If I may, Chair, perhaps I can set the stage again.
I was speaking, as you know, about part 3, division 7, dealing with unpaid interns. In general, I tried to make the point that we're providing much less clarity and certainty to the primarily young people who are the subject of the amendments. We're providing them with a much lower level of protection than other Canadians will have under the Canada Labour Code, for the reasons I've said.
That's the import of the amendments I've brought forward. I think it might be useful to explain why I feel so strongly that the government's provisions just don't do the job. We've seen the kind of problems that young people have faced. Andy Ferguson—in your riding, Chair—was an unpaid intern who worked back-to-back shifts as an unpaid intern. He was 22 and he was killed in a car accident. These are real problems that are facing us.
We're looking to provide in this legislation what is not presently here—namely, protections against sexual harassment and some of the other aspects I talked about, such as protection against losing your job if you're injured, or protection if you make a complaint against your employer. I understand from the initial response of Mr. Adler, for the Conservatives, that somehow these kinds of sensible changes we're proposing would prohibit volunteers, or could do so, in the federal sphere. We absolutely reject that.
I want you to hear what Claire Seaborn, the president of the Canadian Intern Association, said: “I speak to interns who have been sexually harassed frequently.” She also said, “This bill would provide no protections for them”, and “As it stands right now this is completely inadequate and a complete misunderstanding of the experience of many young interns.” That's why we're putting these amendments forward.
According to Claire Seaborn, the amendments “would put intern students and entry level workers in a worse position than they're currently in under the Canada Labour Code”, leaving interns “vulnerable to exploitation and possible abuse”.
Mr. Adler said for the government, the Conservatives, don't worry, be happy: the regulations will be there, we'll fix them, we'll put the regulations in as quickly as possible, we promise; don't worry.
I don't think that's good enough. I don't understand why we cannot give these unpaid interns, these young people, the kinds of protection that other Canadian workers enjoy under the Canada Labour Code. That's what our bill would have done, and the government of course voted against it. I find this inability to get through why this is important very troubling.
I've already addressed NDP amendment 7 with regard to providing the kind of clarity that I think is required.
With respect to NDP-3, we wanted to extend protection against sexual harassment in the workplace, not on some kind of a wish and a prayer that the regulations might come along and provide, which of course, as you know, Mr. Chair, can be changed at any time the government wishes. Rather, we wanted to provide them with the same kind of statutory protection that other workers enjoy. To provide our young people with less protection is simply beyond me. It's just unbelievable that the government wouldn't see this as a reasonable place to go.
You asked me to speak about our proposed NDP-4. I'd be happy to do that. This would prohibit the replacement of paid employees with student interns.
Here's what is so surprising. As the bill stands, it doesn't prohibit replacing paid employees with academic unpaid interns; it only does that for the non-academic side. As you know, there are two categories: there are the students, and then there are the other unpaid interns. Shockingly, I had to think, when I first read this, that this was a drafting error, or a lacuna, I don't know. NDP-4 would prohibit the replacement of paid employees with student interns.
As it stands, it doesn't prohibit replacing paid employees with academic unpaid interns. It only does so for that other category, not for students. Our amendment would ensure that no employer would be allowed to replace paid workers with unpaid interns, whether they're students or non-students. It also would give a duty to inform student interns that they will not be paid for their activities, a kind of protection at the front end.
Mr. Chair, that's the burden of NDP amendment 4.
Finally, NDP amendment 5 is pretty simple. We want to prohibit the use of non-academic, unpaid internships, full stop. Why? Why do we take that provision? Why do we take that perspective?
You may remember, Mr. Chair, that Bell Mobility until recently had hundreds of unpaid interns, which led to a material benefit to that company, as these workers were required to work excessive overtime. We think that is wrong. We think allowing the window to open on similar exploitative programs is simply wrong. We think paid labour is the way to go. Opportunities for students ought to be provided; we recommend that and support that entirely. But why these non-academic, unpaid internships for up to a year?
The Province of Saskatchewan has that kind of protection, prohibiting the use of unpaid internships outside of educational programs. I salute the Government of Saskatchewan for that. Why can't our federal government do so? After all, Mr. Chair, we're talking about huge companies—not just the government, but banks, telecoms, broadcasters. Surely they can afford to pay their young workers, especially when we have youth unemployment in Canada twice the national average.
Mr. Chair, just by way of conclusion on these amendments, we think this is good public policy. We think it's required in this economy, and we think it's shocking, frankly, that the government doesn't see fit to make those kinds of changes.