Industry Committee on March 7th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Again, that one is inadmissible as it amends a section of the act not amended by the bill.

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

I just would like to point out on the record potentially the flaw here in the overall thing.

We had witnesses who appeared before committee who pointed out recommendations and suggestions. I don't know if it was intentional by the minister or unintentional, or what it was, but he appeared before committee and said how much he had consulted. Ms. May and Mr. Masse both bring amendments to it. They've consulted with people and they likely consulted with the minister or the department and it's a shame now that here we are with some amendments—they may be some good amendments—and they're all inadmissible.

I just put that on the record. I know you said there's nothing we can do about it, and that's fine, but I just put that on the record.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you.

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

To that as well, I find it interesting that as we went through the process here, we had testimony continually provided here with no direction related to things that may be admissible or not admissible in the bill. I think having taxpayers pay for witnesses to come here, and then having the evidence not directed towards that, is something that I'm surprised has taken place to the full degree, given the fact that we had so much interest in this bill.

I think it's interesting in terms of overall how flawed and weak the bill is. It's the reason that I think so many people came here to testify about real, significant issues. None of that actually gets done and dealt with in the bill because it's been scoped so much. I noticed it from the get-go, a clear political strategy to, basically almost like an omnibus bill, relate it to women's rights, persons with disabilities, racial minorities, board of governance accountability, tax havens, money laundering, all those things that the government professes to do. All are quite possible in this bill but are now basically ruled out of order. I find it quite ironic given the political mantra coming from the Liberal Party that the issues that they profess to be champions of are out of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you.

We're going to move to NDP-4.

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

That one we can dispense with easily too. It's the same as the other one. Points have been made on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Okay. It's inadmissible as it amends a section of the act not amended by the bill.

We have NDP-5.

Mr. Lobb.

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

Sorry, I have another question.

Obviously, Ms. May or Mr. Masse sent these out and had somebody craft these changes, these amendments. At any time when they were doing these, did they get legal advice from anybody at the Library of Parliament, or whoever, asking why they were even bringing these forward because they would be inadmissible? I'm not being critical. I'm just asking.

Why would we have spent all these resources to perfect these amendments when they're out of order? Again, it's a flaw in the system. If they're out of order, somebody somewhere in the legislative staff should have said they were way out of order. I wonder if they can provide any comments to this, if they were advised at any time about this.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I'll respond to that, too, but do you want to go first?

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

It's up to the chair if I'm allowed to speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Go ahead.

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

When we work with the legal drafters, they'll advise if they think it's potentially inadmissible, but it's ultimately a decision for the chair.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

It's the same as well where.... For this bill, the reason I table amendments that continue to be ruled out of order is that this bill is a damned disgrace for what it says it does. When I spend my time here, I think it's important that I'm trying to change things and make them better, whereas this has become real gamesmanship. Quite frankly, here are things that we have control over—immediacy—whether it be increasing the numbers of men and women on corporate boards or in governance. Whereas other models across the world have shown very progressive and very successful ways of doing so, the path this bill is going towards is basically one of shelving it for several years.

In fact, on corporate tax evasion as well, we've seen what's happening with tax havens and the Panama papers. I'll touch on this here, and you'll hear more on that with the bearer shares and so forth. It won't cost Canadians or Parliament money to close these loopholes.

In terms of the leadership we can take with regard to the corporate boardrooms, we've seen and heard testimony from the Fortune 500, for example, where the level of women on boards has actually decreased over the last couple of years, as opposed to increasing. What's happening now is that we have a bill here that's going to go through the facade of arguing those points and taking a pass on anything that's substantial and significant. I don't want to leave any stone unturned here, certainly, because this is how I'm spending my time. I'm trying to improve these things, and my belief is to have them done is a responsible way.

This bill has become an empty shell of maintenance that isn't going to affect the many people that it could. In fact, it leaves the word “gender” right out of it. I think that's interesting in itself. If that doesn't tell you a lot, then what else would? Second, we still have issues. We have so-called champions of race, ethnicity, and inclusion, but I see nothing coming to the table in any amendments so far. I know that we'll have discussion on some of those.

Lastly, and again, we have the issue of bearer shares, which is something that can be changed simply with basically a signature here without costing the taxpayers money and registering all those things.... For those reasons alone, I'm keeping on with my amendments. If they're going to be ruled out of order because we don't want to deal with the significance of this bill and want to parcel it down to being an empty shell, it won't be on my watch that it happens without a voice.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you.

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

What he said.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Mr. Dreeshen.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

There's a question I have because we are studying new legislation. There are other bills that we'll be taking a look at. Perhaps the legislative clerk could help us in this regard.

Shouldn't we know this as we go through it and are questioning witnesses and so on? If we're under the assumption that the people we bring in and the discussions we have are in some way going to affect the progression of the bill, is there a way for us to get a heads-up on that before we start bringing in people who would have views that have no bearing on what we could deal with? We still have the right to bring them in and to hear what they would have to say, but I'm wondering if the legislative clerk—or whoever it would be—would be able to give us a heads-up in that regard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Before I let the legislative clerk in on this, I will remind everybody of a couple of things. One, we had a briefing done before the bill. That's why we have the analysts do the briefing in advance, so that people can ask those questions.

Monsieur Méla, at our last meeting, also suggested that for anybody who had any questions he was more than willing to sit down one-on-one to review the amendments, the proposed amendments, and how that all worked. Again, this is not something that's taken lightly. This is law. This is the way the system is. This is the House of Commons.

Do you have anything you'd like to add, Monsieur Méla?

[Philippe Méla, Legislative Clerk, House of Commons]

I can add a few things, but I don't want to take up too much of your time.

The fact that the bill has been adopted at second reading sets the scope of the bill. If the bill had been sent to committee before second reading, the scope of the bill would have been enlarged, so the possibilities for amendments would have been greater.

Here, we are in a situation where the bill has been voted on at second reading by the whole House. In a sense, the whole House agreed to what can be amended. Therefore, there are ways here and there, but they're very narrow in terms of the parent acts.

In terms of bringing in witnesses, I can't really comment on who you should bring in, but you should keep that in mind. Once the scope of the bill is set, it's difficult to go beyond the scope, because that's one of the rules. You can't go beyond the scope of the bill, unless, of course, it's sent before second reading, whereby it opens up a bit the possibility of amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you.

Mr. Lobb.

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

I have a few questions then, on that.

Ms. May brought up an interesting point. She said she was advised that it's the chair's decision as to whether it's in order or out of order. Is that correct? Is that the chair's decision based on his decision or is that the chair's decision based on advice he has received from somebody?

[The Clerk]

It's the chair's decision always. The chair represents the Speaker of the House. When the Speaker of the House rules on anything, he receives advice from either one of us as table officers. It goes to the same idea. We give advice. The chair can overrule the advice—

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

Is it your opinion that the chair could accept all of Ms. May's and Mr. Masse's amendments, since it's his decision?

[The Clerk]

The committee can also do that. Once the chair has ruled, there is the possibility to appeal the ruling of the chair, and then it becomes a vote of the committee to either adopt or reject the—

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

Are you saying we would have to challenge the chair on every one of these amendments?