Evidence of meeting #42 for Finance in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was students.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:45 p.m.
Labour and Class Actions Lawyer, Goldblatt Partners LLP, As an Individual
Yes, absolutely. I think there's also concern about the displacement effect, where this may be potentially displacing paid jobs. This raises a number of concerns about its impacts on the labour market and on volunteerism.
12:45 p.m.
Bloc
12:45 p.m.
Labour and Class Actions Lawyer, Goldblatt Partners LLP, As an Individual
Yes, I believe students should have been provided support for paid work, and, if support were going to be given to the charitable sector, a different approach should have been taken. From what I can see and from what I've heard from folks in the sector, this was not what they were asking for.
12:45 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Mandryk, since the beginning of April, have you or anyone in the labour law community, from either an association or a not-for-profit organization, been consulted on the implementation of a program like this one? Do you know of anyone in the community who was consulted on the appropriateness of implementing a program like this?
12:45 p.m.
Labour and Class Actions Lawyer, Goldblatt Partners LLP, As an Individual
I was not consulted by the government. I'm not aware of anyone who was.
If I had been consulted, I would have raised these very serious concerns about the impropriety of this sort of arrangement.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thanks to our witnesses for being here today. We hope your families are safe and healthy.
I'm going to start with you, Mr. Aylward. Thank you very much to all the public servants across the country, who are doing such amazing work in the midst of this pandemic.
Mr. Aylward, I'll start off with a very simple question. One of the very worrisome aspects of this case is that WE submitted a proposal the same day that it was announced. High-level public servants—Ms. Wernick, in her testimony last week—said that they were unaware of the details of the program, yet WE was able to submit something the very same day it was announced by the Prime Minister.
In your experience with public servants, have you ever seen a case in which an organization submits the very day that the details become public?
12:45 p.m.
National President, Public Service Alliance of Canada
No. Normally the procurement system doesn't allow for that. Normally it's a very labour-intensive process that you have to go through for any kind of contracting out. There are requests for proposals and all that. This was somewhat unusual, for sure.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Yes, it provides the same kind of worry or concern that comes up when we talk about insider trading.
Now, none of the testimony we've heard so far suggests that WE would in any way be keeping to privacy laws, accountability, or such things as bilingualism and all of the federal laws that govern what should actually be federal programs.
Is this part of your concern—the issue of accountability and all the laws that govern public servants and our public sector, which don't seem to be involved at all in this sole-source granting of money to WE?
12:50 p.m.
National President, Public Service Alliance of Canada
Yes, certainly the appearance of that is there, along with, of course, labour standards. If I work more than 100 hours, I'm going to get $1,000; if I work any more hours than that but less than 200, that is all I'm going to get. As I said in my statement, it's a little bit ironic that the government puts in conditions under the Canada Labour Code for unpaid internships, and yet expects students to basically work for nothing.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Yes, part of the controversy is around the $43 million that would have gone directly to WE. We know that the public service has been underfunded. The Phoenix system, for example, is something that should have been fixed years ago and yet the resources have not been put into place to fix the Phoenix system for our hard-working, dedicated public servants.
What would $43 million mean in terms of actually providing supports to our existing public sector? Second, Canada Summer Jobs is cruelly underfunded. In my neck of the woods and right across the country, we have many positions that people have applied for that can't be met because there's not adequate Canada Summer Jobs funding for students. What should the government have done? Should they have made that decision to invest that money in Canada Summer Jobs, as so many people across the country are saying?
12:50 p.m.
National President, Public Service Alliance of Canada
Nobody is disputing that students need help at this time. They need assistance. I think everyone agrees with that. I think this money, including the $43.5 million, could have been much better put towards students, including paying students for work and providing them with not only income opportunities but also, as I said, work experience. Everybody would have benefited from that for sure.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you very much.
I'm going to go on to Mr. Mandryk.
Mr. Mandryk, you pointed out all of the liability issues. Obviously we're hearing that systematically there was no due diligence done either of the organization or the consequences. How would the federal government potentially be liable simply by having this unfair structure, this exploitation of students, as you've said?
One of the components involved teachers being paid to recruit students. What would the liability in employment law be for the teachers who I suspect would have had to, in some way, get around privacy laws, to contact their students to recruit them for this program?
I guess what we're looking for is the overall liability consequences of pushing ahead with this program without the due diligence being done at any level, it appears.
12:50 p.m.
Labour and Class Actions Lawyer, Goldblatt Partners LLP, As an Individual
Yes, that's another important liability piece to this. The direct agencies that are getting the work could be on the hook as employers. That could be wages over time—things like that— that they'd have to be responsible for. The government could be tied in in a number of ways. As I said, it could be a common employer. As you alluded to, there could be negligence claims potentially. There could be allegations that it was acting as a sort of labour supply company, given its role in acting as the pay master. You raise an interesting and important point about what the potential liability could be for others involved in this. I think that's a real concern and something that this program raises. It adds to the many concerns with the program as structured.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Both you and Mr. Aylward have pointed to the overriding of minimum wage laws. What are the consequences for overriding provincial minimum wage laws that have been set up to protect workers of any age—whether they're students or not—right across the country? What kind of liability and what kinds of legal consequences could be engendered from overriding those minimum standards?
12:55 p.m.
Labour and Class Actions Lawyer, Goldblatt Partners LLP, As an Individual
First of all, it's interesting, in that the federal government here is initiating this program, but these are workers who are under provincial employment standards. Presumably it's the provincial employment standards that would apply. The federal government can't do away with those. These positions have to comply with provincial employment standards. If these folks are found to be employees, these workers would be entitled to minimum wage, overtime, etc. There could also be administrative penalties that could be put in place against those involved. Those vary somewhat province to province. Certainly there are real potential liability issues under provincial employment standards legislation.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you, both.
We'll turn to Mr. Cumming and then go on to Ms. Koutrakis, who's sharing her time with Mr. Gerretsen.
Mr. Cumming.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
James Cumming Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll start with Mr. Aylward.
The public service often works with not-for-profits. I don't think anybody here is debating that the not-for-profits do fantastic work in this country. Do you not find it incredibly unusual that a charity like WE—which has a very specific mission and which works in a very specific area—was selected to do a broad-based program with volunteer engagement with students? It strikes me as incredibly unusual.
12:55 p.m.
National President, Public Service Alliance of Canada
Yes, thank you. I can do nothing but agree with you. When you look at the timing and everything else about this, it is extremely unusual.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
James Cumming Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Further to that, if they were so equipped to get this done, then why $40 million...? It was recently announced that they've been laying people off. They've had to hire people to be able to execute the program. I'm just perplexed as to why WE and why not a variety of the other programs that we currently have in place and that you've already spoken to?