Finance Committee on June 4th, 2015

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I would very much like to ask for a recorded vote, if I could, on this particular clause. This deals with the famous issue of unpaid interns. We had a private member's bill before Parliament, which the government defeated.

Part II of the labour code, as I understand this, is a really complicated area. The point of clause 87—

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Chair, point of order.

My apologies, Mr. Rankin. Unfortunately, the French translation isn't coming in. I'm not sure where the problem is.

Now it's back. Thank you.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

If I could continue, Chair, I believe this section would extend the protections for unpaid interns under part II of the Canada Labour Code but as I understand it, those protections they have are going to be excluded from all part III protections in future clauses. That matters because part II of the Canada Labour Code includes basic health and safety rules, which of course we've long fought to support. Clearly, we want to support that, but I'd like to flag that we have a number of amendments to address problems with the balance of the provisions, which I'll come to.

I'd like a recorded vote on this particular provision.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

For sure.

We'll go then to Mr. Brison on this clause.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

On the issue of unpaid interns, again we're pleased to see some movement on this. The leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Papineau, conducted a round table with stakeholders on this sometime ago, and we've been recommending action be taken by the federal government in federally regulated industries. But this government has acknowledged that this section of Bill C-59 is based on the rules of the Government of Ontario.

Last year, the Ontario Ministry of Labour undertook a proactive enforcement, laid some rules surrounding unpaid interns. They found that 42% of businesses with interns were breaking the law. The federal labour program doesn't appear to have enough resources to conduct a similar blitz. The number of full-time equivalents or staff in the labour standards division has fallen from 183 in 2013 and 2014, to 126 in 2015-16. That's a 31% cut in staff in this division in just two years. Will the labour program receive any additional resources to help enforce the new rules?

[David Charter, Senior Advisor, Strategic Policy, Department of Employment and Social Development]

Thank you.

I believe the recent budget announced funding for occupational health and safety officers, increasing the number from approximately 90 to 100. I'm not aware of any new funding for officers on the labour standard side. However, these provisions will be enforced with existing resources.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Would you acknowledge that these changes will require a significant amount of person power to conduct, for instance, a proactive blitz similar to that of Ontario's?

[David Charter]

I understand that these provisions will be enforced generally in the same manner as all the provisions of part III. Primarily it's a complaint-based process but there is the possibility for proactive enforcement activities, ranging from education and awareness generally with employers to the possibility of more targeted enforcement.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Will any additional labour inspectors be hired?

[David Charter]

I'm not aware of any new funding for new labour inspectors or plans to hire new officers to enforce these provisions, but I do understand they'll be enforced with existing resources in the same manner as existing part III provisions.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you. We'll have a recorded vote on clause 87.

(Clause 87 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0)

(Clause 88 agreed to)

(On clause 89)

We have a series of amendments to clause 89. Again if members wish to address them together or separately, that's their choice.

We'll start with NDP-3, and we go to Mr. Rankin.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

If you would indulge me, Chair, could we start with NDP-7 instead? The order seems to be out. Does that work for you? Otherwise it will be more complicated.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I will allow you some flexibility in how you address your amendments.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

This is a very technically complicated area as you know. I think it might be more logical if we did NDP-7 first and then went to NDP-3, because NDP-7 is very simple.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

In terms of the vote...? You could address them all together if you want to do that.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Sure, I could do NDP-7 and NDP-3 together.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You can address the whole topic and then we could do the votes after.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Right.

As I said earlier, there's a complexity here because interns are essentially excluded from the protections in part III of the Canada Labour Code. That is something we want to address through the amendments we're proposing here.

We've consulted. I'm sure other members have heard from the Canadian Intern Association president Claire Seaborn and others. They're very concerned about the government's proposal in this bill. Of course we did have a bill that would have addressed this, which the member for Davenport brought forward, but it was defeated in the House.

The point of NDP-7 is very simple. It would prohibit all other unpaid internships. As it stands the bill now lacks any kind of clear prohibition on the use of unpaid internships outside the conditions and requirements set out in clause 89. So interns and employers, we say, deserve clarity that only the unpaid internships described in proposed subsection 1.2, which is our proposed subsection 1.3, would be allowed and all others would be prohibited. That's the purpose of amendment NDP-7.

The argument that all other internships would be captured by part III of the code, namely minimum wage, doesn't hold water as that is the current situation. We understand the labour program's own view is that currently part III doesn't apply to unpaid interns. Without a new prohibition, the current allowable and unlimited use of unpaid internships would still apply. That's the guts of our amendment NDP-7.

NDP-3 is very clear. Amendment NDP-3, which is a proposed replacement for proposed subsection 1.2, which I won't bother reading, would extend the protection against sexual harassment in the workplace, which this bill does not do. The bill currently excludes those who satisfy the conditions for legal, unpaid internships from the basic workplace protections of part III. We think that is wrong.

Therefore, the amendment that we are proposing, NDP-3, would mean that interns are automatically protected by the following sections in part III. I'm going to name the three of them: first, protection against losing their placement if they're injured on the job, which is common sense; second, the ability to make a complaint against their employer, which they don't have under this bill; and third, protection against sexual harassment in the workplace, which we think is eminently appropriate.

It's not enough to say interns are covered by the human rights legislation because there are provisions in the labour code that go above and beyond human rights law to address specific workplace interactions between employees and employers. Our amendment would ensure, regardless of later regulation, that interns would be protected by the specific sections I've mentioned in part III, including the one that protects against acts that may place “a condition of a sexual nature on employment or on any opportunity for training or promotion.”

Mr. Chair, I could talk about the other two. Are you inviting me to talk about NDP-4 and NDP-5 at the same time? I've spoken to NDP-7 and NDP-3.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Let's go to NDP-4 and NDP-5 after the Green Party.

Thank you, Mr. Rankin.

On this point, we'll hear Mr. Adler, please.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I'll deal with the responses from the government in the order that Mr. Rankin brought them forward so I'll address NDP-7 first.

Clearly, this motion should be rejected. The legislation already clearly sets out two exceptions in part III protections, such as minimum wages do not apply to interns. In practice, this would establish when an intern could be unpaid.

The legislation is focused on protecting interns, or as they are described in the legislation, persons who are not employees but who perform activities for employers where the primary purpose of those activities is to acquire knowledge and experience.

The legislation is not intended to cover other individuals who are unpaid, such as volunteers who are different from interns. The primary purpose of a volunteer is to give their time, energy, and skills for public benefit of their own free will without monetary compensation. This amendment could have the unintended consequence of prohibiting volunteers in the federal jurisdiction.

With respect to NDP-3, we believe this motion should also be rejected. The proposed amendments to part III will allow an appropriate set of labour standards for interns who could be unpaid to be specified collectively in regulations following consultations with stakeholders. To provide some labour standards for unpaid interns through legislation, others through regulations, would be fragmented and incoherent and result in confusion for interns, employers, and educational institutions.

The rationale for setting protections for unpaid interns in regulations is that many part III protections are wage-related, for example, paid overtime or paid holidays, and would therefore be impossible to apply to interns who are unpaid. Setting labour standard protections for unpaid interns through regulations following consultations with stakeholders will ensure an appropriate and coherent set of labour standards is provided and that these labour standards can be adapted to the unique circumstances of unpaid interns.

It is expected that labour standard protections related to sexual harassment and maximum hours of work, at a minimum, will be provided to unpaid interns through these regulations. The regulations will be put in place as quickly as possible. In the event of sexual harassment, the option of filing a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission is always available.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Adler.

Mr. Rankin, please.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I hear what Mr. Adler has said on both NDP-7 and NDP-3, and I guess I should address them specifically.

He said in respect to proposed amendment NDP-7 that this could somehow prohibit volunteers in the federal sphere. I beg to differ. This would only provide a very clear prohibition on the use of unpaid interns outside the conditions and requirements we're now setting out in clause 89. I don't see why we would deny our interns the clarity they deserve in this area. Other workers have it. Why are interns who aren't paid to be treated so differently?

That also goes to the proposed amendment NDP-3. I think Mr. Adler quite properly says that regulations can address many of these issues. That's absolutely true, but again, why would we deny these often young people clarity in the statute about the three protections we've listed, namely, protection against losing their job if they are injured, ability to complain about their employer, and sexual harassment?

To suggest that somehow it will be fragmented, I don't accept. We can amend the act later if we want to add more, or indeed make regulations, but to deny them the clarity and certainty.... The rules of the game being established for employers in a federal statute to me is good public policy, pure and simple.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

We'll vote on NDP-3, and I'm advised the vote on NDP-3 applies to NDP-7.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Colleagues, we'll do PV-24, hopefully before question period, and we'll go to Mr. Hyer.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment doesn't have anything to say about pay or non-pay, and it's very simple and straightforward. It emphasizes part of the point that Mr. Rankin was making, that on this point alone legislation would be better than regulation and make it certain.

This amendment will make sections 247.1 to 247.4 of the Canada Labour Code applicable to federal interns, and these are the sexual harassment provisions only.