SoVote

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Dec/3/21 12:23:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my esteemed colleague from Rimouski‑Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his speech. We are here today to talk about Bill C-3, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code. We are at second reading of this bill, which was introduced by our colleague from St. John's South—Mount Pearl. Bill C‑3 proposes harsher sentences for people who intimidate health care workers or their patients or who block access to a hospital or clinic in order to impede people from obtaining health services. The bill also proposes forcing federally regulated employers to grant their employees up to 10 days of sick leave. Bill C‑3 is good for Quebec, so the Bloc Québécois supports it. The amendments proposed today are in keeping with the legitimate demands of major unions and will greatly benefit employees. As my colleague said, whether it be yesterday, today or tomorrow, the Bloc Québécois has and always will side with workers in Quebec and across Canada. At the same time, our party has already spoken out many times against the anti-vaccine protests that took place near hospitals and clinics during the election campaign. The Bloc Québécois is opposed to all forms of intimidation, violence or interference directed at health care workers or anyone seeking care or a vaccine. Bill C‑3 will give police and prosecutors more tools to prosecute offenders who directly or indirectly attack health care workers or patients seeking care. As it stands, Bill C‑3 contains eight clauses amending two acts, namely the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code. One of the clauses would add intimidation of health care workers to the invasion of privacy offences. Another proposes imprisonment for up to 10 years for anyone attempting to impede the delivery of health care by provoking a state of fear in a patient, professional or support person. One paragraph prohibits intentionally obstructing or interfering with access to a place at which health services are provided, such as a hospital or clinic. That is one of the things we will have to examine in detail, because we do not want to interfere with health care workers' right to protest. Another clause states that committing an offence to impede a health care worker in the performance of their duties could be considered an aggravating factor. In short, it is a good piece of legislation, but it really makes few substantive changes. For one thing, the offences that Bill C‑3 would add to the Criminal Code already exist, because it is already a criminal offence to block access to a hospital. It was not a lack of legal authority that was required to enforce this provision of the Criminal Code, but rather a lack of political will. In short, the amendments proposed by Bill C‑3 provide a few more tools to prosecutors and the police, and that is a very good thing. Although the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C‑3, we have to admit that it is more of a PR stunt, as my colleague mentioned earlier, intended to fulfil the Liberals' election promise, than a truly constructive piece of legislation. It is also important to note that Quebec acted on this matter some time ago. In September, the National Assembly of Quebec passed a bill providing for very stiff fines for anyone protesting against vaccination within 50 metres of a school or health care site. These fines range from $6,000 for a first offence to $12,000 for subsequent offences. On a different note, the bill before us would amend the Canada Labour Code to add 10 days of paid sick leave for all workers. According to Employment and Social Development Canada, the Canada Labour Code covers 955,000 employees working for about 18,000 companies. Of that number, roughly 63% of all federally regulated private sector employees had access to fewer than 10 days of paid sick leave, so this will be highly beneficial. The Canada Labour Code currently provides for 17 weeks of unpaid sick leave, but only 5 days of paid sick leave. It is worth noting that this provision led to a number of regrettable situations during the pandemic. Many employees kept going to work sick, even with COVID-19, instead of staying home, so that they would not miss out on pay. This decision undoubtedly helped the virus spread, with tragic consequences, as we know. Other people became infected, and some died. That said, many employees are covered by collective agreements that already guarantee them sick leave. Bill C‑3 will obviously not change anything for them. Furthermore, there will be little impact on the lives of Quebec workers, since Quebec currently offers more paid sick leave than anywhere else in Canada. In addition, it is quite surprising that the bill is trying to accomplish two things at the same time. No matter what the Liberals claim, there is nothing in Bill C‑3 that connects these two aspects of the legislation. They are packaging one uncontroversial topic that most people agree with, sick leave, with a rather complex amendment to the Criminal Code. I think it is likely that the Liberals and the NDP will want to get this bill passed the easy way, like we did with Bill C‑4, which would ban conversion therapy. However, we are talking about an amendment to the Criminal Code, which requires a serious, in-depth study. This bill would have implications for freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. I sincerely believe that we must not cut the parliamentary process short on a topic like this. We are hearing from the other side that they want to fast-track Bill C‑3. If someone objects, will they be accused of stonewalling? Whether the Liberal and NDP members like it or not, the Bloc Québécois will be sure to ask the relevant questions in the House to ensure that the legislators can clarify their intentions as to the amendments to the Criminal Code. We want to make sure that they do not encroach upon health care workers' right to protest. As usual, we will propose amendments to the bill, as needed, to improve it. The Bloc Québécois is always in favour of new, innovative ideas, and we will continue in that direction. Despite the fact that this bill smacks of cynicism and will have a relatively minimal impact, it does contain some elements that will benefit Quebec workers, especially health care staff. With that in mind, of course the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-3.

1164 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 10 - Dec/3/21

Mr. Luc Desilets

Dec/3/21 12:33:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

Mr. Speaker, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois always agree when it comes to workers' rights. We believe that workers should always enjoy or be able to enjoy a consistent level of well-being. That is why we will vote in favour of Bill C‑3—as will the NDP, I am sure. My colleague brought up a sensitive topic about where the line is drawn and how far is too far. I completely agree. Debate is not the time for us to set legitimate boundaries.

92 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 10 - Dec/3/21

Mr. Luc Desilets

Dec/3/21 12:35:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

Mr. Speaker, that is a very simple question. Members know our position, which is that we always want to make progress on that front for workers. The Bloc Québécois fully supports examining and analyzing all of that, as it has a major impact. People do not choose to be sick and take leave. We are open to this. As my colleagues know, we made similar proposals with regard to EI sickness benefits and specifically proposed 50 weeks of leave for serious illnesses. It is now time to continue with our discussions.

95 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 10 - Dec/3/21

Mr. Luc Desilets

Dec/3/21 12:37:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

Mr. Speaker, my colleague answered his own question. It would be much easier for a sovereign Quebec, because there would be just one level of government. As to the government being slow, I am hyperactive, so watching bills drag on when we could easily adopt them or skip to the next step is something I find supremely frustrating. I have felt that way for two years and a bit—since my first election two and a half years ago, to be precise. The amount of time wasted in this process is incredible. If the government wanted to, it could move things along.

103 words