Evidence of meeting #47 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 board.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
Thank you very much.
We're going to move to Mr. Masse, for seven minutes.
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for being here and also for being available from abroad.
If we follow the minister's proposal with regard to this bill and it stays in its current context for enforcement and disclosure, and so forth, we won't get a chance to have a new legislative product until 2025, based on best estimates in the current time frame.
I'll go around the table quickly. Would that be a satisfactory date to have a piece of legislation looking at this issue, in which there is no enforcement, given that we would have to review for 2025 before any enforcement takes place?
I'll start with Mr. Fortier and go around the table. You can say yes or no really quickly because I have other questions. If you don't respond, then I'll take that for what it is.
9:35 a.m.
Vice-President, Policy, Institute of Corporate Directors
I will say no, but very briefly, I have a couple of points.
I think the coalition's proposal to have an advisory committee is an interesting one, but I also think—
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
If I could interrupt, here's the thing I'm asking right now. This is the reality. We don't have theoretical situations here. The reality is that, if we follow the timelines we've had for this bill to get here to this Parliament, to get a new product in the field with no change, the earliest for it to get to the next Parliament is 2025.
Are you comfortable with that?
9:40 a.m.
Vice-President, Policy, Institute of Corporate Directors
No. We want to see some change now, particularly on diversity
9:40 a.m.
Prof. Aaron Dhir
Thank you, Mr. Masse.
Clearly, the answer is no, which is why one of my suggestions is that contemporaneous with the passage of the bill, the government begin substantive conversation now on next potential more prescriptive forms of—
9:40 a.m.
NDP
9:40 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Coalition for Good Governance
Again, the answer would be no. Eight years is too long. That's one of the reasons we suggested the stakeholder advisory committee.
9:40 a.m.
Director of Policy Development, Canadian Coalition for Good Governance
I agree.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Thank you very much for that.
To Mr. Dhir, with regard to advancing this bill in terms of quotas—we haven't talked a lot about it—what if there was a more modest quota that was put in place, say for example....
What I thought was most interesting about the testimony today was your notation of the 500-plus positions. By that indication of measure, we're actually stepping back because I believe 21% is the number right now, so we're actually in a reverse trend, at least for this one year. That can be measured over several years to be more accurate about what the real trend is, but that happened?
What about the potential of a more modest, interim quota, that could get a land base, so to speak, for further change?
9:40 a.m.
Prof. Aaron Dhir
Yes. I should say I've studied the quota system by travelling to Norway and conducting research interviews with corporate directors who are subject to a quota regime. I asked those directors, who I should say almost uniformly support the quota legislation, if you were to do things differently, what might be a particular step you would take? A number of them did suggest to me that going with too much too soon does create a significant burden, such that a progressive form of escalation might be more appropriate along the lines you're suggesting.
I should note, Mr. Masse, that we talk a lot about the Norwegian experience, but subsequently a number of countries have also passed quotas. Two come to mind, Italy and France, that have done exactly that, creating a progressive quota system with lesser numbers expected as an initial goal.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Fortier, with regard to your company.... You mentioned some of the things: age, experience, geography. I guess one of my frustrations about this bill is that potentially we walk away from an opportunity for real diversity.
Your board has two women and five men, and I believe there are no visible minorities on it. Is that correct?
9:40 a.m.
Vice-President, Policy, Institute of Corporate Directors
I guess that's right.
9:40 a.m.
Vice-President, Policy, Institute of Corporate Directors
I don't believe so.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
My past experience.... I used to work with youth at risk, new Canadians, and I also used to work on behalf of persons with disabilities, as an employment specialist in both cases. What I found was that decision-makers aren't there, and I would just be shocked if we walked away from a bill here that didn't address diversity issues, especially given the climate that we're in right now, to some degree.
Why are you so hesitant, and did your position change with the submission to the Ontario...with having more diversity involved in that? What's so wrong with the human rights code, or something like that? Do you think there could be some change in your position, or am I getting it wrong? If we're looking at 2025 before enforcement mechanisms take place, that's a heck of a long time to do something about it, when you look at some of these numbers.
9:40 a.m.
Vice-President, Policy, Institute of Corporate Directors
With respect, I am not saying that the board should not diversify along other lines. What I said in my remarks was that, as it is written, a company could receive the signal that diversification of experience is the same thing as gender diversity. For example, if a white man who was the CEO of TD is on the board, and if we had another white man who was the CEO of Royal, that's diversity because it's two different companies. If you want to get more specific in the language, that's one thing. I'm not saying that we shouldn't diversify more. I'm saying that, as it is written, diversity is left so wide open that it could mean anything.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
That's my concern. It seems that what I am hearing, as things advance here, is that the diversity of some of these boards—when you're talking about geography and so forth—seems to be a kind of a diversity model inside a bubble, versus that of the regular population, which would never consider such factors as part of diversity. I think we do generally speak about some of those things, like geography and representation—the Canadian political model has some of that—but it doesn't stop there.
Ms. Biesen...?
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I apologize.
Ms. van Biesen, I would like to know a bit more about the model that you proposed for.... You're working with different—
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
Sorry, you're out of time, but you can have a brief comment if you want.
9:45 a.m.
NDP