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.
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, this amendment clearly should be rejected for the same reasons that NDP-3 was rejected.
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll suspend the meeting now and we'll resume at 3:15 p.m.
Thank you.
3:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I call this meeting back to order.
This is meeting 87 of the Standing Committee on Finance. We are continuing our clause-by-clause discussion of Bill C-59.
We are at division 7, clause 89. Within this clause we have amendments NDP-4, NDP-5, and NDP-6.
We'll go to Mr. Rankin for NDP-4 or for all of them together.
3:15 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
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.
3:20 p.m.
Conservative
3:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Chair.
First of all, I take great umbrage to Mr. Rankin's assertion earlier that I said, “Don't worry, be happy”. If he's going to quote me, which I don't fault him for, I would encourage him to quote me accurately.
As far as NDP-4 goes, clearly this motion should be rejected. Certainly, internships that are undertaken as part of a course of study at an educational institution, such as co-op placements, are a long-standing practice and the bill recognizes a key component of many educational programs. The proposed legislation provides flexibility to permit these types of internships, while recognizing that educational institutions already provide oversight that helps to ensure that these internships offer legitimate and meaningful learning experiences.
NDP-5 should also be rejected. The six criteria recognize other situations outside the context of an educational program where individuals can benefit from the experience gained from a short-term, unpaid internship. For example, recent graduates, new immigrants, and individuals returning to the workforce after a prolonged absence may also wish to participate in an unpaid internship. The six-part test will ensure that employers are able to offer legitimate learning experiences to them within the limitations established by the six criteria.
I'm unclear. Did the member talk about NDP-6?
3:20 p.m.
Conservative
3:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON
NDP-4, 5, and 6.
As far as NDP-6 goes, once again this motion should be rejected. The proposed legislation—
3:20 p.m.
Conservative
3:20 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
That's right. NDP-6 is only in the event that our previous amendment fails.
June 4th, 2015 / 3:20 p.m.
Conservative
3:20 p.m.
Conservative
3:20 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
I don't understand where I misquoted Mr. Adler. If I did, I wish to apologize. I don't know what I said that was inaccurate. I made notes when you spoke. You said that this could—
3:20 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Yes. Mr. Adler said, in reference to NDP-7, that it could have the unintended consequence of prohibiting volunteers in the federal sphere. He also said in respect to NDP-3 that we could leave it all to regulations, “It is expected that...protections related to sexual harassment...will be provided to unpaid interns through these regulations. The regulations will be put in place as quickly as possible.” I believe those were his exact words.
I think we are doing a huge disservice to our young people by saying just wait, we'll bring in regulations. Why can't they enjoy the same kind of protections as other Canadian workers? I don't get it. Why should they not have this kind of clear, statutory protection. Not regulations that can be changed at the whim of the Governor in Council.
I'm not making this up, Chair. We know what happened to Mr. Ferguson who died when he didn't have these kinds of protections. I know that sexual harassment has been the subject of the Canadian Intern Association's testimony as real and present in our workforce. Why wouldn't we give them that statutory protection? I'm shocked.
3:25 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON
Chair, through you I accept the member's apology, I take this very seriously, as I know all members in the House do. What I did object to was the member's assertion that I said “don't worry, be happy” because I never did say that.
That would be implying that I take this lightly and I don't. I know none of us in this place do. I just wanted to make that point.
3:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you.
We will then go to NDP-4.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll do the vote on NDP-5.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll go to NDP-6.
On that, Mr. Rankin.
3:25 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
The reason NDP-6 is here is in the event that our others were defeated, as they have been, it's just to say, for goodness sakes we have to ensure that interns are the sole beneficiary of unpaid internships, not people who can exploit them, not employers who can take advantage of their unpaid status. We're simply saying that if you're going to allow these unpaid internships outside of an educational setting—you'll recall that there are two categories, students and non-students, and I'm speaking to that second category outside of an educational setting—at the very least we need to make sure that unpaid interns benefit from unpaid internships and not employers.
This amendment would bring the federal government into line with models in the provinces. This isn't radical. I believe that British Columbia does, and I know that Ontario does, prohibit companies from receiving a substantial benefit from unpaid labour.
This takes me back. We have a crisis in youth unemployment and now we want to exploit the youth—though outside the youth category—by saying that employers can derive a substantial benefit from unpaid labour. This is entirely contrary to the spirit and intent of the Canada Labour Code and it's simply wrong.
3:25 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Once again, this motion should be rejected.
The proposed legislation does strike a balance between protecting unpaid interns and encouraging employers to offer legitimate meaningful unpaid internships that are primarily for the benefit of the intern. Stipulating that employers should not benefit at all from an unpaid internship would go too far in limiting employer flexibility to offer legitimate meaningful internships that are unpaid.
Thank you.