Evidence of meeting #50 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Terry Sheehan Liberal Sault Ste. Marie, ON
As with the first one I introduced, the second one is also housekeeping. It just better aligns the French and the English text.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
As a point of note, if amendment Liberal-2 is adopted, so are amendments Liberal-3 and Liberal-4, since they are consequential.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB
Could you explain the rationale for amendment Liberal-3? You've made a ruling that it is consequential. Could you explain why amendments Liberal-3 and Liberal-4 would then be consequential?
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Terry Sheehan Liberal Sault Ste. Marie, ON
Amendment Liberal-3 would ensure that the regulatory authority granted was broad enough to allow the regulation to facilitate corporations pursuing the notice and access system for a number of additional forms of proxy circulars without requiring an exemption from the director of Corporations Canada.
The other two are changing a lot of the text to line up the English and French. I can pull out examples of words, such as “envoyer”, that are not present in the English text. It lines all of them up together.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB
Far be it from me to speak about whether or not the English and French line up. My point was simply that, in amendment Liberal-2, we were simply taking one small part and suggesting that this version be changed. I wanted to be assured that this was tied into what is all in the English text that is there for amendment Liberal-3, and whether or not that follows through properly.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Can we ask Mr. Schaan? I want to make sure those do line up accordingly.
March 7th, 2017 / 9:50 a.m.
Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Strategic Policy Sector, Department of Industry
The main change here is—
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
There are a lot of changes in the other ones, but this one was smaller.
9:50 a.m.
Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Strategic Policy Sector, Department of Industry
Amendments Liberal-3, Liberal-4, and Liberal-2 all speak to the same concept of notice and access, which was the intent of the bill. That's to avoid having people make an annual declaration to the director of Corporations Canada for an exception to pursue the notice and access system of sending out one. The problem is that the word “envoyer” appears a couple of times in the act. For internal consistency, our justice drafter said that if you change it in amendment Liberal-2, and you don't change it in amendments Liberal-3 and Liberal-4, the bill will be internally inconsistent and you'll have left in the word “envoyer”, which denotes “sent”, even though what we really meant was “made available”. Hence, amendments Liberal-2, Liberal-3, and Liberal-4 are all being consistent.
9:55 a.m.
NDP
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
Yes, NDP-12 is inadmissible, since it concerns a section of the act not amended by the bill.
(Clause 14 to 16 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 17)
As a consequence of amendment Liberal-2 having been agreed to, amendment Liberal-3 is adopted.
(Clause 17 as amended agreed to)
We have no amendments to clauses 18 to 23. Can we do them as a block or would you like to do them individually?
9:55 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
A block is fine.
(Clauses 18 to 23 inclusive agreed to on division)
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
Next we have new clause 23.1 in amendment Liberal-4, which was adopted.
(On clause 24)
Now we're on clause 24, and amendment PV-5.
Ms. May.
9:55 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We've certainly had some conversations on the question of diversity, the failure to actually define “diversity” being a concern of some of the witnesses, particularly the Canadian Bar Association. Rather than go back to the definition section, and in order to be admissible in this section, I am proposing to amend, on page 9, the proposed subsection 172.1(1) from lines 5 to 7, which refer to information respecting diversity. What my amendment does is make suggestions that will be useful, such as “—including in regard to gender, disability, race, ethnicity, Aboriginal or Indigenous heritage, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression—among the directors”, and so on. It's a suggestive, useful, and robust definition of what diversity means.
I think it is absolutely friendly to the intent of the act, and it is in keeping with recommendations that the committee heard from many witnesses. It's certainly, I think, the direction that the government says it wants to go. I hope that my amendment PV-5 will be acceptable to the voting members of this committee.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
Thank you.
Before we move on with that one, there is just a point to note. PV-5, NDP-13, and CPC-1 are all on the same lines. If PV-5 is adopted, NDP-13 and CPC-1 cannot be moved as they amend the same lines. Please bear that in mind.
Mr. Lobb, you have the floor.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
Great, and it's to that point. I'm just curious if Ms. May or Mr. Masse, or any other member of the committee, has a preference of the three or has any thoughts on the three or on which one is the best one. Obviously, I think CPC-1 is probably the best one, but I'm open to suggestions just to see if we can find some common ground on which of the three may be the best.
I'm assuming we can amend these if there is a suggestion along the way, but I agree that something like this should be included. It's in the spirit of the change to the act here. I'm open to hearing what anybody has to say.
10 a.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
I think Mr. Lobb actually makes a good point. The fact that we have three different definitions on the floor shows why we don't want to have it in the act, but have it in the regulations. As the minister said when he was here, diversity of thought is the most important part of the legislation and the rest of it can be covered under regulations.