Debates of Dec. 6th, 2021

Business of the House

[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, 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.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Justice knows, the NDP is supportive of the principle of protecting health care workers, and the member for Burnaby South, the NDP leader, and the NDP caucus have been the strongest advocates for the 10 days of paid sick leave in Parliament. We fought to have the temporary sick leave program brought in. The government implemented that badly, I think it is fair to say. In this bill, although we support it very much in principle, there are two weaknesses that need to be addressed.

First off, in terms of protecting health care workers, there is no amendment that has been accepted by the government that would explicitly protect legal union activities from the risk of prosecution under the new Criminal Code amendments. Then, in terms of paid sick leave, as members know, we actually would have a delay, even if the program in the bill is implemented, that would mean that the first day of paid sick leave would take over a month for a person to access, and it would take 11 months for a worker to access the 10 days of paid sick leave that are so important to protect the worker, the family and also to protect the public.

Will the government explicitly say that it will accept those amendments at committee stage?

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

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question on sick leave, I will defer to my colleague, the Minister of Labour, who I believe spoke in this place on Friday, to work with members of the opposition, with respect to making sure the bill is in a satisfactory form to achieve the goals we have in common.

With respect to the Criminal Code amendments and the right of labour to organize, I would like to assure the hon. member that we actually crafted the bill with the language from the jurisprudence in the cases that explicitly protect a worker's right to picket, go on strike, organize and express their political and social views in that format.

Of course, I am open to working, if there is a way to make the language more precise, but we do feel we have taken the actual wording from the cases that enshrine this right.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of Justice along with the Minister of Labour for bringing forward this very important piece of legislation.

I think a lot of us can recount horrible incidences that we saw during the peak period of vaccination, when our hospitals that are so critical for the health and well being of our communities were being picketed by individuals who were just trying to prevent people from getting access to medical care. In my riding of Ottawa Centre, where the Civic Hospital is located, we saw picketing taking place with the sole intention of preventing people from getting important health care. This type of legislation would ensure that members of our community can get health care, whether to get a vaccine or just to visit their loved ones.

My precise question to the minister is around protecting abortion services, as well, which I fully support. When I was the attorney general in Ontario, we brought a similar piece of legislation called the Safe Access to Abortion Services Act. I was wondering if the minister could elaborate as to how this particular piece of legislation, if passed, would interact with provincial legislation, such as in Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec, which are the provinces that have similar protections for women to access abortion services.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for his recent appointment to the position of parliamentary secretary.

First off all, to repeat, abortion services are health care services and abortion clinics are health care clinics. Hence, they are protected. With respect to the larger interoperation between the federal use of the criminal law power and provincial use of property and civil rights protections and other heads of provincial power, the answer is that they interoperate very well. Provinces can enact measures to protect spaces. What we would be doing with the criminal law power is protecting the impeding of access, as well as the threat of intimidation. Each has its own standards, both in terms of the mental and actus reus elements of crime, and they fit very well with what provinces have done.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, Qujannamiik, uqaqtittiji. This is a very important discussion, and I would like to ask the Minister of Justice about an issue that is very important to Nunavut.

How was Johannes Rivoire allowed to leave Canada? He is now protected in France. I would like to hear from the minister what the government plans to do about this criminal who is hiding in France at the moment.

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

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

As I have stated a number of times publicly, and has been stated publicly, the specific proceedings against Johannes Rivoire were stayed by the Prosecution Service. I cannot resurrect the stay; however, there is always the possibility that further evidence might be brought forward by other complainants or other witnesses. It would at that point be something that the police, the Prosecution Service and ultimately the Justice Department and the International Assistance Group would have to look at.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for talking about the importance of protecting workers.

I have asked other parties this same question. Throughout the health crisis, medical health professionals said the top two things that could be done to stop the spread of COVID were for people to get vaccinated and for governments to implement paid sick days. The government chose to drag this legislation out. Here we are 20 months later, and it is finally implementing paid sick days. In the meantime, people have lost their lives.

A parallel crisis is happening in our country: the overdose crisis. Medical health professionals are saying that we need to decriminalize the personal possession of illicit drugs and to provide safe spaces, which are the first steps to end the stigma against people who are using illicit drugs.

Does my colleague agree that the government has failed to listen to health professionals' guidance on the overdose crisis because of the stigma? Does she also agree that they can end it, and that we need to listen to health professionals when it comes to guidance to respond to emergencies much faster? People are dying as a result of inaction.

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

Mr. Speaker, a number of issues could have been raised, but the government determines the legislative agenda, so I will not comment on what could have been done. Many things could have been done, but they are well outside the scope of this bill.

Granting sick leave is the bare minimum. Quebec already does it. Other provinces do not. Granting sick leave will send a clear signal, but workers need more protection. Amending the Criminal Code is a start, but this issue is much bigger than that.

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

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

We are still in the midst of a pandemic, and many medical associations are recommending that employers not require a doctor's note for people who may have contracted COVID-19. However, this bill gives employers the power to require a doctor's note, regardless of how many days of leave are taken.

Does my colleague not believe that this requirement could reduce the number of leave requests and increase the risk of spreading COVID-19?

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

Mr. Speaker, there are questions about the terms and conditions of the sick leave provided for in the bill, which contains only two clauses pertaining to the Canada Labour Code. For example, how does a person accumulate 10 days of leave?

With regard to the doctor's note, I have always said that the attending physician is the one who is in the best position to decide whether a patient should be on leave. In my opinion, the employer should respect the doctor's opinion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to note the importance of the two issues with which we are dealing. The first is to recognize the important role our health care workers play. In addition, whether one is a patient or a health care worker, the underlying principle is that they should be able to go to a facility and feel safe and secure in doing so. All members of the House should be supporting that principle.

Could the member provide her thoughts on why that is so important?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is always an important issue.

Health professionals who devote all of their time to the health care system and who have been fighting against COVID-19 deserve recognition and protection all the time. We cannot recognize them just because they are essential to the health care system right now. We need to support them all the time, which is why it is important to ensure that the labour laws properly protect them at all times. The bill sends a clear message to offenders in cases involving serious threats and intimidation. However, this message of recognition must be ongoing.

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

Mr. Speaker, today is December 6, and I want to join my colleagues in taking a few moments to think about the victims of the École Polytechnique massacre and their loved ones. I was 12 years old at the time, and I, fortunately or unfortunately, have an excellent memory, especially when my emotions are involved. I clearly remember, at 12 years old, the feelings of stress, distress and disbelief when I learned that women could be murdered simply because they were women. I thought that was something rare, out of the ordinary, but I now realize that it unfortunately happens far too often.

I have been asking questions in the House since the beginning of this Parliament, but since today I am making my first speech, I want to take the time to thank the people of Beauport—Limoilou for electing me and allowing me to continue serving and representing them. I also want to thank my volunteers, who whose support was invaluable during this campaign, my second. When I say their support was invaluable, I think back to my first campaign and how there were just two of us. I thank my volunteers from the bottom of my heart because they did so much, even showing up during a heat wave. That is amazing.

Lastly, I want to say hello to the loves of my life: Pierre, Zoé, Louis, Benoît and Simon. They are extraordinary, and without them my life would be empty. I love them very much.

I could speak at length about the support I received during the campaign and how grateful I am to each and every person, from 18 to 77, who donated their precious time. Now, just as they helped me, it is my turn to help improve the lives of others by adding my thoughts about Bill C-3, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code.

I have to admit that when I read the bill's preamble and eight clauses, I initially wondered how this bill could actually help people. Here is the brief analysis I did as I read the bill.

The first clause adds a definition of intimidation in health services to the definitions of offence. In short, it indicates that intimidation in a health services setting constitutes an offence. This is just one addition to the long list of what is considered to be an offence. This could certainly be simplified by indicating that any form of intimidation, regardless of a person's status or job, is an offence. However, I recognize that this was an election promise. Accordingly, stipulating that the intimidation becomes an offence based on who specifically is being targeted makes the government look good, given the current situation.

The second clause of the bill inserts a new provision into the Criminal Code, subsection 423(2). It specifies that intimidation is an offence when committed against a person seeking health services—a patient—a health professional, or any person working to assist a health professional. This includes orderlies, administrative assistants, custodians, and so forth.

In short, it would be an offence to intimidate anyone in order to prevent them from receiving or providing health services. In my opinion, this clause makes sense, not only with respect to vaccination, but also with respect to other terrible situations that patients and health care personnel could experience.

Take, for example, women who go to a family planning clinic and are confronted by people who are angrily screaming and shouting. Think of those people and the clinic's staff, whose workplace is vandalized or who have their car tires slashed. All of these acts are unacceptable and lack the minimum civility, respect, or dignity, in addition to negatively affecting the physical and psychological health of the victims being targeted.

The new section 423.2, in the second and third subsections, makes it an offence to obstruct access to a place at which health services are provided, and a maximum sentence of 10 years can now be imposed on a person guilty of this offence. Here, I wondered about this: What about workers striking outside of their workplace? Will their right to strike be respected, or will it be considered a form of intimidation?

The question bears asking, especially since Bill C-3 specifies that a person cannot be found guilty if they go to the location of a demonstration for the purpose only of communicating or obtaining information. This might include a journalist, for instance. If a person who is going to communicate or obtain information is specifically exempted from being found guilty of an offence, why is it not specified that a person exercising their right to strike cannot be found guilty of an offence either? After all, a strike is a form of demonstration in front of a place where health services are provided.

The third clause adds a definition to part XV of the Criminal Code on special procedures and powers, specifically forensic DNA analysis. This addition makes subsection 423.2 also fall under the definition of a secondary designated offence. All the bases are covered to ensure there is no way out for anyone using intimidation against health services. However, I wonder about the need for DNA analysis in the case of intimidation. The link is not clear.

The fourth clause amends subsection 515(4.1), which sets out the aggravating factors of a charge. It adds intimidating a health professional as an aggravating factor. That is good.

The fifth clause states that the offence was committed against a person who was providing health services, including personal care services, and had the effect of impeding another person from obtaining those services. That covers anyone who is directly or indirectly connected to a health service. I have nothing to add, but what does that mean exactly?

What it all means is that from now on, as Quebec has been doing for a few months now, demonstrations will not be allowed in the vicinity of places where health care services are provided, and intimidating a health professional will be prohibited, as will be intimidating a person who decides to receive health care, regardless of their age or the nature of the health care.

As I said earlier, I think this makes sense because intimidation is indecent, unacceptable, degrading and stressful, no matter the target, and is an act devoid of dignity and respect. I am repeating this because I think it is important to keep it in mind. Such acts should never be committed against anyone, regardless of their social or employment status.

That said, intimidation is already an offence under the Criminal Code. Why are these clarifications needed? I am still wondering about that. If intimidation is prohibited and is an aggravating circumstance, that applies to everyone. Are we not all equal before the law? Was it really necessary to draft a bill to clarify that intimidation in the health care sector is criminal? Everyone is equal before the law. Anyone who is the victim of intimidation, regardless of their age, social status or job, is the victim of a criminal act.

Bill C‑3 also amends the Canada Labour Code to eliminate part of subsection 206.‍6(1), specifically ‍paragraph (a), which states that every employee is entitled to up to five days of sick leave per year for the purpose of treating illness or injury. That paragraph is being eliminated, because now it will be up to 10 days with a medical certificate. This will affect many employees across Canada. Here is my question. If this matter is under federal jurisdiction, could it affect negotiations with unions and workers? It is important to ensure that unions' right to strike and to negotiate their working conditions are not subject to this bill.

To sum up, the Bloc Québécois agrees with the principle of protecting federally regulated workers and health care workers. However, the committee will have to amend the bill for clarity to ensure respect for workers' other rights, such as the right to protest and the right to negotiate collective agreements in good faith.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the intervention by our Bloc colleague today. I submit to her that there should be a distinction for those who are trying to protect public safety when it comes to the issue of protests and, quite frankly, aggravated protests, which have been happening in front of hospitals. As we are seeing during the pandemic, a certain level of intimidation and fear is being aimed at individuals who are, by their most basic function, trying to protect society.

Would the member not agree that it is extremely important to make sure these individuals are not being subject to that during a time when their sole responsibility is to ensure and promote public safety?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member should not try to put words in my mouth.

Everyone has the right to be protected. Intimidating people who are dedicating themselves, who are giving their lives, risking their lives, is unacceptable. That also applies to teachers, who also give their lives in service to others, and to us as parliamentarians. No form of intimidation is acceptable.

What I said was that it is important to protect health care workers and it is important to distinguish between a violent, intimidating protest and a strike.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, qujannamiik. As I said in my earlier intervention, Nunavut does not have very much access to physicians and health services. More than one-third of the Government of Nunavut's departmental budget is spent on costs associated with medical travel, at $109 million, with physical and hospital services outside of the territory costing $69.5 million. As such, I have quite an interest in how workers are treated outside of Nunavut.

In relation to the Bloc's positions, with its demand to suspend the CRB and its silence on the 10-day paid sick leave, the gap between the demands of workers and the position of the leader of the Bloc continues to widen. Why is the party's position regressing on its defence of workers' rights?

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

Mr. Speaker, I grew up in Fermont, and I got viral meningitis when I was six years old. Since there is no hospital in Fermont, I had to wait for an air ambulance to be available to be urgently transferred, so I know what it means to have to wait when your life is in danger because certain services are not available.

The CERB has already been suspended. We asked that it be extended for the cultural and tourism industries, so I do not know why we are being accused of demanding that it be suspended.

We agree with the principle of 10 days of paid sick leave. What we are saying is that the government also needs to take into account the realities of SMEs, which have needs just like workers. That being said, health is the most important thing.

The government needs to reinvest so that the people of Nunavut and anyone else who is in a situation like I was in when I was six years old are able to quickly get access to proper health care, even if they live in a remote area. It is long overdue.

[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.

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

Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is important to talk about protecting health care services and all the other issues my colleague raised, because they are important in relation to health too.

Being underhoused or undernourished, belonging to a financially vulnerable household, these things directly affect our physical and mental health. Mental health also impacts physical health. It is a vicious cycle, and it is hellish.

There was an election. Some people said it was useful, but it is obvious it was useless, and it took forever for Parliament to return. Now here we are discussing this issue instead of moving forward on equally important bills.

[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.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my friend across the way on his new role and wish him well. I am sure we can work well together.

I am curious to know this. As I am sure the member knows, we support the health care workers who have worked so diligently over the last couple of years and the need to protect our hospitals so they can freely go to and from work. I wonder whether there would be consideration by the justice department, the member and the minister to extend those same sorts of protections to our infrastructure, such as pipelines and rail facilities, along with hospitals, to ensure those projects and the livelihoods around them are also protected.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize the need to protect health care workers and facilities that are served by the health care sector. It is such an important aspect of the fight against COVID. Physicians, nurses, PSWs or any support staff going to work in the morning to help Canadians should not be facing intimidation, risk or threats to their lives. That is why we are bringing forward this important legislation.

The matters that the hon. member is discussing can be put forward in other legislation, but for the purpose of today it is very important that we pass this as soon as possible.