Evidence of meeting #48 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 gender.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
Do you agree that in addition to gender diversity in terms of women, we should also look into the subsection of gender diversity that considers indigenous women, visible minority women, and women with disabilities?
9:10 a.m.
Executive Director, Centre for Women in Politics and Public Leadership, Carleton University
Absolutely. One should not assume that if you create gender parity, you will necessarily get parity of all the representative groups. I think it applies for both men and women. I think there's an under-representation of visible minority and indigenous men and women.
When we're looking at women, absolutely you have to take a slice down through and not assume that all women are equally represented when you add women to a board or when you're increasing the participation of women in senior executive positions in government.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
You mentioned that the proposed regulations do not mention the word “diversity”, but I think they do mention gender diversity specifically.
9:10 a.m.
Executive Director, Centre for Women in Politics and Public Leadership, Carleton University
In the regulations...?
9:10 a.m.
Executive Director, Centre for Women in Politics and Public Leadership, Carleton University
What I was saying was that it was not in the legislation itself.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
Okay. Sorry. From what I understand, then, the word “diversity” and what it means may be defined in the regulations but not in the legislation.
9:10 a.m.
Executive Director, Centre for Women in Politics and Public Leadership, Carleton University
Right. If the bill is put forward as trying to increase gender diversity, sending a signal in the legislation would be very important.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
Do you think the word “diversity” should be limited only to gender diversity?
9:10 a.m.
Executive Director, Centre for Women in Politics and Public Leadership, Carleton University
Absolutely not. Diversity should be given a broad definition. However, if you want to send a signal that you want to increase women's participation to 30% or 50%, you must make it clear that this is what your goal is, because you can have diversity on a board, or you can say that you have a diverse board, and yet you will not have the gender parity or the gender representation you want.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
Okay, so you do agree that the word “diversity” should be beyond gender diversity.
9:10 a.m.
Executive Director, Centre for Women in Politics and Public Leadership, Carleton University
Absolutely.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
Maybe it can include the designated groups as defined in the Employment Equity Act, such as aboriginal people, visible minorities, people with disabilities, and other groups.
9:10 a.m.
Executive Director, Centre for Women in Politics and Public Leadership, Carleton University
I think you also want to look at.... When you're looking at industry, you also want representation from regions and representation that differs based on age and background. When you add more women, for example, you will bring diversity, but you also have to be mindful of the other subgroups within women or men that may not equally share in that.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
Thank you, Ms. Beckton.
Ms. Woodside, did I understand correctly that you want us to do away with limited liability corporations?
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
Then what was it you mentioned? You explained the advantages of having limited liability corporations, as well as the disadvantages. What are you trying to say there?
9:10 a.m.
Director, Publish What You Pay Canada
That part of the statement was talking about the risks that arise for creditors and others due to limited liability. It did not speak of doing away with it. Obviously, that's a cornerstone of the free market.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
I understand the risk. What is the solution that you were proposing there?
9:15 a.m.
Director, Publish What You Pay Canada
What we are saying is that creating transparent beneficial ownership of companies provides non-distributing companies, as well as distributing companies, with critical information about who controls those corporations, so when they enter into a transaction with a corporation, they understand who is actually behind that corporation and they mitigate their own risk.
February 21st, 2017 / 9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
Then what is the point of having a limited liability company? Let's say I have a limited liability company. In one company I make...and in the other company I have the regular transactions, and that limited liability company protects me. If companies want to know who the beneficial owner is, then what is the concept of a limited liability company?
9:15 a.m.
Mora Johnson Barrister and Solicitor, Publish What You Pay Canada
Thanks very much.
I just want to clarify that I'm a lawyer in a private practice. I provide advice to Publish What You Pay, but I'm actually speaking in a personal capacity today.
As you rightly say, you start a business.... Imagine you started as a sole proprietor, and then your business runs into trouble and you can't pay all of your creditors. Those creditors can go after your personal assets, including your home, so the CBCA and other corporate law statutes create limited liability to encourage people to enter into business.
9:15 a.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Publish What You Pay Canada
What this means is that when your business runs into trouble, and maybe you have to shut the business down, creditors just don't get paid.