Bill C-25 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Canada Cooperatives Act, the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, and the Competition Act

Part 1 amends the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Canada Cooperatives Act and the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act to, among other things,
(a) reform some aspects of the process for electing directors of certain corporations and cooperatives;
(b) modernize communications between corporations or cooperatives and their shareholders or members;
(c) clarify that corporations and cooperatives are prohibited from issuing share certificates and warrants, in bearer form; and
(d) require certain corporations to place before the shareholders, at every annual meeting, information respecting diversity among directors and the members of senior management.
Part 2 amends the Competition Act to expand the concept of affiliation to a broader range of business organizations.

Status of Women

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, because almost half of Canadian companies have no women on their boards, zero, Canadian women expected our self-proclaimed feminist Prime Minister to turn words into action. However, Liberals are using the failed, discredited comply and explain model of the Conservative Party in Bill C-25. The government should adopt my legislation, Bill C-220, to get gender balance.

Quebec legislated quotas, and in five years reached parity on crown boards. The same success came with legislation in France, Norway, Finland, Iceland, and Sweden.

Without quotas, Canadian women will wait 72 years for equity. As Caroline Codsi from La Gouvernance au Féminin said, “When we legislate, we find women. When we do not legislate, we find excuses.”

Let us no more excuses. It is time for the government to act on women's equality.

[Tanya van Biesen]

I would say that it's one of a number of ways to go. As I mentioned, I don't think there's any one right way to get there. I do support what's being proposed in Bill C-25 as a step in the right direction. I think comply or explain, as currently defined in the OSC, could be tightened up. As you've heard from others, there are a lot of companies explaining with weak explanations.

So I'm a proponent of Bill C-25. I think it's the right step for us to take, at least as a first step.

[Tanya van Biesen, Executive Director, Catalyst Canada Inc.]

Good morning, and thank you for inviting Catalyst to be part of the discussion this morning. I've had the chance to speak with some of you before.

Catalyst is a global not-for-profit that advocates for the advancement of women in business.

I'm going to talk about three areas, specifically the gender wage gap and occupational segregation; tools to strengthen women's economic security; and ways to increase women's entry, participation, retention, and representation in leadership and in high-paying positions.

I'd like to take a minute to set the stage in Canada. As many of you will know, among some, not all, of the reporting 710 companies listed on the TSX, which represents about $2 trillion in market value, only 12% of board seats are held by women, and 45% of those companies have no women—zero women—on their boards. Further, 43% of these companies have zero women executive officers, and then another 28% have only one. Finally, fewer than 5% of CEOs of Canadian companies are women. The Canadian stage is not quite what it could be with respect to women.

Let me talk a bit about this first issue of identifying the problems that affect women's income: the gender wage gap specifically. Catalyst's research, along with that of many others, shows that wage inequality starts early in women's careers and worsens over time. In fact, studies we've done show that Canadian high-potential women earn $8,000 less than men do in their first post-M.B.A. job and are more likely to start at a lower-level position despite same levels of experience and education. Earning less over a lifetime means that women receive lower pensions when they retire and are at a greater risk of either poverty or a reduced lifestyle than are men.

In our view, the pay gap and other gender gaps exist for a number of reasons, including entrenched systemic barriers and unconscious biases, not because women are less qualified than men. I would point to a couple of things.

The majority of talent recruitment, development, management, and compensation systems are not designed to correct early inequities. They're built on the notion of meritocracy, which I think we love to latch onto in Canada. Many research projects have shown that merit contains a significant amount of unconscious bias, because merit is defined by those in power.

I would also note in the area of gender wage gap that some groups of women experience much larger wage gaps than others, notably racialized and indigenous women, newcomers, and women with disabilities. I have some facts on that.

Indigenous women earn 18% less than indigenous men, and 36% less than non-indigenous men. Women with disabilities earn 16% less than men with disabilities, and 48% less than men without disabilities. Racialized women earn 19% less than racialized men, and 34% less than non-racialized men.

This should be a real concern for Canada, as our mix continues to change and we have a government that is very pro-immigration. Not only are women being left behind, but racialized women are being even further left behind.

On the subject of occupational segregation and lack of access to key growth sectors, I would say that social norms and stereotypes continue to influence girls' and young women's educational paths, and consequently their professional careers. These stereotypes start very early in life, at home and at school.

I know that education sits with the provincial governments, but to the extent that the feds can influence what's happening provincially, this education at home and at school from a very young age is critical. Further, biases in the workplace that cause women to leave industries such as high tech—and we're seeing a lot of news around that, for instance, Uber, and Salesforce, and many other companies—have to be addressed through strong leadership, training, process, and systems changes.

Turning now to identifying possible tools to strengthen women's economic security, the following actions by both business and government will help.

One way is to adopt pay transparency policies. Government mandates requiring companies to publicly disclose salaries and/or gaps between women and men's wages, such as the U.K. government's regulations and Australia's legislation requiring companies to do so, are examples of ways to achieve pay transparency.

The second way is to re-evaluate negotiation policies. While women negotiate both promotions and compensation as much as men do, research shows that women are penalized when they do so.

The third way is to adopt a prohibition on compensation based on salary history. Several U.S. states and local governments have already proposed or passed this type of legislation—notably Massachusetts, New York City, and Philadelphia—because basing salary on previous salaries leads to a continuation of lower pay for women.

The fourth way is to conduct internal pay equity studies, analyses, and audits to eliminate and ensure you don’t have a gender wage gap. Another government policy example of this is the recent Iceland legislation requiring large companies and government agencies to undergo audits and prove that they are in compliance with equal pay rules.

Finally, as ways to increase women’s entry, participation, retention, and representation in leadership and high-paying positions, I would point to evaluating recruitment, retention, promotion, and talent development systems for gender bias. Analyze pools of candidates for both hiring and promotion decisions; are they reflective of a broad pool of candidates? Bring an unconscious bias spotter into promotion and high-potential discussions. That can apply to business and government, and not-for-profits for that matter. Challenge recruitment partners to bring forward a diverse set of candidates, and above all, monitor and track progress for compensation, promotion, and hiring decisions, because the data will give you the truth.

From a board perspective, in our view there's no one right way to accelerate progress for women on boards. What does matter is that companies set goals for a percentage of women as board directors, and that boards use at least one mechanism to facilitate board renewal, such as age or tenure limits, coupled with board evaluation processes. We believe governments should reinforce the setting of targets, renewal mechanisms, and written policies, and should track and publish progress. We do believe the government should adopt comply-or-explain legislation, such as has been proposed in Bill C-25.

Finally, we encourage government to seize on the opportunity to leverage groups, like the gender and good governance alliance, previously referred to in a prior testimony by Beatrix Dart, which is a tremendous alliance of like-minded not-for-profits that can be used as a think tank by governments across the country.

Thank you.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for their presentations and preparations for today's meeting, and for their work in the field. Obviously, we can use much of the information you provided, as others have said.

My first question is for Ms. Codsi.

You spoke passionately about Bill C-25. You seemed to say that we may not be going far enough. It would be a good step forward, but work would still need to be done.

You mentioned the need for legislation to increase the percentage of women on boards and executive committees of companies. Currently, women constitute 5% of CEOs and 15% of university board members. Minister Duncan also suggested the withdrawal of funding from universities that fail to increase the quota to over 15%.

We've heard witnesses say that we must shake up the system. Quotas have been mentioned, but the idea has been rather negatively received.

You spoke of research on the topic. I really want to look further at this area.

I'm very proud that women constitute 50% of the federal government's cabinet. These women are exceptional and highly qualified.

Why do people continue to say that quotas aren't necessary to shake up the system? What research do you have to try to change this mentality and make progress? You said that France planned to have women constitute 40% of board members in 2017. In Canada, women constitute about 15% of board members.

How can we shake up the system and make radical changes to increase this rate?

[Caroline Codsi]

Okay. I'll give my presentation in French.

I'm happy to answer questions in English.

Women in Governance is a non-for-profit organization founded in 2010. The goal is to help women develop their leadership, enhance their career and access board seats. Alarming statistics inspired the creation of this organization. Women constitute only 5% of CEOs of FP500 companies and only 15.9% of board members. It's quite abysmal.

If you've already heard that women constitute 20% of board members, I want to specify that these are TSX 60 figures, meaning the figures for the 60 largest companies in the country. The figure doesn't represent the situation in our society as a whole.

While women constitute 47.3% of the workforce, only 5.3% of them are business leaders. That's the situation, in our country, in 2017.

Among all the G7 countries, Canada has one of the highest participation rates of women in the workforce. Although the wage gap has been reduced, Statistics Canada data from January 2017 shows that the average hourly wage of women, in all employment categories combined, is 16% lower than the average hourly wage of men. Moreover, women continue to bear a greater share of the burden of unpaid work.

In Quebec, we've made fairly dramatic progress in recent years. The participation rates of women aged 25 to 54 are around 86%, a record high. Since 2000, this rate has jumped by almost nine percentage points, one of the most spectacular increases in Canada.

Let's compare Quebec to the four most populated provinces in Canada. It currently ranks first in terms of the number of jobs held by women, whereas 16 years ago, it lagged behind in this area. Quebec's family policy has certainly played a role in this progress. Women in Governance encourages the government to support measures that help more women participate in the Canadian economy.

Research shows that there's no shortage of qualified women ready to hold senior management positions. They're educated and prepared. That's not the issue. A lack of self-confidence and assurance is sometimes an issue. At Women in Governance, we've been addressing this issue through our mentoring program. However, women lack sponsors, meaning men or women who can not only act as their mentors, but also help them by recommending them, speaking about them, and directing them to decision-making bodies. The likelihood of obtaining this type of sponsor is supposedly 46% higher for men than for women, which is a significant difference. Also, the business world doesn't sufficiently support work-life balance. This continues to be a women's area, and constitutes a gap.

We're emphasizing the need to implement strategies to help women join not only decision-making bodies, but all levels of a company.

We also maintain that quotas must be set. Why? It's not enough to simply disclose objectives. All the country's financial market authorities have implemented the “comply or explain” principle. The principle has been in effect for two or three years, and the results are, at minimum, lukewarm. However, certain countries that have set official quotas obtain good results.

In Quebec, under the Charest government, legislation on women's parity in stated-owned enterprises was passed, and the objective was very quickly achieved.

At Women in Governance, we've decided to create parity certification. It's a bit like the ISO. It measures what companies have implemented to achieve parity, not only in decision-making bodies, but at all hierarchical levels. The idea is to have a talent pool when there's a desire to promote women to senior management positions.

We held a public consultation with McKinsey & Company, a consulting firm, and the Ordre des conseillers en ressources humaines agréés, the equivalent of the HRPA in Ontario. We're talking about human resources specialists here. The consultation involved checking the whole questionnaire and making sure it was strong enough.

We want to award parity certification to companies. Companies that stand out will be honoured at our gala on September 12, at the Palais des congrès. It's our way of focusing on the subject. For the first year, the certification will be awarded only to companies that have 400 or more employees. For the second year, we intend to apply this initiative to SMEs, given that Quebec has many of them. For the second year, we also intend to establish the certification outside Quebec.

I also want to provide a brief global perspective.

In Canada, we encourage companies to disclose their objectives. For example, Bill C-25 really focuses on the disclosure of objectives. However, things aren't really changing in Canada. Only objectives set internally are disclosed. Only 9% of Canadian companies have set clear objectives. In comparison, in Australia, 82% of ASX 200 companies have clear objectives. The percentage of women on boards rose from 19.4% in 2012 to 23.4% in 2016.

Am I speaking too fast? I have so much to share. I have seven minutes, and I could spend the whole day.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Kate Young, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, this is the topic at hand. I mentioned that Bill C-25 has been stuck at report stage since early April. That is the point. We want to continue to make sure that we get through our agenda. The fact of the matter is that we have not been able to do so because of the opposition's tactics, so in fact we are here.

It is eight o'clock, and I am quite proud to be here and will continue to be here until midnight tonight, and again midnight tomorrow night if necessary, because I agree that it is important to continue to talk about the government's agenda and what we have to accomplish.

Of course, the budget is so important. There is so much that we have to get through so that we can, in fact, do what Canadians voted us in to do. It is so important that we continue the amount of work that we have. We have talked about the budget. We have talked about tax fairness and historic investments in infrastructure that we must move forward. If we do not, we will not be able to complete our agenda. That is what Canadians expect of us and that is what we will continue to do.

In fact, I will continue to read this. I know it is a speech that has been prepared, but it has important information that I think we all need to hear. I will pick up from where I left off, talking about Red Wilson's competition policy review panel.

I could possibly continue on, if you would like me to, Mr. Speaker.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can anticipate already what the parliamentary secretary will say. Once again we have a reprinted speech on another bill so that they can argue about how they are pushing their legislative agenda. The member is specifically referencing Bill C-25.

We were looking at who the next speakers would be, and some, including me, I dare say, actually have things to say about Motion No. 14, which is before the House.

I understand the leeway you give, Mr. Speaker. I have tried to benefit from that leeway myself, as we all have, but unfortunately, I think, we have talked so much in the last few months about the way this place works, that at the very least, if we are to invoke closure, it would be nice if we could actually deal with the motion in the limited time that we have.

[Kate Young, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary for Science]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the motion to extend the sitting hours in the House.

Our government believes that good, corporate governance is one of the mechanisms that help support economic efficiency and growth. We recognize that our country is at its most prosperous when everyone has a fair chance at success. That is why, in September 2016, we introduced Bill C-25, enhancing business frameworks and promoting inclusive economic growth.

Bill C-25 makes important adjustments to the framework laws that govern the Canadian marketplace. It would increase shareholder democracy and participation, increase women's representation, as well as diversity, on corporate boards and in senior management, improve corporate transparency, reduce regulatory burden, and increase business certainty.

Both official opposition parties have expressed support for this legislation, as have many stakeholder groups. However, the bill has been stuck at report stage since early April. I would like to take this opportunity to share with the House some of the key elements of this important piece of legislation. Specifically, I would like to focus on competitiveness in our economy.

Bill C-25 makes a number of targeted amendments to our economic framework laws in an effort to bring them up to date for our modern economy. Keeping our laws relevant is beneficial in a number of ways. It allows us to embrace best practices, remove ambiguity and minimize regulatory burden, just to name a few.

Competitiveness is a word that we hear a lot when discussing the economy, but it is also one of those words whose meaning may change a fair amount, depending on the context. When Red Wilson's competition policy review panel undertook an examination of Canada's competition and investment policies in 2007 and 2008, it set out to provide recommendations to the government on how to enhance Canadian product—

Motion that debate be not further adjourned

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member confirming for the record that all members work hard in this place and that this place belongs to Canadians. That is exactly who we are here to represent. That is exactly the commitment we made to Canadians. That is why we encourage meaningful debate, and that is why we encourage all members to share the views of their constituents so that we can ensure it is good legislation that is advancing.

In the previous Parliament, when the government decided to extend sittings in June 2014, Liberal members supported that motion. None of us are strangers to hard work. We know that Canadians work hard, and we need to work hard for them.

Let us talk really quickly about some of the important pieces of legislation that we will be advancing by extending hours. We are talking about Bill C-44, which implements our budget 2017. The bill is about creating good middle-class jobs today while preparing Canadians for the jobs of tomorrow. I am sure the member will agree that is important work we all need to do together.

There is Bill C-25, which encourages federally regulated companies to promote gender parity on boards of directors and to publicly report on the gender balance on boards, and Bill C-24, which was referred to earlier and seeks to formalize equal status among the ministerial team and level the playing field to ensure a one-tier ministry, that a minister is a minister, recognizing the important work they do.

The list goes on, but I will respect that other members have questions to which I look forward to responding.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you.

Ms. Byers, at our last committee meeting, we had testimony from Professor Beatrix Dart from the University of Toronto, who was talking about quotas being the shock to the system that is really needed and who said that the comply or explain model, which has been used both in corporate Canada and the Government of Canada, just hasn't worked.

We've been discouraged to see the present government carrying on the previous government's tool of that comply or explain model in their Bill C-25. I have a private member's bill, Bill C-220, which instead suggests quotas around crown corporation appointments and what the federal government has direct responsibility for in order to reach gender parity of 50% over a six-year term.

Because you introduced it in your brief to the committee, can you talk a little more about your recommendation to impose quotas and the value of the quota model from the industry you're representing?

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

moved:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, commencing upon the adoption of this Order and concluding on Friday, June 23, 2017:

(a) on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12:00 a.m., except that it shall be 10:00 p.m. on a day when a debate, pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1, is to take place;

(b) subject to paragraph (e), when a recorded division is demanded in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2) or Standing Order 78, but not including any division in relation to the Business of Supply or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57, (i) before 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at that day’s sitting, or (ii) after 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday;

(c) notwithstanding Standing Order 45(6) and paragraph (b) of this Order, no recorded division requested after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 22, 2017, or at any time on Friday, June 23, 2017, shall be deferred, except for any recorded division which, under the Standing Orders, would be deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on Wednesday, September 20, 2017;

(d) the time provided for Government Orders shall not be extended pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1) or Standing Order 67.1(2);

(e) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this Order, is demanded, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday;

(f) any recorded division which, at the time of the adoption of this Order, stands deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on the Wednesday immediately following the adoption of this Order shall be deemed to stand deferred to the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday;

(g) a recorded division demanded in respect of a motion to concur in a government bill at the report stage pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(9), where the bill has neither been amended nor debated at the report stage, shall be deferred in the manner prescribed by paragraph (b);

(h) for greater certainty, this Order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);

(i) no dilatory motion may be proposed after 6:30 p.m.;

(j) notwithstanding Standing Orders 81(16)(b) and (c) and 81 (18)(c), proceedings on any opposition motion shall conclude no later than 5:30 p.m. on the sitting day that is designated for that purpose, except on a Monday when they shall conclude at 6:30 p.m. or on a Friday when they shall conclude at 1:30 p.m.; and

(k) when debate on a motion for the concurrence in a report from a standing, standing joint or special committee is adjourned or interrupted, the debate shall again be considered on a day designated by the government, after consultation with the House Leaders of the other parties, but in any case not later than the twentieth sitting day after the interruption.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to government Motion No. 14. For the benefit of members, the motion would extend the sitting of the House until we rise for the summer adjournment.

We have much to accomplish in the coming weeks. Our government has an ambitious legislative agenda that we would like to advance in order to deliver on the commitments we made to Canadians in the last election. Let me reflect on our recent legislative achievements before I turn to the important work that lies before us over the next four weeks.

In our last sitting week, the House and Senate were able to reach agreement on securing passage of Bill C-37, which would put in place important measures to fight the opioid crisis in Canada. I would like to thank members of the House for the thoughtful debate on this bill and for not playing politics with such an important piece of legislation. In particular, I would like to thank members of the New Democratic Party for co-operating with the government to advance this bill when it was in the House and for helping us dispense with amendments from the Senate. This was a high watermark for the House and I hope that we can take this professional and courteous approach forward. I would also like to thank senators for their important contributions to this bill.

I would also like to point out the passage of two crucial bills related to trade. The first, Bill C-30, would implement an historic trade agreement with the European Union. The second, Bill C-31, would implement a trade agreement with Ukraine, a country that is dear to many members.

I am proud that our government continues to open the doors to trade and potential investment in Canada to grow our economy and help build a strong middle class.

In looking forward to the next four sitting weeks, I would like to highlight a few priority bills that our government will seek to advance. I will start with Bill C-44, which would implement budget 2017. This bill is about creating good middle-class jobs today while preparing Canadians for the jobs of tomorrow.

I will provide some examples of the initiatives that will contribute to building a strong middle class. The budget makes smart investments to help adult workers retain or upgrade their skills to adapt to changes in the new economy and to help young people get the skills and work experience they need to start their careers.

The budget also provides for investments in the well-being of Canadians, with the emphasis on mental health, home care, and health care for indigenous peoples.

Bill C-44 would provide financing to the provinces for home care and mental health care. It would also create leave for those who wish to care for a critically ill adult or child in their family. These initiatives help build stronger communities.

I would also like to point to initiatives in the budget that deal with gender equality. The first-ever gender statement will serve as a basis for ongoing, open, and transparent discussions about the role gender plays in policy development. Our government has other initiatives that aim to strengthen gender equality. For example, Bill C-25 encourages federally regulated companies to promote gender parity on boards of directors and to publicly report on the gender balance on these boards.

Another bill, which I will discuss in greater detail later in my remarks, is Bill C-24, a bill that would level the playing field to ensure a one-tier ministry. The bill has a simple premise. It recognizes that a minister is a minister, no matter what portfolio he or she holds.

Our government has committed to legalizing and strictly regulating the production, distribution, sale, and possession of cannabis. I look forward to the debate on this important bill tomorrow. I will note that the bill would provide strong safeguards and deterrents to protect young people from enticements to use or access cannabis.

The government has taken a responsible approach in seeking to legalize cannabis by ensuring that law enforcement agencies have approved methods to test the sobriety of drivers to guard against cannabis use while operating a motorized vehicle. This afternoon, the House will continue to debate this bill, which, I will happily note, has support from all opposition parties in the House. I hope that we can agree to send this bill to committee on Wednesday.

Now I would like to return to our government's commitment to improving gender equality. Bill C-24, which stands in my name, seeks to formalize the equal status of the ministerial team. This bill is very straightforward in its nature. It is fundamentally about the equality of all ministers. We strongly believe that the Minister of Status of Women should be a full minister. We believe that the Minister of Science and the Minister of Democratic Institutions should be full ministers.

I am disappointed that the Conservatives do not share this fundamental belief in equality. I think we should send this bill to committee for a detailed study of what the bill actually does.

I would like to draw members' attention to another piece of legislation, Bill C-23, regarding an agreement with the United States on the preclearance of persons and goods between our two countries.

This bill is currently being studied by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. The principle of the bill is simple. It is about ensuring a more efficient and secure border by expanding preclearance operations for all modes of transportation. This will increase the number of trips and the volume of trade, which will strengthen both of our economies.

As members may know, preclearance operations currently take place at eight Canadian airports, and immigration pre-inspection is also conducted at multiple locations in British Columbia in the rail and marine modes.

Once that bill comes back from committee, I hope that we can work together to send it to the other place.

In our last sitting week, our government introduced comprehensive modernization of our transportation systems. A strong transportation system is fundamental to Canada's economic performance and competitiveness. Bill C-49 does just that. The bill would enhance the utility, efficiency, and fluidity of our rail system so that it works for all participants in the system. Freight rail is the backbone of the Canadian economy. It moves everything from grain and potash to oil and coal, to the cars we drive, the clothes we wear, and the food we eat.

I would also like to draw to the attention of members provisions in Bill C-49 that would strengthen Canada's air passenger rights. While the precise details of the air passenger rights scheme will be set out in regulations, the objective is that rights should be clear, consistent, transparent, and fair for passengers and air carriers.

Finally, our government committed to creating a national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians. Bill C-22 seeks to accomplish two interrelated goals, ensuring that our security intelligence agencies are effective in keeping Canadians safe, while at the same time safeguarding our values, rights and freedoms, and the open, generous, inclusive nature of our country.

I appreciate the work that was done in the House committee to improve the bill. The bill is currently before the Senate national security committee, and I look forward to appearing before that committee with my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

Sitting a few extra hours for four days per week will also give the House greater flexibility in dealing with unexpected events. While it is expected that the Senate will amend bills, it is not always clear which bills and the number of bills that could be amended by the Senate. As we have come to know, the consideration of Senate amendments in the House takes time. This is, in part, why we need to sit extra hours. I know that members work extremely hard balancing their House duties and other political duties. I expect that extending the hours will add to the already significant workload.

I wish to thank members for their co-operation in these coming weeks. As I reflect upon my time as government House leader, there were examples where members of the House came together, despite their political differences, and advanced initiatives that touched directly upon the interests of all Canadians. I hope that over the four remaining sitting weeks before we head back to work in our ridings, we can have honest and frank deliberations on the government's priorities and work collaboratively to advance the agenda that Canadians sent us here to implement.

In the previous Parliament, when the government decided to extend the sittings in June of 2014, Liberal members supported that motion. We knew then, as we know now, that our role as legislators is a privilege, and we discharge our parliamentary functions in support of our constituents.

There will be initiatives that the government will bring forward over the coming weeks that will enjoy the support of all members, and there will be issues on which parties will not agree. Our comportment during this time will demonstrate to Canadians that we are all in this together, despite our differences, for the good of this great country. Let us not lose sight of that.

I believe the motion before the House is reasonable. I hope opposition members can support sitting a few extra hours for four days a week for the next few weeks to consider important legislation for Canadians.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

We have good models that can be followed. As we know from the case of the Canada Post employees, those women fought in court for 30 years. Some of them died in poverty before they ever got their settlement. It was shameful.

I want to move to all three witnesses on the question of gender parity in crown appointments to federal commissions and boards. Both panels of witnesses have said that we need to accelerate the rate of change, and that the status quo is just inching us forward in a way that is frustrating and not sustainable. I think both of you have recommended at least a 40% target to move toward and to have it on a quota basis.

The government is touting Bill C-25 as a comply or explain model, which is the same as that of the previous Conservative government. We've had many witnesses discredit comply or explain.

I have a private member's bill that says we should get to 50% within six years. It would be ramped up to 30% two years after the bill comes into effect and to 40% four years after. This would be just for crown corporation and federal commission appointments. Have you seen models like this in other places that have worked well? Does this feel like an approach that is consistent with your advice?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

There are several—at least two—pieces of legislation in the House of Commons that are being debated. Part of the challenge is that this is the Government of Canada, and it belongs to all Canadians. If it's going to be a matter of us versus them, it doesn't really benefit the people we're working for. Bill C-25 is legislation that has been advanced by the government. Minister Bains, I understand, will be here right after me, and will welcome those opportunities.

With different approaches, we're really trying to make sure we're taking the steps to achieve the goals and the outcomes that we want to get to. Some people would like to get us there faster and believe that we'll have the results, and there will be some disagreements in that sense.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Madam Minister, for being here.

In your discussion, you mentioned the Trump-Trudeau initiative or council for the advancement of women. As you are aware, we have a piece of legislation, Bill C-25, that would require some better standards for women on a corporate board of directors. Your government has chosen not to amend that and has chosen to do a “comply and explain” model. This has been discussed in the House of Commons, the debate has been through, and we're going to the final reading. We're going to a very weak model.

Why is it, at a time when you are setting up an American initiative for women leadership in business, that we would not actually meet the average standard of other countries that have been progressive on this? Why leave it to the Trump-Trudeau initiative rather than the legislation that's in the House of Commons?

Gender Equality Week Act

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Mississauga—Lakeshore for bringing this incredibly important bill to the House. I had the privilege of sitting on the status of women committee when the bill came before our committee. I want to thank our colleagues on committee who worked hard on this as well.

When we talk about a gender equality week, what we are really talking about is bringing people together across the country, whether it is civil society, parliamentarians, researchers, or other groups to be able to multiply the conversation, to start a real engagement on gender equality in Canada.

We know from many studies that women and men in Canada are not equal today. We can see it here in the House where 27% of elected members are women. We see it in other kinds of leadership bodies and on corporate boards. I am very pleased at what our government is doing in Bill C-25 about women on corporate boards to make sure that companies have a comply or explain model. They have to have diversity policies.

I am particularly pleased at what the Minister of Science has done in the past week regarding women in research. Universities that do not have a diversity policy within the next two years and reach their targets will no longer get federal government research funding for Canada research chairs. We have tried many other ways. This is the kind of thing that is needed, because we have not seen significant increases in gender equality in Canada in several decades in many different fields.

We on the status of women committee right now are studying women's economic security. We have had a number of different groups come before us. We know that women in Canada today are not making the same amount of money as men do for the same kind of work.

I chaired the committee on pay equity. We came out with a very proactive report which calls for proactive pay equity legislation which recognizes that pay equity is a human right. I am very proud that our government has responded positively to our report and is going to be bringing in pay equity legislation. This is the kind of thing that will help in terms of people who are working in similar fields.

We also know that the wage gap includes a number of different factors that are not necessarily just about pay equity, for instance, precarious work. There are more women working in minimum wage jobs. There are more women working in part-time jobs. Today we heard in the status of women committee that in the bottom seven deciles, that is zero to $70,000, there are more women earning that amount and as soon as we get over $70,000 there are more men. It is clear that we have a long way to go, particularly when it comes to women in the STEM professions.

When it comes to the jobs that pay good money, when it comes to the kinds of good jobs that create Canadian prosperity, women are not choosing those jobs because of socialization or because of a lack of role models. There are a number of things we need to do to improve the situation for some of the young women in our communities.

I am very proud to have had the opportunity in my riding of Ottawa West—Nepean to meet with several girls in projects that allow girls to reach their full potential. I am speaking of projects like Girls World at the Pinecrest-Queensway Community Health Centre, or the Girl Guides, whom I met with. It was quite inspiring. These young girls are so articulate. They believe that they can be anything and do anything. This is something we need to make not just an aspiration for these young women, but an actual reality.

Later, one of the young girls, a 12-year-old, wrote to me and asked if I could create a junior youth council. Apparently, when she is playing with her dolls at home, she pretends the dolls are in Parliament. This is the kind of thing we need to promote. A young 12-year-old girl is dreaming of being in government, of being a member of Parliament, but at what point is that aspiration lost? At what point does that young girl think it is not something for her? We still do not see as many women winning nominations and being elected to this place as we ought to see.

I will use myself as an example. When I was in grade 10, I joined the science club. I decided I wanted to be an astrophysicist. I did an entire report on how to become an astrophysicist. I signed up for calculus and all of the science courses, but somehow between grade 10 and grade 12, I lost my interest in science. I received my highest mark in math, but I was telling people at that point “I hate math. I am terrible at math.” It is something that I continued to repeat over and over for decades, that I am terrible at math. I saw my report card. I had 93% in grade 12 math.

Somewhere along the way, young girls are socialized to think that science is not something they want to do. I am very pleased to have studied history and to now be in politics, but we need to create a world where young girls and young women have the same opportunities. We need to ensure that the barriers are no longer there so they can achieve the kinds of things they dream about when they are 12 years old and that somehow, along the way, we see that inequality end.

When I talk to young students and tell them that men make $1 for every 73¢ a woman makes, they gasp. They look and me and ask how that is fair. Even young children know that it is not fair.

I thank my hon. colleague for bringing this incredibly important bill before the House. I hope it will receive support across all party lines, because this is an opportunity for us to really make sure we are doing something about the gender gap in Canada.