Industry Committee on March 9th, 2017

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Okay, so it's not likely that we're going to make it through to today, so do we want to convene for committee business to discuss whether or not...? I'm trying to figure out the timeline that we would have here, potentially, for this bill. I'm wondering whether we should convene that meeting for a business meeting to decide whether we're going to extend time for this or delay the other bill that's taking place. Would that be appropriate?

I move a motion that we then convene for discussions of committee business.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Well, we do have time, but you put a motion on the table—

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

—and that motion is to convene to committee business in camera at this point.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I'd like a recorded vote to get an idea of where we're going, so to have a recorded vote on this is important.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Okay.

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

Could I speak to that or is it too late?

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

It's actually non-debatable at this point.

(Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

We will continue on with CPC-2.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Okay. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

The reason I was doing that was because I thought maybe we could figure out.... I'll just go by a guess that it might take another meeting in terms of looking at.... I'm trying to work through here in terms of the time frame for this motion because we do have a Liberal amendment coming up on this bill, as well as an NDP amendment. We have a two-year, a three-year, and a five-year potential review of the bill, so I want to get the time frame of when this actually takes place because I think it's really important, and I'll get to the reasons for that later.

As we walk through this, though, it's clear that the minister proposed this bill with no time frame at all. That's problematic because when you've only reviewed something of this significance two times over 40 years, especially given that they've had substantial majorities in that time period, the bill has received very little interest, in general, by the Liberal governments of the day. In fact, aside from some Conservative years, who were in power in the last decade, the vast majority of this bill's history has been under a Liberal government, which was under the Chrétien regime when I first arrived here.

My point is that if we're going to take a pass on dealing with it later the problem is that there has been very little interest by the governments to actually deal with it, and that's a criticism also of my Conservative colleagues. I know they have thick skin but at the same time we haven't dealt with this bill.

I wonder whether or not it's going to be a priority. Hence, when we look at the issues that we've dealt with here, be it gender equality for women, racial descriptions, or the issue over shares and things that have been isolated from this, I find the timeline for review one of the biggest concessions that we have to the minister to actually have some empowerment.

The empowerment comes through the comply or explain. If the comply or explain process fails us during this time period, which I want to go through here, then we're stuck, as opposed to...and this is where I want to highlight to members that we have had this happen. Bills for review have popped up on industry and other committees and they can take a matter of minutes to deal with, or they can be scoped as well, so it depends on what is proposed.

We don't have to deal with this entire amendment or entire act when it comes up again. We can deal with sections of it. It could be one meeting, it could be one hour, or it could be full hearings if we find, for example, that the comply or explain model isn't working, or maybe it's working very well and then we don't have to do anything.

The problem we have here with the time frame—and I'd be curious to eventually see what the Conservatives have with regard to this—is that it comes into force and every five years the Senate and House committees may be designated. It's within three years after the day on which proposed section 172.1 comes into force and every five years after that.

Let's be clear on what is being presented to us here. It is three years and five years after that. The five years is very consistent with that of the Liberal proposal that's being amended.

Sorry, which amendment number is that?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

It's Liberal-7.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Liberal 7, thank you.

I was asking for two years, which I would secede if we get this done. I don't need to go through for a year difference. I think that's fine. All the Conservatives are really asking for here is having a quicker first review of the legislation the first time it goes through. That's really important there because after that it's five years. We have a chance, then, after three years. I don't think it's going to be this Parliament but it will be the next Parliament at the beginning that will do so. That was kind of my difference of it but I understand that by the time this actually gets through, gets implemented, and everything—and I'm going to walk through that—all that we're talking about in the debate here is two years, a two-year difference between what the Liberals are considering and what the Conservatives are putting forth here, and for the NDP it would have been three years. We're not off by much with regard to these amendments and motions. They're very clear.

Why do I think it's important? For example we have these issues. Obviously the minister thought this was important enough. He came to this committee and he presented us with testimony. He said, “Achieving greater diversity on boards and in senior management is an achievable and realistic goal.” He also said, “Under-representation of different segments of our population and business is a drag on Canada's bottom line.” So it's not simply the right thing to do, but it is also good for business.

As well, we've had committee members here on the previous definition on diversity. I won't read that because it's a little bit different, but we've had these political statements made, including most recently with Minister Bains with regard to the inclusion of International Women's Day and diversity. He issued a press release, again, and there was a media advisory before it, that, “Canada benefits when more women reach the highest levels of achievement.”

I won't read it again because I've already read that into testimony, but I thought it was interesting that it has gone out.

What the Conservatives are proposing here is basically a three-year instead of a five-year review. That is important because we can have that review more quickly and in a reasonable time. I prefer the two years, myself, but let's walk through this.

Say, for example, this bill gets passed. This is why I was talking earlier about our schedule and I thought it would be important for us to meet. Let's assume that we can get this done in March, or it might be at the end of this meeting, or it might be at the beginning of the next week when we come back, but we still have a bunch of weeks that we break so we go into April.

I think that in April, if I'm correct, we have two weeks off in April. Is that not two weeks for constituency?

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Yes.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Okay. The House is sitting for only two weeks, so say, for example, that we get this passed at this committee, maybe in March, or at the next meeting, whenever it might be, or at this meeting if possible. We would then have it go from here to be reported back to the House of Commons.

Maybe we can get the parliamentary secretary to talk to us about this. I would ask him how long, once we have it finished here, it would be before the government would then table this in the House of Commons. Could I cede the floor for information, if he's willing, and then get the floor back? How do we do this procedurally?

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Go ahead. Answer the question.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

My understanding is that as soon we're done at this committee, this will be tabled in the House of Commons. There's some preliminary agreement amongst all three parties to have this in front of the House next week when we're done with it.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes. I don't know about this preliminary agreement. It would be interesting if.... I'll follow up with our House leader as well.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Yes.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

That's not the understanding I have, not by any means.

At any rate, it's still going to take some time to wind through the House. I guess the decision, then, that the Liberals have is that we would either have it wind itself through the House of Commons again for—

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Can we actually stick to the motion...?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

It is, because I need to walk through the timeline of how how long this is going to take. We have to go through, realistically, how long this is going to take. That's relevant to this. This is relevant in terms of two, three, and five years.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

We're dealing with the motion that's on the floor.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes, and that is about whether or not we have a review in three years—

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

There are two other similar motions on the table as well.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes, and I'm going to walk through timeline here. I think it's fair for me to do.

There are three amendments that talk about deadlines and dates that are different in terms of this legislation being presented back to the public in the House of Commons. I think it's important for the record and for us to fully understand the approximate length of time it's going to take. There's a process here. I get a chance to explain or to at least even ask some questions later on for that, which I did....

That's why it's very important. In my opinion, it affects both the relevancy about the identifiable groups and how decisions that will be made are enforced in Canada related to gender boards, whether that's related to the other parts of the bill that have been ruled out of order—and that's fine, as some of it hasn't been ruled out of order—and what the expectations are for the compliance, as explained.

I want to walk through exactly how long this takes. I've been trying to get there. It's important because, right now, if we go into April in the House of the Commons for this, we will have May and June. May and June have longer sitting times, so there is a good potential for this to possibly exit the House before the summer. That's depending upon.... Actually, the reality is that in 2017 it can get through before summer, because at that point in time, the Liberals could use closure on the bill. They could use closure motions on the bill. That could take place—

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Mr. Masse, we're working on this amendment.