44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 3, 2021 10:00AM
- Dec/3/21 10:19:45 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-3
Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister of Labour for his speech. I also want to thank him for the content of this bill.
The NDP obviously welcomes this type of bill, since the idea came from the NDP. In 2020, the leader of the NDP asked the Liberal government 22 times to bring in 10‑day paid sick leave. He was told no at the time.
The Liberals finally saw the light. Unfortunately, this comes as we are in the midst of the fourth wave. We have lost 18 months, and that has jeopardized the health and safety of health care workers.
It is all well and good that this measure is being brought in today, but, in the midst of a pandemic, why were the Liberals so slow to realize that this is a health issue not just for workers, but also for the entire population and society?
150 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/3/21 11:27:23 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, another day, another dark chapter of gun violence in Montreal. Another person was killed in Anjou last night. This is the 32nd homicide. Close to 60 weapons destined for the streets of Montreal were seized at the border.
There are still too many guns on the streets. People have had enough, and so have border officers. We need more resources to protect the children in our neighbourhoods. Enough is enough.
Will the minister commit today to taking real action to stop the flow of illegal weapons across our borders?
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/3/21 12:20:05 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-3
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
The protection and advancement of workers' rights are central policy issues for the NDP. Throughout the pandemic and 2020, we pushed the Liberal government to give people paid sick leave. Of course, we are talking about employees under federal jurisdiction, which does not include everyone. The Liberals were not interested. They told us no or put it off until later. They finally woke up during the election campaign and, 18 months after the start of the pandemic, they are admitting that this was a good idea and are now suddenly in a hurry to do something about it.
Why does my hon. colleague think that the Liberals have finally realized that paid sick leave does not just benefit individuals, but also constitutes a public health measure?
136 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/3/21 12:33:00 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-3
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
I found it a little strange that he would imply that the NDP would not want the Bloc Québécois to ask relevant questions about the bill. On the contrary, we will welcome such questions—as long as they are relevant, of course. I still think we are moving in the right direction.
I am sure it will come as no surprise to my colleagues that protecting the right to strike, to be able to protest and to form a picket line when the situation warrants it, is extremely important to us in the NDP.
Is the Bloc Québécois prepared to work with the NDP to ensure that Bill C-3 protects health care workers from hostile protesters who try to intimidate them, as well as the right of those same health care workers to exert pressure in their labour relations?
158 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/3/21 12:38:05 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-3
Madam Speaker, this is my first speech in this 44th Parliament. As many of my colleagues have done, I want to take a moment to extend my sincere thanks to the people of Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie for the confidence they have placed in me to represent them in this institution and to be their voice in the House. It truly is an immense honour to do so for a fourth time. I never thought I would last this long in this Parliament, but I will continue to serve with passion, drive and enthusiasm, to represent the progressive values and principles of the people of Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie.
The House is debating Bill C‑3 today, and I must say that my NDP colleagues and I are extremely pleased to be able to rise in this place and discuss one of the two issues in the bill: the proposal to provide 10 days of paid sick leave for federally regulated workers.
Why are we so happy about this? It is because the NDP has been asking for it for two years, from the start of the pandemic. We are now in the midst of the fourth wave, and it seems like it will never end. There may be a fifth wave, based on what we are seeing in Europe and Africa with the omicron variant.
The NDP has been insisting for at least 18 months that we must give workers 10 days of paid sick leave. In 2020, the leader of the NDP spoke about this 22 times in the House. He asked the Liberals 22 times when this was coming and why they were not taking action, and he reminded them that this change was needed in order to protect people, institutions and our communities. However, the government only kicked the can down the road. It remained evasive, saying that this measure was not needed and that it was doing something else.
Then, in the middle of an election campaign this fall, the Liberals decided that the NDP had had a good idea and that they would act on it. After dragging their feet all through 2020 and 2021, after calling a pointless and costly election, and after waiting two months to recall the House, the Liberals threw together this bill at the last minute and now want to push it through.
The 10 days of sick leave is a protection for workers that the NDP has been calling for for a long time. The Liberals were a bit late to the game, but they finally saw the light, had a road to Damascus moment, had a revelation. This is a good thing and a victory for the NDP, which has been calling for this for months, for nearly two years.
I would still like to take a minute or two to talk about the context of this pandemic. Let us go back to March 2020. I remember that time very clearly. We were hearing about what was happening in Wuhan, China, where it all started. Then, we watched as the virus spread like wildfire around the entire planet.
At one point, the governments decided to shut everything down because things had become too dangerous. People were told not to go to work if they did not have to. They were told not to go out, not to see anyone, and to stay at home because it was too risky. They were told to wear masks and wash their hands. The economy was put on pause, something that has never happened before and I hope will never happen again.
I live near Saint‑Laurent Boulevard in Montreal. I no longer heard any cars going by, but I could hear birds singing, which never happens on that street. That shows how society just shut down all of a sudden and became paralyzed.
Sick people who had a cough or a fever but did not want to miss a day of work had to make an impossible choice if they did not have sick leave. I am referring to people who were allowed to go to work because they had essential jobs in the supply chain, the food sector or health care.
That had a major impact on everyone, on families. It was definitely a collective trauma. I hope we are past it now. I hope that we are heading in the right direction and that, together, we will be able to move on to the next step.
In a crisis, people die. People suffer. Thousands of people died. Tens of thousands of people were infected, and thousands overcame the disease. However, some people will experience serious, long-lasting effects for the rest of their lives. This shows how society was and continues to be shaken to its very foundation.
This crisis was revealing. I want to talk about two different aspects of it.
The first is the fragility of our health care system. We are very proud of our accessible, universal public health care system, but we have noted some major shortcomings. For example, our long-term care homes were not ready. The working conditions of health care workers were sometimes not good enough to convince employees to continue working and to come to work. We saw how ill-prepared and ill-equipped we were.
We did not learn any lessons from the SARS epidemic in 2003. The recommendations made at the time were not implemented. We therefore found ourselves with no vaccines and no gloves, masks or personal protective equipment. We saw how vulnerable that left us. Our health care system was undermined. I hope that we have learned from this pandemic, so that we will be able to deal with the next one. Let us be clear. We are trying to get out of this pandemic as quickly as possible, but in the years to come, there will inevitably be another one. That is why it is so unfortunate that, under successive Liberal and Conservative governments, we lost all our national vaccine production capacity. The NDP has proposed creating a Crown corporation, if necessary. That way, if the private sector is not interested, we will at least have the collective public capacity to produce vaccines to treat people.
Our health care system was fragile. There were problems with working conditions, staffing and preparedness. We have collectively been dropping the ball for years.
The second aspect is our social safety net. Earlier, I spoke about the holes in the health care system. The holes in our social safety net are more like abysses or craters. We quickly realized that the current EI system was leaving many people with nothing when businesses closed, people were asked to stay home, jobs were lost and things were falling apart.
The EI system already excluded 60% of workers. This means that of all the workers who pay EI premiums, more than half do not have access to benefits when they lose their job. That is unbelievable. It is pretty much the dream of any private insurer that does not want to pay. EI is a public tool that we collectively implemented in order to help people who lose their jobs and fall on hard times. However, it is just not working.
As I explained earlier, it was even worse with the pandemic and the ensuing economic crisis. People who contributed to EI were not able to access it, and on top of that, others who did not contribute, such as contract workers, self-employed workers and freelancers, had nothing. That is why the NDP demanded that the government provide direct assistance to offset the gaps in this deeply flawed program. We demanded that the Liberal government increase the Canada emergency response benefit from $1,000 to $2,000 a month, so that people could safely pay their rent and grocery bills. What the Liberals had originally proposed was not enough. We then wanted to expand the benefit to people who might still have been getting a small contract or a couple of hours of work here and there, so that it would cover freelancers and self-employed workers, who had been excluded from CERB. We made it so that people could work and earn up to $1,000 while receiving CERB. We also took action to help students, who had been completely forgotten.
We saw that our social safety net was not good enough and that many people did not have sick leave. I want to emphasize this, because, in the context of a pandemic, sick days are a solution to a public health problem. Sick leave is a social benefit. It benefits the worker. Workers benefit personally from being able to stay home and rest instead of going to work sick, and it is better that way. Everyone wants that.
If someone unfortunately does not have access to paid sick leave and they cannot afford to take a day or two off work because their budget is too tight and they have bills to pay, they are sometimes faced with an impossible choice. They have to choose between buying groceries and staying home to take care of themselves. If they choose to stay home to rest, they might not be able to pay their rent at the end of the month.
It is not just that person's health at stake, but the health of everyone, because we are in the midst of a pandemic. If that person has symptoms of COVID-19, if they are coughing or have a fever and they go to work anyway, they might spread the virus to the other people in their workplace.
Personal sick leave therefore become a tool and a collective method of self-defence. This is a public health issue. Sick leave lets people make rational decisions and protect others, including their family, neighbours, community and co-workers.
While I deplore the fact that the Liberals dragged their feet and took so long to come up with this concrete proposal, I am pleased to see that we can take a leadership role, take a step in the right direction and perhaps encourage some other provinces to adopt similar mechanisms, so that all workers can eventually be protected.
Let us talk about those mechanisms. We see room for improvement. Bill C-3 can be improved. I would even say that it must be improved. That is why it is really important that there be a parliamentary committee that studies the bill one day where we will be able to discuss, debate and propose amendments.
In this version of the bill, people have to work one calendar month to be entitled to one sick day. After five months, they will be entitled to five sick days, and so on.
I see two problems with that. The first is the notion of calendar months. For example, someone hired on February 6 would not get their first paid sick day until April. That person will not have worked every day in February, so they have to wait until they have worked the whole month of March to get their first paid sick day, which they can put in their leave bank. That means they would have to wait six or seven weeks to get that first paid sick day. Why not go with a certain number of days worked consecutively, regardless of the hiring date or start date? Why not base it on an actual month and not make people wait six or seven weeks? I think that is the first thing we need to fix.
The second thing that needs fixing is the bank of 10 days of sick leave. It was people in the health care sector who talked to us about it, including representatives I met with this week from an organization called the Decent Work and Health Network. They are concerned that a new employee has to wait until they bank enough days of sick leave before they can stay home sick. It can take a while to accumulate enough days. According to a U.S. study these representatives cited, it takes at least six days of sick leave for the leave to become truly accessible. That is when the person can really take them, or even dares to take them. It was reported that people with at least six days of sick leave banked take sick leave more than people who have banked only a day or two.
We need to explore the possibility of having a minimum number of days available from the start, before the banking process begins to reach 10 days of sick leave. I think that is something the parliamentary committee could do.
We are talking about technicalities, but they can make a big difference in people's lives. When people get sick, one day is rarely enough. The Decent Work and Health Network also talks about a survey that found that the median duration of leave for influenza is four days. If someone has only a day or two of leave banked, it may not be enough.
With regard to the mechanisms, I would also like to talk about how the employer is allowed to ask the employee to provide a medical certificate for a day of paid leave. For just one day of leave, the employer could require the employee to consult a physician in order to obtain a medical certificate justifying the absence. I believe that it is important to show good faith and to trust employees. Allowing this type of mechanism implies a presumption that abuse and fraud will take place. Is a doctor's note needed for just one day of leave, as opposed to four or five?
We need to ask ourselves this question because this mechanism could be a barrier. A person who suffers from gastroenteritis and who cannot go to work for a day could be asked for a medical certificate two weeks later. This complicates things. Not only will they have to take one day of leave, but they will have to make a doctor's appointment two weeks later to ask for a medical certificate.
That will clog up the health care system. The doctor we met with who was part of the group I mentioned told us that he had better things to do than sign papers for someone who took one or two sick days. His job is to treat people who are sick right now, not to prove, after the fact, that someone was previously sick. Furthermore, this group did a survey and found that the requirement to provide a medical certificate for taking a sick day was an impediment for 82% of workers. That is a lot.
This requirement outweighs the benefits of paid sick leave. It may seem silly, but the NDP believes that we cannot ignore that this is an obstacle for 80% of workers. This is something we need to take into account.
I want to move on from talking about the first part of the bill to the second part of Bill C‑3, which would amend the Criminal Code. Under Bill C‑3, threatening or intimidating health care workers or impeding them from entering their places of work, such as hospitals and clinics, would become aggravating factors. The bill would allow for harsher punishments to combat these forms of intimidation.
Unfortunately, over the past two years and especially in the past year, some very aggressive people who are against science, public health and vaccines have acted in a disgraceful manner. They intimidated and threatened health professionals who were going to hospitals to take care of our parents, grandparents, children and neighbours. It is mind-boggling. The NDP agrees that we need to implement a measure to address that issue. We said during the election campaign that we needed to take steps to protect health professionals. This is a major problem, and we cannot let people intimidate and threaten the workers who take care of us. That does not make any sense. We need to take steps to protect them, so this change to the Criminal Code is a good thing.
That being said, we must not infringe on these same workers' right to use pressure tactics when they are on strike as part of a collective bargaining process, for example. I think we need to take that into account and be very vigilant. In any case, the NDP will stay vigilant, in order to preserve the right to picket and strike as part of a labour dispute.
The NDP stands up for workers. We want to stand up for them so that they do not have rocks thrown at them by anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists. However, we also want to protect workers' rights so that when they are on strike because of a labour dispute, they can express themselves, demonstrate and make their demands and the reason for the labour dispute known.
That aspect is very important to the NDP. We agree with the principle of the bill, but we must be sure not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We need to ensure that the right to picket and the right to demonstrate are protected in the event of a labour dispute or strike. For the NDP, this will be very important to see.
I thank the members for their attention, and I am ready to take questions.
2914 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/3/21 12:58:52 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-3
Madam Speaker, that is a good question, and I thank my colleague for asking it.
For starters, I would just say that it is true now, and it was even more true 18 months ago. My colleague is right, but I do not know why his party did not think of this before, especially when we firmly insisted that the change be made.
The premise of his comment is absolutely right. Only 10% of Canadian workers are federally regulated, which means that the vast majority of workers are governed by provincial labour laws and codes. My Bloc colleagues pointed this out earlier, and Quebec certainly does have an excellent system, although there is room for improvement.
Nonetheless, I think the federal government has to show leadership. This affects hundreds of thousands of workers, and access to these sick days will really, truly help them. Yes, we are raising the bar even higher, because we want to see progress and better working conditions. I am glad the government is finally getting that.
171 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/3/21 1:00:56 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-3
Madam Speaker, it is true that we need to protect health care workers. We completely agree on that. We have to maintain a balance between freedom of expression and freedom to protest.
Recognizing the aggravating factors of a situation is something that has been done in the past, including when the Criminal Code was changed to better protect bus drivers who were victims of a growing number of recurring assaults for years. The NDP worked on that file at the time and we still support that cause today.
The Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions is asking that attacks on health care staff and professionals be considered an aggravating factor. In 2019, this union told us that 60% of nurses had been victims of violence, harassment or assault in their workplace. To better protect them, we need to improve their working conditions and schedules, of course, but we also have to ensure that they are not assaulted on their way to the hospital or the clinic where they work. The proposals we are looking at today are intended to do just that.
181 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/3/21 1:03:02 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-3
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Shefford for her important question. The cultural sector is definitely among the hardest-hit sectors in recent years. I can attest to that, and it is certainly the case in my colleague's region as well.
The cultural sector of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie was vibrant, full of life and truly dynamic. Those people have suffered a lot but, unfortunately, they have been forgotten by the Liberal government during the pandemic. This government has done very little other than come up with band-aid solutions at the last minute.
Whether it is about improving employment insurance, giving direct assistance or providing a guaranteed minimum income to workers in the cultural sector, I would be pleased to work hard and collaborate for the betterment of artists and artisans.
135 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/3/21 1:04:26 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-3
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the deputy critic for labour in the NDP caucus, for this important question.
We do have concerns about this. Over the years, we have seen this issue at airports, for example. There is a void in the Canada Labour Code and when a contractor or subcontractor moves to another company, the collective agreement no longer applies. People lose their rights and their pay scales. They have to start all over again. One of the rare situations where we have seen working conditions decline in the past ten years involves this type of contract for contractors and subcontractors working at airports. We do not want the same thing to happen to the sick leave of federally regulated employees.
My colleague is absolutely right, we must protect their rights. We must clearly establish that in cases where people who are working in the health care sector for a contractor have accumulated a certain number of sick days, this bank of sick days must be transferable to the new employment contract with a new employer, so that it does not roll back to zero every time.
189 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/3/21 1:06:08 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-3
Madam Speaker, I think there is a consensus that 10 days of sick leave is ideal. According to the Decent Work and Health Network, six to nine days of sick leave is ideal, so that employees feel comfortable and able to take them, especially considering that it often takes three or four days to recover from the flu or gastroenteritis, for example.
Earlier, we talked about leadership and the role the federal government must play in raising the bar and encouraging the provinces to do more and to work towards improving working conditions for everyone. That is our job, and we in the NDP are proud to do it here in the House.
113 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/3/21 1:07:36 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-3
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona for her question and for the excellent work she has been doing for two years now. She now has a new mandate and I congratulate her on her re-election.
That is a very important and troubling question. We have known for six months, for a year, even for a year and a half, about the realities of the pandemic and the dangers of going to work while sick. Even though the NDP has been urging the government to do this for workers, for our public health and public safety, it took all of this time, a pointless election and a new Parliament for the Liberals to introduce Bill C‑3.
I think that—
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/3/21 2:21:18 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-3
Madam Speaker, I want to come back to something that is very obvious to everyone this afternoon. Sick days are good for workers. Sick days are good for the workplace. Sick days are good for the community during a pandemic.
Therefore, I am very pleased that the Liberals have seen the light. Why did this recently become a good idea in 2021, when it was a bad idea in 2020, in the midst of the pandemic?
76 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
