SoVote

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Dec/6/21 12:01:05 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today is important because it will protect health care workers as well as patients. The scope of this bill extends well beyond vaccination. For example, it will also cover intimidation that takes place at family planning clinics. Nevertheless, intimidation is still a crime regardless of a person's status or job. Why the hurry to specify that this applies to health care services now, especially considering that it should apply to everyone, everywhere, period?

80 words

Context: House Hansard - 11 - Dec/6/21

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Dec/6/21 12:31:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

Mr. Speaker, I think that we agree on how important it is to protect the full complement of health care workers, including orderlies and custodians, as my colleague was saying. These people are extremely important. It is unacceptable that these workers are being harassed when all they want is to do their job. However, Bill C-3 has another part to it, namely 10 days of paid sick leave for federally regulated workers. My colleague has not said anything about this, and I would like to know what he thinks.

90 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 11 - Dec/6/21

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

Context: House Hansard - 11 - Dec/6/21

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

Context: House Hansard - 11 - Dec/6/21

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

Context: House Hansard - 11 - Dec/6/21

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