Industry Committee on March 9th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Mr. Lobb.

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

I have a couple of points.

First of all, maybe we could have a little more discussion about a comment that you made to Mr. Masse about repeating himself. I would be very interested in seeing anywhere in any of our rules on this committee that it says you're not allowed to repeat yourself. Maybe at the next meeting we have, you can present that to us just so that we know we can't repeat ourselves any longer on this committee.

The second thing I'd like to point out is about Bombardier. How much did the Liberals give Bombardier?

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

They gave it $376 million.

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

They gave $376 million to a company that, at best, is in the second quartile for the TSX 60. For all the members who are afraid to put anything into any amendment around it, let me read to you what Bombardier says:

The Corporation’s commitment to diversity is further reflected in its Code of Ethics and Business Conduct, pursuant to which Bombardier shall offer equal employment opportunities without regard to any distinctions based on age, gender, sexual orientation, disability, race, religion, citizenship, marital status, family situation, country of origin or other factors, in accordance with the laws and regulations of each country where it does business.

What's the problem? They've written it in on their own. As to the whole idea that we shouldn't describe it, they're describing it right there and they had no problem describing it. It is in their annual report forever. The whole idea that we can't spell out anything, if you're afraid of it, just use what Bombardier put in. I'm sure Mr. Dreeshen or Mr. Masse would accept a friendly amendment to either one of their amendments, and we could just cut and paste what Bombardier put in there. If corporations aren't afraid to list it, I'm not sure why parliamentarians should be afraid to list it.

I heard Mr. Longfield's point that then it's too rigid. I can't remember exactly how he described it. They've put it right in their own public documentation for the whole country and world to see, and they operate in many countries around the world.

I'll go back to my original point that I made last meeting. This bill is many years old at this point. If you want to park this bill until May or June or what have you, I'm open to that. There won't be any more dust on it now than in May or June. Then you could present your regulation or the framework you would have around your regulation, something of goodwill or good faith to show some people on this committee who would at least like to see it. That would be enough for me.

But the whole idea around “we shouldn't put anything in the law because it's going to tie the hands of the people who are running these big corporations”, there it is right there, and I could probably go through many others and rhyme them off.

I'm not sure if any of my colleagues would like to comment further on this, but 27% is where Bombardier is for diversity. They're rewarded with a loan, which they said they didn't need. Maybe one of the conditions should have been that they'll work on the diversity of their board in the next couple of years before they have to repay their loan or they have to add another member to their board, something of good faith. I know that may not be in line with what others think.

The top quartile for the TSX 60 for the board is only 33%. That's our high-water mark. There's one company, a food manufacturer of all companies, Saputo, that has exactly 50%. If you read through the list—and most of us could rhyme off most of these companies—these are companies that would have tens of thousands of people who would be in Bombardier's description as diverse and would be available.

The Canadian Board Diversity Council put out a list of the top 50 people who would be qualified to sit on boards, who are diverse. Each year they put out their top list for companies that may not know where to begin. In addition to that, they list—it's either them or SHARE—that there are 3,500 people, and it may be 3,500 women, who are qualified to sit on corporate boards, yet the number of people who sit on corporate boards who would be considered diverse is well under 1,000.

It's more to think about.

It just is baffling that a government and a party that has said so much and has.... Just to present what they have around their framework on the regulation, they could present it at any time. I'm prepared. I'm sure Mr. Dreeshen, Mr. Nuttall, and Mr. Masse are prepared to park this bill for a few meetings until they're prepared to bring what they think is their regulation forward and carry on.

Certainly, the changes to the act are at least two and a half years old, probably three or four years old, probably from when people inside the department started talking about updating. It could be 10 years. I can't remember, but it's at least three or four. Mr. Schaan, maybe, could give us the update on this.

Surely somewhere inside the halls of Industry Canada, or in the legal arm, someone has talked about what a regulation should, can, or cannot look like. It has to be there. If that framework around a regulation is not there, I would say shame on the government for bringing forward something, having the minister tell us at committee about this, and then not even having anything ready.

It either is or isn't. If it is, let's bring it forward. If it isn't, then I think we should park this bill and wait until they have it ready to go.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have some questions for Mr. Schaan about this, but I just want to preface that by saying that if some feel it's inconvenient to sit through the questions and comments that I make on this, I'm fine with that. I know that a lot of people have been waiting a lifetime for inclusion, equity, and fairness. I would think basic respect is the very least they would get, to have these questions that have been posed to me from other people, and comments I've received from testimony not only here, that we heard, but also elsewhere.

The reason I came here today with the suggestion to the government, which I thought was realistic, on Bill C-16, being an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act. Even one committee member, during debate, said, “It is now 2016, and it is time that we modernize our laws to truly reflect our society and our diversity.” That was a Liberal member from this committee. I came here to try to achieve that balance with a specific piece that could bridge the gap on what seems to be taking place here.

Mr. Schaan, I want to be clear, though. I think that people need to understand this. If this is not included in the regulations—the regulations will decide these things—is it possible then to have a regulation that does not include, for example, race, in terms of disclosure? If they go through with their.... For regulations, it will include whatever they want it to be. Is it mandated? Does it have to include, for example, race or ethnic origin?

[Mark Schaan]

The prescribed information will be set out in the regulations. The prescribed information sets out both the prescribed information and a policy. The policy on diversity, as indicated, will give guidance that diversity includes the employment equity groups, which would include visible minorities.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

But it doesn't necessarily have to have that. It will give that as a policy, but the regulation can be what it wants, at the end of the day.

[Mark Schaan]

Yes. The regulations set out the prescribed information that the legislation gives them the power to set out.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

We're turning it over from Parliament...?

[Mark Schaan]

That's not a question for me to answer.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Of course, you don't have to answer that.

At any rate, the point is that it's a statement for us, and it's a statement for Parliament to be in there. I think it's a reasonable approach that we take here with this, and if there are any other suggestions on how to deal with this, then I would be open to that.

The reality here, however, is that if we take a pass on this, we also take a pass on the enforcement provisions and the oversight necessary. We won't be able to point to a specific law that says a corporation should actually be looking at this. We'll have to point to a regulation and a regulatory body. It's a disenfranchisement of the power of authority that gives an opportunity for Parliament and the minister to have their voice—at least in a stronger sense—put forth in a model being proposed that's very weak to begin with. It's one of the weakest models in the world, comply or explain, and it's a model that's shown to have had the least amount of results. That's the reality we're faced with here.

I want to proceed with this to get the change that's necessary, so that we at least have a Parliament that says something. We've seen what's happening internationally with legislation passed specifically on these things. That we're not even going to include a voice on this is, I think, highly difficult to accept in a modern age.

I'll leave it at that for now if we proceed at this point in time, but I just can't believe we are at this point where we have a specific piece of legislation that defines this in a particular way passed in the House of Commons by a majority Liberal government, and now those members are going to vote—I guess, if they don't support this motion—against what they actually voted and spoke for in the House of Commons months ago. That's the reality at the end of the day. I don't understand that.

I will leave it at that, and thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Earl, are you fine?

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

Yes, I'm fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Seeing no further debate, we will vote on—

Mr. Lobb.

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

The only other thing I'm going to add to this is to take, for example—and I'm not picking on this bank—the Bank of Montreal. That is a large bank. It's a huge employer. They are Canadian and they have other offices in North America. If you look at their diversity policy—not to be critical—it's lacking quite a bit. From what I've been able to find, there's nothing in there that spells out where they are, etc., so there's so much to do.

I have another question for Mr. Schaan, if he can tell us, which is, is there a regulation we would be able to see, say, at the next meeting, which would be the week after next on a Tuesday, that would satisfy the members? There has to be something inside your department that's been worked on. You're the director general. Is there a regulation and is that regulation, if you have one, a document we can see? Also, if you don't have a regulation in the works, why not?

[Mark Schaan]

As I indicated at the last meeting, the regulation-making process is that this legislation gives regulation-making powers to the minister. Once this bill receives royal assent, Justice will assign drafters for the purpose of drafting those regulations. Then those regulations will go through the Canada Gazette parts I and II process, and then it will be approved by the GIC.

The general contours of the regulations are as I've indicated, which would be that we are looking at a diversity policy that would provide guidance on diversity. The diversity would include but not be limited to the employment equity groups.

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

Have you had discussions at all about what that may look like?

[Mark Schaan]

As I say, the formal process for drafting begins once we have regulatory-making capacity.

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

I understand the bureaucratic lingo around that, but I'm saying to you—with all due respect—that obviously you and your colleagues were very involved with the crafting of the changes to this act, with the understanding of the need for something along the lines of diversity, in your words, as a regulation. I understand that you need direction from the minister vis-à-vis the bill, but certainly you're not telling us that this is the first time you guys have thought about what this would actually look like. There has to be some discussion. If you're going to put it in—

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I have a point of order. This question has been asked before. This was asked last meeting as well. How many times do we have to hear the answer? You got an answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Just for the record, Mr. Schaan, can you explain to us the process and how it works, because the question has been asked on numerous occasions?

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

To be clear, Mr. Chair, Mr. Schaan has described the process more than one time. I'm not going to argue that. My question—

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Has been answered.

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

Okay, this is where I'm going to be repetitive because, with all due respect to Mr. Schaan, I've asked him a couple of times. I understand that you are telling me that you won't proceed—the legal arm of it or however you want to describe it—until you have this bill back from the Senate and it's received royal assent. Okay, we all understand that. I don't need Mr. Longfield providing edification to that.

What I am trying to ask, though, is, have you or any of your colleagues had discussions on what a regulation would look like?