Industry Committee on March 7th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes, I'm open to changing it. I think it's important, again, for Parliament to make a statement. The reason it actually doesn't include [Technical difficulty—Editor] because you're supposed to provide some examples. That's actually the point that Mr. Longfield is making there, that it can be that. What you do is outline some of the major ones that you do want in the definition, so it really doesn't exclude anybody. What it does is provide some type of guidance for it.

It's a matter of honing these down. I think they're all good motions in many respects, and I think we need to get there first before we have the arguments against and for.

We do have Ms. May's amendment on the floor right now. If there are any amendments to it, we could move those at this point in time, and then go from there. I'm open to that. I think there is a reason there are three amendments from three different parties. It's because it's important that this statement comes from Parliament. What's in that actual statement is just the expression. It's not exclusive to anything past that in terms of the regulations, to be very clear about that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you.

Mr. Arya.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As you may recall, I was quite insistent that direction be given on the word “diversity” as used in the bill. Many witnesses also mentioned the importance of the government showing some direction and one of the witnesses did mention that, if not in the legislation, at least in the regulations, the government has to come out and show direction to the corporate sector.

The government has assured me that it is going to come out and put proper words in the regulations to explain that diversity beyond gender shall include the designated groups under the Employment Equity Act, such as indigenous people, visible minorities, people with disabilities, etc. I'm quite happy that the government is recognizing this fact and making changes to include them in the regulations. That is good for me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you.

I'm just trying to get some clarification because we have three amendments. We have one on the floor, but we could go off in many different directions, so we want to make sure we try to keep this thing tight.

The option is that we can amend PV-5 or we could vote it down, then move to the next one, NDP-13, which we can amend or vote down, and then we can go to CPC-1 and amend it or vote it down. That's kind of where we stand.

Ms. May, go ahead.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you.

I appreciate the chance to take the floor again, Mr. Chair, since I'm not a member of the committee but have to bring my amendments here.

First of all, I don't agree that it's more appropriate to put a definition of diversity in the regulations. I think it should be part of the bill. The language that's used in all three of the proposed amendments—but mine is the one on the floor right now—is inclusive, “including”. It's not prescriptive. The use of the word “including” is to have an indicative list to turn the minds of people looking at diversity to what we have in mind.

In looking at the three, the only words found in the NDP and Conservative motions that aren't in mine are age, which is in both the NDP and the Conservative motion, and the Conservative motion includes religion and socioeconomic status. I would certainly regard it—although I'm not the mover of this, it's deemed moved—as friendly to insert the words “age”, “religion”, and “socioeconomic status” into PV-5 to have one diversity definition that's inclusive of what all parties have put forward here.

My difficulty is that I'm not allowed to move a friendly amendment to my own amendment, but as long as none of.... The language that is more explicit in mine than in anyone else's amendment is related to sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression. Those are very important and subtle concepts that I would want to ensure weren't lost, but I have absolutely no objection to including age, religion, and socioeconomic status in this indicative list of diversity elements.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you.

Mr. Lobb.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Maybe Mr. Schaan or our legislative clerk could provide some clarification just on some of the comments the Liberals made. This is “including but not limited to”. Is that the correct interpretation of this?

[Mark Schaan]

You can read this in two different ways. Right now the way the act reads is that, “The directors of a prescribed corporation shall place before the shareholders, at every annual meeting, the prescribed information respecting diversity”.

While this is not an exhaustive list, “including in regard to” would require the corporation at minimum to provide information related to every single one of these categories to their shareholders. The degree to which they would do that would be prescribed in the regulations, so we have to think through the degree to which forms or other mechanisms on the proxy circular could do in that in such a manner because for each one of these.... For right now, the prescribed information actually forms a security commission box on the proxy circular, so you would need to get access to the proxy for every single one of these categories. As it stands right now, the bill does that through the regulations, not through the act.

I don't know if that answers your question.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I would ask Ms. May if that was her intention with this change. Did she want it that rigid or a little more lenient with her wording?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I don't think that's rigid. I think when you turn your mind to these.... If you have a board of directors, it's very straightforward to say we have no one representing an indigenous background, no one who speaks to a diversity of sexual orientation, or you do. It's not complicated. Boards of directors don't number in the thousands, and it's easy to put that information forward in a prescribed form to put it before the shareholders.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I have another question, then.

The Liberals are saying they don't want this in the act, but they want to put it in regulation. Would the regulations have basically the same wording? How is this different, then, in the regulation?

[Mark Schaan]

The regulations provide guidance on what might be included in a diversity policy. Currently, the prescribed information in the draft regulations relates to the securities commission's definitions of gender makeup for boards and senior management, as well as gender policy.

Diversity beyond gender is a policy where the draft regulations have a guidance that says the diversity policy could include the employment equity groups. It wouldn't require prescribed information on each of those categories as per the current draft report.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

My final question, then, is for the Liberals.

They talked about the regulations. In an act of good faith, do they want to present what their regulations are going to look like?

We're leaving it up to political staff members and public servants, which is fine. They have a function as well. I'm not going to say every witness came to the committee and talked about this, but certainly, the vast majority did. I'm not so sure why parliamentarians, who are paid to come here and do this job, would want to give carte blanche to somebody else, and leave maybe the most significant or symbolic part to people we're not even going to have a chance to question or talk to, or vet what they're going to do. It'll come into force and there won't be much of a say.

I don't know if anybody else has a comment on that, but I wonder if the Liberals have an idea of what their regulation is going to look like. Maybe if it looks great, we can bypass these three and carry right on. I wonder if any of them would like to comment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Mr. Masse, you're next, but where we stand right now, we have three motions. We're working on the first one. As Ms. May cannot amend a motion, because she's not part of the committee, is there someone who would like to propose a subamendment to the motion? That's where we are right now, just to keep everybody in the loop.

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Our motion is quite similar to this. There's a definite opportunity here to deal with an issue that's evolving. The Globe and Mail has a report on no simple fix to racial bias in the sharing economy, and it starts with this:

One of the underlying flaws of any workplace is the assumption that the cream rises to the top, meaning that the best people get promoted and are given opportunities to shine. While it’s tempting to be lulled into believing in a meritocracy, years of research on women and minorities in the work force demonstrate this is rarely the case. Fortunately, in most corporate settings, protocols exist to try to weed out discriminatory practices.

But they don't always take place. What I see here is an opportunity for us to enhance the bill a bit. Leaving it to regulation is an abdication of responsibility to a bureaucracy. I strongly believe that if we're going to have what this bill states, taking a pass on all that to regulations is the easiest thing you can do as a member of Parliament up here. That is by far the easiest thing you could ever do in these halls. If there are some gaps in the proposed Green amendment, then let's have those amendments from the government to fix this and to make a statement.

I'm willing, with my motion as well, to have this passed under another party's name to get this done, which is so serious a situation in showing some leadership. We have the Conservatives as well. There's a parliamentary interest here that goes beyond particular colours. If there are holes in this legislation, then let's have amendments from the government side on those. If there is diversity, a specific suggestion to improve this, then we're all ears to hear that.

I think it comes to a fundamental of whether you want to be a member of Parliament who's inclusive of legislation and getting things done, or whether you want to abdicate responsibility and not be one who spends your time up here doing anything, just leaving it for a bureaucratic ship that's on a drift somewhere else with this policy. I believe it's too important to not want to deal with diversity.

We heard the witnesses and how passionate they were. I think they would be shocked that we would have them come forth and talk and then just basically say, “You know what? We'll just leave it to those other guys behind the curtain. They can take care of that. It's too complicated for us. It's too challenging for us to deal with the issue of diversity and making sure that Parliament makes a forced statement on this. This is how important it is for us.”

Given what's taken place in our aboriginal culture and how it has consumed this Parliament, given that we have a so-called feminist Prime Minister, and given that now we have a lot of tensions in our communities and our society related to what's taking place, even in the United States, I think this is the perfect opportunity for us, as the Canadian Parliament, to say that we want to help and be part of and inclusive of that leadership.

Leadership is putting yourself forward even though it could be a little awkward at times. It's about a standard of principle that we would show. That's as opposed to basically saying—and everybody knows the game up here—“Send it to regulation. You know what? You don't like it, so they can deal with it.”

By the way, it sends a strong statement in the review of this legislation that this body here, who did the first significant review, took a pass on this. When we get a chance to review it, which will probably be about seven to eight years minimum from this point in time, it will be remembered as, “Oh yeah, apparently everything was good back then on this issue and they decided we could let that hang on for another seven or eight years. We don't have to bother dealing with it because somebody behind the curtain is going to deal with it and it's not going to be the name on the lawn sign.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you.

Mr. Baylis.

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

I have a very strong fundamental concern about all three of these when they start listing them, and I'll explain why.

Again, I come from the corporate world. I would have a problem sitting down with anyone I wanted to take on and directly saying, “Look, before I take you on, you need to tell me your sexual orientation. You need to disclose to me if you're a homosexual, what it is.” That person could say to me, “That's none of your goddamn business.” Then I would say to that person, “Before I take you on, I need to know what your religion is.” That's another point here. “I'm not going to take you on unless you meet certain religious concerns.” They could say to me again, “That's none of your damn business.” Then I say, “Okay, hang on then. Let me know if you have some form of disability. I need to know that because I have to disclose what your disability is.” Again, that person may say to me, and they would be right to say to me, “None of your damn business.”

I can go on and on: “I want to know what your official language is”; “I don't want to tell you what my official language is because I consider myself to be completely bilingual”; “I'm sorry, you have to pick one”; “No, I refuse to”; “Okay, then I can't hire you.”

I understand one angle of looking at this, but let's talk in the real world. In the real world, if we're trying to put in diversity, we can ask for it. If someone is willing to disclose it and we can work towards it, I'm not against the spirit of this. However, thinking that we can ram something through into a law like this and we can then start demanding that people tell us all types of private information is absolutely wrong.

I am completely against all three of these.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Baylis, there's nothing in this that requires anyone to divulge anything about their identity they don't wish to divulge. Diversity respects those elements of our society. For a person who is potentially gay or lesbian, and they are out and they are describing where they stand and who they are, that reflects diversity. You're not required to inquire of people if they are clear in their statement of who they are. They, then, represent the diversity.

Let's face it. We live in a patriarchy. This Prime Minister did a wonderful thing by having gender parity in cabinet. The first prime minister that I knew of to do that was Gro Harlem Brundtland in Norway, and that was in the 1980s. After she did that, Norway passed a law that corporate boards had to be 50% women, and now they are.

This legislation, with this amendment, doesn't even require that a gender quota be met, or a gender target be met. It merely says, when looking at diversity, you look at issues like disability, gender, race, ethnicity, indigenous heritage.

There was no clearer evidence to me that we lived in a patriarchy than when the news media and pundits got busy on Justin Trudeau's 50%-women cabinet. For the first time, I heard media people wonder whether these people were qualified to be cabinet ministers. I never heard anyone wonder whether the men who were appointed to cabinet were qualified. It was a brand new concept, women being appointed to cabinet. Could they possibly be qualified? I won't bother mentioning previous male cabinet ministers one might have pondered about.

I would really urge my Liberal friends to take this step. This is a very modest step in describing what diversity means, so that corporate boards will have consideration of this and think, “Wow. That would be a great person to promote to senior management. That would improve where we stand in our representation of women, people of colour, LGBTQ, and trans.” This is an important step, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Mr. Dreeshen.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Just to sum up the points, and again, we do have three amendments that are very closely aligned. When I look at Mr. Masse's, the NDP one, we haven't included aboriginal and indigenous heritage and so on, so maybe that could go in. I'm not sure which one we should specifically focus on amending.

I would suggest, hearing what the Liberals are saying at this particular point in time, that even though there was great discussion when the witnesses were here about how adamant they were that things like this should be put into legislation, it doesn't seem like we have a fourth amendment coming from the Liberals to suggest that we are going to talk about diversity.

I believe that the Conservative one is a little bit more inclusive in that regard, but to say which one it is, and whether they're going to vote all three down, or whichever one, I'm not sure.

I think we should probably move on and make some decisions on it. I know Ms. May can't put amendments, and I don't know whether it's appropriate for other political parties to be making amendments on her behalf. I would either amend the NDP amendment or choose to amend the Conservative one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

As I stated before, Ms. May cannot amend her own amendment. Is there someone who would like to propose a subamendment to Ms. May's amendment?

If not, then we should move on.

Mr. Lobb.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I'm not sure we have to move on. I'd be more than willing to put forward a subamendment to Ms. May's amendment. However, I go back to my original point.

But before I make my original point, I want to point out two things. If you went back to March 2015 when the Conservatives were in government, would you ever imagine the Liberals would be talking the way they are today? It would be absolutely unfathomable. That is the first point. It's a little hypocritical, I believe.

The second point is to Frank's point. Lloyd said they're going to put the wording in the regulation, so the regulation's coming anyway. Frank and Lloyd probably need to have a meeting after this meeting to discuss this.

These are not your entry-level employees you're asking this question to or you're reporting or you're recording. These are senior, experienced people who are public in many ways in their communities and on the Canadian business scene. They're strong, they're confident, and they want to disclose what they're going to disclose. They're going to be proud when they disclose it at that time. This isn't some 25-year-old who's just setting out in the world. This is a senior person with thick skin who has gone through many bumps along the way.

I want to make that distinction, but I'll be quite honest that I don't know how anybody on this committee at this point could vote on this without knowing what the regulation is. That's my own opinion. It's an abdication of duty and I feel it's an important point. If we can't see this regulation that everybody keeps.... I'm assuming there must be a regulation bubbling around somewhere in the halls of the department. A sign of good faith would be to show us this, and if it seems legitimate, maybe we could bypass all this. But to do it in good faith at 10:25 just to speed things along, I think we'd be letting down a lot of people in this country who feel very passionately about this. I think at one time the Liberal Party probably was passionate about this too.

If the Liberals don't have the regulation here today, if it's possible to park this amendment and keep going or suspend the meeting until Thursday, or whenever we're going to discuss this bill again, and have the regulation tabled so we can discuss it and go through it.... I can't imagine anybody on this committee wanting to proceed with this bill until we know what the regulation is going to be.

I'm open to suggestions. If it has to be in camera, I'm willing to look at it in camera. Whatever it may be, I'm open to that, but I would think until we see that I don't know why we would continue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Are you proposing the motion? I'm not quite sure right now—