Bill C-473 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act (balanced representation)

This enactment amends the Financial Administration Act to achieve balanced representation in the number of women and men serving as directors on boards of parent Crown corporations by establishing the minimum proportion of each sex on those boards.

(The House resumed at 12 noon)

The House resumed from June 14 consideration of the motion that Bill S-6, An Act respecting the election and term of office of chiefs and councillors of certain First Nations and the composition of council of those First Nations, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Financial Administration Act

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

moved that Bill C-473, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act (balanced representation), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, the government recently prorogued, so here we are once again, debating my bill, Bill C-473. I am pleased to speak to this bill today and to speak on behalf of the thousands of Canadian women who aspire to a high-level career.

I would like to begin by saying that I would have preferred to see this issue settled sooner. I would have preferred that its legislative course had not been interrupted by prorogation. That way, today we would be taking action, not still debating.

The issue of equality between women and men in a fair and equitable Canadian society was always at the heart of my previous professional life and now, today, as a politician, I am truly proud to be able to contribute to this cause.

As introduced in the House last February, Bill C-473 proposes a simple but effective improvement to the current legislation governing our public financial administration.

Specifically, the bill would give Canadians balanced representation on the boards of directors of crown corporations. It is a corrective measure to help us reach our goal of parity on the boards of directors of Canadian crown corporations.

The question of gender equity in the management of our crown corporations is not unknown to Canada's Parliament. In the House, the Senate and committees, the fact that still too few women are involved in the management of our political institutions and Canadian businesses remains an important problem that we must consider if we want to be able to say we live in a society with equal rights.

I remind members that this bill has to do with equality of representation and affects only crown corporations, not private companies. Since Canadian women are taxpayers just like men, it is as though they are shareholders of crown corporations, just like men.

Their taxes go towards crown corporations, so it makes since that, as shareholders, they should have the right to be heard, considered and represented in proportion to their demographic weight in society.

In spite of this, and while Canadian society has made many strides toward women's rights in recent decades, the figures show that the government lacks the vision and will to make this issue a priority.

The most recent data show that over 2,000 Canadians occupy positions in more than 200 crown corporations, organizations, boards of directors and commissions across the country.

Of all the positions available on the boards of directors of these organizations, only 27% of senior management positions are occupied by women. The situation is even worse for presidents of boards of directors. The most recent figures show that only 16 of the 84 presidents are women.

Sadly, we are a long way from the equal representation that would reflect Canada's demographic makeup and offer professional growth and development opportunities to our talented women.

With women as 27% of directors of crown corporations, we are far behind the 40% reached in most Scandinavian countries. Other countries such as Spain, France and the Netherlands have introduced incentives for other kinds of institutions.

As our country has evolved, it has established a robust democratic process for appointments to fill available positions on the boards of our crown corporations.

Ministers manage the appointments within their own portfolios, and submit their nominations to the Governor in Council.

As part of the selection process, criteria are established to define the essential qualifications for a given position. A number of mechanisms are used to attract a large number of potential candidates, such as the Governor-in-Council appointments website, executive recruiting agencies, newspapers and specialized publications. Canadians who express an interest are evaluated according to the requirements of the position they apply for.

In regard to the balanced representation issue, one of the problems our society had to address was that, in the past, there were not enough women with the necessary qualifications to meet the requirements of the position. This problem disappeared over the years, with mass education for Canadians and women's access to post-secondary studies.

These days, according to a number of experts who have looked at the issue, one stubborn problem that persists is that we are still looking for candidates in traditional recruitment pools, where men are still in the majority. Two factors we thought had almost disappeared from contemporary society are still very much in place: the “old boys' club”—the traditional recruiting network for executive positions—and the familiar “glass ceiling”, which, unfortunately, is still hard to crack for women aspiring to professional careers at the highest levels.

My bill proposes an indirect approach to eliminating these two stereotypes. Once the boards of our crown corporations have to comply with gradual gender representation quotas, those responsible for recommending appointments will have to show their creativity and willingness to expand the limits of their recruiting methods and broaden their search for candidates with the required skills to non-traditional recruitment pools.

Canada has a highly qualified female workforce, and we can be proud of that. Our working women include more than 60,000 professional accountants, 20,000 lawyers, over 16,000 engineers, thousands of university professors and hundreds of actuaries. There are therefore plenty of women with the talents and skills required to fill these positions. All we need is to be given the resources, as a society, to go out and recruit them.

Now, the question is why the government would create quotas rather than voluntary incentives. It must be said that some groups and organizations have come out against this kind of mandatory reinforcement measure. The justification that is usually given is the fact that the government should not become involved in the choices of outside organizations, like businesses.

First, let us remember that my bill does not affect any organizations other than crown corporations. I would like to remind hon. members of this again because, unfortunately, the Conservatives tend to want to discredit my bill based on the fact that they took action by setting up an advisory committee in 2012 in order to find ways of increasing the number of women on company boards of directors.

However, my bill has nothing to do with corporate governance. What is more, the committee was supposed to provide the government with clear recommendations in the fall of 2013 and still has not done so.

In short, I would like to point out that the problem of unbalanced representation on the boards of crown corporations will not be resolved through proposed solutions that deal with corporate governance. Let us not confuse the two subjects. Let us work together to find appropriate solutions that will show the government's real desire to change things by taking action to achieve more balanced representation, meaning more women, on boards of crown corporations.

Members should also understand that the proposed choice of quotas is based on the results of careful reflection by experts, published studies and consultations with professional organizations. That reflection also took place in the light of results observed in other countries, where the problem of balanced representation has been addressed in one way or another.

On this point, I would like to share with my colleagues some more enlightening remarks by Anne Golden, chair of the Conference Board of Canada from 2001 to 2012, who noted that at the current pace, [the way things are going,] it will take 151 years to achieve equity at the top of the organizational ladder if the government does not step in with a mandatory measure.

Another clear example that justifies the establishment of quotas rather than voluntary measures is Norway's failure in this area. In 2003, Norway was the first country to pass legislation providing for gender equality on the board of directors of public limited companies. The legislation extended to crown corporations and came into force in January 2004.

To get to this point, it is important to know that the government had originally tried to negotiate voluntary quotas with the private sector to reach 40% representation of women on boards, with an ultimatum that restrictive legislative measures would be introduced should the desired gender representation not be attained by July 2005. A survey by Statistics Norway showed that by the deadline, only 13% of companies complied with the voluntary quotas, with women representing only 16% of board members.

As a result, legislation was applied to public limited companies. That legislation came into force in January 2006. This example shows that voluntary measures simply do not work.

Quebec, an example from our own backyard, is worth mentioning, since it has been very successful. Quebec is the only province to have passed legislation aimed at achieving gender equality on crown corporation board of directors since 2006. Efforts in this regard have proven successful, to say the least.

In December 2011, the deadline by which crown corporations were to have achieved gender equality within the five-year period, 141 women and 128 men held positions on the board of directors of 22 Quebec crown corporations. Women made up the majority, or 52.4%, of directors appointed. Unfortunately, balanced representation in the number of women and men appointed to the board of each crown corporation subject to the act still needs to be achieved.

In the case of both Norway and Quebec, the legislation did not cause any problems or result in any additional paperwork. Needless to say, crown corporations are obviously very well managed.

Imposing quotas, which could be temporary, could prove to be an effective tool in making our public institutions more democratic. Given how hard it is to achieve gender equality without corrective action, it is the government's duty to bring in effective methods to correct this injustice. Things will not simply change over time.

I would like to share with my colleagues some other important things I have thought about. I hope that they will consider this when we vote in the next few weeks. A 50/50 quota is the most neutral gender-based measure. It avoids all discrimination. Quotas do not discriminate. They compensate for the current barriers that prevent women from exercising their fair share of representation.

Women, as citizens, have the right to balanced representation, especially when the taxes they pay are used to finance the crown corporations. Women who sit on boards of directors add different points of view, diverse knowledge and a change in the dynamic. It is good for business.

These days, Canadian women are just as qualified as Canadian men. It is very important that the government hire outside of traditional, male-dominated recruitment circles. Imposing quotas has not caused any confusion, injustice or problem whatsoever in the jurisdictions where they have been applied. That is why I think using quotas is the best solution for the boards of directors at crown corporations, when we have such a success story in our own backyard.

I may have focused till now on the legislative measure proposed in my bill, but I would now like to discuss the time it is taking to achieve equality between the sexes when it comes to our financial administration. Various approaches have been adopted by countries that have implemented similar measures and, in the case of Quebec, the provincial government gave itself a five-year timeframe.

In light of the examples we are familiar with and in order to maximize the chances of success, Bill C-473 proposes a realistic six-year timeframe. The current figures have female representation hovering around 27%, so it would be realistic to put in place the tools necessary to reach 30% in the next two years, 40% in four years and, ultimately, parity in six years.

Obviously, if a board of directors were composed of an uneven number of members, it would stand to reason that there would be an imbalance in the female-male representation.

Before concluding my speech and moving on to questions and comments, I would like to take the few minutes remaining to invite my colleagues from all parties to take advantage of this unique opportunity to showcase the skills and aptitudes of female professionals across Canada.

It is my profound belief that, with this bill, Canada has an opportunity to emerge from the stone age, position itself as a global leader in gender equality, and catch up with many other G20 countries.

Giving competent women an opportunity to realize their full potential and contribute to the development of their community is a question of fairness, rights, democracy and economic prosperity. Everyone wins, and I do hope my colleagues here today will come to the same conclusions as I have on the matter.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would just like to mention that crown corporations operate at arm's length from the government and that we on this side of the House believe in having women on boards.

Statistics show that companies that have women on their boards are more profitable, but that does not mean that we have to legislate quotas. Women have earned the right to be appointed based on their hard work and their experience, not simply because they are women.

As Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, I am proud to say that since 2007, more than $46 million has been approved through the women's program at Status of Women Canada for projects that promote women's economic security and prosperity. We believe that a more competitive, corporate Canada requires appointments based on merit and excellence.

There are many very qualified women across Canada. I have had the privilege of meeting many very talented women in my riding of London North Centre. For example, there are three female presidents of our hospitals, but there are many more just like them. I know that they would not want to sit on a board simply because they are female and someone needed to fill a quota. It is an insult to women.

I would like to ask the member opposite why she thinks women are not qualified enough to sit on their own merit when they sit on a board.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I find the minister's arguments quite offensive. First off, a great number of Canadian women are qualified, overqualified even. The number of female graduates of public administration programs has risen since 1988. These women are ready to head crown corporations. No one is forcing them to do so. We merely need to give them the right to.

I would remind the minister that these are ministerial appointments. Until now, the Conservatives have done very little to advance the status of women. They made drastic cuts to Status of Women Canada and have reopened the abortion debate. I do not believe we need any lessons from the Conservative Party.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague on her bill and her speech. There is no doubt that we have made some progress toward greater gender balance and equality. Much remains to be done, however. What my colleague's bill proposes are quotas.

I would like to point out that quotas are in place in countries like Norway, Spain and France, just to name a few. My colleague has aptly defended the idea of establishing quotas to achieve gender parity on corporate boards.

In her opinion, what still needs to be done to achieve gender parity?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her intervention. She is always a strong advocate of women's issues.

We suggest gradually introducing quotas over many years because we want to help crown corporations fulfill their mandates. The percentage increases very gradually from 30% to 40% to 50%. Corporations will have six years to comply.

As we know, the Conference Board of Canada said it would take 151 years to reach the goal if we just let things happen. I do not believe we should let things happen. These rules are not meant for private companies. They apply to crown corporations, which are completely different. I believe we have an opportunity to be an inspiration to all Canadians and businesses by showing the way forward.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on a comment from the other side. We commonly hear that the crown corporations are at arm's length. What is not at arm's length is who gets to make the appointments to boards. It is cabinet. It is the Conservative government that makes the appointments to boards.

We have had the Conservatives in power for quite some time, and we still see women being stalled and not being appointed. I wonder if my colleague could speak to that.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my speech, I mentioned that the old boys' clubs have a tradition of getting close to the government and being close at hand when appointments are made. Appointments are made by ministers and approved by the Governor General. There is no reason not to appoint women to sit on crown corporations' boards. After all, crown corporations are really part of our jurisdiction. We have a responsibility to take action, as does the minister.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns about Bill C-473. Before I start, I want to correct the record and indicate that funds at Status of Women are actually at their highest level ever.

The bill put forward by the hon. member opposite would use legislated quotas to force the government to balance the representation of women and men on the boards of directors of crown corporations.

The government agrees that the presence of women on corporate boards brings a different perspective and an important voice to crown corporations. However, legislated quotas come with many potential problems, and that is why we cannot support the bill. For example, there are rigid and arbitrary thresholds that could get in the way of appointing people who reflect Canada's diversity in terms of linguistic, regional and employment equity representation, including women.

Legislated quotas could also result in the potential disruption of commercial operations and good corporate governance. For instance, gender quotas could restrict or limit the pool of potential candidates for a vacant position, leaving the board unable to meet quorum while the minister searches for an appropriate person. In short, the problems with imposed quotas far outweigh the benefits.

However, no one should doubt our government's commitment to women having a voice in Canada's public and private sector boardrooms. We know that women contribute in every respect to corporate enterprises throughout Canada, but we believe that a more competitive corporate Canada requires that appointments to boards are based on merit and excellence. That is why we support a voluntary approach. The voluntary approach is a more flexible way of meeting the government's objectives of appointing the most suitable candidate, based on a number of requirements and competencies.

At the same time, we believe in taking concrete action to advance more women into leadership roles across the country and our economy. For example, working in partnership with private sector firms, we supported the work of the Canadian Board Diversity Council. This group is educating the business community on the value of board diversity. It is also equipping a diversity of board-ready, high-potential candidates, including women, with the tools to pursue board positions.

In addition, in economic action plan 2012, we announced the creation of an advisory council to increase opportunities for women's leadership on corporate boards and to keep our economy strong. Its members were announced by the Minister of Status of Women in April.

The advisory council is comprised of women and men representing a wide range of experience within the corporate sector. All have distinguished themselves as inspired, forward-thinking leaders and decision-makers, committed to the principles of equality, diversity and excellence in our country's boardrooms. These prominent Canadians include John Manley, president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives; Monique Leroux, head of Desjardins; and Charles Winograd, chair of the TMX Group.

The role of the advisory council is to advise the minister on how businesses in the private sector can increase the number of women on their corporate boards. The council is also being asked to suggest how industry and government can track and measure progress under this initiative, and what tools, if any, the government should employ to achieve this goal. It will suggest ways of recognizing or rewarding companies that meet their targets for increasing the representation of women on their boards. Finally, the advisory council will report back with its recommendations this fall, and we look forward to its input and ideas.

Another example of actions that our government has taken to empower women is in economic action plan 2013. Economic action plan 2013 includes a number of measures to better connect Canadians with job opportunities, which will help increase the representation of women in all types of careers.

In addition, since 2007, more than $46 million has been approved through the women's program at Status of Women Canada for projects that promote women's economic security and prosperity. This past July we announced that, through Status of Women Canada, we were providing $266,630 in funding for a 36-month project called Roots/Routes to Women's Leadership and Empowerment: Best Practices.

The project promotes leadership through economic empowerment for women in Toronto. Participants receive leadership training and mentorship to help strengthen their skills and confidence and assist them in taking on leadership roles in their communities. Our support for this project reflects our government's desire to empower women, by putting in place the building blocks of success for more women and girls to prosper in their own lives.

We understand that Canada is better off when the talents and skills of women and girls are represented in every sector of society, in government at every level, and from the grassroots all the way to the boardroom. We know that the more we break down barriers and inspire young women and girls to pursue a wide variety of career options, the stronger Canada will be.

Where we differ from the hon. member opposite is that we believe in creating sustainable pathways to success rather than legislating them. That is why we do not support Bill C-473 with its legislated quotas as the best way to achieve gender balance on the boards of crown corporations.

The voluntary way is the more effective way, and we believe it is the better way for Canadian women, crown corporations and Canada's economy to succeed.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to address Bill C-473, legislation that would amend the Financial Administration Act to achieve balanced representation in the number of women and men serving as directors on boards of parent crown corporations by establishing the minimum proportion of each sex on those boards. I want to commend my colleague for her initiative and her remarks in debate today.

Before I discuss the merits of the legislation, I would like to note the context in which this debate occurs. November 25 was the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. It marked the first of 16 days of activism against gender violence, which will conclude on December 10, international Human Rights Day. During this period, as members know, we will observe, on December 6, the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, marking the anniversary of the 1989 murders of 14 young women at l'École Polytechnique de Montréal. The truth of this tragedy should not be ignored, marginalized, or otherwise sanitized. Simply put, these 14 women were murdered simply because they were women, a fact that finds expression in global violence against women both domestically and internationally.

While I know the bill before us is not on the subject of gender violence, I believe that we must situate our debate on gender parity within the broader context of discussing women's rights. At the risk of repeating myself in the chamber, although it is a moment and a message that bear repeating, Canada should lead the way and heed the call, first affirmed 20 years ago at the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna, that women's right are human rights, and there are no human rights that do not include the rights of women. It is up to us to give expression to this message through concrete action, and it should be clear to all listening to this debate that the tools to promote the objectives of equality are within our own hands. We must commit ourselves to this cause without delay.

I have been inspired by the work of civil society and NGOs in this regard, but most of all, I have been inspired by young people who are leading the call for change. As many members are aware, McGill University held its annual women in House program last week, bringing McGill women students to Parliament to meet with MPs to discuss encouraging more participation among women in public life. I was privileged to participate in a panel, which included representation from all parties, as part of this inspiring gathering. I would like to publicly thank the organizers for their hard work in achieving this year's event success.

As I noted in my remarks to the visiting students, it is a shame that while women make up 50.9% of the Canadian population, 70 million-plus strong in the 2011 census, in the current House, women have barely one-quarter of the seats. This is a result of policy choices we have made and could change. While I will not go into the details here, we have seen in examples around the world, using, for instance, Norway and Sweden as examples, that if we remove obstacles such as financial barriers, the old boys' network, and the like, more women will run and more women will be elected, and we can improve gender parity in the Commons.

As an aside, I would be remiss if I did not note that in the wake of this week's by-elections, I look forward to welcoming the new member for Toronto Centre, Chrystia Freeland, who I have no doubt will make many important contributions to, among other things, women's rights and gender equality in her new role.

Beyond policy options to improve gender parity in Parliament, there are policy options with respect to parity more broadly, and this is what this bill is about. Bill C-473 is at second reading, and thus the question before Parliament is whether it should be sent to committee for further study and refinement. I believe this matter should, indeed, be referred to committee so that witnesses can help inform the discussion and debate. I support the spirit and principle of the bill, as I believe gender parity is a goal we should pursue.

That said, there are some questions to be addressed in committee regarding the scope and implementation of this bill. One such question I think it important to raise is whether the legislation goes far enough in that the number of women on boards may not be an accurate indicator, in and of itself, of women's progress more broadly. In other words, to illustrate with an example, just because we have gender parity on a board heading a science agency does not mean we are doing enough to encourage women to enter and remain in the sciences or that women are equitably represented in decisions regarding science policy.

Certainly, I share the hope that if more women are on boards, these boards and agencies will adopt policies and perspectives that are inclusive and sensitive to the need for minority representation. However, we might wonder whether there are other metrics to be considered in this regard, such as compensation and the promotion of women relative to their male counterparts.

It is interesting to note that the bill comes from the NDP, which generally takes very progressive stances in this regard. Another such question is that this bill seems not to contemplate how a transgendered individual may count or wish to be counted for gender-parity purposes. Simply put, there may be consequences to ambiguity in the legislation as it does reinforce a gender binary to which not all ascribe.

Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, the bill seems to be silent on the matter of sanctions. That is, it does not outline penalties or remedial action for failure to adhere to the objectives outlined in the bill. It specifically states:

An act of the board of directors of a parent Crown corporation...is not invalid on the sole ground that the composition of the board is not in compliance with that section.

In other words, any decision made by a board without the designated gender representation is not invalid if the board does not meet the appropriate gender representation requirements. This clause would seem to lessen the strength of the bill. I think we will have to investigate whether we might have some sort of mechanism whereby we do not merely say, as this bill does, and importantly so, that failure to meet the required parity is “just business as usual” and “we're sorry”. Ultimately, without any consequence for failure to meet the quotas, this entire initiative may become an exercise in symbolism, which again is important but which I am sure the hon. member who introduced the bill did not intend to be the principal impact.

There are multiple approaches to this question. One which I believe ought to be considered, though again this perspective might be informed through debate and in committee, is whether we set a goal of 50% parity in the statute and mandate sanctions when a figure of less than 40% is achieved. While I agree that 40% is not parity, a requirement of 40% with a 50% goal is preferable to a goal set of 50% with a requirement of 0%, which is what the bill would appear to mandate in its current form. I want to be clear on this point because I know there will be some doubts as to what direction this ought to take and whether one should support quotas, affirmative action and the like, and whether this initiative can be effective.

In part, the discussions on this bill will be illuminated by expert witness testimony before the committee. I do hope we can send this bill to committee so that witnesses will provide the evidence that we as parliamentarians can then use to inform our perspectives and the subsequent debate.

Indeed, there is expertise and experience on this question, most notably from my own province of Quebec, as my colleague cited in her remarks. She stated:

As previously mentioned, in Quebec, An Act Respecting the Governance of State-owned Enterprises requires that the Government of Quebec establish a policy with the following objective:

...that the boards of directors of the enterprises as a group include an equal number of women and men...

Just before that line, there is a provision that states:

...that the boards of directors of the enterprises as a group be composed of members whose cultural identity reflects the various segments of Québec society;

We might wonder if a similar provision on cultural community representation ought to be in Bill C-473 as well. From Quebec's experience and international experience in this regard we can better establish how effective such a law is at achieving parity and where the pitfalls are. For example, if it turned out that to comply with the guidelines, some board would simply reduce the overall number of members but that this would have a prejudicial impact on the work of such a board, we might want to reconsider if in some cases a ministerial exemption might be appropriate. This would be a matter in which hearing from Quebec's experience would greatly inform and assist parliamentarians as we address this issue.

Before concluding my remarks, I would be remiss if I did not note that all issues of gender parity are not solved by this bill, though it is certainly a step in the right direction.

For example, the recent appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada of Justice Marc Nadon, was critiqued in that his appointment did not preserve the previous 5:4 gender parity observed on our nation's highest tribunal. While I would agree that judicial excellence and merit ought to be the prime consideration in any appointment, it is troubling to note that under the current Conservative government there have been six justices appointed to the Supreme Court. They are the Honourable Justices Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner and Nadon, only one of whom is a woman. Surely, we can do a better job of achieving and maintaining gender parity at the Supreme Court and of addressing diversity in the judiciary overall, as there is room for improvement on this front.

This bill would not address parity on a body such as the Supreme Court, though one would hope that in 2013 the Government of Canada would adopt a mindset of equality and not need a legislative reminder of what ought otherwise to be considered common sense, if not principle.

As I close, I want to applaud my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for addressing an issue of women's rights wherein the government's leadership has been wanting and wherein Parliament has a distinct role to play.

There are many other concerns, both domestic and international, that time does not permit me to address, including women in armed conflict, pay equity, matrimonial real property, gender budgeting, access to comprehensive medical care, and the like, on which I would encourage the government to adopt a more progressive and inclusive approach. Until then, I hope more private members' bills such as this will seek to advance the equality cause that arguably the government has abandoned.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I want to congratulate the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for her leadership in tabling the bill in this place today.

My colleague who spoke before me has raised a litany of issues on gender parity that have yet to be addressed by either Conservative or Liberal governments in the past. In a couple of years from now, when the New Democrats take control of government, I am looking forward to addressing these matters from the House of Commons. I would point out that given the large proportion of women in the chamber represented by our party, we can have full confidence that the government will also be represented by a lot of women, including in cabinet.

It is important to point out that my colleague has tabled a bill addressing a clear power of the government—that is, its power to make appointments to crown corporations. The bill is very laudatory, because what she is saying is that government should lead by example. In a notation in budget 2012, the government simply encouraged private corporate boards to include more Canadian women, and that was good business sense, but it took no measures itself to increase the number of women on the boards to which it controls appointments.

Of course, the members will remember that the government of the day made great promises for open, transparent, participatory government and tabled its accountability bill. What it has not delivered on, and what it struck down without striking down the payment is its appointments secretariat, which for many years continued to have millions of dollars budgeted when it in fact did no business.

Therefore, there is no clear mechanism whereby members of Parliament can come forward on appointments to make recommendations to encourage more names of women to come forward. The only time members of Parliament can do that is when the speaker refers the matter of appointments to committees and if in the wisdom of the committee it decides that it will address that matter. It is always after the fact. It is after the government has already decided who it is bringing forward as appointments.

Therefore, I fully congratulate my colleague for her very progressive step, which is very clearly based on the information she provided to the House today in keeping with other G8 nations. To represent the interests of all Canadians, we should of course turn to the G8 nations when they are taking more democratic measures.

I think also that the bill is very wise, because it does not recommend that we immediately provide parity on all crown corporations for men and women. There is a very phased increase over time, which is reasonable.

There was opposition by the government member speaking against quotas, saying that somehow women have to have quotas or they will never get appointed, which is an absurd statement. One of the reasons governments turn to quotas is that governments have not voluntarily gone in that direction. We note from past experience, whether it is a private corporate board or a crown corporation, that once someone is appointed to one board, that person is seen as credible and is then appointed to other boards. One merely needs to look at The Globe and Mail each day to see who is being appointed, and then see the long list of boards that the new appointee has been appointed to.

At what point in time can women get an equal foot in the door? At some point in time, the governments have to take certain measures. The measure that my hon. colleague has brought forward is a very reasonable one, and it is in keeping with precedents set by other countries around the world.

Let us look at the record. My colleague was very fair and reasonable in doing an averaging of the number of women appointed to crown corporations. I believe she said it was 27%. I think what the Library of Parliament said was far less than that, less than 20%.

However, let us look at the actual boards. How many women are on the board of Atomic Energy of Canada? The answer is zero. For the National Energy Board, it is 20%. For the Bank of Canada, it is 23% women.

In Canada Post Corporation, we know a lot of posties are women. I think they probably have the direct experience. They could potentially sit on the board. They are good business managers: 18%.

There is the CBC. Both men and women listen to the radio. They can offer sage advice on what would make for good public programming: only 33% for women.

There is the Standards Council of Canada. Women nowadays have all kinds of backgrounds and credentials that they could offer for establishing common standards for the country: a mere 27% are women.

We might be able to defend that there is no necessity for quotas. We might be able to defend that there are so few women on our crown corporations because they are not educated or they do not have the credentials. In my alma mater, the University of Alberta, enrollment in the Alberta School of Business MBA program is 42% women. Maybe that is an indication that there are women of high calibre.

In the University of Alberta faculty of law, the percentage of women enrolled has been a consistent 48% to 51% since the year 2000. I can fully attest that each year the women graduated with the highest percentage of marks from those law schools. Therefore, it is clearly not a matter of women not having the credentials.

Maybe they graduate from university and they do not go on to have any practical experience. I took the time to look at the membership in the law societies across our country. What is the percentage of insured members of the bar in Alberta who are women? It is almost 50%. Almost 2,000 women are registered, practising, insured members of the bar society. In Ontario, almost 7,000 women are practising members of the bar.

Let us look a bit deeper. Maybe they are just new entrants. Maybe this is a new phenomenon that women have decided to enter the professions. Maybe they have the qualifications to actually serve on crown corporations. We look at practising members of the bar in Alberta for 16 to 20 years: 573 women; in Ontario, 2,200 women. Let us look at 26 years and more of women who have practised at the bar: in Alberta, over 700 women; in Ontario, more than 2,400 women.

Therefore, is it a situation where women do not have the qualifications or do not have the experience? One simply raises the question of why the government, in its wisdom, cannot seem to find any qualified women to appoint to its crown corporations.

One of the mechanisms to use, which has been used around the world, is the use of establishing quotas. As my colleague very validly pointed out, around the world various countries have chose mechanisms to make appointments and many of them have chosen specific quotas.

I am deeply troubled in hearing the comment across the way by the member responsible for the Status of Women in suggesting that because my colleague has tabled a bill recommending that there be quotas, that therefore the member does not believe women are qualified. Nothing could be further from the truth. The very reason she has stayed in the House and why she feels it is necessary to bring forward this bill is because there are so many qualified women in the country who are being given short shrift by the government.

In closing, the most important point is the comment made by the government member about the fact that these were stand-alone boards and that the government had nothing to do with them. It is the government that chooses whom to appoint to every federal crown corporation in the country. The members of the government are the ones who make those very choices. In their wisdom, they have decided that they will not look to our chambers of commerce, our places of business, our small businesses, large corporations or to women who are in management to find women who might be able to serve.

It was suggested in a review by the United Nations a few years back that it would serve democracy better around the world if governments would move to ensure greater gender parity in all institutions of government.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona touched on a lot of important issues in this debate, and I am pleased to be here to discuss them.

I want to congratulate and thank the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, who worked very hard on this bill. She does an excellent job, not only for women in her riding and in Quebec, but also for all women. I am very proud to have her as a colleague.

The purpose of Bill C-473 is to achieve gender parity on boards of directors of crown corporations within six years, as my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona mentioned.

After so many years, gender parity is still an issue. It is important to acknowledge the gains and progress made on this issue, but we would be remiss to think that this issue is resolved and that there is nothing more to be done to work towards equality.

In the workforce and elsewhere, women realize that inequality is still deeply entrenched, whether it is in terms of pay or shared responsibilities. We know that women still earn about 70% of what men earn. As for the sharing of responsibilities, more often than not women still do more at home, take more time off to raise children and have more responsibilities. This has a huge impact on equality in our society.

Although women represent half the population, they are far from being equal to men in management, on boards of directors and in politics. We see this in the House of Commons, for example, where only about 25% of MPs are women. This is also the case in provincial and municipal politics. Although there are currently more women premiers than ever before, that does not mean that the number of women in charge of ministries has really increased that much. We really do have a lot of work to do.

For example, in 2012, only 32.8% of the members of Quebec's National Assembly were women. However, women represent 40% of the NDP caucus, something we are proud of. I am proud to chair the NDP women's caucus. There are some really fantastic women in my party on this side of the House. We have that 40% because we went out and recruited women specifically. We worked hard to find female candidates in Quebec, and we encouraged women to run for office.

We must work on achieving better representation, as our party did. As my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona mentioned, when we form the government, I am certain that we will maintain this representation and that we will achieve parity. That will very much change the way Parliament works.

The situation is even worse in Canada's 84 crown corporations, where 16, or 19%, of the presidents are women. The most recent data indicate that there are 2,000 Canadians who hold positions in more than 200 crown corporations, agencies, board of directors or commissions across the country, and that women are under-represented on boards of directors, where they currently hold 27% of senior management positions. In Quebec, women hold only 24% of management positions and 15% of the seats on boards of directors.

I dream of the day when we will have achieved perfect gender equality at work, in relationships, in politics and in every aspect of society and life, whether private or public. I also hope that this equity really makes a difference in the status of all women and all men, all Canadians and all Quebeckers.

As a woman in politics, I believe it is my duty to support other women, motivate them and, above all, encourage them to reach for the sky. Women in politics have a duty to show the women around them that nothing is impossible and that they can achieve anything they put their minds to.

We really need to support one another to truly understand that we can do anything, be it running a business, sitting on a corporate board or being in politics. We are in dire need of role models. As we can plainly see, women only account for roughly a quarter of people in politics and on corporate boards.

There are too few female role models to look up to, which is why we do not always see ourselves in these roles. We need to encourage one another, and women in politics need to lead by example.

By empowering women and girls, we can make a positive difference in the lives of everyone in the community. I would say that women have been working to achieve equity at least since the time my grandmother was my age.

A first step in that direction would be to support my colleague's bill. She is proposing the following parameters: a target of 30% women two years after the bill is implemented, 40% four years after the bill is implemented, and 50% six years after it is implemented. As the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona said, it will not happen in one fell swoop, but over a six-year period.

In addition, this legislative measure will indirectly force crown corporations to expand their search for qualified, effective candidates and to target non-traditional recruitment pools. One reason that it is more difficult to find women in positions of power is that recruiters do not look to traditionally female-dominated areas, such as nursing and education, for those skill sets.

They are wonderful, hard-working people. Nobody would suggest they are not qualified. We need to look at everyone who is active in the community, whether we are recruiting for a board or looking for political candidates. If we want to change the decision-making landscape, we need to widen our search parameters when we are looking for decision-makers.

I want to point out that this bill does not apply to businesses, companies, financial institutions or publicly traded companies. It only applies to crown corporations.

New Democrats firmly believe that supporting this bill means supporting women's equality, a government responsibility. Indeed, the government must lead by example and ensure a better gender balance among people managing public finances, to better reflect Canadian reality.

This will also inspire other institutions and businesses, and help them realize that having women on their board gives them a competitive edge. We will only achieve equality once 50% of board members are women. We must keep in mind that board diversity is key to good governance: its positive impact will extend not only to crown corporations, but to society as a whole.

In closing, I want to point out that many countries have adopted incentives, the same way Quebec did.

Quotas like these ones have a big impact because they highlight the importance of this issue. I will conclude by saying that New Democrats remain committed to fighting any type of discrimination against women. I believe this would be a good way to show that equality between men and women is really important.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-473, which was introduced by my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

As she mentioned at the beginning of her speech, she had introduced her bill early this year, but had to reintroduce it because Parliament was prorogued.

I took the opportunity of putting Bill C-473 in one of the mail-outs. I wanted to talk about the fact that it was being introduced. I had an extremely positive response to this bill from the people of Laval.

People were pleased that we were addressing this issue, getting involved and trying to ensure we achieve equality between men and women on our boards. In my area, Laval, people view this bill very positively. I would like to thank my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for introducing it.

Since I was elected, like many of my female colleagues in the House, I have participated in a number of round tables. We go to see many community groups, particularly women's groups, that want to hear about our experience in politics. They want to know how it works and what it takes to get involved in politics. Does one need to have $100,000? Does one need to know the Prime Minister? Some people have no idea how the process works or how to run in a federal election. This surprised me, but I was very pleased to speak about my experience.

I have spoken about my experience many times with the Table de concertation de Laval en condition féminine, or the TCLCF. When I spoke to these women's groups, they often told me that they did not know what they could do.

Mr. Speaker, if I told you to close your eyes and imagine what a politician looks like to you, you would likely imagine a white male between the ages of 50 and 60.

When I played that little game with groups of women, most said exactly the same thing. That is what we see in our heads. The image is etched in our minds. That needs to change. It is very hard to find women to enter politics. We have to seek them out. For every woman we try to reach, there are 10 men lining up to take the job, each saying we should choose him. It is very difficult. This is firmly entrenched.

Accordingly, I believe that Bill C-473 presents an excellent opportunity for us to come together and break the glass ceiling above our heads.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Alfred-Pellan will have seven minutes left to conclude her remarks the next time the bill is before the House.

However, since it is 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)

The House resumed from November 29, 2013, consideration of the motion that Bill C-473, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act (balanced representation), be read the second time and referred to a committee.