Debates of Dec. 8th, 2021

Bill C-3—Time Allocation Motion

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, during the pandemic we have seen many health care workers being harassed just trying to do their jobs, and we certainly have seen that for decades and decades for women who are trying to access safe abortions.

How is this legislation being put forward going to protect, for example, not only health care workers providing vaccinations but also health care workers who provide proper reproductive health care for women?

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

Madam Speaker, we cannot allow the intimidation or obstruction of duty of health care workers we have asked to simply do their jobs. This is something so many of us saw on the news night after night: health care workers who were intimidated and obstructed.

My officials worked hand in glove with officials in the justice department, first to make sure this would in no way infringe upon their ability to strike or express themselves, and we are assured of that. This would give clarity and purpose to law enforcement, who know now without question that this is something they need to act upon if indeed they see the obstruction and intimidation of health care workers as they go about their duties and functions in the jobs we have asked them to do.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the minister that I have asked a number of times but not received a clear answer on. I am hoping he can clarify a couple of things.

First, this bill deals with two very distinct issues. I was hopeful, and remain hopeful, that it could possibly be split up to be studied in the two separate committees where it would best fit. Question number one is whether he would be willing to proceed in that manner and take leadership on that.

Second, specifically regarding the paid sick leave, I have asked a number of times exactly how many workers this would affect. Are we talking about thousands? Many workers within federally regulated sectors already have extensive sick leave provisions, either under union contracts or whatever the case may be. How many workers would this actually affect and to what extent would it affect them? Would it affect the contractor who is contracted to work for a sector that may be federally regulated?

There are a lot of questions surrounding this that I have not received answers for yet, and I am hoping the minister can clarify some of those things.

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

Madam Speaker, I will get the hon. member the exact number of how many federal workers it affects. I will say that it is in the hundreds of thousands. It is quite sizable. That is why I insist that this is a good place to start.

I will disagree humbly with the hon. member, just to say that while I understand we are looking at two issues contained within this bill, what they very much have in common is, first of all, our fight against this pandemic. While that may seem fairly broad, it is not broad when we talk about our imperative to move quickly on it and our ability to act fast and assure workers in this country that they can stay home, should stay home and must stay home if there is any suspicion or question that they may have it.

Secondly, particularly for health care workers in this country, they too need to know that they can go to work, knowing they have the support of this House and Canadians in doing the duties we need them to perform as we continue to fight this pandemic through this winter.

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

Madam Speaker, as some in this House may know, I have a spouse who works in health care, and I know many members in this House have family and friends who work in the health care system. We have seen how the pandemic has really pushed our health care system to the point of breaking many times, and it is relying right now on the moral fibre and goodwill of those working within the system. We have also seen paramedics, who really are at a breaking point.

I would like to hear from the minister about why there is urgency on this bill, as far as protecting the workplaces and getting people in to work to provide health care services during this ongoing pandemic in the waves we are seeing, as well as ensuring access to medical facilities by patients. I would appreciate it if the minister could comment on that.

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

Madam Speaker, I think almost every member of this House in some way can relate to somebody who they know, like a member of their family or a friend, who is either a health care worker themselves, like a nurse, doctor, orderly or paramedic, or somebody who was possibly treated by them. We have a great deal of sympathy and appreciation for the good work they do.

I remember doing initial interviews for this and being told that people feel this way. It is very important that we also make the statement to health care workers in this country that we support them and that we support them in a tangible way. We will ensure, as best we can, that they will not be intimidated and obstructed in the duties we ask them to perform. While they have always been on the front line of health care, right now they remain stalwart in their fight on the front lines against a pandemic in this country, and it is important that we give them every bit of ammunition we can.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the citizens of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

My questions for the hon. minister are twofold. First, did the hon. minister implore the Prime Minister to bring back Parliament earlier than two months after the election, given the necessity, in his view and in his mind, to bring this legislation forward as quickly as possible? Second, does the hon. minister know of three employers who specifically do not offer two weeks of paid sick leave and are federally regulated?

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

Madam Speaker, I will provide those names to the member. There are some companies that have yet to provide the full two weeks. In fact, about 63% of employees in federally regulated industries do not receive the full two weeks, so the vast majority do not. Again, and I cannot say this often enough, the two weeks is what is important here. The 10 days is what is important. We all know that, because it is the amount of time it takes to quarantine safely, if someone has been affected by the virus.

It is important that we reach that number, and it is important that we do that as soon as possible as we enter the winter months. We know that when more people are staying inside, their ability to contract the virus increases exponentially. We need to make sure those numbers remain down. Canadians, time and again, have stood up. They have become vaccinated. They want to make sure we are all doing the right thing, because bit by bit, we are getting there and defeating this virus, but we need to get over this hump.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have heard the hon. minister speak about this, and the only argument he has actually made to justify the 10 days of paid sick leave is that of COVID, so my question for him is this: Why is there no sunset clause in the bill, so that once COVID is over, the 10 days are reversed and we let the private sector take care of it, as it has done all along?

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

Madam Speaker, we also believe that this is not only a permanent change, but a good change that will be in the interest of public health, not only for this pandemic but, unfortunately, possibly for the next one. We want to make sure we are equipped to handle not just the one we are going through, but quite possibly some that may follow. This is one of many things we have learned. There are many who would argue quite the opposite and ask why we did not do this on a permanent basis much sooner. I would simply say this: Here we are. We are here together debating it and I believe we will do it.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, my question for the hon. minister is twofold. The first part is on the issue of urgency. Can he identify, given that we all recognize the horrors that happened during the election regarding the protests and the intimidation, that since the election this has been an ongoing trend? I would like to know about that, because I have not heard about it.

The second part is on the issue of statutory interpretation. How does the issue of minor disturbances, which appear to be allowed under these amendments, assist the health care workers?

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

Madam Speaker, I would simply say it is extremely important that obstruction and intimidation are dealt with, and we believe they are dealt with effectively in this bill.

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

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 40 minutes.

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Banff—Airdrie.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded division.

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

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #9

Criminal Code and Canada Labour Code

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, Government Orders will be further extended by 30 minutes.

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.

Second Reading

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

Order. Could we have some order in the House, please. A member is giving a speech.

The hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City.

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

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, we have commended our health care workers through efforts such as the nightly banging of pots and honking of horns at 7 p.m. Health care workers have been true heroes working on the front lines tirelessly.

Calling health care workers heroes and commending their bravery, while entirely deserved, is not enough. We need to provide real protections for them.

The amendments to the Criminal Code in this bill would afford health care workers security against obstruction from accessing their workplaces safely. Unfortunately, we have seen terrible incidents where doctors, nurses and other health care practitioners have been intimidated, threatened and in some cases spat on or threatened with violence, all because they are saving the lives of COVID-19 patients.

I would like to take a moment to give my very personal perspective on this bill.

My wife is a doctor at a hospital that was declared a COVID hospital at the outset of the pandemic. During the first week of the pandemic, we updated our wills, not knowing what dangers we faced. We slept on different floors and took extra precautions to sanitize, when we could actually find disinfectant materials.

Some doctors moved out of their private homes to protect their families and moved into private accommodations. Many extra precautions were taken to launder clothes to make sure the virus did not come into our personal homes. Challenges continued wave after wave. Then throw in a heat dome and another wave, and we have a health care crisis and a system stretched to the breaking point relying on the goodwill and moral fibre of the people who work in the system.

I would like to thank my wife and her colleagues at Surrey Memorial Hospital and other hospitals across the country, the specialists and technicians, the nurses and the aides, the cleaning staff, food services and everyone else in patient care who all worked to keep the rest of us safe.

Now protestors are trying to threaten these workers and to prevent them from accessing their places of work. I feel especially for the emergency room doctors but also the paramedics, who are understaffed, underfunded and need to shepherd their patients past rabid anti-vaxxer protestors.

Our health care workers are facing moral distress. No one should feel unsafe at their workplace. This legislation would provide health care workers the confidence and legal protections needed to safely access their workplaces.

We know intimidation can also manifest through online forums as well, not just in person. We would be protecting health care workers here as well. In the age of social media and digital technology, we know online threats can be just as real and devastating as those faced in front of a workplace. No individual should be able to use fear to stop health care workers or those who assist them from performing their duties.

Our legislation would not only protect health care workers but those accessing health care as well. In many cases, those accessing health care are the most vulnerable, particularly during this pandemic. This summer, an individual went to Toronto from Prince Edward Island to wait for a lung transplant. They were leaving the hospital after a physiotherapy session. They had to be escorted by police to protect them from an unmasked group blocking access to and from the hospital. We have heard story after story of this kind of behaviour across the country. We cannot accept this behaviour, which is placing our most vulnerable at risk.

This legislation would clearly ensure Canadians have the freedom to voice their concerns and protest in a safe and peaceful manner. It would also ensures workers’ freedom to take labour action, including picketing. These would be respected by these proposed changes to Canada’s criminal law.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted a number of issues facing Canadians in their workplaces. Too many health care workers, those who assist them and Canadians seeking medical care have experienced or feared intimidation while attempting to provide or access health services.

In normal times this type of harassment and intimidation is disagreeable, but during a worldwide pandemic, this type of behaviour is abhorrent, which is why legislation is needed.

I will now shift my focus to another aspect of this bill.

Too many Canadians have been forced to choose between staying home when they are sick or being able to afford rent or groceries. This legislation's other change, which is the provision of 10 days of paid sick leave, would protect the well-being of Canadians, support them economically and avoid pressures on our health care system. While this would only apply to federally regulated workers numbering almost one million workers at this point, it would contribute to a wider discussion about paid sick leave across the country.

The pandemic has demonstrated the effect that illness can have on our economy and the cost for individuals and families. With isolations and quarantines lasting up to two weeks, workers need to know that if they contract COVID-19, they can take the necessary time off work without risking a loss to their income and without exposing others to the risks of COVID. Not only will this ensure that workers do not need to choose between their income and their well-being, but it will also avoid spreading COVID-19 or other contagious illnesses in the workplace. There have been too many stories of outbreaks in workplaces that happened because individuals felt they had to come into work because they could not afford to take unpaid time off. This often results in negative economic effects for companies as well.

Not only will this legislation help workers, but it will be a preventive measure for our health care system. We have all experienced lockdowns throughout the last 20 months to help our hospitals avoid being overwhelmed by COVID-19 cases. This is another measure to prevent the outbreaks in workplaces from driving up case numbers and putting our health care system at risk now and in the future.

For Canadians not employed in a federally regulated industry, our government will be engaging in consultations with federally regulated employers and workers on the implementation of this legislation. Additionally, the government will convene the provinces and territories and other interested stakeholders to develop a national action plan to legislate paid sick leave across the country, while respecting provincial and territorial jurisdiction and clearly recognizing the unique needs of small business owners. Ten days of paid sick leave is another tool in creating a more resilient economy as we emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic.

For all the reasons I have outlined in my speech today, I will be supporting this bill. I welcome any questions from my colleagues.

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

Madam Speaker, banning demonstrations aimed at intimidating health care workers or hindering the smooth running of hospitals is a good thing.

However, does my colleague not think that there is a risk that this will backfire on workers who want to demonstrate, on the right of unions to demonstrate?

What could we do to clarify that aspect?

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

Madam Speaker, a very important right we need to maintain is the ability to have legal protests within a workplace to stand against employers and stand up for the rights of workers. This legislation does address that. It respects the constitutional rights of workers to defend their rights and negotiate with their employers. It also makes sure that workplaces will remain accessible despite protests, so it is about free passage to obtain necessary health care. I believe the bill strikes the right balance, and that is why I am supporting 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]

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.