Evidence of meeting #52 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
We have quorum, so we're going to move forward.
I hope everybody had a great week. We're back to the grind and making things happen.
We're going to pick up where we left off, on amendment CPC-2 and a subamendment by Brian Masse to change the three years to two years.
Earl.
Conservative
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB
If that was the subamendment, I believe that at the time I was trying to explain the rationale for the three years.
Conservative
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB
I'm not sure if that's necessary to review, but I will just take a moment. Again, as we had heard, with the length of time it takes to get a regulation through—and some people mentioned that it could take up to a year and a half—it really would only give you about six months to see whether anything was happening, and it's very difficult to determine that in the cycle of any director. That was the rationale we had for three years. Plus, it did put it into a new Parliament for discussion. So there's really not much sense in trying to force a Parliament to try to do something like that at the end of its mandate when this would probably have to be reviewed at any point.
That was my rationale for proposing to move it from the two years up to three years. I believe we had some potential accord with Brian at that time.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
Right.
Is there any further debate on the subamendment moving it from three years to two years? I agree with what I heard.
If there's no debate, then we should just vote on the subamendment.
(Subamendment negatived)
Now we come back to the amendment. Is there any further debate on the amendment?
Seeing no further debate, we'll go to a vote. All those in favour of amendment CPC-2?
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
Okay.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)
Clauses 25 to 58 have no amendments. If it's the will of the committee, we could vote on them as a block.
(Clauses 25 to 58 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 59)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
We're going to go now to amendment NDP-15.
Mr. Christopherson. Welcome to our committee, by the way.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Chair.
Being a fill-in, I hope I don't slow things down too much. Thanks for the opportunity.
What exactly would you like from me now?
Liberal
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Sure.
Again, I'm sure Brian has gone through this is great detail and everybody's familiar with our position and why we think that way. Again, it's speaking to shareholder proxies, who do not currently have the same voting rights as shareholders who attend AGMs in person. They can only vote for one set of nominees, a slate, and not a combination. This is to equalize that and make it fair to everyone whether they're there or not.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
Okay.
The ruling of the chair is it's inadmissible, as the amendment goes beyond the scope of the bill.
Liberal
Terry Sheehan Liberal Sault Ste. Marie, ON
This is a housekeeping change that would provide clarity in the legislation. The amendment would make clear that a person who is nominated as a director in a non-contested election but failed to be elected due to a lack of majority support is prohibited from appointment except in prescribed circumstances.
It's rather innocuous.
Conservative
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB
On division.
(Amendment agreed to on division)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
Shall clause 59 carry?
All those in favour? All those opposed? All those who aren't voting?
(Clause 59 agreed to on division)
(On clause 60)
We now have LIB-6.
Terry.
Liberal
Terry Sheehan Liberal Sault Ste. Marie, ON
Again, this is a very small housekeeping change. The proposed amendment simply aligns the terms that a director serves on co-operatives with the date of the annual meetings. This language is already present in the Canada Business Corporation Act, subsections 106(3) and 13(1).
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
Do we have any debate?
Seeing no debate, we shall vote.
All those in favour of LIB-6? On division?
(Amendment agreed to on division)
We're now moving to NDP-16.
You're up, Mr. Christopherson.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Chair.
This deals with term limits on boards of directors of co-operatives and the intent is to free up spaces to give more opportunities, particularly to women.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
Is there any debate?
Seeing no debate, we shall vote.
All those in favour of NDP-16?