Finance Committee on June 2nd, 2015

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

And why is that?

[Claire Seaborn]

What we recommend is unpaid work only be allowed when there's oversight from accredited educational institutions. The current bill would provide for four to twelve months of unpaid internships outside of school. That means there's no oversight. There's no ability for an intern to have a procedure to ensure they are actually receiving training. The conditions that are provided under that four-to-twelve-month exemption don't allow interns to enforce their own rights and, in fact, they have been exempted from the complaint system.

If interns feel as though they are not receiving adequate training during their four-month unpaid internship outside school, they in fact can't file a complaint, and they would have to, for example, hire a lawyer and find some sort of system to be able to enforce their own rights.

The appropriate approach is only to allow unpaid work when it's overseen by an educational institution.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Farrell, if employers feel they are going to be sued because a student isn't getting the training they want, is that going to stop employers from potentially having interns?

[John Farrell]

You know that you can't prevent people from taking actions they think are appropriate, but I don't think it's necessary to concern ourselves with lawsuits.

We believe employers and interns can benefit from the balance that is necessary to give them the training they need, so they can advance their educational and work experiences.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Has the government has achieved that balance with these changes. Yes or no?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I'll take that as a yes.

Mr. Easter, for six minutes.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome to all the witnesses.

I'd love to put questions on internships, but this is not my regular committee. We have great concerns about the budget bill and the remarks made by an officer of Parliament, the Information Commissioner, on how it relates to what is basically a violation of the law from the destruction of records in this country.

We've tried at the public safety committee, Mr. Chair, to have the Information Commissioner come forward with the Commissioner of the RCMP and the Minister of Public Safety, and that motion was turned down. That's where this discussion should take place.

Let me continue on the line of questioning of Mr. Cullen.

You said in your remarks that this division 18 in the budget bill provides immunity for any administrative, civil, or criminal proceedings against the Crown in relation to the destruction of said documents.

That being a peerless precedent, does it mean that this really can go back in time, provide a cover-up, and really make illegal what was legal, or make null and void what was illegal at the time?

[Suzanne Legault]

Well, it could. If it were to pass, it would really erase any kind of liability of anyone involved. I think people have to understand there are two things here.

One was an investigation into whether or not the RCMP provided all their records to the requesters. I have concluded that they haven't. This matter is now before the Federal Court. The government disagrees with me.

The second thing is that at the end of the investigation, I referred the matter to the Attorney General of Canada because I had evidence that there was a possible commission of a criminal offence. I did not investigate that. I sent that to the Attorney General for investigation.

This bill erases all of this. It erases everything. I'm not quite sure what happens in relation to all the records that are in my office at this time, because this nullifies that this ever happened. I'm not even sure what happens to the special report that's before Parliament. That's a record that has been created in relation to something that all of a sudden this bill is going to erase.

What's going to happen to all of these records, these Hansards? Are we going to suddenly forget that any of this ever happened because we're going to pass a bill retroactive to even before we had this access to information request? This is what we're doing.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I find that absolutely astounding. This is a government that claims to be for law and order and to uphold the law. When you're talking law and order, you can't just pick and choose what laws you want to uphold. That seems to me to be what is happening in this case.

This is an extremely serious charge. When an officer of Parliament is suggesting to the Attorney General that the RCMP, our national police force, actually violated the law and is asking for charges to be laid, that's an extremely serious matter. Then even worse is for the budget to nullify that whole procedure for those who have broken the law.

Do you have any idea who ordered this? Was it the political side that ordered that these record be destroyed? And do you have any idea who may have destroyed them? If we can't find that out now, then with the passage of this cover-up in the legislation, will we ever find out as Canadians?

[Suzanne Legault]

There are two things. First of all, I must clarify that I did not ask for charges to be laid against the RCMP. This is not within my power. I referred the matter to the Attorney General of Canada for an investigation. These matters are complex

In terms of all the records in relation to the destruction of the documents—because the long-gun registry has been destroyed, let's be clear—if that's the loophole we're trying to fix, the long-gun registry, as far as I know, no longer exists and that loophole does not need to be done. But in terms of all the records in relation to everything, if anyone wants to find out who ordered what, at what time and and under what direction, we will not know if this bill passes.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I think that's really important, Mr. Chair, because I've previously been a solicitor general, and there is supposed to be a firewall between the political establishment and the RCMP. If there was political influence with the RCMP to destroy these documents, that is an extremely serious issue, because political influence is not supposed to be there in the day-to-day operations of the Government of Canada.

Can you shed any light on that point?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Just a brief response, please.

[Suzanne Legault]

As you know, my investigations are done confidentially. If records are to be disclosed through the court process, it will be done so in that fashion. I referred the matter to the Attorney General of Canada because I was really of the view that an investigation needed to be conducted independently into possible violations of the law. That will not happen if this bill passes.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Easter.

We'll go to Ms. Bateman, please, for six minutes.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses this morning. We appreciate all of your testimony.

I'd like to start with Mr. Champagne, if I may. I'm the mother of two kids aged 23 and 17. What are the benefits for young people of internships?

[Jonathan Champagne]

If you look at post-secondary education today, you're seeing a lot more work-integrated learning and emphasis on being able to take some of those skills you learn in the classroom and apply them into workplace setting. There are the hard skills of learning how use software, equipment, or machines and tools, but also some of the more soft skills—responsibility, showing up on time, being accountable, etc.—that can benefit someone for the rest of their life.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

And they're so important.

From your perspective, sir, what protections existed for the interns before Bill C-59, and what will exist after its passage?

[Jonathan Champagne]

From where we stand, before Bill C-59, there haven't been a whole lot of protections in place for interns because has been no real definition or classification of interns, so it wasn't very clear what those protections were.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

I appreciate that.

I want to move to Mr. Farrell now to balance the perspective. We've heard previous testimony how valuable internships are for young people.

Now, sir, you represent 400,000 people. You represent a lot of employers. For things to work, there has to be balance. What are the benefits for employers of these internship programs? I want to hear from you, sir, if I could, as to the protections that we have now built in to Bill C-59 for young people in internships, which I believe are important. Have they gone too far, or is it still reasonable for employers? I hope it is, but anyway I'd like to hear from you.

[John Farrell]

First, I'd like to make a comment just for clarification.

We recognize the value of internships for students and people who are associated with recognized educational institutions. We also believe there is a very important component of internship programs that should apply to persons who are not necessarily participating in educational institutions but have a requirement to get work experience. For example, there are some member companies of our group that, as a community service, allow new immigrants to work in their organization to get them accustomed to working in a Canadian environment and to understand how work is done in Canada. That is done on a short-term basis.

Those kinds of programs are designed to benefit the overall community. We believe it's important that everybody has an opportunity to understand how work is done in Canada.

With regard to the provision of internships, organizations are pleased to do it. They believe that the balance of having academic and practical experience is very important to persons who are trying to advance their ability to move forward in the workplace. Employers are willing to extend themselves to provide practical experience, give employees some direction, supervise their activities, and impart knowledge that they would not otherwise get in an academic situation, nor would they get it if they were unable to take advantage of an internship if they were not connected with an educational institution.

There is a great deal of social value involved in ensuring that Canada develops and retains a robust internship arrangement. We believe it's a very important part of public policy, which will advance the ability of educational institutions to work together with stakeholders who are representing the interests of people who need access to training and knowledge. We should do everything we can to encourage the existence of internships.

If the regulation of interns becomes so onerous that they are otherwise considered to be employees, then the unintended consequence could be that the numbers of internship programs may be diminished. Employers will opt for simply hiring employees rather than extending themselves to the training and development of people who may not necessarily be retained in their organizations.

There is a very important balance here. We recognize that we have responsibilities to anybody who is on our property, and we expect that we will honour those obligations. The only thing we want to make sure of is that it's done appropriately and that it will advance the willingness of employers to engage interns.

Thank you.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you very much.

Do you feel that Bill C-59 is going to help that happen?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

A brief response, please.

[John Farrell]

Yes, I think it's in the right direction.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have 10 seconds.