Evidence of meeting #46 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was shareholders.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

8:50 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy

I'd like to call the meeting to order.

Welcome, everybody, to meeting number 46 of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. Pursuant to the order of reference on Friday, December 9, 2016, we continue our study of Bill C-25, an act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Canada Cooperatives Act, the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, and the Competition Act.

Today appearing before us we have the Honourable Navdeep Bains, Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development; along with John Knubley, deputy minister; and Mark Schaan, director general, marketplace framework policy branch, strategic policy sector.

Welcome, gentlemen. We are going to go right into it.

Minister Bains, you have the floor.

8:50 a.m.

Mississauga—Malton Ontario

Liberal

Navdeep Bains LiberalMinister of Innovation

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It really is an honour and privilege to be back here before the committee and to have an opportunity to talk about and address a very important piece of legislation, Bill C-25.

I am here with my deputy minister, John Knubley, and Mark Schaan, director general, marketplace framework policy branch, strategic policy sector, so I am surrounded by some very intelligent individuals who can address any specific and difficult questions.

Bill C-25 covers a lot of important ground. The bill will support efforts to improve diversity on corporate boards and in the senior management ranks of publicly traded companies. It will improve corporate governance. I am delighted that both official opposition parties have expressed support for this legislation.

We have already heard some thoughtful commentary on second reading. Many of you have also heard witnesses who have come before the committee as well, and I look forward to discussing this bill with the honourable members of this committee.

I'd like to begin with a reminder of the context in which we are bringing forward this bill.

Our government is committed to innovation for a better Canada—innovation that will create jobs, strengthen the middle class, and prepare Canadians with the skills they need for the jobs of the future.

As legislators, we have a responsibility to set the ground rules for doing business, and we can create the winning conditions for people and companies to innovate.

Our country is at its most prosperous when everyone has a fair chance at success. Bill C-25 addresses this goal by making important adjustments to the framework laws that govern the Canadian marketplace. These laws set out how corporations are organized, and they also promote investor confidence and a competitive marketplace.

The amendments in this bill will provide the foundation for how Canadian businesses operate in the 21st century, and they will align Canada's framework laws with best practices in jurisdictions around the world. If there is one key objective or message that I could convey about what this bill is trying to accomplish, it is that we truly want to promote best practices in Canada.

The first set of amendments contained in Bill C-25 aims to promote greater shareholder democracy. First, the bill will require corporations and co-operatives to hold annual votes to elect directors. Currently, the law permits directors to hold office for up to three years before a vote is required. Second, directors under the Canada Business Corporations Act will be elected individually, not as a slate or group of candidates. Third, the bill will permit shareholders to vote explicitly against a candidate in uncontested elections. The goal is to ensure that the voting process allows shareholders to have their voices heard in a meaningful way. Additionally, Bill C-25 will improve corporate transparency, eliminate outdated instruments of commerce, and modernize shareholder communications.

These changes will reflect the new norms and practices of a digital economy—I often tell people that now it's no longer the economy; it's the digital economy. The bill increases business certainty and flexibility. It will allow Canadian businesses to focus on what makes them most productive, efficient, and innovative.

Allow me to elaborate on the elements of the bill that address diversity in corporate Canada, because there has been a lot of debate and discussion around this aspect. It's not simply the right thing to do, but it's also good for business. Under-representation of different segments of our population in business is a drag on Canada's bottom line.

Our government places a high priority on innovation to create better skills, jobs, and opportunity for all Canadians. Regardless of one's gender, age, faith, background, orientation, or ability, we want to see every Canadian work to their full potential. In the boardroom, as in life, multiple perspectives can lead to innovative thinking and better performance. As I tell people, good ideas can come from anywhere and anyone. Innovation requires fresh ideas, and research shows that leaders who embrace diversity are more likely to have employees who contribute to their full potential.

Our government is committed to encouraging the full participation of those Canadians who are currently under-represented in the economy. To that end, Bill C-25 will require corporations to disclose to their shareholders the gender composition of their boards and senior management.

They will also be required to make public their diversity policies. Those corporations without diversity policies will have to explain why they don't have one, and that's a key component of this bill as well.

This amendment is aligned with measures that have already been adopted by most provincial security regulators, and it will apply to all publicly traded corporations incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act, regardless of which securities regulator they report to.

Some have commented that Bill C-25 does not provide an explicit definition of diversity—I've heard that from individuals, and I look forward to that conversation this morning. That's because our government has made a clear and deliberate choice to understand diversity in the broadest and most inclusive terms possible. Diversity can include a broad range of skills and experience. It can encompass people from all genders, geography, cultural backgrounds, and faiths, or even people with disabilities. Achieving greater diversity on boards and in senior management is an achievable and realistic goal. Take the Canadian Board Diversity Council, for example. It has established an annual list of qualified candidates who are “board-ready”. These candidates have a variety of skill sets, experience, gender, and cultural backgrounds that could be of great benefit to any board of directors.

The objective of this bill is not to be prescriptive or punitive. Rather, the objective is to mandate an open conversation about good corporate governance between companies and their shareholders. It also allows shareholders to hold the board accountable for how it promotes diversity in leadership positions, so it truly also provides an accountability mechanism. Bill C-25 is being introduced at a time when many organizations are already looking to recruit more under-represented groups to the highest levels of corporate leadership, and they're finding plenty of talent to choose from.

If I may digress for a moment, I've had an opportunity to travel internationally and within Canada. I can tell you right now that diversity is our strength. The fact that we have people from different backgrounds available and able to put forward their ideas in a meaningful way, in senior management positions at the board level, is a source of competitive advantage for Canada. For example, the Institute of Corporate Directors, along those lines, has a registry of more than 3,500 who have the skills, qualifications, and training to serve on corporate boards. To make it easier for companies to find the right people, the institute provides a referral service and offers to match companies with suitable candidates. We commend this effort. The story of “Oh, we're trying to promote diversity, but we can't find people with diverse backgrounds” I don't think applies in this day and age.

Some commentators have suggested that Bill C-25 should include gender-based quotas. Our government prefers, as a starting point, to adopt the approach taken by the U.K. and Australia. These countries have been successful in promoting diversity by adopting an approach called “comply or explain”. It requires publicly traded corporations to disclose their gender composition and diversity policies among their executive ranks. If they do not have a policy in place, they are called upon to explain why. That's the concept behind comply or explain. In fact, Bill C-25 is similar to the provisions in the U.K. corporate code, which does not define diversity but specifically includes gender diversity.

Some organizations have proposed voluntary targets to increase the participation of under-represented groups on corporate boards. These organizations include Catalyst Canada and the 30% Club, which promote the advancement of women in the workplace. These organizations are part of a broader movement that includes shareholders, provincial security commissions, and civil society.

In fact, support for this bill has come from the Canadian Coalition for Good Governance, the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan, and the Ontario Securities Commission, just to name a few. With such broad-based consensus, I'm confident that corporate Canada will rise to the challenge of promoting diversity.

That said, our government's work does not stop with the passage of Bill C-25.

Once the bill becomes law, we are committed to monitoring the level of progress achieved by corporate Canada to promote diversity at the senior-leadership level.

In the event there's no meaningful change in the composition of corporate boards and executive ranks, our government is prepared to review Bill C-25. I've said this in the House and I want to repeat this again this morning as well. We're willing to re-examine the tools we have to be able to see meaningful progress. If appropriate we will consider additional action.

Finally I'd like to address a suggestion raised by some of my honourable colleagues. They suggest that Bill C-25 should address the issue of limiting executive compensation. I heard this again in the debate in the House as well. In 2014 the department held extensive public consultations on the Canada Business Corporations Act to ensure that its governance framework remains effective, fosters competitiveness, and supports confident investment. Over 80 submissions were received from a variety of businesses and legal stakeholders, and a wide set of perspectives was given on the issue of executive compensation, raising a number of complex issues that require further study.

As Bill C-25 covers the items from these consultations where views were most consistent—that was the objective, we wanted to find where there was common ground—the question of executive compensation may be dealt with on a future occasion.

This will allow for a more considered view as best practices and early pilots in other jurisdictions emerge and mature.

My honourable colleagues, our government is committed to growing the economy, creating jobs, and strengthening the middle class. As such we are building the right foundation for an inclusive and innovative Canada. We want to foster new thinking by harnessing the full talent and experience of all Canadians, and we recognize, as I said before, that diversity is our strength.

Bill C-25 ensures that we create the right conditions to keep Canada at the forefront of a global economy, and it will provide a transparent and predictable business environment for firms to innovate and grow.

I look forward to discussing this legislation with you.

Thank you.

9 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy

Thank you very much, Minister Bains. We're going right into questioning, starting with Mr. Longfield.

You have seven minutes.

9 a.m.

Liberal

Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here today. It's always a pleasure to have you in the room so that we can talk about strategies together and have our disagreements around this table, and hopefully help you to inform yourself and your colleagues on best practices from our points of view as well.

On the way boards are elected, first of all, we're looking at the super-strategic role that we're playing here versus the strategic role, versus local business unit managers, or provincial or territorial managers, in terms of regulations. Could you talk about what super-strategic goals you have in changing the way boards are elected?

9 a.m.

Liberal

Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON

I believe that we can create a unique value proposition that will differentiate Canada when it comes to our corporate governance structure. I believe this can be a competitive advantage for us. As I travel internationally, or even across Canada, it's become very clear that the number one ingredient for our success going forward, particularly in the global context—and you talked about the economy and the change and scope and speed of technology, the fact that there is a great deal of disruption—is investing in our people and talent.

When you look at our stats, the stats are pretty problematic in the current situation. For example, to illustrate this point, women hold only 13% of all seats on Canadian boards, and only 19.1% of those are Financial Post 500 companies, yet they make up 48% of the workforce. Think about that for a moment. If we were to change that drastically it would truly provide a competitive advantage for us. The thinking is that we value diversity; we promote multiculturalism; we have great social cohesion; and we're a country that is very clear about saying we're open to people, ideas, trade, immigration. How do we leverage that openness and see that reflected at the board level, in senior management? That's not only the right thing to do but it truly helps the bottom line, and there are numerous studies that reflect that.

When you talk about the global context I think that Canada can position itself as a world leader when it comes to corporate governance diversity and corporate governance practices, and that's really what this bill is all about. It's about introducing best practices so that we can strengthen what we want to achieve at the corporate level, both at the board level and at the management level. I think that is a competitive advantage for us.

February 14th, 2017 / 9 a.m.

Liberal

Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON

Thank you, Minister.

I'm thinking of boards that I've served on. I've been on the boards of a few multinational corporations. I've been on the boards of some Canadian corporations. We've looked at the difference between strategic and tactical. That's where we always argued at the board table: how deep into the weeds we needed to get in terms of board governance and how to get some of the best practices on governance forward versus how many machines we needed in a plant, or management decisions.

At the last meeting we met with some of the department officials and we were talking about the difference between regulatory and statutory or legal definitions. When we talked about diversity, how much of that is within regulations and how much of that should be within legislation? We were trying to separate out the strategic versus the tactical.

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON

I agree with your assessment. The objective of a board is really to provide strategic advice to a corporation. The tactical decisions really should be left to management. The idea of a board is to oversee their fiduciary responsibility and they also look at long-term and short-term initiatives that will help the organization succeed. They ultimately are there to represent the interests of the shareholders. That's why shareholder democracy is such a key component of this bill as well.

I firmly believe when it comes to diversity, for example, we're trying to say that right now we want to see diversity better reflected in our governance structure. To put things in perspective, 59% still don't have written policies when it comes to diversity—I'm talking about corporations—and 45% of the listed companies do not even have a woman on their boards.

We're trying to say that we're trying to have a conversation here. We're trying to clearly send a direction on behalf of the government. We're trying to say, “Look, at a strategic level you need to really focus on diversity because this is obviously a key area of concern and also an opportunity as well.”

I think we're trying not to be prescriptive. We're not trying to create more red tape. We're not trying to create additional hurdles and challenges, because the vast majority of these businesses are small and medium-sized enterprises. But we are trying to indicate very clearly to them that they need to move in this direction.

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON

Thank you, Minister.

I'm also chairing the multi-party co-op caucus.

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON

Yes.

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON

Co-ops' governance also have social goals. They also have environmental goals. One of the corporations I was involved with from England also had social and environmental goals in terms of board governance. During the review period some of these practices could come forward. You touched on review, but do you have some kind of sense of how frequently we could look at changes to regulations going forward, to maybe look at some of these social and environmental possibilities?

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON

I think overall the proposals that we brought forward under Bill C-25 are long overdue. The last time we made changes to our framework laws was in 2001. It has been a substantially long period of time since we brought these changes forward. I'm very proud that our government has taken action on this and that we've brought these changes forward.

Again, I think the committee can speak to the terms of when they want to see changes reflected in our framework, in our laws. Obviously, as I mentioned, there has been a tremendous amount of change in technology, there has been a lot of intense global competition, and therefore, we need to constantly re-examine and re-evaluate.

From my perspective, particularly when it comes to areas of diversity, I'd like to see meaningful progress in those areas. For example, I think five years presents a reasonable timeline where we can re-evaluate and determine what kind of progress we've made. Then, if we haven't achieved the outcomes that we want, how can we move forward in a meaningful way? What other tools do we have in our tool box? That would be a suggestion I would have for the committee, but I would welcome hearing your thoughts.

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON

That is better than twice every 40 years.

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON

Yes.

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON

Thank you, Minister.

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy

Thank you very much.

We're going to move to Mr. Nuttall. You have seven minutes.

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

Alex Nuttall Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for joining us today.

Perhaps I could pick up where Mr. Longfield left off in regard to outcomes. To be blunt, one of the criticisms that I've had of government as a whole, not specifically this government, is the lack of measurables that are put in place to determine whether goals have actually been achieved. In other words, are the bills that we're moving actually having an effect on the problem that has been determined to be there?

My question to you would be, what measurables do you have to determine whether this is a success or not and over what timeline? What are your targets? What are your measurables and what is the timeline in place on this?

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON

Thank you very much for that thoughtful question.

Just to put things into context, we looked at other jurisdictions to get an understanding of what their starting point was. I mentioned our starting point's around 13%, for example, when it comes to women on corporate boards right now. With a 48% workforce, that's just unacceptable. I'll explain why in a much more meaningful way, rather than just targets.

Specifically, on targets, we're at 13%, so that's the baseline now. If you look at the U.K., in about three to five years, it was able to double representation of women on boards from 12.5% to 26%. Australia went from 10.7% to 22.7%. We saw that kind of progress over a five-year period. I would say, based on those experiences, that would be a reasonable range in a specific target for a specific group.

Fundamentally, what I think this bill is trying to accomplish and what I think we need to be mindful of is that we are genuinely trying to promote diversity of thought and diversity of perspective. In order for a corporation and for management to really be able to be innovative, to be able to grow, to meet customer needs, and to be able to succeed in a changing environment, they need to have critical thinkers and a diversity of perspectives and ideas. Of course, these numbers matter and targets matter, but if you have true diversity of thought, I really believe that is a core ingredient of success for a corporation or management going forward. That's one of the intended outcomes of this legislation.

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

Alex Nuttall Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON

Thank you.

Just to confirm, your target would be 26% roughly, or to double it over a three- to five-year timeline. That's just for one objective.

9:10 a.m.

Liberal

Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON

I was giving you examples of other jurisdictions and the outcomes that they've been able to achieve with a comply or explain model. I was giving you comparable examples.

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

Alex Nuttall Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON

Right. What's your target?

9:10 a.m.

Liberal

Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON

First of all, it's not necessarily my target. What I genuinely want, overall and fundamentally at the corporate level, is to see society better reflected. If you look at it, some companies have a different situation.

For example, if you're a start-up company and you're just setting up with a few people, you tend to deal with family members, originally, or your key investors. To have a target for them may not be realistic. As they continue to grow and scale up, they become a more ambitious organization, more export-oriented and global, then I would think they should have a better reflection of diversity.

The point I'm making is that I have a macro, overall target within the corporate sector. I would like to see greater representation of women, of diverse backgrounds and, generally, of people with diverse perspectives. There are no specific targets for a small business or a medium business. We don't want to create that kind of prescriptive model, but we want to be very clear that we want to see diversity practices put forward. If they don't, they must explain their position.

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

Alex Nuttall Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON

My problem with that, Minister, is this. I know your background. I know you spent years in the private sector as well.

9:10 a.m.

Liberal

Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON

Yes.

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

Alex Nuttall Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON

You probably went through change management in your own organizations. I'm guessing that at no time did those change management cultural changes not include specific measurables, because that's the world that you and I lived in.

I think the same type of approach needs to be taken here. I'm trying to understand. At the end of a five-year cycle, let's say, is it achieved, if you go from 13% to 17%? This is one bill on a very large issue, quite frankly, a humongous economy. Is that an achievement?

9:10 a.m.

Liberal

Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON

That's a good question. What would success look like?