Debates of June 16th, 2023

Bill S-8—Time Allocation Motion

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have just two points to add to this debate.

The first point is that the government has used time allocation and closure at the same rate as the previous government did. CBC did an analysis of the two-year period of this government and found that the government managed to get 23 bills passed through the House of Commons and used time allocation and closure 23 times.

The previous government used time allocation double the number of times that the current government has done, but the previous government had double the number of bills that the current government has introduced into the House and adopted in the House. Therefore, if the government has used time allocation to a lesser extent in terms of absolute numbers than did the previous government, it is only because it has had a much lighter legislative agenda.

The second point I would make is that back in 2015, the Prime Minister and his party promised to do politics differently and promised to limit the use of closure and time allocation. Clearly, that has not happened.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy the opportunity to engage with my hon. colleague. He is one of the most articulate members in the House of Commons.

With enormous respect, it is important that we not adjudicate the ability of a government to make a difference in people's lives by the number of bills that a government has adopted. It may be that there are bills that have an enormous impact that will take longer to debate. I think, for example, about Bill C-35, the opportunity to put an affordable early learning and child care strategy in place in this country, which has now received a significant amount of debate and will be implemented over time.

To the extent that our use of time allocation reflects the same number of instances per bill, I have no reason to doubt the figure that the member is citing. However, what is important is not just the number of times that it has been used, but the context in which it has been used. If we look at this present piece of legislation that is being debated on the floor of the House of Commons, we can see that there is widespread agreement, and we can see that there has been significant debate.

This is a sea change in the appropriateness when I look at some of the instances where it was used before I was a member of Parliament; in particular when omnibus budget legislation was used, not for relatively uncontroversial measures but for things that would significantly erode the environmental assessment process that we use for waterways and our oceans. These are the kinds of things that I know attracted a lot of controversy at the time, not just because time allocation was being used, but because of the widely divergent views on important issues that were existential to the debates that we have in these chambers.

My view is that this is an appropriate time to use time allocation. It does not reflect anything other than an attempt to get something done that, I think all members will agree, is the right path forward. I look forward to having debates where appropriate and moving forward expeditiously with legislation when we are able to find common ground and agree, after a healthy debate has taken place.

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

Mr. Speaker, time allocation and closure are two ways to kill democracy.

I would just like to give some advice to the party opposite. According to Shakespeare, the proud leave no glory behind them. That is something to think about.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Shakespeare also said this:

And do as adversaries do in law,
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.

Although we disagree on the appropriateness of time allocation, I will continue to conduct myself respectfully in this debate.

The reality is that this is not an erosion of democracy. It is important that we have the opportunity to debate legislation. That has taken place, both in the other chamber and in this chamber.

We now have the opportunity to move forward with an important change that will render inadmissible some of the worst criminals and financiers of egregious acts that have threatened international peace and security. I trust that all members will agree that this is a good thing and we can put this to bed to focus on other priorities that are important to the people I represent in Central Nova.

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

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 that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

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

Call in the members.

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

Vote #383

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

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

I declare the motion carried.

Bill C-42—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Minister of Seniors]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-42, an act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts.

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 respective stages of the said bill.

Business of the House

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Minister of Seniors]

Mr. Speaker, I request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment of the June 19, June 20, June 21, June 22 and June 23 sittings be 12 midnight, pursuant to order made Tuesday, November 15, 2022.

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

Pursuant to order made Tuesday, November 15, 2022, the minister's request to extend the said sittings is deemed adopted.

The House resumed from May 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑321, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against health care professionals and first responders), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal Code

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C‑321 introduced by my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George.

This bill seeks to ensure that for the purposes of sentencing, the court considers the fact that the victim of an assault is a health care professional or a first responder to be an aggravating circumstance.

Before I go on, I would like to thank the health care workers—

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

I will ask hon. members who are speaking in the chamber to please take it to the lobby so we can hear the hon. member for Manicouagan.

The hon. member for Manicouagan.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was saying that I wanted to take a moment, before I began my speech, to thank all the health care workers and first responders who supported the people in my riding and, of course, across Quebec and Canada during COVID-19. They certainly experienced this crisis more intensely than many of us. In a crisis, people are justifiably afraid. Unfortunately, fear can make people behave differently than usual, no matter how stressed they are. Some went through very difficult times and were victims of aggression, or even violence.

The same is true of the wildfires that swept through my riding not too long ago. They are still going on, in fact. We always think the situation is under control, but no. However, the staff at the Côte-Nord integrated health and social services centre managed to maintain health and social services. For instance, they had to get people out of their homes very quickly and evacuate them. In short, these people are there every day, even if we do not see them. These people working behind the scenes deserve our utmost respect and obviously deserve to be able to work without endangering their physical and mental integrity.

Having said that, it will come as no surprise that the Bloc Québécois supports this bill, which responds to a recommendation in a 2019 committee report that called on the government to 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”.

This measure had been called for by a number of groups representing health care workers. Whether it was the Canadian Medical Association, the Ontario Medical Association or the Canadian Nurses Association, they all supported such a measure. However, nothing was done to implement that recommendation because of the 2019 election. Bill C‑321, introduced by my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George, does just that.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill even though, in a way, it is already covered to some extent by section 718.2 of the Criminal Code, which states that committing a serious crime against a health worker constitutes an aggravating factor. That is already understood. I hope that the intent is to reinforce this principle. However, this has already been taken into consideration. Despite this point that I wanted to emphasize, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C‑321.

We want to point out that, although we agree, the fact that the Criminal Code makes it an aggravating factor for the purposes of sentencing is not a magic bullet. In fact, we must look after our health care workers on a day-to-day basis and we must also take preventive measures. That is also important. It is not one or the other, but both at the same time.

Of course, we believe that funding the health care system properly can help lower the risk of the kinds of aggressive or violent behaviour that we are discussing here. We saw this during the COVID-19 pandemic and in every circumstance. People need services, yet services are dwindling year by year. When I say “services”, I am including the work of nurses and all health care personnel. These people have their own concerns. They may have physical difficulties, plus mental or psychological health issues as well.

It is important to look at the whole picture. The issue of the drastically shrinking health transfers cannot be ignored. We need a health care system that can meet the needs of the people. There is nothing magical about that, either.

I am not saying that no one is being aggressive or violent towards health care workers and first responders. I think this is everybody's responsibility, in all cases. The bill introduced by my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George seeks precisely to protect health care workers so that they can do their work, what they were hired to do, what they want to do and what they are called to do. My mom was a nurse for 40 years, and I can say that it is definitely a calling.

That is the basis of the measure. They need free rein. Health transfers are one measure. The Bloc Québécois says it often here in the House, and I am going to remind the House again. It is not just because we believe it. It is not a belief. It is really an established fact. It is an option available to the federal government in light of the fiscal imbalance.

We are dealing with an area of Quebec jurisdiction. The federal government's coffers are overflowing, but year after year, the money given back to Quebec and the provinces for health care has diminished. It is a feasible option. When I talk about responsibility, from where I stand, the federal government also has a responsibility to contribute to health transfers.

I thank my colleague. This has been a recommendation for the government since 2019. The member seized the opportunity and decided to lead the charge for health care workers. I thank him for taking the initiative.

I also encourage everyone in the House and the government to reflect yet again on the issue of health transfers. It is not just through sentencing people who break the law that our health care workers will be protected. It is by giving our health care systems the means that we will be able to protect workers and the public who deserve to have good health care. To be able to live a healthy life, both physically and mentally, we need to have good health care. I really want to expand on that.

I will close by reiterating our responsibility. We need to go further than individual measures. We need to take a holistic approach to protect our health care workers and our first responders.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in the House and speak on behalf of my community of Peterborough—Kawartha.

The helpers need help from Bill C-321. That is why we are here today. I think it would be a real miss if I did not start this speech by addressing the horrible tragedy that happened yesterday in Manitoba, which involved first responders and health care providers. That is what we are here to talk about with this bill.

There was a horrific crash, and 15 people are gone. The first responders who answered that call are forever transformed because of what they saw. That is the work of a first responder or health care worker. Their eyes cannot unsee the tragedies that most of us will only ever see in movies. I thank everyone who arrived at the scene and served in such an unbelievable time of chaos and tragedy. The entire House is thinking of them, our thoughts are with them and with everyone impacted by that tragedy and in that community.

I worked in the media for almost 13 years, and I was often on the scene of horrific crashes first, with first responders. I can tell members that what they manage is very hard to describe. PTS, or post-traumatic stress, and PTSD, or post-traumatic stress disorder, are very real consequences in this job.

Answering a call when the victim is the same age as one's partner or child causes extensive mental distress. Many would say that it is part of the job and that this is what one signs up for. The reality is that, as life has gotten harder for people, as addictions and mental disorders have increased and there are not as many facilities or treatment or recovery centres to go to, the incidence of violence against our protectors is increasing. This is another layer that is too much to handle.

Workplace violence is a rising problem in health care settings across Canada. Health care workers have a fourfold higher rate of workplace violence than any other profession. Because of a culture of acceptance, most workplace violence goes unreported. This was found in a report that was done in 2019 through the health committee, and recommendations have been put forth to the government, yet we have not seen any action. Today, we have something here on the floor of the House of Commons that will give action and help to our helpers.

It would be pretty difficult to debate the strong correlation between the increase in violence to first responders and health care workers and the decrease in recruitment and retention in these jobs. We have a shortage of health care workers at a time when we have a health care crisis. Recruitment and retention concerns are reported in all provinces. By approving and passing this bill, we will send a clear message that the government and Canadians value their work, and we need and want them. Their work saves lives, and their safety matters.

The member from Cariboo—Prince George, who put this bill forward, is a fierce advocate and fighter for mental health and equity, and this bill speaks to that from a Criminal Code perspective. Bill C-321 seeks to amend the Criminal Code by making assaults against health care professionals and first responders an aggravating circumstance for the purpose of sentencing.

I am going to read the specific wording into the record:

When a court imposes a sentence for an offence referred to in paragraph 264.‍1(1)‍(a) or any of sections 266 to 269, it shall consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the victim of the offence was, at the time of the commission of the offence, a health care professional or a first responder engaged in the performance of their duty.

I think most of us in the House, including me, have a personal connection to first responders and health care workers. Many in my family serve in this industry, and they have told me story after story of horrific incidents. There is also a video that I would strongly encourage people to watch online. I know the member, my colleague, has shared it, and the chief in my community, Randy Mellow, has shared it on Twitter. I strongly encourage people to watch this video and understand this.

Paul Hills is a paramedic who came to my office in Ottawa to talk to me about this bill. He has been a paramedic for 24 years, and he serves in Saskatoon. I think what left me most shocked was his telling me that he now has to wear a bulletproof vest to work.

These are the people who show up in the time of extreme chaos, the time when our lives are on the line, and now their lives are on the line. They are supposed to be the calm, but how are they supposed to self-regulate? How are they supposed to be calm when their own life is in danger? They do not know, when they show up, whether they are going to be stabbed, punched or kicked.

We have a duty and a responsibility in the House to pass legislation that not only says they matter, but that also actually puts the need to protect them into law.

Paul Hills is a fierce advocate, and his mental health has been transformed. He speaks really publicly about it, and I think that is really courageous of him. He was wearing certain socks when he came to my office. After we had our conversation, I asked him who was on his socks. He said it was Fred Rogers. I said, “Oh my gosh, Fred Rogers is my favourite.” He said, “My favourite saying is ‘Anything mentionable is manageable.’” That is my favourite saying too.

That is the reality of what we are dealing with: the most volatile culture and society we have ever had, probably in my history at least. We have nowhere for people with mental health problems and addictions to go. The people who have to deal with that, who are at the forefront, are our health care professionals, our paramedics, our firefighters, our police officers and our correctional officers. During my campaign when I ran to be a member of Parliament, I worked in an area of town where a lot of people who were struggling with homelessness were outside of my office. It was nothing out of the ordinary for first responders to be called five or six times in a day to a scene, after 911 had been called, and to be berated, yelled at, attacked and screamed at. Is that what they signed up for, to be abused, or was it to save lives?

This bill would do something we can be so proud of in the House, in a time when victims are being failed in this country and in a time when victims' families are being failed in this country. This is not just about the health care professionals and the first responders; it is also about their families. When health care professionals go home and are carrying this burden, their children are impacted; their wives, their partners, their spouses, their moms and their dads are impacted, and they are not the best partner and not the best parent. That is deeply impacting every interaction that happens. Our society is a spiderweb, and if the people who are here to protect us are not protected, what will happen to our society?

I want to read what Paul Hills, the paramedic from Saskatoon, wrote to me last night, when he knew I was speaking today: “It's proven that prosecutors and courts don't have a proper mechanism to hold assailants or perpetrators accountable because it's seen as part of our job to deal with or lessen the situation because of mental health, addictions, but what about the medics mental health. I have to take that black eye home, I may not be able to use my wrist or hand again after the tendon was torn from being kicked, I have to worry about the threats that gang member made to me and my family when I am not allowed anonymity and they can find out my name just by calling the office and look me up or follow me home in my small city. We have been told by prosecutors that they won't pursue charges because ‘they won't stick or it won't make a difference if you were a paramedic.’”

The reality is that this is a no-brainer bill. In a time when victims and victims' families are being failed in this country, the House could send a message today and follow up with concrete action that would protect our protectors. The helpers need help. Do members know how hard it is for them to ask for help? They did the hard part; now, let us do the rest of our part. This is our responsibility, so let us all vote in favour of Bill C-321. Let us go. Let us get this bill passed.

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

Madam Speaker, like my colleague before me, I also want to pay my respects to all those who have been impacted by the terrible bus crash in the Prairies, and their family members. I thank all the first responders and everybody in our health care system especially. It is a traumatic experience for them and for everybody in those communities.

We are in the middle of a crisis in my riding. There are wildfires that have cut my riding right in half. Over 30,000 of my constituents are cut off from the rest of Canada. Many of them are struggling. I have to give a shout-out to all those people who are fighting the wildfires, all the first responders and the people in our community who are stepping up, like those who work at the food banks. We are looking out for each other. It is what we do in Canada and across this country, especially in rural Canada; we look out for each other.

It is a tremendous privilege to rise to speak to this bill. I have worked with my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George since we both got elected in 2015. He brought forward a bill for a PTSD strategy. He has experience in this area, or at least knowledge of it. He has been a strong advocate for first responders and people working in health care since I have gotten to know him, and I do appreciate his bringing forward this bill. We are both from rural B.C., and we understand the importance of looking out for our health care workers, especially in rural Canada.

We know this bill would amend the Criminal Code to require a court to consider the fact that the victim of an assault was, at the time of the commission of the offence, a health care professional or first responder engaged in the performance of their duties, and that that would be an aggravating circumstance.

The main thing that we, members of the NDP, want to say is that, clearly, no health care worker or first responder should ever be subjected to violence in the workplace. Bullying, abuse, racial or sexual harassment and physical assault should never be considered part of the job. Health care workers take care of us at our most vulnerable times; they look out for us. We rely on them. We have a responsibility to take care of them in return. That has not been happening. I am going to speak to that in depth.

Violence against health care workers is a pervasive and growing problem in the Canadian health care system. Both the number and the intensity of attacks are increasing at an alarming rate. Assaulting a health care worker not only harms the individual person but also puts our entire health care system at risk. I am going to speak to that in more depth. Workplace violence is a major factor driving Canada's dire health care staffing shortage. We know that workplace violence is a pervasive problem in health care settings across the country. However, prior to COVID-19, health care workers already had a fourfold higher rate of workplace violence than people in any other profession. We know it has gotten worse since then. Incidents of violence against health care workers have escalated dramatically during the pandemic and postpandemic.

We were already in a crisis, like I said, prepandemic. We have seen that there is a labour market shortage in the health care system. We have seen the increased demands on the health care system. In 2017, a survey cited that 68% of registered practical nurses and personal support workers experienced violence on the job at least once that year. Imagine someone going to work and that, at least once a year, there will be a violent attack committed against them. Who wants to work in that environment? It is just terrible to hear these stories. Nearly one in five of the RPNs and PSWs surveyed said they had been assaulted nine or more times in that year alone. We have heard, from the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions, that violence-related incidents and claims for frontline health care workers have increased by almost 66% over the past decade, which is three times the rate of the increase for police and correctional service officers combined, who are also facing an increase.

We really need to step back and look at how, over the last couple of decades, we have seen a huge erosion of our health care system. I am going to speak a bit more about that.

If we look at Canada's ratio of nurses to patients, we have one of the worst in the world. In universal health care, we are at the bottom. We are just above the U.S. That is just a terrible stat on its own. Nurses know this full well. Their patients see them running from patient to patient and the stress this creates.

Nurses are really the victims of the failure of consecutive federal and provincial governments to stabilize and strengthen our health care system. They have been dealing with the huge erosion of cuts. They are dealing with the people at the front line. When there is a wait at an ER or a wait to get the services people so desperately need in their vulnerable state, it is the frontline health care workers who are dealing with a political problem. The cuts from all levels of government are falling on the people on the front line, and that is creating a huge strain on the patients and on their families, as we know. It is slowly eroding staff levels as well because people are having to make difficult choices.

The long-term health care system is now over 50% privatized. Privatization has a huge impact on the health care system as well, as there is a lack of protection for workers, inadequate wages and staffing levels that are quite low. The health care system is in deep trouble, and staffing is a major issue. There is frustration in the lack of care, like I said earlier, and the burnout it is causing people on the front line. This is a crisis, and it is propelling these terrible statistics.

One thing I wanted to highlight is that we need to do a few things to help fix that. We need to invest in our health care system, stop for-profit health care and ensure that we are supporting the staff. The bill before us is a really important start to that, but there is also the burnout.

We are hearing from nurses, and they are saying they have three options. The first is to leave the field. The second is to get burnt out and make a mistake while practising their care. This is falling on them. The overburdening of our health care system is falling on them. Can members imagine going to work, worried they would make a mistake while trying to take care of somebody? The third option nurses have is to reduce to part-time hours, but that creates even further erosion of the health care system.

There is a lot of compassion fatigue happening as well. I really appreciate my colleague before me talking about the lack of mental health support. We now have a two-tiered health care system. Our mental health care system is a two-tiered health care system. There are people who need care. We are hearing from people who cannot get access to that care. They have to get arrested just to get the care they need. That is absolutely ridiculous. They have to get arrested. What kind of state are they in at that point?

When they go to the ER and they are in that kind of state, it is health care workers who are dealing with them. This is not acceptable. We need to ensure that we create parity with physical and mental health, and that we are not reactionary. Right now our health care system is reactionary instead of preventative, and we need to get to a preventative state.

It is an uphill battle, and it is exhausting everybody in this country.

I do want to highlight that our critic from Vancouver Kingsway tabled a very similar bill, Bill C-434, to ensure that we are on this path, and I believe my friend from Cariboo—Prince George tabled a very similar bill.

We want to make sure that we get the definition of health care professional or first responder right, so we are supportive, obviously of this legislation, and we can work on that with our colleague at committee. I am sure we can find a pathway to doing that. This legislation is an important legislation that we have heard support for from the Paramedic Association of Canada, the Paramedic Chiefs of Canada and all important stakeholders.

I have to highlight something before I finish. The majority of health care workers who experience workplace violence are women, and this violence is often connected to gender-based discrimination and harassment. This needs to stop. According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information's 2019 report on health workplace statistics, women account for approximately 82% of Canada's regulated health professionals, which includes nurses, midwives, physicians, dentists, pharmacists and other health professionals.

We have lots of work to do. We are very supportive and appreciative of this bill and legislation.

[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.

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

The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George has the floor for his right of reply.

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

Madam Speaker, before I get started with my speech on Bill C-321, I hope you will indulge me for about 30 seconds. All colleagues know that we were supposed to have a late-night sitting tonight. I was supposed to travel home tonight to speak at my best friend's niece's wedding. I cancelled the flight and cannot get home, so I would love to say a few words. To Chunpreet and Jushin, there is only one happiness in life, and that is to love and to be loved. On my behalf and on behalf of my wife, Kelly, I say congratulations to them.

I thank my colleagues for all their heartfelt interventions in this debate. It is a pleasure to rise today on Bill C-321. We have had an opportunity to hear from all sides of the House, and I thank each and every one for their thoughtful interactions. I thank my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway for the work that he has done on previous iterations of this bill.

I am glad there seems to be consensus that violence against those on the front lines should not go unchecked. It is imperative that we get the bill passed as soon as possible. If anyone here today needs an example of why it is so important that we get this bill passed, we need look no further than London, Ontario. Just a few short days ago, while responding to an apartment fire, a London Fire Department captain was brutally assaulted while trying to save someone.

The reality is that these incidents are taking place each and every day, whether in our health care facilities or on the front lines with paramedics, firefighters, police officers or correctional officers. We need to do more. We need to be better. By doing nothing, what message are we sending to those who serve our country and our communities?

This bill is supported by all associations and unions across this country that look after our health care workers, first responders and public safety personnel. Obviously, my bill is not perfect. In a perfect world, we would not need the Criminal Code. We would not need to deter acts of violence against a nurse or health care worker just simply trying to heal people. We would not need to amend the Criminal Code against acts of violence to help protect a paramedic or firefighter who is only trying to save people. However, we do not live in a perfect world, do we?

The drafting of this legislation came from my heart. I truly believe that we need to do more to help those who help us. In my seven-plus years as an MP, I have shied away from the angry partisan side of politics, or tried to. I have attempted to build consensus. I have worked hard to establish a reputation as someone who fights for the little guy, who fights for those who protect us. I have done everything in my power to break the stigma and fear of those who are suffering with mental illness or addiction.

This legislation is a tangible way that we, as parliamentarians, can show those on the front lines that we care, that we respect them and that we do not condone violence in their workplace. We need them to know that we have their backs. We need to let them know that we are listening, that 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 times, and we have a responsibility to care for them in return. We need to send a message that violence is unacceptable.

I listened to the speech from the member for Vancouver Kingsway. In it, he rightly noted that Bill C-321 does not specifically define the term “health care professionals”. In his comments, he worried that some would be excluded. I agree, and that is why I suggested to the member that we change the term to “health care worker”. My intent was never to exclude anyone. I look forward to working with him on the committee.

I really hope we can get the bill passed as soon as possible. There does not need to be an extensive study at committee. In fact, if the member for Vancouver Kingsway or any of the members on the government side wanted to move a friendly amendment right now to open the definition, I would be happy to accept it and pass this bill at all stages today. We could even use the wording provided by my hon. colleague from Richmond Hill, replacing the reference to “health care professional” with “a person who provides health services”.

This issue was studied extensively at the health committee in 2019, and Bill C-321 is a product of that study. Through its unanimous report, “Violence Facing Health Care Workers in Canada”, the committee suggested making the amendments to the Criminal Code. I know that this is not the be-all and end-all, but it is a start. It sends a message that we are listening. It sends a message to the judiciary that we take violence against first responders very seriously.

I am also worried about the rumours in this place. I am worried that if Parliament dissolves or prorogues, we will be back at square one with no protections for those who protect us. This bill is important because it would act as a deterrent. It is important because it would help protect those on the front lines. It is important because it provides hope. It is important because it would let those who protect us know that we want to protect them. I am tired of providing false hope.

I want to thank all the health care workers, public safety personnel and first responders for all that they do for us. I want to thank those in Manitoba, the emergency service providers and the first responders who responded to that horrific event. I want to thank everyone for listening in today.

Violence is not part of their job description. Three Two One, let us get this done.

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

The question is on the motion.

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

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

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

Pursuant to an order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 21, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Alleged Breach of Member's Right to Information

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am rising to respond to the question of privilege raised by the member for Calgary Nose Hill on June 15, respecting the government's response to an Order Paper question, Question No. 974.

I believe the Speaker's ruling of February 2, continues to stand in the case before this House.

The government met the requirements of the Standing Orders by responding to the question within the prescribed time frame. Moreover, I would draw the attention of members to a part of the information the member obtained through her Access to Information Act request but did not reference in her intervention.

Concerning why the government did not respond more comprehensively to the question asked, there are legitimate reasons. I will read from the response released from the access to information request: “The response notes the Government of Canada cannot disclose information on mining company meetings held within the U.S. DPA Title III program: the information involves international affairs and defense, scientific and technical information, commercial sensitivity and ongoing negotiations”.

The government met the requirements of the Standing Orders in tabling its response to the Order Paper question. The response to the access to information request provides a legitimate rationale as to the reasons it was not in a position to include certain information in its response.

The member raised a ruling respecting the RCMP intercepting mail from 1978, which in no way bears any relevance to the matter raised by the member. In that case, it was found that a minister deliberately misled the House and gave information that conflicted with the facts. This is not the case here. The response to the access to information request confirms that there were legitimate reasons not to include sensitive information, which have not been refuted in this House by a minister of the Crown.

There was no valid point of order when this was first raised by the member earlier this year and, equally, there are no valid grounds upon which to determine that this matter constitutes a prima facie question of privilege.