Finance Committee on June 2nd, 2015

[Graham Henderson]

Yes, and there's a distinction between recording artists—or performers—and labels, and then the songwriters. They're not always the same people. Anne Murray, for example, in those early recordings of hers, was not the songwriter. She was the performer. The songwriter of those early performances is protected under copyright legislation for life, plus an additional 50 years in Canada and 70 years in other countries around the world. There's protection there for the songwriter, but the performer, Anne Murray and many others—you might even think of the Beatles and the fact that .Paul McCartney and John Lennon wrote those songs, not Ringo and George necessarily.... What we're focused on is protection for the performers on the master recording, and that's where there was a very significant risk, and an immediate one.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have 30 seconds.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thirty-one years ago this month I got married, and I used an Anne Murray song, so I'll send my tribute to Canadian artists.

It was the summer of 1969 when all by myself these eyes of an old man who was taking a look at himself, while sitting under some patio lanterns, wearing sunglasses at night, under a harvest moon, saw a snowbird. While dreaming if I had a million dollars, along with the constant craving for a K-car, I said to myself, “My heart will go on”. Then I asked my wife if she would put her head on my shoulder and if I could have this dance for the rest of my life, and she said, “Never say never”.

That's my tribute to Canadian artists. Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Right. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Cannan.

[Voices]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Order, order.

You've adequately demonstrated why you're an amateur musician.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

It's also great Canadian talent. There you go.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Madam Liu, s'il vous plaît pour six minutes.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I think we'll leave the artistry to members on our side.

Earlier this year we found out through an access to information request that the federal government hired just 22 out of its 1,000 interns since 2008. So we know that internships often don't result in paid employment and also contribute to a cycle of youth underemployment and youth unemployment. Unlike the bill that the NDP proposed, Bill C-636, C-636, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (unpaid training), the current proposed budget implementation act doesn't actually restrict non-academic internships.

So, Claire, could you just talk about the risks of the allowance of unpaid academic unpaid internships and the effect that it could have on labour and the labour market?

[Claire Seaborn]

The first thing I'll say is that these amendments would put interns, students, and entry-level workers in a worse position than they're currently in under the Canada Labour Code. Entry-level interns and workers who are receiving training are currently entitled to a number of different employment protections, including wages, the ability to file complaints, and protections against sexual harassment. These exemptions only cover a small portion of the protections they should be entitled to, and we've discussed the health and safety and the benefits of that, but there's quite a lot missing.

The proposal we've made today is that the simplest solution, the simplest amendment, would be to only allow unpaid internships in the context of educational institutions. Those institutions provide the appropriate oversight to ensure that interns have a process for complaints to ensure that they are receiving training for the work that they're doing. Once they graduate, that's when they should start receiving pay for the hours they're working in addition to the summer months.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

So what would be your response to those who claim that new Canadians, for example, should have these opportunities to work for free for employers, Ms. Seaborn?

Then, Mr. Gleason, if you have anything to add, please go ahead.

[Claire Seaborn]

Mr. Gleason made an excellent point, which is that only the wealthiest young Canadians can afford to do unpaid internships. The result is that everyone else experiences barriers to accessing all sorts of professions and jobs in journalism, the arts, politics, and increasingly in law, and social work. There are a number of professions and industries in Canada that essentially require months of unpaid work that many young Canadians just simply can't do.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

What would be the case for new Canadians? Do you think that new Canadians should be forced to work for free to gain workplace experience?

[Claire Seaborn]

Absolutely. We frequently receive emails from immigrants in Canada who take unpaid work out of desperation and for no other reason. In fact, all Canadians are taking unpaid work out of desperation. Federally regulated employers would use these exceptions to take advantage of that desperation and extract work, labour, that's useful to them. They provide training but they are certainly extracting work from people without providing remuneration and without really being accountable for what they're providing to those people.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Champagne, would you agree with that?

[Jonathan Champagne]

I think the idea of providing a community service for allowing new immigrants to work for free is a guise and something that shouldn't be accepted or tolerated.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you.

Going back to the issue of sexual harassment, which is actually not covered in the BIA, we know that unpaid interns tend to be very young and very open to exploitation, and we also know that women tend to be overrepresented in unpaid internships. So taking those things into consideration, I'd just like to read into the record the definition of sexual harassment found in the Canadian Labour Code. Sexual harassment is defined there as:

any conduct, comment, gesture or contact of a sexual nature

(a) that is likely to cause offence or humiliation to any employee; or

(b) that might, on reasonable grounds, be perceived by that employee as placing a condition of a sexual nature on employment or on any opportunity for training or promotion.

Now, is there any reason whatsoever that protections from sexual harassment should not be included as an amendment in the BIA as opposed to in a regulation?

Mr. Gleason, you commented on this earlier.

Ms. Seaborn, would you have anything to add to that?

[Claire Seaborn]

I frequently speak to interns who have been sexually harassed. It's something that occurs often in Canada and is very infrequently reported. Interns who have been sexually harassed do not want to speak out about their internships. This bill would provide no protections for them. At a minimum, allowing educational institutions to oversee the internship would mean that the intern could speak to their educational institution about whatever sexual harassment they're being subject to. Of course, interns should be covered under the sexual harassment provisions of the code, and also may have some other avenues for complaint. But as it stands right now, this is completely inadequate and a complete misunderstanding of the experience of many young interns.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have one minute remaining.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Champagne?

[Jonathan Champagne]

It's not clear to me at this point why those provisions especially related to sexual harassment are not included in the original act.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Farrell, thank you for your testimony today. Would you also agree that sexual harassment should be included as an amendment in the BIA, rather than as a regulation?

[John Farrell]

Firstly, we would prefer that most of the matters dealt with within in this bill be in legislation rather than in regulations, because that would provide immediate clarity.

We believe it's important to have a consultation on the matters that would be properly included in regulation, if that's the direction this bill ends up going in, because we believe that all stakeholders have a stake in expressing their true views about what should be in this legislation.

With respect to sexual harassment—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Be brief, please, sir.