Industry Committee on March 9th, 2017

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm thankful that this motion has come forth. I think it's important to have “sexual orientation” as part of this bill. It's just like my motion previous to this, although it maybe didn't highlight something as much. It does have “gender” here, so I congratulate the.... It's not a negative thing to add.

That's part of the overall thing, so this highlighting it a little bit differently is more consistent with practices. As I said, my motion was based upon Liberal legislation that was passed in the House of Commons. We've seen lots of Liberal legislation pass that didn't necessarily often reflect the entire, full House. It could have been a compromise. I think this is important, because again, it brings up the whole issue....

I'm speaking to just the subamendment, not to the main motion. With regard to the subamendment, we've seen incredible advances in society on gender acceptance and inclusion. I could point no further than my daughter's high school, where this is actually an asset in terms of celebration and openness. It also has dealt with, many times over, issues related to bullying and other things that have taken place. This is one of those things where there's been a greater acceptance in society. A lot of Canadians have come together to move this.

In the past, I saw this first-hand. I used to play in the Cabbagetown softball leagues. That was a program where I was one of two straight players who could actually play on the baseball team. You had to try out to make the team. I actually did, despite my not being the quickest player. At any rate, it was one of the best things I ever did in my life. That was during a difficult time, in the early nineties, when you had a number of people who would speak back.

In fact, with a previous employer of mine—this wasn't in the Windsor area—at one point an intervention took place on me because I was hanging out with somebody who happened to be openly gay at that time. People literally had me go to the boardroom, during business time, to tell me to stop hanging out with my friend because he was gay. That took place in the workforce in the early nineties, when I was this new employee.

I think this is very appropriate to be stated in this legislation, because we have no tolerance for that anymore. Things have changed, but that type of activity is happening still to some degree. It's not equal just yet. I would appeal to the Liberals to support this amendment I put forth, because we have to vote on the main motion eventually. I think this would be appropriate for the main motion to have. It would be very inclusive. I would be ashamed to vote on the main motion without this, and I appreciate the friendly stature of this amendment.

I'll leave it at that. I think it's self-explanatory, in many ways. For this particular motion right here, I think it's quite obvious that this should be unanimous, I would hope, in this Parliament. It would be a statement for us actually not to include that in considering the motion, in that we would be isolating that and saying it's not appropriate.

Again, it's consistent with the human rights code and consistent with the Liberal language that was placed in Bill C-16, which is in front of the Senate and which passed the House of Commons with a Liberal majority voting for their own bill. In fact, I don't think there was any dissension at that particular time. I would hope that this would be included for the debate that later takes place on the main motion. It would be odd to “gender divide”, I guess, at this particular point in time, something that's a regular stream for what we do. This would be a major step back, I think, in the cause.

I will leave it at that, Mr. Chair. Hopefully we will have this to consider for the main motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Seeing no further debate—

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I call for a recorded vote, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Let me get to it. We'll get to it.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Seeing no further debate, we will be voting on the subamendment, which is....

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

After the word “gender”, we would include “sexual orientation”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

It's to include, after the word “gender”, the words “sexual orientation”.

We'll be voting on that subamendment. It will be a recorded vote.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I have another subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Mr. Masse, you're up, then.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Instead of the words “disability status”, I would ask, as a friendly amendment, for it to be “mental or physical disability status”, and I'll explain that later. I'd ask to see if that's a friendly amendment.

I'll just briefly give my case for that. I don't expect it. This is what is being proposed, and I'd like to have the floor for it, just to hear about it. It is included, but I make this amendment so it's a little more specific. I do recognize that disability is included in this. I'm just looking for further definition. I'll explain why.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Are you proposing a subamendment?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Can you just clarify that, please?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Instead of the word “disability” it would be “mental or physical disability”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

You want it to be “mental or physical disability”.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Okay. Thank you.

Seeing no debate, we—

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I do have some thoughts and so on here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Okay.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I won't be too long on this.

I don't know if it will be friendly or not, but this is about consistency with what has actually been passed in the House of Commons. There was quite a debate on this in the House of Commons, to get it through. It went through the several readings, then it went through committee, then it came back, and now it's in the Senate. I would hate for the Senate, in it's consideration of this bill now, to ask why a committee of the government is voting against the definitions it proposed, which passed in the House of Commons.

It will be kind of interesting, actually, when the Senate finds out that we have basically gone against the human rights definition proposed by the government previously. I think they're going to have an interesting conversation. Questions will probably arise from the Conservatives in the Senate as well. I won't say that we unfortunately don't have Senate members, because we've chosen not to have Senate members. That's another discussion, and I'm not filibustering, so I won't get into that.

I do want to point out though that as this bill is travelling through the Senate it's going to be interesting to see how they actually see this, and whether or not this could mean some amendments to the bill coming back to the House of Commons. Then the House of Commons will have to deal with it. If the Liberals are being inconsistent with disability, gender, and all those things, as well as the things that I've proposed here on a previous Bill S-12, it will be rather interesting to see whether or not that has consequences. I'm getting a little tired of trying to do favours for the Liberals here, but at any rate, I think it's very important.

Now the distinct difference in this, in terms of mental and physical disabilities, besides the issue of it being consistent, is that there has been a lot of discussion in society about mental illness and its affect on the workplace. In fact, you've even seen corporations take that up as well, by raising funds and so forth. There has been a better distinction with regard to mental illness and awareness. Before, it was seen as shame and not coming forth. Now we've seen stars and celebrities come out with mental health expressions in terms of their own personal struggles. There is one Canadian, obviously, Howie Mandel, as well as others who have chosen at personal risk to come forward and be champions of this. Now it's getting a little bit more notoriety than ever before in the sense that an awareness is there.

Awareness is also taking place in the school systems. There was a lot of bullying taking place in the past that was often related to some mental illness problems, which can resonate even from the home. There's also a whole series of problems that we now have with the use of medications and where they go. This is an issue that's complicated, because it can affect getting access to medications that are correct for a person, and the use of those medications. One of the interesting things to watch, sociologically, over the last number of years has been the progression of mental illness, now being associated with the workplace.

Why I think this is so important for the boards of directors, and for the expression of this, is that it will show again that the most important thing is action, not words. Action on this will actually get corporations to identify those champions, if they want to self-identify. It won't make them do it if they don't want to, but they will self-identify with the mental illness, and it will count on the board. Say, for example, Howie Mandel or somebody else wants to go on a board and self-disclose, he'll be able to do that and that will show role models. One of the biggest things that has taken place with regard to any type of piercing of the establishment of rule-based systems that are racist, sexist, and discriminatory are role models.

Having this in the bill, in terms of medical and physical disability, will also be an identification source that we won't just pass on to regulations. For example, even here, if it weren't mentioned, it could potentially go unmentioned in the regulations. It's one of those ones that shows as a modernization and is very important.

Again, we can't underestimate how this bill can enforce legislation and information. We've heard testimony over and again, specifically, that having quantifiable information will lead to that diversity.

I'll leave it there, Mr. Chair. I'm hoping that somebody else might want to chime in on it, but again, I think it shows leadership.

Right now we have all these days in ribbons on the Hill. We have so many ribbons that we wear for different things. One of them is for mental illness. Here's a chance for us to do something about it, so let's do it. All we're talking about is including this in the motion. The main motion is yet to be discussed.

This is the subamendment we're talking about, so it doesn't mean that you are agreeing that it will go forward just yet. You're asking for its inclusion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Go ahead, Mr. Dreeshen.

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

Because of my original motion, I had felt that the disability status would cover what we have, but I certainly do want to take a moment to speak to the subamendment that we have.

Many disabilities are invisible, and when we look at the number of people in this country who suffer from mental illness at some time—people do go in and out of this because of treatments, circumstances, and situations—I understand the significance of it, the importance of this. Having that included in it for discussion, I believe, is very important.

Originally I was at that stage thinking that this is self-declared. The board has to present all of this information publicly to the stakeholders. If we go through what the clause actually says and where we're going with this, it becomes a public disclosure portion of it. I'm not sure how the boards would do that. We do understand how you would do that as far as gender is concerned. Then are you kind of getting into the nitpicking side of this, or would a disability status be more inclusive?

I certainly do appreciate the statements that have been presented by Mr. Masse. Again, people who are on a board—and I say, tongue in cheek, the only way I might be able to get in there is by being able to state that is my condition. But from a serious standpoint, there are people who function very well but who also have other issues they have to work through. As the discussion on mental illness has expanded, groups like Bell Let's Talk do an amazing job, and it becomes one of those issues that people are more understanding of. The words “mental illness” are significant. “Mental disability” is where I have a bit of a question, because I don't think society has got to the stage where people look at the term “mental disability” as being the same.

With physical disability, I could roll in here and have physical issues, but I could still function in a lot of ways. When you speak about “mental disability”, we haven't yet seen that, and I don't think society has quite got to that, but “mental illness” certainly is. I'd just add that to the discussion portion. I do believe it has merit. I would sooner see “mental illness” and “physical disability”, but I understand where the argument there is coming from, and words matter, but I'll allow Mr. Masse to expand.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

In the spirit of co-operation, I appreciate that too. I would be happy then with just “physical disability”. If we want to go forward with that, then I understand the arguments for that.

I would actually congratulate you. You have a good part of your bill with regard to official language preference, too. There are some good things that are in here as well, but related to this, “disability” or maybe “including physical disability”....

Let's just keep it as “disability status”. I'm fine. I'm going to vote the way I want to vote. I'm not going to do a subamendment and will keep to the main amendment. I understand that it may not be supported, but I'll just stick with what we have here, and that's fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Then there is no subamendment.