for everyone as we head into the holiday season and depart for what will be six weeks, but I have many events this week that I would be willing to move in an effort to accommodate the minister, because I certainly understand that he must have a busy schedule as well. I even have my Christmas luncheon booked with my staff. If I had to, I would be willing to forgo that.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We weren't necessarily expecting this today. I have a colleague who was working on C-3 before it was brought to this committee. I would like to step away now to make room for Mr. Boulerice.

It's nice to see everybody today. I wish I could have stayed with you, but we'll see what happens. I might come back.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

It's Michael Coteau from Don Valley East. Thank you, Chair.

I want to say that, being a new member here and new to this committee, to have the minister come on the first day is quite impressive.

For the people in my community of Don Valley East, when it comes to Bill C-3 and paid sick days, it's an important issue. If I have the opportunity to ask the minister questions and get some more clarity on the bill, that's a good thing.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Yes, Chair, I think everyone in this room absolutely anticipated the expedition of C-3. It's very timely. Frankly, I certainly didn't want to be here over the holidays, but I was prepared to stay until the end of this week in an effort to expedite this bill, because I recognize the significance of this bill for the government.

I must say, I think it's in very poor form for the committee to be informed the day of the appearance of the minister. We had no prior information of this. I don't think it's a good precedent.

The chair talked about working together in a positive and collaborative manner. To have the minister appear without any time for us to prepare for the minister with our questions, considering that we were anticipating perhaps not even the minister but discussing the bill itself later in the week, it's not really how we would like to see things done or to see things done in the future. We certainly would have appreciated some notification as to who and what and when. We didn't receive that here.

That's unfortunate, particularly when we have new members on the committee, and certainly from the NDP an entirely new member who, as I said.... In my almost five years here, I'm still learning the ins and outs of committee business and committee practice, so it's really not preferable. I really don't think it's in good form. It doesn't feel very good, as we are in the holiday season here.

I just felt I should voice all of that, Chair. Thank you very much.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

I apologize for that, Chair. It's obviously Minister O'Regan with respect to C-3, given the urgency with which we need this passed for Canadians.

The minister has made himself available. Typically, my experience is that it is the opposition parties that try to bring ministers before committee. I know it's a little unorthodox for us to have the minister ready to go, but in the name of time, Minister O'Regan is prepared to come before committee immediately.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Committee members, we agreed to a five-minute suspension.

For the information of the committee, the minister's appearance is on Bill C-3.

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 onto 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 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.

Criminal Code and Canada Labour Code

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to the special order adopted by the House on November 25, 2021, the House will now use, for the first time in this Parliament, the remote voting application. Accordingly, before proceeding with the vote, I would like to share some information on the process for the taking of recorded divisions that members may find useful.

As per the special order, votes will continue to take place as per the usual process for those in the chamber. Members present in the House must stay in their seats for the duration of the voting period and should not vote via the electronic system.

For members participating remotely using the electronic voting system, the process is as follows: Members will receive notifications informing them of the upcoming vote. Once the vote starts, they will have 10 minutes to cast a vote via the electronic system, indicating whether they are for, against or abstaining from voting on the motion. Members will then be required to take a photo to validate their identity and submit their vote. Members may change their vote during the 10-minute period, but all steps must be completed before the end of the voting period for a vote to be recorded.

After the in-person vote is completed, members may continue to vote via the electronic system if time remains for the voting period. During this time, votes cast via the system will be displayed on the broadcast feed and no points of order or interventions will be permitted.

When the House resumes its business, I will invite any member who encountered technical difficulties to identify themselves using the “raise hand” feature to cast their vote.

In accordance with the special order, I will then entertain any concerns raised by the house officer of a recognized party regarding the visual identity of a member using the electronic voting system. It is the responsibility of members to be ready to respond, should concerns be raised about their photo, failing which, as per the terms of the motion, the vote will not be recorded.

Once these steps are completed, the Table will then compile the results of the vote and the Clerk will announce the result to the House.

IT ambassadors are available before, during and after a vote to assist members if they encounter difficulties with the system or for any technical matter related to the virtual sitting. It remains the responsibility of members to ensure that they have adequate connectivity to fully participate in the proceedings and that they fully complete all steps of the voting process.

It being 3:12 p.m., pursuant to order made Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C‑3.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from December 8 consideration of the motion that Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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.

Criminal Code

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We ran out of time on Bill C-3, and I interrupted so we could move on to the next order of business.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I may have been misinformed about there being an opportunity for a speaking slot at this point for me, on behalf of the Green Party, to speak to Bill C-3.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate on Bill C-3. Although this is not my first opportunity to rise in the 44th Parliament to give a speech, this is my first opportunity, not just in this Parliament, but since I was elected in 2019, to deliver a speech with my fiancée, Danaka, watching live.

I wanted to acknowledge that and acknowledge Danaka for her continued love and support, especially through the turbulent times of election season. I have to say that going through two elections in two years is more than enough for an MP, but it is also important that we recognize the impact it has on our loved ones, so I thank Danaka for her continued support.

There are two very important aspects of the bill. It really is two bills in one, with amendments to the Criminal Code and to the Labour Code. It is very important that we talk about both of these things separately, considering how different they are. I will, time permitting, have the opportunity to touch on both of those aspects, but I also want to acknowledge the tremendous work of our shadow ministers on this file. The member for Fundy Royal has done a great job representing our position and working with our colleagues to move forward on this. As well, the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka on the labour side ensured that our party was well represented.

When it comes to the Criminal Code, of course Bill C-3 would make it an offence to intimidate health care providers or impede individuals from obtaining health services, and this is something I do not think anyone in this chamber would take issue with. I think we would all support that and the idea behind that.

We know health care workers face incredible hardships at the best of times, especially in northwestern Ontario, where they have limited staff, limited resources and policies that do not adequately account for our unique needs in rural and remote northern Ontario. These are challenges I have heard of first-hand from constituents across the riding.

Of course, this has all been exacerbated by COVID-19 and the pandemic we are continuing to fight through. Hopefully we are at the tail end of. We have seen more clearly than ever before how important our frontline workers are. They are our doctors, our nurses and those who went to work every day, risking their own safety, to ensure that all Canadians would remain safe and have the service they need. That is why so many people in the Kenora riding, across northern Ontario and across this great country were outraged by the news when they saw these protests and the harassment of health care workers throughout the course of the pandemic.

I wish I could sit here and name everybody, but there are a couple of health care workers in particular I would like to make note of, one of whom is Dr. Sean Moore at the Lake of the Woods District Hospital in Kenora. Dr. Moore has been a champion for our region throughout the course of the pandemic. He helped organize and arrange all of the COVID protocols and the COVID response at the Lake of the Woods District Hospital. With many concerns around the availability of beds and shortages of PPE, he remained steadfast in his commitment to ensuring everyone had the support they needed.

He continued to also keep me up to date on what was happening on the ground and offered advice to me to pass on to the government and my colleagues on how to best move forward through the pandemic. I would say as well that his consistent public advocacy for best practices in ways to keep ourselves and our loved ones safe has just been incredibly beneficial for everyone across our region, which is something he continues to do.

I want to make a quick mention of a health care provider who is very important to me, my mother Charlene. My mother is a nurse at the Lake of the Woods District Hospital and I know first-hand from her the challenges during the best of times at the hospital in delivering health care services in the Kenora riding. Having to deal with the additional protocols and challenges that COVID-19 brought on was difficult for her and her colleagues. Not once did any of the health care workers in my riding, or across the country, hesitate. They were always there to continue to serve and work for everyone's safety. I am happy to share that today.

There is another side to this. It is not just the health care providers. It is not just the doctors and nurses. It has also been a very difficult time to be a patient. I know many people who have had to bring their children to a hospital and only parent has been able to be with them or their loved ones. It has been incredibly difficult for families to deal with challenges to their health given the COVID restrictions.

I know the thought of any of these individuals being harassed or targeted in a protest that could be happening outside of a hospital would not sit well with anybody in the chamber. We need to look at that important aspect of the legislation as well.

As I said, apart from the Criminal Code side, there is also the labour side of the bill, which is very important as well, with the proposed 10-day medical leave in federally regulated sectors. Frankly, many companies are already going above and beyond that, as many members of the House have noted.

I believe the Minister of Labour has noted that the change he believes the bill would make would be minimal. It is important to note that, in many ways, this could be seen symbolically, but it is an important floor to work toward. However, we cannot take away from the great work that so many companies are undertaking already.

Although it is viewed as a minimal change, I do not think we should accept that without proper scrutiny. We all know there are huge labour shortages across the country. We see that in my riding at the Lake of the Woods Brewing Company, for example. It has not been able to stay open all days of the week. Many restaurants have been forced to close or are only open for short periods because they cannot find staff.

When we are talking about changes to the Labour Code, it is also very important that we have a wholesome examination of it, so we can understand all the potential impacts the legislation could have. That is why I want to see the bill get to committee. I want to see both sections of it get to appropriate committees, because they are quite different, the Criminal Code side versus the Labour Code side.

I hope we will see that from the government, that these sections will be examined separately and thoroughly. That is part of the concern I have with the time allocation motion. We have two very important sections in the legislation that need to be discussed and examined, and the government has unfortunately decided that it would rather not have those discussions.

I look forward to any question or comments my colleagues may have, but I appreciate the opportunity to share some thoughts on Bill C-3 this evening. I want to reiterate that there are two very important sections to the legislation. We need to examine them. Let us get them to committee.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to come back to something my colleague mentioned in his speech. I have already had the opportunity to ask questions about Bill C-3. Obviously, nobody can be against sick days and apple pie.

My colleague gave two examples related to the right to protest that are of particular interest to me. The first example, specifically protests in front of abortion clinics, is of particular interest to me as the critic for status of women. Indeed, those protesters can sometimes do more harm than good, since the women who need to attend those clinics are often going through an already difficult and intensely private experience.

My hon. colleague also drew a parallel with a previous bill, Bill C-205. As a member representing a rural riding, I have heard a lot about the harm protesters have caused to animals.

Can my colleague talk about the need to balance the right to protest with the fact that these protests sometimes do far more harm than good?

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C‑3.

I must admit that this bill is a little strange because it deals with two completely different topics. It would amend the Canada Labour Code and would also amend the Criminal Code. The bill's scope goes in two completely different directions.

First, the bill would amend the Criminal Code to increase penalties on people who intimidate health care workers or patients or who obstruct access to a hospital or clinic in order to impede people from obtaining health services, such as vaccination. It is hard to argue against virtue, so it is relatively easy to support this part of the bill.

Second, the bill would force federally regulated employers to grant up to 10 days of paid sick leave to their employees. As I just said, it is hard to argue against virtue, so we will support this bill.

I would like to raise an important point about the part involving protests outside health care facilities. We are being told the bill is not intended to infringe on the right to peaceful protest and is therefore not intended to affect workers' rights, but that is not made perfectly clear in the wording.

This will require clarification. As usual, the Bloc Québécois will be thorough in asking questions, checking the facts, seeking confirmation and possibly proposing any amendments needed to protect this basic right.

The Bloc Québécois always stands up for workers' rights. Of course, we defend collective rights, but defending workers' rights is one of our core values. It is of the utmost importance to us.

In Quebec, workers' rights during a dispute are particularly well protected compared to the rest of Canada. Think, for example, of the anti-scab legislation in effect in Quebec. It is important that close attention be paid to this part of the legislation.

Furthermore, paid sick leave is a step forward for federally regulated Quebec workers, even though there are not that many of them. It is a step forward for them.

As history has shown, progress for one group of workers is always progress for all workers. A rising tide lifts all boats, and measures like this create momentum, which is always positive even if it is just for a small group of people. The Bloc Québécois will definitely support this measure.

I want to comment on the prohibition of protests. The bill would give prosecutors added powers to charge people who impede others in the performance of health care duties and interfere with access to a clinic or hospital.

Under the present circumstances, because of the election campaign and anti-vax protests, people have been thinking about access to health care facilities a lot. It is these events, in large part, that led to the creation of this bill.

Over the years, we have also seen protests by people preventing access to abortion clinics. Recognizing that every woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body and that nobody can interfere with that is one of our core values. In that respect, this measure is good because it goes some way toward ensuring that people will not be hassled while accessing health care.

This part of the law is important because it distinguishes between “freedom of expression” and “aggression”. Unfortunately, in our society, some individuals or groups often confuse the two concepts. Some think that because they have the right to express themselves, they have the right to prevent others from doing something. This is not at all the case, and such behaviour should never be tolerated. This is a fundamental and very important point.

As parliamentarians, we have a duty to protect people from all forms of aggression. This is what we started to do in the last Parliament before the unnecessary election that everyone knows about. We were working on Bill C‑205, which concerned the agricultural sector and would have prevented vegan activists from trespassing on livestock farms and other farms.

Assaulting someone or coming onto their property to express a political opinion or a point of view is unacceptable. This is a democratic country, and democracy is expressed in a peaceful and respectful way. There are public spaces for demonstrating. Once people start to be bullied, it becomes very important to intervene.

This also deals with intimidation, and that is important. When people head out to a certain place and find a threatening group there, they may turn back. The example of vaccine-hesitant folks comes to mind. This is not a judgment of someone's opinion. I am not saying that one group is more right than another. However, in order for us to get out of this miserable crisis, our duty as parliamentarians is to encourage people to get vaccinated. That means that any demonstration that might interfere with that goal obviously must be prevented without stopping people from expressing themselves. Once again, “expression” does not mean “aggression”. This is a very important point.

In my former life as a high school teacher, I fought against bullying and intimidation for many years. It was a fundamental issue that was very important to me. I will continue that fight as a parliamentarian, because our civil society must not accept that kind of behaviour.

Bill C‑3 is quite severe, providing for prison sentences of up to 10 years, depending on how the offender is charged. They could get 10 years or two years less a day. This could be a good way to make people think twice about assaulting others.

As for the rest, the bill also contains other clauses, such as release orders for people charged under the amended law, potentially with conditions. That is fairly standard.

However, I would like to highlight one very important point for my colleagues. Under Bill C‑3, any criminal offence committed against a health professional in the performance of their duties would now be considered an aggravating factor. I think this is a great approach, because it confirms the almost sacred nature of health care work. It also protects access to care for the general public, which I think is a very good sign.

The last part deals with paid sick leave, and it is positive, as I said earlier. However, the majority of federally regulated private sector workers already have access to 10 or more days of sick leave. We are talking about roughly 63% of those workers. Getting that number up to 100%, or in other words, giving everyone access to those sick days is great, but there is one aspect of Bill C-3 that could prove to be problematic, and it needs to be addressed. I am referring to the fact that the employer can require a medical certificate within 15 days of the employee's return to work. I wonder about that.

Consider the example of someone who has been sick for two days and returns to work, then after another five or six days is asked by their employer to provide a medical certificate. I think it would be hard to prove one's illness by that point. The right questions need to be asked, and I am counting on my esteemed colleague, who is the critic on this issue, to dig into the matter, but I think it is important to clarify that aspect.

As I have been saying from the start, we cannot be against this bill, despite the fact that it changes very little. It feels like the Liberals are trying to prove that they are with the times and following the trends. We are being asked to vote on this bill after we were forced to urgently vote on a time allocation motion. As a colleague from our party said earlier, however, this was brought up a long time ago.

Why was this not done at the beginning of the crisis when many people may have needed it?

Why wait 62 days to recall members to work and then shove bills down their throat?

Many areas need our swift action, such as the cuts to the guaranteed income supplement for seniors, which is a major injustice. When will we see some movement on that? I am being told that Bill C‑3 is urgent, that it needs to happen by tomorrow morning, but we sounded the alarm about the cuts to the GIS before the election campaign.

Does the government not want to introduce a bill to address that situation? It is a matter of social justice. Yesterday, we discussed Afghanistan; it is the same thing.

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

Second Reading

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, the minister, in his response to a similar question, spoke to that, and I think there is a benefit to putting these two pieces together.

We are in a pandemic, and it is so important that we have timely resolutions to the issues we see. We want to make sure that health care workers and patients are protected, but also that as a result of the pandemic, federally regulated workers have 10 days of paid sick leave. Because the pandemic is the common item that ties these two issues together, it makes sense for them to go through the House as Bill C-3, to be reviewed by a committee that can comment on both aspects of it.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask a simple question of the member. This legislation deals with changes to the Canada Labour Code and changes to the Criminal Code, two very separate pieces of legislation. I believe, as many members would agree, the bill should go through different committees.

Would the member agree that both aspects of the legislation should be examined separately rather than lumped together as they are right now in Bill C-3?

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-3 would protect health care workers, Canadians seeking health services and Canadians who work in federally regulated sectors deciding between their well-being and paying bills. Delivering protections for health care workers and 10 days of paid sick leave were top priorities for our government. It is why I stand here today, just weeks into the 44th Parliament speaking in favour of Bill C-3, so we can ensure Canadians receive the protections they deserve as quickly as possible.

Throughout this pandemic, we have commended our health care workers through efforts such as the nightly banging of pots and honking—

The House resumed from December 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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.

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on Bill C-3 this evening. It is a very important piece of legislation that requires not just the attention of Parliament, but also committee scrutiny.

Let me begin by saying that I believe that Bill C-3 should have been split into two separate bills. We are dealing with two separate issues here, one as it relates to health care workers and protests outside health facilities, the other as it relates to federally regulated sick days and the provision of 10 days for federally regulated workers. I am hopeful that, when this does get to committee, it is going to get the scrutiny that it deserves.

Let me also say that we are so fortunate in central Ontario to have an incredible regional health facility. The Royal Victoria Hospital is world class in its ability to provide care, not just acute care but all kinds of care led by Janice Skot, who is the CEO of the hospital. She recently announced her retirement next year and I wish her all the best. She certainly has seen the transition of the Royal Victoria Hospital over the 17 years that she has been there into this world-class facility.

In fact, just recently I was fortunate that we were in Innisfil to talk about the expansion of the Royal Victoria Health Centre into the southern tier of our municipalities of Barrie and Innisfil. It is expected that, by the time it is fully functional, it could service up to 250,000 people a year. This is an important part of our community. It is an important part of all of the regions of central Ontario and does a great service to our communities.

I consider many of the people who work there friends of mine; doctors, nurses, great people who do terrific work and have been there on the front lines since this pandemic started with great adversity, great anxiety. I cannot imagine, at the height of the COVID-19 situation, these doctors and nurses and all of those who work in this health care facility not only having to worry about looking after the patients coming into the facility, but also having the anxiety about how to protect themselves and their families. I heard many stories of health care workers going home and changing in the garage. They had moved their washer and dryer into the garage so that they would limit the risk of potentially transmitting COVID-19 to their family members.

When vaccines came, it was a sense of relief for many health care workers. There was a challenge in the beginning. I recall having a discussion with the then minister of health, in fact I would call it an emergency meeting, when our community was running out of vaccines, not just for health care workers, but also for long-term care facilities. We can talk about anxiety. Many health care workers who were in the process of getting their second vaccine were told that their appointments had been cancelled. I called the health minister to ask her on an emergency basis if we could get the vaccines that were needed within our community not just for health care workers, but also for the long-term care providers as well.

Let us not just look at the health care workers and the work that they have done and how they should be free of intimidation and harassment in their workplace, but let us also acknowledge the long-term care workers within those long-term care facilities because they had equally anxious times during the height of COVID-19.

I want to focus on a couple of things, not the least of which is the divisive rhetoric that has gone on. We saw this at the height of the election campaign when there were not just protests in front of health care facilities, but there were also protests on the political front as well. We saw some of those protests play out on the nightly news. We saw them in health care facilities. I believe that every health care worker should be free of any form of harassment, particularly when they are going in to do the job.

How did we get here? There is this divisive rhetoric, and we are now in a position where we are talking about implementing legislation to protect health care workers when we have never been in this point before.

Obviously, we have heard through other speakers today that we have criminal legislation on the books for dealing with protests, much of which is dealt with at the local level. Regarding this divisiveness that has gone on, I certainly saw it through the election campaign. There has been misinformation, and I would suggest that there has not been enough information on the part of government to allow people to make an informed decision on the issue of vaccines. I happen to think that everybody should be vaccinated. I am vaccinated; in fact, I have my booster shot scheduled for December 19. Vaccines are an important tool in the tool box in ensuring that people are safe.

However, there are many people out there, almost five million Canadians over the age of 12, who have not received a vaccine at this point for various reasons. I have been dealing with this in my office, with people calling. They are not anti-vaxxers; they are just concerned about their health and the potential risks associated with vaccines. Perhaps they do not have enough information to make an informed decision.

This is where the role of government comes in, to provide as much information as we can to people so that they make the right decision, to get vaccinated. Many of them right now are in a position where they are at risk of their lives and livelihoods being lost and actually being unable to provide for their families.

A year ago, when we did not have vaccines, we had lots of other tools in the tool box. We were talking about rapid testing, physical distancing, wearing a mask and washing our hands. Rapid testing seems to have fallen off a cliff right now. To accommodate those who perhaps still have that vaccine hesitancy and are not getting a vaccine, it is an important tool in the tool box that we need to be using.

I talked to someone in my riding about this recently. His entire family is vaccinated at this point, but he still has that hesitancy. I am using this example among many that I have received. He was told recently by his employer, after working there for 25 years, that as of this past November 1, he would have lost his job because he was unvaccinated. He has actually been extended now to January 29, and the reason he was extended is that his company is entering into a very busy Christmas period, so it cannot afford that loss of employment. In the meantime, the company has told him that it is going to rapid test him throughout that whole process.

Therefore, he is living with the backdrop of losing his employment and, quite frankly, he is scared, because he has family, including grandchildren. That reasonable accommodation that I spoke about still needs to happen today when it comes to making sure we are reasonably accommodating those individuals who at this point have vaccine hesitancy. We can do a much better job of educating and encouraging people to get vaccinated.

The other part of this legislation relates to the federal regulation on providing up to 10 sick days. I would agree with my hon. colleagues that people should never have to choose between going to work and staying home without pay when sick. Making sure we can accommodate those people who are in the unfortunate position of making that decision needs to be addressed as well.

As it relates to federally regulated industries having this requirement, there are many collective agreements that cover sick leave, but a small percentage do not. Those collective agreements can speak for themselves when dealing with this issue, but I will be interested to see, when this goes to committee, what we hear from all the stakeholders as it relates to the sick days.

In conclusion, a tremendous amount of anxiety still exists among everyone in this country, whether they are vaccinated or not. We have to tone down the divisive rhetoric. We have to make sure that in all cases, unequivocally, we are supporting our health care workers, who are doing such tremendous work to keep us safe. However, we also have to tone down the rhetoric and make sure we educate people that it is important to be vaccinated in order to deal with this crisis.

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

Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot about urgency, about the importance of various issues. We heard about it during the election campaign and we prepared for 65 days. Considering the legislative agenda of election promises, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on whether Bill C-3 has come at the right time, when there are other emergencies.

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

Madam Speaker, it is certainly an honour and privilege to once again rise and enter into debate in this place.

If members will indulge me, I will share a few thanks and a few thoughts prior to getting into the substance of what we are here to debate today, which is the Liberal's new bill, Bill C-3. It truly is an honour to serve, and along with that there are some thanks that I need to pass along.

First, I need to thank my wife Danielle, who has stood through what has been a very interesting first term in Parliament. Of course, when we had that discussion about whether or not I would let my name stand again, she was very supportive, and we hope that we can see a return to at least some level of normalcy as we move forward. I send my love to my wife, Danielle, and to my boys Matthew, Emerson and Winston. I love them, and I am so thankful for the support that they give. Even though sometimes it may be a little hard for the boys to understand, as they are five, three and soon to be six months, I am so thankful for that love and support.

I thank my staff, my campaign team, my EDA and all those who help make an election happen.

I would also like to take a moment to thank, in what was undoubtedly a difficult election in many ways, those other candidates who ran and showed up. There was one party that notably did not even show up in this last election, and that was a travesty for democracy in central Alberta. Anyone who puts their name on the ballot deserves thanks and respect, and I have that for those who ran in Battle River—Crowfoot.

I thank all those poll workers and local individuals who helped to make sure that an election could happen, even though it was an election, I would suggest, that nobody really wanted except for the Prime Minister who sits across the way. However, they also deserve our thanks.

Of course, I am deeply grateful for the people of Battle River—Crowfoot for once again sending me to be their voice in our nation's capital to ensure that the interests of rural, east central Alberta are heard, and that is certainly what I plan to do.

I will share a few thoughts and observances from the election. I found it very interesting that just two or three months prior, the Prime Minister's itinerary came out saying that there was a visit to the newly appointed Governor General's residence, and I could not help but think that he would be going back on his word. Now, it would not surprise many within this place and many Canadians that we cannot take the Prime Minister's word all that seriously. The signs were already there for a fourth wave, yet he put his personal political interests before the lives of Canadians. It is a shame. I have some unparliamentary language that comes to mind, but I will spare members that.

Over the course of the summer and during the election, I had a chance to speak with many constituents who brought up a myriad of concerns. One constituent, a man by the name of John Dillon, brought forward something that I told him I would share in this place. I had spoken with him during the previous election, and I was reminded when I went to his door again. This 40-year Air Force veteran asked a question about why parliamentarians get preferred treatment over the men and women who wear our nation's uniform. Why does it take him decades to qualify for his pension while it takes a politician six years? We continued to talk over the course of a fairly extended period of time about some of the frustrations that he has, and about the hypocrisy and the frustration with the political status quo in this country.

I hope to get to as much in as possible in 10 minutes, which is not a lot of time. I also spoke to constituents who were frustrated beyond belief on all sides of the political spectrum, and about how divisive and polarized politics are in this country. A number of times, I would encourage constituents I was speaking with to make sure that they looked a little beyond Facebook in terms of making sure that we were having dialogue. Certainly, there is politics and partisanship in the House, and that is okay, but we also need to make sure that we are always working for the best interest of Canadians.

The concerns around western alienation are very real. I have talked to many people who have given up hope on Canada. It is heartbreaking to speak with many constituents, more than I can count, who suggest that an independent path forward is the only option. I pleaded with them. We spoke about the issues and talked about how it is not too late, and to not give up hope on this country in spite of the many frustrations.

We heard rumours that the Liberals would be mandating a reduction in fertilizer, which could very well take away the livelihoods of farmers in my constituency. We heard rumours about further activism when it comes to the oil and gas sector, which turned out to be more than accurate when the Prime Minister appointed a criminal activist as his environment minister, and the Prime Minister went to COP26 and decided that the only justice in a transition was to put my constituents out of work. That is shameful.

From COVID challenges to the challenges with our economy, it is Canadians who are paying the price. I certainly look forward to being able to stand up for their interests.

Now on to the substance of Bill C-3. It is interesting that we see an issue that Conservatives have actually talked a fair bit about and provinces have taken action on, and that is access to critical infrastructure. Almost all Canadians would agree that a health care professional going to work or a patient needing care should not be denied access to a hospital. I would hope that is simply common sense, although as I am often reminded by many, including my father, common sense seems to be not so common anymore.

What I find interesting is that in the midst of this debate being part of this two-part bill, and I will get into that in a second, it is in the political interests of the Liberal government to now bring forward something that it saw a political opening for, whereas Conservatives had actually called for this sort of action when critical infrastructure had been placed at risk. Supply chains had been put at risk in the past, and a number of Conservative governments across the country have actually taken action to ensure that critical infrastructure is protected.

I would suggest that is a good thing, although I do have a few concerns about some of the ambiguous wording. I found it interesting that the Liberals are quick to defend the appropriate balance that needs to be had to ensure freedom of speech but also to ensure safety of health care workers. I am glad that there are some Liberals who are encouraging that discussion to take place. Certainly, when it does not fit their political best interests, they will try to shout down any freedom of expression that they can. As this bill, I would suspect, goes to committee, it certainly is one of those issues that we need to keep at the front of our minds.

Before I get into the substance of part two of this bill, I think it is interesting that we have what is kind of a mini piece of omnibus legislation. We have two very different subjects that are addressed within this one bill. I would suggest that this goes against, certainly the spirit, if not directly against what the Liberals promised back when they ran for election first in 2015.

There are two very distinct issues, and I would certainly be encouraged if the Liberals were willing to send it to the two different committees where this could be addressed. When it comes specifically to the issue of paid sick leave, I have some very basic questions. How many people does this affect? One would think that, if the government is planning on implementing paid sick leave for all federally regulated industries within the country, that question would be one of the first to be answered. However, I have yet to hear a Liberal member articulate the answer to that question.

There is some further ambiguity about what this actually applies to in terms of contractors or simply federally regulated services, but if a contractor works in a federally regulated service but that service itself is not regulated, what is the application? That is, quite frankly, why it is concerning that these two very distinct issues are put together in one bill. Had they been separate, it would have been certainly more—

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji.

First, it is my first opportunity to congratulate the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo on his election. I noticed that his speech was silent on the amendments to the Canada Labour Code, yet he spoke passionately about the importance of health professionals.

According to Statistics Canada, my riding of Nunavut has the lowest ratio compared to the rest of Canada for the national average of doctors to residents, which is 85 doctors per 100,000 people. Because of the many issues that we have facing health care in Nunavut, I am particularly interested in what the member's position is on allowing medical certification to be relaxed. Bill C-3 talks about the requirement for medical certification and I would like to hear his position on relaxing the provisions set out in Bill C-3.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour to speak while your are in the chair. I congratulate you on your appearance before the House.

In short, I support the bill going through second reading and moving on to committee. Like my colleague for Langley—Aldergrove, after a few brief comments I will focus on the proposed Criminal Code amendments.

Canada's Conservatives, and our recent platform on this point really bore it out, will continue to be the voice for working Canadians, especially those who have been left behind by the current government.

I will now move on to what is very important not only in my riding but in a number of ridings, which is the implication of Bill C-3 when it comes to health care workers.

It is a pleasure to appear here on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. Our riding is geographically diverse. Places like 100 Mile House, which has a small hospital, or places like Barrière and Clearwater are often underserviced and it is important that we recognize and protect not only the contribution those health care workers in that area make, but also recognize the tremendous importance they have.

In my own experience, during the election, I drove through a protest at Royal Inland Hospital. Two of the fellow candidates, the candidate for the Liberal Party and the candidate for the Green Party, had partners who were critical health care workers, so this was very close to my heart and mind during the election. It really emphasized the strain that the pandemic had placed on health care workers.

I want to emphasize for my colleagues in the House that time and again I commend what our front-line health care workers have done. We have seen them step up. I know at the beginning people would go outside and would frequently ring the bells every night as a commemoration to the health care workers. Slowly, those things started to disappear. Then, I believe it was nightly, there would be a procession of all first responders, such as the police, the sheriffs and the ambulances. Then that went to weekly. It can be very easy to forget the sacrifices that have been made by our front-line health care workers. I want to appreciate them as the member of Parliament for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo as well as simply a citizen of Canada. I appreciate all the work they have done.

A number of people in my riding have really risen to the occasion during this time, for instance, the workers in specific facilities with outbreaks, seniors homes and the Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops. Nurses in 100 Mile House stayed in hotel rooms in order to protect their families. Volunteers ran immunization clinics smoothly. People like Dr. Shane Barclay and Laura Bantock lobbied for and obtained a testing centre in Sun Peaks, which is vital to our community, our tourism, our fabric and our recreation in Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. It is critical that we see tourism thrive in a place like Sun Peaks and eradicating the pandemic from Sun Peaks is obviously of critical importance. With that, it is a pleasure that people do not have to travel to Kamloops to have a safer place to work, worship and play.

The Criminal Code offers protections to a number of groups. There are already provisions with respect to threatening and intimidating, but Bill C-3 goes one step further. Even in these discussions, the Hansard that is created is important to reflect what the House believes. As somebody who practised law for a number of years and spoke about sentencing on these types of issues, it is important that what we say here reflects the consensus and the issues before the House.

The Criminal Code already reflects that it is an aggravating feature to threaten, assault or intimidate certain groups. I think about section 270 of the Criminal Code with respect to assaulting a peace officer. It is an offence to assault anybody, but Parliament has said that when one assaults a peace officer, one has gone one step further and the offence is recognized with a greater level of seriousness for obvious reasons.

It is the same thing for children. There are offences that relate specifically to children to reflect the seriousness of committing an offence against a child. Similarly, when it comes to intimidation and obstruction of justice, there are offences that protect justice system participants, reporters and people who carry out their justice system practice.

With what I have already said, health care workers are integral to the functioning of our society. Various colleagues on both sides of the House have noted already the strains they are under, so I will not repeat them. However, I wish to note that it is very important that we do protect these groups.

I am in favour of studying these issues further at committee. I am therefore speaking in support of the bill going to committee.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am here to talk about the government's proposal to amend the Criminal Code to criminalize certain behaviour, which I believe most Canadians thought was already against the law.

Before speaking to Bill C-3, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the fine people of Langley—Aldergrove for endorsing me for a second term. It is a great honour to be re-elected. I have promised my constituents that I will be a clear voice for them in this Parliament.

I want to thank my wife, Inga, and my extended family for their ongoing support. I also want to thank the many volunteers who helped me throughout the campaign and made my success a reality. Politics is a team sport.

Moving onto Bill C-3, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code, I am going to focus on the Criminal Code aspect of the bill, which would make harassing health care workers illegal if the intent is to prevent them from doing the work of serving the public.

As I said, many people think that this is already against the law. There are provisions in the Criminal Code that the police and prosecutors could rely on to prevent this type of anti-social behaviour. One thing we have learned through the pandemic is that we must value our health care workers as they are essential to the full and proper functioning of our society and our communities. We owe them a debt of gratitude.

Everybody in this House knows a health care worker, is related to somebody who is a frontline health care worker, or is a neighbour to one. I have two family members, a daughter and daughter-in-law, who are. One is a care aid in a seniors home and the other is a nurse in a hospital. Every day they go to work, and they are eager and happy to serve their patients to the best of their abilities.

Sometimes they are in very stressful situations, such as situations of understaffing or having to be moved from one ward to another on very short notice. Sometimes they have to work extended shifts due to a shortage of health care workers. Sometimes they have to work in the COVID ward. I think not only of the health care workers, but also of the family members, who share the risks, stresses and strains of health care work.

This law is a step in the right direction. It is a gesture in support of our health care workers. A more constructive and substantive way to support our health care workers would be by hiring more nurses. The shortage of nurses is a long-term problem that we knew about long before the COVID pandemic, but it has been exacerbated by that.

I met with members of the Canadian Federation of Nurses Union. I have a quote here from a publication they shared with me. It states, “Many risk factors for burnout have been exacerbated during the pandemic, including increased patient acuity, understaffing...increased overtime...reassignment to unfamiliar roles”. It goes on to say, “Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, severe burnout was typically found in 20%-40% of healthcare workers.” In the spring of 2020, at the commencement of the pandemic, that percentage increased to between 30% and 40%, and by the spring of 2021, it was more like 60%.

The publication goes on to say that job vacancies for registered nurses had the largest increase of all occupations over a two-year period. This is what is happening to our health care workers. There is a shortage of them and that shortage is increasing stresses and strains. The best thing that we could do for our health care workers would be to hire more health care workers.

I asked the people with whom I met with whether there is a shortage of people who want to be in the nursing industry, and I was told absolutely not. There are many applications to universities and to nursing schools across the country, but not enough seats in these nursing schools. I am thinking of Trinity Western University in my riding. The nursing school has a very good reputation across the country and around the world, and it would love to open up more chairs. That is what we need to do. We need to increase the supply of nurses.

Let us go back to Bill C-3. I am happy to listen to the debate. There seems to be a consensus developing that we are all in support of this bill. I am happy to hear that we want to support our health care workers, but I am hoping there is also a consensus forming around the right of protest.

Long-standing democratic rights in our society include the rights to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom to protest; however, they need to be done in a balanced way. No rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are absolute. They are always subject to such reasonable limitations as defined in law and as are demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. The question for the committee would be to determine whether we have found that right balance in Bill C-3. It is an open question.

The effective paragraph in the bill states:

No person is guilty of an offence under [the relevant] subsection...by reason only that they attend at or near, or approach, a place referred to in that subsection for the purpose...of obtaining or communicating information.

We are allowed to have information pickets. I agree with that. I think everyone in the House is going to agree with that, but the right of protest does not extend to interfering with the proper functioning of society.

I am going to pivot to something that was in the Conservative platform in the last election. Reference has been made to it by several of the previous Conservative speakers. We are proposing to introduce a critical infrastructure protection act that would prevent protesters from interfering with infrastructure projects, whether they are hospital construction, transit construction or pipeline construction. Yes, we have a right of protest. No, we do not have a right to interfere with legal projects that Canadians have determined are essential for our society. I am very pleased that we are introducing Bill C-3 because not only would it protect health care workers, it would also set a good precedent for us going forward.

I look forward to an opportunity, at some point, to introduce something like what the Conservatives were proposing: a critical infrastructure protection act. The work that the committee would do, and that Parliament is doing right now around Bill C-3, is going to be precedent-setting for legislation going forward that would regulate how protesting is to be done. Peaceful protesting is allowed, but getting in the way of society's functioning is not.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, unless I missed something, it is hard to determine whether our Conservative colleagues are going to vote for or against Bill C‑3.

After all, there are a few contradictions. The English-language media has been reporting that the Conservatives consider it unnecessary to amend the Criminal Code. In the French-language media, however, we sometimes heard the member for Mégantic—L'Érable bring up the notion of prohibiting demonstrations near hospitals and key infrastructure like railroads or pipelines, which is part of the Conservatives' platform.

Furthermore, we have not really heard anything from the Conservatives about the proposed 10 days of paid sick leave. I would therefore like to know if my colleague can shed a little more light on these issues, because I would really appreciate it.

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

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to speak to this important bill, Bill C-3. It is great to see both the Liberal Party and, it seems, the Conservative Party coming around to see the importance of paid sick leave. I have talked about this in the House quite significantly and so has my party. In fact, the leader of my party raised this 22 times throughout the pandemic. Here we are, 20 months after the top medical health professionals in our country decided that outside of social distancing and washing our hands, the top two things we could do to stop the spread of the virus and combat COVID-19 were to get vaccinated and for governments to implement paid sick days. It is really great to see that everybody is coming together today to do that, to protect workers, so that people are not spreading the virus.

We talk about people going to work while knowingly showing symptoms of COVID-19 or being unsure whether they should go to work or not. For many of these people, their spouses have perhaps lost their jobs because of COVID-19 or are unable to work, or they are the sole breadwinners in their homes and are scraping to get by even at the best of times. Whatever their circumstances, they are worried about how they are going to pay their bills, like most Canadians. Fifty per cent of Canadians were within two weeks of insolvency prior to the pandemic. We can think about how many families were terrified at the beginning of and throughout the pandemic about missing any work at all and how they were going to pay their bills and feed their families. Paid sick days are absolutely critical.

There is one thing we have not talked about a lot here. I was really honoured to be the small business and tourism critic for the federal NDP for the last six years, and to stand up and fight for small business. We do not talk about how important paid sick days are, not just for workers but also for employers and small business. I was always mystified when Conservatives would not support paid sick leave, because they say they are strong defenders of the economy and small business. I know Liberals were always patting themselves on the back throughout the pandemic on the important needs of small business, but throughout the pandemic, whether it be on the CERB or another program, we had to fight to make sure small businesses would be included. Initially, proprietors were not even going to be allowed to collect CERB.

Initially, people were going to get $1,200. New Democrats were able to put pressure on the government so that people could get $2,000. We brought forward the idea of a commercial rent assistance program. Of course the Liberals bungled it initially. They made sure it was set up and designed so that people had to have a mortgage to be able to apply for rent support. It was landlord-driven instead of tenant-driven. It was a completely broken program. We found out that there were some Liberal insiders delivering the program for the government and we were glad to put pressure on the government to fix that broken commercial rent program. My colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby and I brought the idea to the government. I am glad to see that it finally fixed it.

When it comes to paid sick days, people were going to work unsure of whether they had the virus or not. They were terrified and governments at different levels did not have their backs to make sure people stayed at home instead of bringing COVID-19 to the workplace and possibly infecting co-workers.

Whether it is in the private sector or in government, it is extremely costly when people get sick and spread the virus in the workplace. One would think it would make economic sense to provide a social safety net, so that people who were sick would stay at home, not spreading the virus in the workplace or ending up having to close throughout the country and shut down government services to Canadians. We do not talk enough, not only about the workers, but also about the impact on businesses and the economy. That is a really important argument for why this is absolutely critical.

As much as we appreciate the legislation before us, there are flaws that are apparent in it, such as a person having to work for 11 months to get access to the 10 paid sick days.

The Liberal government said it would restore the cuts to the federal public services that the Conservatives made. I mean, we can look to Veterans Affairs as a great example. The Conservatives gutted one-third of Veterans Affairs Canada under the Harper government. As a result, the backlog has grown to over 40,000 veterans who have been injured serving our country.

The Liberals said they were going to fix it. What did they do? They outsourced and brought people back in on temporary contracts instead of hiring people and sending the message to veterans that they are committed to them in the long term and are going to end the backlog forever and not just outsource for temporary jobs.

The Liberals are notorious for this and do it all the time. They are outsourcing throughout the government, and this is creating a huge problem, because we have contract flipping going on. Obviously, we do not want this practice to continue. We want the government to hire people and make sure they have job security and benefits they can rely on so that the people they are serving, like veterans, can count on the services being delivered to them. We want to make sure the government is open to amendments that all federal subjurisdictional workers have access to the 10 paid sick days. It is very important that we cover that.

The other thing I have not talked about is the fact that women are being disproportionally impacted. With a lot of the outsourcing and temp jobs in our country, women have been disproportionally impacted by COVID-19. Social services have failed people across Canada, and the lack of child care has had a huge impact. CBC reported that 100,000 working-age women have completely left the workplace since COVID-19, which is 10 times the number of men. We talk about having an employee work approximately a month to achieve one paid sick day, but this is disproportionally going to impact women if it takes 11 months to accumulate 10 days' sick leave.

I really hope the government will consider amending this situation, because we know that people who have been working at a job need that security. Also, we do not want them coming to work sick. We do not want them spreading the virus. We are in the fourth wave right now, and we do not know what the omicron virus, which is spreading quickly, is going to look like. We want to make sure we have workers protected throughout.

We also saw how fractured the health care system became throughout the pandemic. I could speak all day about the things we saw that were highlighted in the pandemic. However, when it comes to paid sick days, it is absolutely critical. This is a victory today for health care workers, workers across this country and professionals.

We are going to continue to ensure that workers across this country have support from us as parliamentarians, but I question why it took so long. Why did Liberals and Conservatives sit on their hands against medical health professionals' advice? Members have heard me talk a lot about the government failing to listen to medical health professionals, like in the opioid crisis. The medical health professionals have made very clear and sound recommendations. Even the government's own officials are asking it to decriminalize and provide a safe drug supply, but it has not done that.

The government does not listen to its health professionals when it comes to sick days or to the other crisis that is happening, which has taken more lives than we have seen in generations. However, I am hoping the government will act swiftly, start listening to its health professionals when it comes to developing policy, and act with much more urgency in the future.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. I look forward to working with him on the official languages file as we take a closer look at the status of French across Canada, including in francophone minority communities.

Regarding Bill C‑3, a question about terminology has already been raised. This bill offers progress on the health care file. Some things have been split off and others have been brought in, such as provisions governing court decisions.

I look forward to working with my colleague in committee as we examine certain details and make sure we improve this bill to protect health care workers.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by congratulating my colleague opposite on being appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Official Languages. He can count on the Bloc Québécois to keep him busy with work.

Bill C‑3 does not really change things, since the offences that the government claims are being added to the Criminal Code already exist. They are not being added.

What this bill does do, however, is bring in harsher penalties for some criminal offences. Paradoxically, in 2018, the Liberal government introduced Bill C‑75, which, unlike today's bill, was designed to reclassify about a hundred offences to relax the penalties.

How does the Liberal government justify or explain this about-face? Is it just following the latest trends and keeping with the times, or did it have an epiphany about the need to make the punishment fit the crime?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Official Languages]

Madam Speaker, first let me congratulate you on your appointment.

I would also like to take this opportunity, in this 44th Parliament, to sincerely thank the constituents of Nickel Belt for placing their trust in me for a third time. I also want to thank my wife, Lynn, for her unconditional support. It is not always easy to be the spouse of a member of the House of Commons. We also work very hard in the community. I want to give a big thank you to my mother, family, all the many volunteers who worked in the community, and my staff, Rebecca, Anne, Kaylie, Sheri, Sabrina and Stéphanie, for their support.

It is an honour to follow in my father's footsteps as the member for Nickel Belt and also to take up my new duties as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Official Languages.

Today, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-3, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code, at second reading stage.

Bill C-3 proposes reforms to the Criminal Code that would respond to the issues that have come to the forefront of the pandemic. The bill would seek to enhance protection to health workers and those who need their services at a critical time in Canada. I firmly believe that the proposed reforms show restraint in dealing with the very difficult circumstances that have arisen, particularly due to the small minority of COVID-19-related deniers and individuals engaging in serious and harmful conduct during anti-vaccination protests targeting the health sector and, as indicated earlier, retail and other sectors. I am proud of the way this government has dealt with this issue.

Bill C-3 proposes reforms that are targeted in nature and demonstrate the utmost respect for our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Today, I would like to speak about the events that we have all witnessed and that have led us to this important reform to criminal law. I will also speak to why our government’s commitment to enact these reforms is crucial in protecting not only our health care workers, but each and every Canadian who is in need of health services.

Currently, the Criminal Code provides a wide range of general responses to threats, intimidation and other forms of violence directed at all persons. However, new explicit offences are critical to send a clear message that such conduct is never appropriate.

We have all seen what has been reported in the media, stories about health workers being targeted directly and threatened over social media platforms, including Twitter, because of their work in promoting public health measures and treating those fallen ill to the pandemic. Health care facilities across the country were specifically targeted last summer and early fall, with images and reports of some ambulances being surrounded by a crowd and health care professionals being confronted when accessing their workplaces, as well as patients needing police escorts to access certain facilities.

In a November 5 tweet by Anthony Dale, president of the Ontario Hospital Association, he reported that one hospital CEO had received death threats because of the implementation of a mandatory vaccination policy. Other physicians and medical associations are reporting death threats against health care professionals. I am deeply troubled by these accounts.

Vaccine misinformation has unfortunately caused many to distrust and attack the medical community.

Examples are popping up near my riding of Nickel Belt and other parts of northern Ontario. Recently, Dr. Gretchen Roedde, a family physician from Latchford, a small community in northern Ontario, was victimized online, at home and reported by a growing anti-vaccination movement. Dr. Roedde has given in to these pressures and has decided to close her practice, leaving many in the community without adequate care. This is a chilling reminder of the challenges faced by our health care providers.

The Ontario Medical Association, OMA, and the Canadian Medical Association, CMA, have recently said that abuse and harassment of doctors during the pandemic is growing and is unacceptable.

Another worrisome trend we are seeing is that parents and children going to vaccination clinics are being subjected to threats and intimidation. On November 28, a woman from North Bay went to one of these clinics with her seven-year-old son, who had just become eligible for the COVID-19 vaccine. She later reported that she had been subjected to a torrent of verbal abuse from anti-vax protesters while entering and leaving the clinic. The protesters went so far as to shout that she was committing genocide and poisoning her son, and they yelled out false information about the vaccine in front of the seven-year-old child. Such behaviour must stop.

I know that the members of the House support the right to protest. However, we must all agree that this is neither the way nor the place to do it. It is totally unacceptable.

While I believe all Canadians accept that we have differences of opinion, very few Canadians accept this behaviour toward health workers and people who try to obtain health care services. While the charter protects the right to express opinions and conduct peaceful protests, it does not protect against violent forms of speech and activity. I am confident the bill reflects the rights and freedoms enshrined in the charter by ensuring that activity that is purely for the purposes of communicating a message and that remains peaceful is not criminalized.

We must ensure that every Canadian can safely get vaccinated, especially children who are now eligible for the vaccine. Every Canadian also deserves to have safe access to essential health services and not fear being attacked or intimidated as they make their way to a hospital or vaccination clinic. This bill is about federal leadership to ensure that our health care heroes can safely do their jobs, free from obstruction, intimidation and threats.

I would like to touch on another matter that is important to me and many in our country. We cannot forget the significant struggles and hardship that women have faced, both legally and practically, in accessing abortion services. Many of those challenges continue, as women encounter barriers in accessing abortion services, including aggressive, intimidating, disturbing and even violent anti-abortion protest activity. Abortion service providers and their families have also been subject to similar conduct in Canada during its history. The bill applies to health services in general and the amendments will support and protect women in making their decisions for their own bodies without obstruction, intimidation or fear.

The bill would also make it an offence to impede another person from accessing health care facilities. No one should be prevented from accessing health care.

I firmly believe that the Criminal Code amendments proposed in Bill C-3 are imperative to give protections to those who undertake to care for Canadians during their most dire time of need. There is no doubt that Bill C-3 proposes reforms that are carefully crafted and responsive to the harms facing the health sector in Canada.

For those reasons, I urge all members to support Bill C-3.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑3 is obviously very interesting. I would like to add a few comments to the debate. Health care workers have risked their lives and overcome danger to protect us.

It is unacceptable for the majority to be controlled by a certain minority that wants to rule the streets. In this case, health care workers need to be protected. The right to demonstrate is very important. It is a form of freedom of expression that we hold dear. However, one part of the population cannot be held hostage for the sole purpose of expressing disagreement that is not unanimous.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

[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 myself, 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 percent, 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.

Criminal Code

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

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

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

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

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Never ever protest at a hospital.

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

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

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

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

Another message that came from the post was this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not recall reading a single National Post or Globe article stating that the Conservative Party was pushing misinformation or using it for political divide against the Prime Minister. I just read verbatim from a National Post article.

It is disgraceful that gentleman would misinterpret, purposely perhaps, my speech. Nowhere did I say anything that the Prime Minister did justified the protests. I was very clear in stating that. What I did state was that he used this issue for divisive politics.

It is unfortunate, when the parties are getting together, such as today, that he would choose that path instead of promoting a way forward on vaccines and Bill C-3.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, what a joy it is to be back in the House and be here for the rare occurrence of hearing the member for Winnipeg North speak. It happens about as often as a full eclipse of the sun. It is amazing. I am going to tell my grandkids that I was here to hear the member speak. It is actually disappointing that the Liberals have so many new members, yet time and again it is the same chap who stands up, as much as I do understand.

I will be sharing my time today with the member for Cumberland—Colchester, who is one of the new members we are allowing to speak.

We are talking about Bill C-3 today. I am glad to get a chance to get a word in edgewise, with the member across the way, but also to speak before the Liberals perhaps prorogue Parliament, call another snap election or use any other of their usual ploys to avoid accountability.

Bill C-3 is probably a needed bill, but it is an odd bill. Half is related to justice and the other half to the Canada Labour Code. I am not sure why the Liberals have put the two of them together instead of presenting them to the House separately. I hate to think doing it this way is a typical Liberal ploy, or that they are hoping someone will object to part of it, so they can scream and yell and say we are anti-health care workers. I know I am being cynical because there is no way in the world they would ever consider doing that. They would never try to wedge folks.

We have heard repeatedly from the government, and our colleagues from the NDP and the Bloc, about how much this bill is needed. Why now? Why not a year ago? Why not six years ago with the Canada Labour Code? Why have the Liberals waited? They have had the backing and support of all the parties during the COVID crisis to put through almost everything with unanimous consent. Why would they wait so long?

The labour changes the bill mentions easily could have been brought in before. Their delay reminds me of a great Seinfeld episode in which Newman, the postal worker and Seinfeld's nemesis, helps to kidnap Elaine's neighbour's dog and eventually gets caught. When a policeman comes to arrest him, he, à la son of Sam, asks what took him so long. I have to ask the same of the government. If it was such a priority, why would it wait?

We could have had this before the House, debated it and sent it to committee long ago. The election took place on September 21 and we waited two full months to sit in the House again. In the U.K., Boris Johnson was able to re-form the House and get its Parliament back to work in six days. It took the government two months just to get us here.

We could have easily dealt with Bill C-2. In the House today during question period, we heard the Liberals tell the Conservatives to get on side and pass Bill C-2. We heard them say in debate that we should help small businesses and pass Bill C-2. Why did they not convene Parliament to get us back to work immediately so we could pass Bill C-2? It is the same with Bill C-3.

With respect to Bill C-4 on conversion therapy, people thought it was Bill C-6 or Bill C-8, because it was brought to the House several times. It was killed when the government prorogued Parliament. It was killed again when it called an early election, which no one really wanted and was not needed, as we ended up the same. If it were that important, why did the Liberals not try to pass the conversion therapy bill earlier? They had six years to bring it in.

One bill I remember they brought through in 2017 as a higher priority than the conversion therapy was Bill C-24. At the time, and I was using another Seinfeld quote, I called it “a bill about nothing”. Basically, the bill changed the bank account the old ministers of state were paid from in the estimates process. I think it also changed the official name on the cheques from Public Works to PSPC.

This was a bill we debated in the House and tied up the committee with. Somehow the government decided that was more important than a conversion therapy bill. They had been paid that way since Confederation. The ministers of state were paid out of one small bank account, and the other ministers, technically the government, were paid out of another. We could have continued doing that and brought the conversion therapy bill then.

The reality is this: The government is not serious about how it puts forward its legislation. It delays, obfuscates, throws it out and then demands that opposition parties get on board and hurry up to pass it, when it could have done that a long time ago.

Generally, everyone supports the first part of the bill, on criminalizing threats toward health care workers. We have all seen, during the election, the blocking of ambulances from getting to hospitals and the harassing of health care workers. We have heard the horrible stories from my colleague for Timmins—James Bay, where a small-town doctor, vitally needed, was chased out of his community by these threats. We just heard from him about the single mother who was horrifyingly harassed just for getting a vaccine.

Therefore, perhaps we need this legislation, but I would like to hear more details. Apparently, a lot of this is covered already under provincial or other laws. I would like to see how the bill would strengthen the protection for our doctors and nurses and, as my colleague mentioned, for people who are just going for a vaccine. There are the doctors and nurses we have to protect, but we also have to protect Canadians who are trying to access health care facilities.

During the election, we Conservatives had, as part of our election plan, the critical infrastructure protection act. This would provide additional security from those protesting vital infrastructure, such as our hospitals and our rail and pipelines. We saw what just happened in B.C., with its supply chain devastated because of the cuts to the CN and CP rails. That was obviously an act of nature as opposed to protests, but protests can be just as devastating, and we have seen it be just as devastating to our health care when we do not have consequences. I hope my colleagues in the House will eventually adopt a law that would protect other vital infrastructure besides our hospitals, and also our supply lines.

Unfortunately, from day one, we have had mixed messaging from this government regarding vaccines and the COVID crisis, and it has led to confusion, fear and anger. None of this, nothing this government or anyone else has done, excuses the violence and harassment of our health care workers, doctors and people trying to access health care. However, what the government has done has not helped. When Canadians needed certainty, leadership and consistency, we got false information from the government, like we saw with the Deputy Prime Minister being admonished for fake news on Twitter.

It is funny. We heard earlier that my colleague, the member for Winnipeg North, when he was out door-knocking, was surprised by the anger from the vax versus the anti-vax people. I felt the same thing. We had people threatening us with a shotgun if we dared come with that. We have all felt it, but he was surprised. I want to read something from the National Post for the member. It said that in January, the Prime Minister had argued against mandatory vaccines as “divisive” in our “community and country”. It said that in March, he mused about the inequality and inequity of vaccine passports. In July, he said there would be no mandatory vaccines. However, two weeks later, apparently led by internal polling that showed he could divide the country for political gain, he announced a mandatory vaccine, cynically just in time.

The article goes on to say that the Prime Minister's “flip flop on vaccine mandates” exemplifies “a governing philosophy based on political calculus”.

This is not governing based on bringing us together, or on trying to get the unvaccinated vaxxed by convincing them of how good vaccines are and how they will lead us out of the troubles we are in. There is nothing about that. It is using it based on polling to create divisiveness in Canada for political gain.

The Prime Minister, when speaking out against protesters, used the term “you people” when describing the protesters. Now, I might perhaps, against some of the people who are blocking hospitals, have used harsher language, but he used the term “you people”. Now, I note for our feminist Prime Minister that the website everydayfeminism.com says “you people” is a racially coded phrase. Again, nothing the Prime Minister has done excuses the protesters and their actions, but nothing the Prime Minister has done has gone to alleviate the divisions in Canada. He has used this to divide the country.

Apparently I am out of time, so I will let it go and perhaps leave it open to questions and comments to address the second part of the bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think that—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, congratulations on your appointment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second, it would protect their jobs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Anishnabeg, 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, reenacting 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.

Criminal Code and Canada Labour Code

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)