Evidence of meeting #87 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:25 p.m.
Conservative
3:25 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
This is the one NDP amendment on unpaid interns that I have some concerns about, Mr. Chair.
Prohibiting any benefit to employers, depending on how that's defined, concerns me somewhat because I think that with unpaid interns, there is often, and I would expect in the majority of cases, significant benefit to employers. I agree, though, that for unpaid interns the focus should be on the experience for the interns.
I'll just ask Mr. Rankin this first. He had mentioned some provinces that have this, but does he understand a concern of somebody who broadly supports the other amendments but believes this may be defined too stringently in some ways?
3:25 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
I appreciate that comment and there's wisdom in what Mr. Brison said. I completely agree,
That's why, perhaps at the risk of overstating it, the amendment is there for you to see. NDP-6 says “few or no benefits accrued to the employer”, so there's an effort to make sure that if it's employment it should be paid employment, unless it's for that worker's CV to get experience in the workforce.
The wording, “few or no benefits” talks not about an absolute test, as you can tell, but something less than that. That's what Ontario has done. I believe British Columbia and other provinces have gone the same way. If an employer is receiving a substantial benefit from unpaid labour, that is exploitation.
That is contrary to the letter and spirit of every employment statute in the land. I don't see why we would treat unpaid people this way. If the employer's benefiting substantially from their employment, they should pay these people. Period. Full stop.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
I'm satisfied with that explanation from my honourable and learned colleague Mr. Rankin.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
3:30 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Chair, I'd like a recorded division.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
We'll have a recorded vote on amendment NDP-6.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
We'll have a recorded vote on clause 89. Can we apply it to clauses 89 to 91, or just on clause 89?
3:30 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Just to clause 89.
(Clause 89 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(Clauses 90 and 91 agreed to)
(On clause 92)
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
3:30 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Right, thank you, Chair. That's in the package of amendments, of course, and it would make it very clear that we're capping the hours of work and ensuring that time off and holidays are available. In other words, if you're going to have these unpaid interns, why not make sure they have a 40-hour work week, an eight-hour day, and the same kind of regular time off and holidays as other workers? In this bill before us, the government simply fails to extend many of the basic protections to unpaid interns, as I've said over and over again. It seems to me that limits on the hours of work, and entitlement to time off and holidays are obviously necessary.
I'm going to say again, when we had our private member's bill, I called it the Andy Ferguson bill. I called it that because of this poor, unpaid intern, who fell asleep at the wheel and crashed into a tractor-trailer in Edmonton. After working back-to-back shifts, he was exhausted and didn't have any of the protections that our amendment would provide him. It would limit the number of hours unpaid interns can work to a maximum of eight hours a day, 40 hours a week, and give them 12 hours of rest between shifts—which this gentleman did not have—and give them access to the same breaks and meal periods as other employees have. It seems to me that that's just the way Canadians would do business, and it's shocking that people would resist those kinds of basic protections.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I really don't think the member clearly understands we're talking about regulations here. Our plan is to consult with interns to get this right. I know the member's heart is in the right place, but if he's serious about getting this right, he should come on board with us and support what we're proposing, and consult with interns so we can make the appropriate changes to the regulations at the appropriate time.
This amendment should also be rejected. The legislation already includes regulation-making authority under proposed paragraph 264(i)(i.1), to apply and adapt an appropriate set of labour standards for unpaid interns, following consultations with stakeholders. This amendment is redundant and would also unduly restrict regulation-making authority under proposed paragraph 264(i)(i.1), in advance of considering the results of consultations with stakeholders as part of the regulatory process.
I would once again urge the member, if he's serious about this, to join us in our consultations with interns so we get these regulations right.
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
I have pages and pages of testimony from interns on this very point, including from the president of the Canadian Intern Association, Claire Seaborn, and Mr. Jonathan Champagne, executive director of the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations. We have consulted far and wide. Let me tell you what John Farrell has said, first about regulation versus legislation: “Firstly, we would prefer that most of the matters that are dealt with within...this bill be in legislation rather than regulations, because that would provide immediate clarity.”
Every lawyer in the land will tell you that a regulation can be changed by the government whenever the government wishes. That is why we would not wait to consult to get it “right”, as was said by Mr. Adler. We have no idea what will be in those regulations. We're not going to buy a pig in a poke. We're not going to treat our unpaid interns to second-class citizenship in this country, which is what the government's bill will do. We think that is simply wrong.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you.
We will have a recorded vote on amendment NDP-8.
(Amendment negatived; nays 6; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 92 agreed to)
(Clause 93 agreed to)
(On clauses 94 to 96)
We thank the officials for that division for being with us here today. We will now move on to division 8, Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, clauses 94 to 96. I do not have any amendments for this division. Can I group clauses 94 to 96 together?
On clause 94, go ahead, Mr. Brison.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
According to an official at the legislative briefing, the Chief Actuary had given notice of his intention to set pension contribution rates for MPs that would be different from those for senators as of January 1, 2016. What were the contribution rates that the Chief Actuary had intended to set, and would they be higher or lower than those for senators? What was the Chief Actuary's rationale for setting different rates?
June 4th, 2015 / 3:35 p.m.
Kim Gowing Senior Director, Pension Policy and Stakeholder Relations, Treasury Board Secretariat
The answer to the first part of your question with respect to the contribution rates would have been that the Chief Actuary—
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
—had given notice of his intention to set different pension contribution rates for MPs as opposed to senators as of January 1, 2016.
3:35 p.m.
Senior Director, Pension Policy and Stakeholder Relations, Treasury Board Secretariat
I wouldn't say that it was his intent to do that. The chief actuary would have to speak to what his role would be, but I would say that it was noted in the previous changes to the MPs' plan that what we refer to as cross-subsidization was occurring within the plan, such that the senators, for example, because they serve for a longer period of time, would be seen as subsidizing the House of Commons part of it.
We want to ensure that the plan is treated as one plan for all members and that all members have exactly the same contribution rates.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Does that clarify it? Thank you.
Can I group the votes together then? Or should we do them separately?
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
We intend to oppose clause 94 and clause 96, but support clause 95.