Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. As I touched on in my speech, there is clearly a raging debate going on about the parameters of legitimate director activity.
There are those who subscribe to a rather dated Conservative view, as I mentioned, accepting the notion that turning a profit for shareholders irrespective of consequences is okay. However, there are those who demand far more accountability.
I think we have to stress that failing to demand of corporate directors that they consider other stakeholder interests beyond narrow stakeholder profit is leaving Canada's corporate governance lagging behind other jurisdictions.
The member may know that the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants and others have recognized that there are legitimate considerations to be taken into account, but if we do not have a legal requirement, even enlightened boards of directors have their hands tied. It is also worth noting that Britain has adjusted its fiduciary requirements, as have the majority of U.S. states, which now have non-shareholder constituency laws.
Finally, let me point out that the Corporate Responsibility Coalition has suggested wording that we should look at to be included in all Canadian legislation related to corporate governance. It states something like this: corporations established under this law shall advance the interests of shareholders only in ways that fully take into account, fully and publicly document and fully adhere to the highest global standards for the protection of human rights, the environment, public health and safety, consumers' rights and shareholder rights. That is an important suggestion.
I will conclude by saying that we must remember that the proportion of bank resources from depositors, for example, far outweighs the investment by shareholders. We have to take all of this into account at the committee. I appreciate the member's suggestions.