44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 3, 2021 10:00AM
- Dec/3/21 10:56:38 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-3
Madam Speaker, before I get into my remarks, I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to share my time with the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/3/21 10:56:57 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-3
Madam Speaker, I rise today in the House to debate Bill C-3, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code, with my esteemed colleagues.
I would first like to share something with you. In all honesty, today I feel rather excited to again participate in a legislative debate. Indeed, this is the first time in this new Parliament that I have had the opportunity to actively participate in this exercise that is so crucial to the public and democratic life of Quebec and Canada.
Five months have passed since I last participated in a debate. During those five months, we were hurtled into an election campaign, which yielded virtually the same result, almost to the seat. During those five months, we were unable to pass bills that would improve our constituents' quality of life in the midst of a pandemic.
Did the government not think that there were more important things to do in order to support those in need, including the most vulnerable of our society?
My colleagues and I thought that, after those five months, the Liberals would have come up with substantive, strong, straightforward legislative proposals. Unfortunately, the one thing we learned from last week's throne speech is that it is half-baked, inconsistent and lacking in substance.
The bill currently before us is more of the same sad thing. It once again demonstrates this government's modus operandi, which involves a lot of rhetoric mixed in with smoke and mirrors. When the smoke finally clears, we see that the bill is mostly a watered down shell.
Bill C-3 proposes two measures for the price of one, which, I might add, have nothing in common but the name of the bill. On one hand, the government is seeking to amend the Criminal Code to impose harsher sentences on those who intimidate health care workers and their patients and on those who interfere with access to a health care facility to prevent people from obtaining services.
It is a worthy goal, but here again, I have to point out that Ottawa is lagging behind Quebec. In September, Quebec's National Assembly legislated stiff fines for people who protest vaccination near schools and health facilities.
Still, better late than never. With this Criminal Code amendment, Ottawa will give prosecutors the tools to charge people who interfere with health care services.
We have been trapped in the worst public health crisis of the past century for almost two years now, and our health care system is more vulnerable than ever, so we have to do whatever it takes to protect it. Our health care workers have been holding down the fort throughout this trying time, and we, as a society, must keep them safe.
462 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/3/21 12:13:35 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-3
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to resume my speech after that fast-paced question period.
As I was saying, we have been trapped in the worst public health crisis of the past century for almost two years now, and our health care system is more vulnerable than ever, so we have to do whatever it takes to protect it. Our health care workers have been holding down the fort throughout this trying time, and we as a society must keep them safe. That is why the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-3, introduced by the government.
That said, there is a very real potential pitfall that will have to be addressed at some point in the legislative process. The proposed amendments must not violate health care workers' rights to peaceful protest and freedom of expression. These fundamental rights are necessary in a healthy democracy and must not be openly violated. Once again, the public can count on the Bloc Québécois to ask the right questions to help Parliament clarify its intentions and to propose any necessary amendments.
The bill seeks to amend the Canada Labour Code to guarantee that every federally regulated employee gets a minimum of 10 paid sick days a year. As a loyal defender of all workers, the Bloc Québécois agrees with this proposal. No one, but no one, should have to go to work sick because they cannot afford to stay home. No one should be forced to make the impossible choice between taking the time to heal and putting food on the table.
What is more, this pandemic we are going through has shown us another, equally convincing argument. Collectively, we are better off when our infected colleagues do not come in to work. That is how we can stop a virus like COVID‑19 or the flu from spreading and prevent unfortunate outbreaks. It is good for workers, it is good for businesses, it is good for everyone.
However, it is important to be realistic about what this bill the Liberals are introducing can really do to transform the labour market in Quebec and Canada. I will explain by considering the entire labour market.
Federally regulated businesses, such as those in the banking, telecommunications and airline industries, employ only a tiny fraction of the workers in this country, only 6%, to be exact. Of that fraction, we have to subtract all the workers whose employment conditions are governed by collective agreements comparable to or more generous than the one proposed in Bill C‑3. In the end, the bill does not amount to much. It is just another well-crafted PR stunt by this government.
That being said, I personally believe that any improvement in the employment conditions of any workers ultimately represents a win for all workers. That is why the Bloc Québécois will support this bill.
In closing, the Liberals have returned to Parliament more than two months after calling an unnecessary election. After delivering such an uninspiring throne speech, they are now proposing a two-pronged bill that seeks to make minor changes to the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code.
The fact that this bill was one of the first ones introduced by this government in the new session eloquently demonstrates that the Liberals are more interested in ticking off election promises than in advancing meaningful legislation, and that they still do not have a clear strategic vision to offer this Parliament, much less a concrete social blueprint for achieving that vision.
In spite of all this, the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑3 so that it can move forward, because, as a wise man once said, nobody can be against apple pie.
640 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/3/21 12:19:17 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-3
Mr. Speaker, if this bill was so important to the government, why did the government not introduce it earlier, and why did it not bring Parliament back more quickly rather than waiting over 60 days?
Yes, this bill is important because it is a step forward and provides protection for health care workers and support for those who do not have access to paid sick days. As I mentioned, no one can be against apple pie, but again, if something is urgent, then it is better to take action than to dawdle.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/3/21 12:20:59 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-3
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his question.
My colleague knows that the Bloc Québécois has a tradition of supporting workers' rights and that it is also a steadfast ally of unions.
It is hard to explain why the government took so long to propose this bill. We can see that it wanted to put on a dog-and-pony show by making this election promise. Now it is bringing forward this bill, but we still do not understand why.
I am thinking of other bills that the government introduced in the last Parliament that are also very important, in particular the infamous Bill C-10 and the bill on the modernization of official languages. It is difficult to explain or justify the inexplicable.
136 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/3/21 12:22:48 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-3
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Shefford for the question.
As I mentioned earlier, it is impossible to explain the inexplicable.
Currently, someone fighting an illness is entitled to less EI sickness benefits than someone who simply loses their job in the ordinary way. A person who loses their job is eligible for more than 15 weeks of benefits, and that is already enshrined in law.
The Liberals have said that they are aware of this issue and have promised to increase sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 26 weeks. We are hoping for a consensus on this here in the House, because people who are sick are not getting the support they need to heal or to return to the workforce.
123 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/3/21 1:30:29 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-3
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear the eloquent speeches given by my colleague from Winnipeg North, who, in the midst of the pandemic, has reminded us of the importance of disinfecting our hands with Purell or another liquid sanitizer.
To come back to a more serious subject, the Bloc Québécois believes that workers' rights are important and incontrovertible. However, this bill mainly proposes changes to the Criminal Code.
I would like my colleague from Winnipeg North to assure me, very clearly and very plainly, that workers will still have the right to protest near health care facilities.
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
