Industry Committee on Feb. 9th, 2017

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

A bill that has only been addressed twice in its history is before Parliament, where we're going to set standards. We also have a discussion about comply and explain and the reasons behind it. The position the board of the teachers' pension plan has taken is that women are a priority for diversity, and if we happen to get some other stuff, that's great, but when do you believe that other diversities should be tackled? Give us a time frame for what's acceptable to your board.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

I'll allow you to answer the question very briefly. Time is running out.

[Paul Schneider]

Thank you.

I think diversity should be addressed in all forms at all times. I'm not saying it shouldn't be.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

You and your organization are coasting on something that's very important and time-sensitive for Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you very much.

We're going to move to Mr. Baylis for seven minutes.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question will be for Mr. Lalonde.

I would like to understand the situation better. You want the shareowners to be disclosed. As I understand it, their names would be disclosed not only to the government, but to the public at large as well. Is that the case?

[Paul Lalonde]

Yes.

We believe that the name of the shareholders of Canadian companies should be in a public registry. However, there is much discussion about making information available to government authorities but not to the public.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Right.

[Paul Lalonde]

We think this information should be public by default. If important reasons, such as privacy, for instance, or other reasons like that were invoked to ensure that the information wasn't disclosed—

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Right. I understand.

[Paul Lalonde]

—then it would have to be demonstrated they are well-founded.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Okay, I understand the arguments that have been made. Every year I have to do my taxes and I have to tell the government how much money I make. I don't have to divulge it or my sources of income to you. I understand all the arguments that Transparency has made. It makes sense that it be divulged to the government. What I'm struggling to understand is, why do I have to tell you? What is the specific benefit of that extra step of telling the general public, as opposed to just divulging it to the government?

[Paul Lalonde]

First, I think again it's the wrong question.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Okay.

[Paul Lalonde]

Why not divulge it to the public—

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Because we have—

[Paul Lalonde]

What is the interest you're trying to—

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

All right, can you tell me how much money you make? Can you tell me how much money you make right now?

[Paul Lalonde]

We're not talking about divulging—

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Why not?

[Paul Lalonde]

We're not talking about—

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Can you tell me what shares you own in what companies? Tell me right now.

[Paul Lalonde]

I don't—

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

You don't want to. I see. We don't need to argue, so let's not ask that question. Let's ask a specific question.

You want your privacy. I want mine. Why would I need to divulge it to the general public?

[Paul Lalonde]

I think the privacy—