Debates of Dec. 8th, 2021

Access to Information and Privacy

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Vote #8

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

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.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), there will now be a 30-minute question period.

I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places or to use the “raise hand” function so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it has been only 12 days since Parliament was recalled and the 338 parliamentarians in the House were called to debate legislation. This is the second time in just 12 days that the government has imposed time allocation on a bill.

This is an important bill that deserves careful attention and serious parliamentary work. Unfortunately, the government is shutting down debate for the second time, saying that this is an emergency situation and that we need to proceed quickly because of the upcoming holiday season.

The only reason we are in a hurry to pass bills is that the government decided to call an unnecessary election that Canadians did not want and that cost taxpayers $620 million. All this to end up with a Parliament that looks very much like it did last June. Today we are in a hurry because the government dragged its feet for more than 60 days between election day and our return to the House. The government has only itself to blame for the fact that we are in a hurry.

Why shut down debate in Canada's Parliament for the second time when we have been back in the House for just 12 days?

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

Madam Speaker, I think it is absolutely imperative that we move as quickly as we can on this because the COVID virus, the coronavirus, waits for nobody. It is important that we allow an opportunity for our health care workers to feel safe. It is important too that we ensure our front-line workers, and workers as a whole, feel safe and know that they no longer have to choose between the groceries they buy or the rent they pay and their ability to stay home if they do not feel well.

This is one of the many things we have learned from the pandemic, which we are still not through. We are still fighting our way out of it. It is important that we move quickly, that we learn from our past lessons and perhaps errors, in some cases, so we know and understand what we need to do next. This is important.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, the government forced us into an election. I will repeat the remarks of my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, who quite rightly said that this election, which cost $600 million, was unnecessary.

We waited two months before coming back to the House. Everything was going well. The situation was under control. The government was in no hurry. Now, all of a sudden, it is an emergency.

We had very little time to debate this bill. Some Bloc Québécois members still wanted to speak. We do not understand what the rush is. I have not seen anyone in Quebec starting fights on buses to get this bill passed more quickly. I do not understand what is so urgent. I know that the minister just answered this question, but he has not convinced anyone here that the situation is all that urgent. The House still needs to be respected. We can appreciate the need to bring in time allocation when there is an urgent need to act, but right now, there is no emergency.

Why proceed so quickly without leaving time for discussion?

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

Madam Speaker, the pandemic has shown us that many workers do not have paid sick leave. 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 will work with the provinces, territories and other interested stakeholders to come up with an action plan to legislate sick leave across the country.

Let me add that time is indeed of the essence, and that regardless of what differences we may have in the House, we all know and understand that the virus and its variations wait for no one, including ourselves.

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

Madam Speaker, a week ago today we saw a moment in the House that I think all of us, and all Canadians, were proud of. All 338 members of Parliament came together to pass at all stages the ban on conversion therapy. That was an important moment in the House.

Now we have other important legislation that is before us. Of course, the member for Burnaby South has been the foremost proponent of this, raising it dozens of time in the House. The NDP caucus has strongly pushed the government to put in place 10 days of paid sick leave. During the pandemic, all members of Parliament have become aware of how important it is to have these provisions for paid sick leave put into place. No worker should have to choose between going to work sick and putting food on the table. The provisions of this bill achieve that.

My question to my hon. colleague is this. Why are some members of Parliament trying to hold up this bill rather than get it through so that it will be in place and workers can benefit from it?

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

Madam Speaker, many of us in the House can reflect on that moment. We were able to make some significant changes and ban conversion therapy in this country. What we showed was that on some matters that may divide us, when the imperative was there and we needed to see progress and justice, we were able to move in the House.

We are saying now that because of the virus, its ability to mutate and the variations that exist, we know and understand that workers need 10 paid sick days because that is the time it takes for a lockdown.

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

Madam Speaker, I see what is happening today as a very strong signal of the government's priority. I applaud my New Democrat friends for recognizing that by allowing us to move to orders of the day.

Whether the government is supporting our businesses or individuals, the pandemic is still there, as the minister has referred to. We need to have the backs of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and this particular legislation is going to support them in a tangible way. We are talking about disposable income and saving jobs, and this is really important to all of us.

Given the relatively short time span and the importance of passing this legislation, would the minister not agree that pushing it through in this manner will provide peace of mind? That is what I want: peace of mind for Canadians so they know the House of Commons is still there to support them through this difficult time.

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

Madam Speaker, the impassioned rhetoric of the hon. member inspires me, as it has inspired many in the House.

I would say to the hon. member that the virus waits for nobody. The sooner we can get through whatever the next wave may be, and the sooner workers do not hesitate to stay home if they feel sick, the better. Let there be no hesitation in workers feeling comfortable staying home, and knowing that they will be able to pay rent and pay for groceries. Fifty-eight per cent of workers in this country do not have any paid sick leave. This is a good start.

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

Madam Speaker, what concerns me about trying to close down debate on this issue is that it is an issue where we have had fairly general and broad support across the House. It is a shame that we are being pushed to end this debate, because it is not just about a debate. Often, this chamber is a place for members to sing the praises of people on the front lines, for example, of health care in their communities. This bill provides an opportunity to do that.

We have also been working on a couple of amendments to this bill, particularly the labour parts of the bill, to make it more effective and to do more with it. I worry that we are going to rush it through and miss the opportunity to make the bill better.

When we all try to work together, agree on something and make it better, why rush? It seems unfair to the process.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for what I think has been a very collaborative effort to make sure that we seek common solutions, adjustments and compromises where we can in order to make sure not only that this legislation passes as quickly as it can, but that it is as effective as it should be. For that, I agree with the hon. member that we need to make sure it is heard. It will be heard in the time. I realize and understand that it is not the length of time that many members would want, but it is imperative that we do this as quickly as possible. The sooner it is done, the safer our workers will be. The safer our workers are, the safer everybody in the country is.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to reflect on the unanimous consent that the House granted just last week, and the ability of parliamentarians to work together to challenge the issues that are present to workers.

Ten days of paid sick leave can go a tremendous way toward helping racialized communities across the country. We have seen the discrepancy that has been occurring recently, and as many as 20 months ago, in racialized communities, and in particular in my community in Alberta. We have seen at places like Cargill, for example, racialized workers being hit the hardest. The importance of a requirement for 10 days of sick leave is something they have been fighting for, for a long time.

Would the government agree that this bill is long overdue and we must do this now? Workers cannot wait any longer.

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

Madam Speaker, a tremendous number of Canadians remain vulnerable. They remain in a position where, if they feel they are sick, they are not entirely sure if they can afford to stay home. While I understand with all humility that the federally regulated jurisdiction only occupies about 6% of the workforce, it is a big place to start. It occupies some of the biggest companies in this country, many of which have already shown tremendous leadership in providing paid sick days for their employees, but there are many that have not, and this a good place to start.

After that, we will begin our consultations with provinces and territories that have the vast majority of the workplaces and govern those workplaces, but this is a good place to start.

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

Madam Speaker, on addressing the other point from the paid sick days on this particular piece of legislation, the minister is talking about the protection of individuals who are trying to access hospitals. In my riding of Kingston and the Islands, we saw protests, harassing comments and things being thrown at people going to and from a cancer clinic at Kingston General Hospital, of all places.

Could the minister comment on how important it is that this legislation get through as quickly as possible? Then people would not have to worry about this form of intimidation when they were trying to access a hospital, for example.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that very important point and for the opportunity to speak on behalf of not just the constituents of St. John's South—Mount Pearl, but on behalf of millions of Canadians who were utterly disgusted by what they saw on the news. It was night after night of people intimidating and obstructing our health care workers and patients as they tried to receive the health care they desperately needed, and while our workers tried to do the work we counted on them to do in a pandemic.

What we hope will come of this legislation is an increase in the fines and, more importantly, very exact and precise instruction to law enforcement so that they do not hesitate in making sure there is no obstruction or intimidation of health care workers or patients as they enter medical facilities. I think that is very important, but more important than any of it is a clear show of support and solidarity for health care workers in this country.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is a little disheartening, I am sure, for Canadians to see that the coalition is alive once again between the Liberals and the NDP.

When I see time allocation moved on an important bill, I think of the tremendous work that my colleague, the member of Parliament for Cariboo—Prince George, did on Bill C-211, an act to amend the Criminal Code, assaults against health care professionals and first responders. There is a time for debate and discussion on these things, and the government is cutting that short. In our own platform, we spoke about critical infrastructure protection: protecting Canadians and protecting infrastructure. The minister is cutting off that type of debate.

We will take no lessons from the Liberals when I hear them say that “COVID waits for no one.” It is a government that called a COVID election.

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

Madam Speaker, I would simply say that if we look at just about any country in the world, we have acted tremendously. We have acted quickly, effectively and thoroughly.

In this instance, we recognize that, as we head into the winter months and as more people spend more time inside, it is imperative that we act quickly so that workers know immediately, or as quickly as we can offer them that assurance, that they are able to stay home when sick. When they are able to stay home, they are not entering the workplace perhaps with symptoms or perhaps with the virus. This is something that, while I hear the hon. member, is the circumstance. This is a pandemic that we are still in the middle of. I will repeat again in the House: Time is of the essence.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the minister, respectfully, a question about process.

We have a piece of legislation in front us, and I am a bit confused as to why it groups together two very different issues. It groups together a question of benefits for people who are sick, and a question of Criminal Code amendments with respect to harassment and intimidation. I am concerned that the government, it seems, is unwilling to have individual proposals debated on their own and is therefore trying to group together multiple, unrelated items to avoid scrutiny and debate. Both of these items are things that I think we have shown we are supportive of, but it seems like an abuse of process for the government to not only be moving closure but, prior to that, lumping together unrelated items.

I remind the minister that, in 2015, the government promised not to bring in omnibus bills, yet we see this routine lumping together to minimize parliamentary scrutiny. It is part of a dangerous trend.

Can the minister comment on why his government is continuing to undermine, really, its respect for Parliament with these kinds of tactics?

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

Madam Speaker, I hardly think this is a lumping together of two very polarized or disparate ideas. They are welded together quite firmly by two overriding concerns. One is the spread of the virus, first and foremost, and the other is concern for workers. In both of these affairs, that is what we are dealing with.

On the one hand, we want to make sure workers feel safe and secure, knowing they can go home if they do not feel well, that they will be cared for and looked after as best as we can, and that they will be assured of paid leave.

On the other hand, specifically for health care workers, we want them to know they can go about their duty. They can go to work doing the good work they do in a pandemic to protect all of us, remembering that one of the overriding imperatives of lockdowns and moving as quickly as we have, as almost every member here can agree, is making sure our health care system is not overcome and that the health care workers themselves remain safe.

This is extraordinarily important in terms of making sure the virus does not spread any further and workers, in both cases, are protected.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about inspiring rhetoric for a second. The minister himself, in his announcement, actually pointed out that the vast majority of federally regulated private sector workers already have more generous paid sick leave programs, and this may not have that massive an impact on those positions in the private sector.

I wonder if, in fact, we are rushing this because the Liberals felt they should have gotten it done before the unnecessary election. They had lots of time to start this process then. I do not understand why we cannot get a little more work done on this now to make sure we can make the amendments we want in order to make it more substantive and so the minister can start his negotiations with the provinces. If it is such a crushing thing, it should have been done before this unnecessary election. I do not understand why we cannot just take a few more days here.

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

Madam Speaker, I would simply say that it is not 10 days. While there are some people within federally regulated industries and within the jurisdiction who have some paid sick leave, they do not have 10 days. The reason 10 days is so important is that it is roughly two weeks. We all know what two weeks is. It is the time it takes to lock down and make sure people are safe. We know that if they have to quarantine, it is the amount of time that will inhibit the spread of the virus.

If we are looking at two weeks, it is roughly 10 working days, which is why we landed on 10 days. Six days is not enough. Seven days is not enough. Ten is the magic number and it is a number we need to start moving on now. The sooner we do that, the better. We start with those in federal jurisdiction and we move on to talking to the provinces and territories again on an accelerated basis.