SoVote

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

Dec/6/21 1:14:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

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?

85 words

All Topics

Ms. Louise Chabot

Dec/6/21 1:15:01 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

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.

86 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Dec/6/21 1:15:47 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

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?

86 words

All Topics

Ms. Louise Chabot

Dec/6/21 1:16:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

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.

101 words

All Topics

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Dec/6/21 1:17:30 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

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.

1368 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Dec/6/21 1:27:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

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?

118 words

All Topics

Mrs. Julie Vignola

Dec/6/21 1:28:32 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

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.

88 words

All Topics

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Dec/6/21 1:29:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

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?

128 words

All Topics

Mrs. Julie Vignola

Dec/6/21 1:30:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

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.

193 words

All Topics

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Dec/6/21 1:32:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

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.

166 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola

Dec/6/21 1:32:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

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.

104 words

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Dec/6/21 1:33:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

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.

1314 words

All Topics

Mr. Glen Motz (Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, CPC)

Dec/6/21 1:43:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

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.

120 words

All Topics

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree

Dec/6/21 1:44:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

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.

104 words

All Topics

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Dec/6/21 1:45:01 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the part of the legislation that protects our health care workers, and I appreciate the member speaking about it. We know that the government has been guilty of outsourcing at a rapid rate, especially at Veterans Affairs, for which I used to be the the critic. The Liberal government promised to restore the jobs cut by the Conservatives in the previous government, yet it has continued to hire people on short-term contracts. Those who have been impacted by contract flipping practices could lose their paid sick days accumulated in their previous contract. That is what is going to happen to a lot of those workers. Would my colleague be open to amendments that would ensure that all federal sub-jurisdictional workers have access to the 10 paid days of sick leave? Also, will the Liberals do something to stop their government from outsourcing?

150 words

All Topics

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree

Dec/6/21 1:45:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize what is in the legislation, and that is to ensure health care workers and health care facilities are protected. During this pandemic, it is important that the federal government play an essential role in ensuring that our front-line workers, our essential workers, and our health care workers are protected against those who would intimidate and abuse them. That is exactly what we are doing in this legislation.

75 words

All Topics

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Dec/6/21 1:46:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

Mr. Speaker, I want to zero in on something that has not been discussed yet on Bill C-3. As I have been able to state previously, I am very supportive of protecting our wonderful nurses and health care workers. I want to focus on another aspect of sentencing, which is the flexibility that a judge will have. I noticed some commentary in the media that this may be too harsh a way to protect our nurses by having as much as a 10-year sentence. I wonder if the hon. member could comment on the fact that the judge will have a lot of discretion. It can be an offence by summary conviction. It can also be an indictable offence of up to 10 years. There are no mandatory minimums here.

132 words

All Topics

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree

Dec/6/21 1:47:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that the legislation in front of us does give judges the discretion and allows them to look at aggravating and mitigating circumstances in sentencing. It is an essential tool that judges are able to use. We believe the judiciary is well positioned to make those decisions and impart sentences at those points in time.

60 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Dec/6/21 1:47:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to rise to speak to Bill C-3, very important legislation that covers two aspects of providing for our health care workers, especially during this pandemic. The latter half of the bill specifically addresses the issue of paid sick leave and how important it is to ensure that people do not have to choose between paying their bills and going to work. When people are sick, as we have learned through this pandemic, we do not want them going to work and participating in an environment where they could potentially be passing along illness to other people. When we are sick or do not feel well, it is important we stay home. To that end, we need the proper legislation in place to protect workers and give them that flexibility so they can take the proper measures to protect themselves. The other part of the bill, which I will focus a little more on, specifically ensures that proper measures are put into our Criminal Code to protect individuals from being harassed on their way to and from work, in particular, health care professionals. When the bill was introduced, I was extremely happy to hear about the measures that would be put in place. There was an extremely unfortunate incident at Kingston General Hospital at the beginning of the election campaign, when protests were gaining speed and traction. A group of people chose to protest not just in front of Kingston General Hospital, but right in front of the cancer clinic at the hospital. Folks going to receive their cancer treatments and then leaving were being harassed by a protest group that yelled insults. In addition, those serving on the front line, the nurses and doctors, were being harassed as they were going in and out of the hospital. It is absolutely ridiculous that we even need to have this debate or that we have a requirement for legislation. However, unfortunate incidents have been popping up, such as the one most recently in my community of Kingston and the Islands. Perhaps it was the nature of the election taking place at the time that really added fuel to the fire. The unfortunate part about the campaign was that it was taking a political lens. The People's Party of Canada was really promoting this event. People's Party of Canada signs were in front of the hospital during this protest. By and large, on Twitter, it was the People's Party and its supporters who were promoting this event to take place. Of course, they did it all in the name of civil liberties, believing that somehow liberties had been breached during the pandemic, which I find extremely alarming. Even though the People's Party did not win any seats in this place, I still find it concerning when members of the House attempt to play footsies with the issue of civil liberties being in jeopardy during the pandemic. Unfortunately, I am reminded of the more recently formed Conservative liberties caucus, the freedom fighters caucus, whatever it is called, which consists of approximately 15 to 30 Conservative members of Parliament and senators, who somehow find it their job to stand up for the liberties that have been infringed upon during the pandemic. I believe that every person in the House believes strongly that people are entitled to certain rights afforded them under the charter and that, indeed, no person's rights have been infringed upon during the pandemic. However, this is not the way it is being interpreted. When leaders are helping to fuel the fire through their actions and words, it only further instills within the people who are leading these protests to go out there, to charge and suggest they somehow need to be protected. We end up with what I described in my riding of Kingston and the Islands in front of the Kingston General Hospital: an event where there were about 50 people yelling, screaming and hurling insults and accusations toward not just health care professionals, the nurses and the doctors coming and going from the hospital, but indeed people entering the cancer clinic at Kingston General Hospital and people who were leaving immediately following treatments. Members can imagine the public outcry against this type of activity that was going on. It was quite a bit, and there was a lot of anger and frustration from the community, but at the same time it provided an opportunity for a certain degree of empowerment in this group. This legislation specifically seeks to make this type of activity something that is not permissible in the Criminal Code and indeed that people can be held accountable for. I am extremely happy to see this legislation that we committed to during the election come forward so quickly. I want to see this get to committee as quickly as possible so it can be properly studied. As I have been listening to the debate today, some of my colleagues have raised questions about the content of the bill and how that will be affected. I think back to the previous question from the NDP member, and these are good questions and things to study at committee, where we can hash out the details to ensure that this legislation is the best it can be. The reality of Bill C-3 is that it is a commitment to Canadians. It is a commitment that we will not tolerate this kind of behaviour around health care facilities that are providing services. The frontline workers are there to provide services to our communities. We will not allow people to participate in activities that intimidate, harass or threaten their ability to move freely in and out of such a facility in order to provide these frontline services. I know I am close to question period and I am happy to begin my five minutes of questions, but I want to say I am very glad the bill is before us. I want it to move quickly to committee so it can be thoroughly examined and reported back to the House and we can pass it into legislation.

1028 words

All Topics

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Dec/6/21 1:55:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to once again ask a question in this important debate. I want to note that the bill addresses two very distinct areas and that I asked earlier whether or not it would be relevant to split the bill into two separate ones. However, specifically regarding health care facilities, it brings up a very important point. No Canadian and no health care professional should be hindered from being able to access their workplace or from being able to access care. Specifically, I wonder if the member would support that being expanded to include something like critical infrastructure, pipelines and railways and so on. Especially at a time when there are serious supply chain challenges within this country, I am wondering if the member would be open to including that in this legislation.

137 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 11