Guy Caron

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2, December 14th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I would like to talk more about that.

The member for Louis-Saint-Laurent asked a straightforward question. For two or three weeks, the government did not listen to the arguments of the opposition, the Senate, the Chambre des notaires du Québec, or consumer protection groups who were saying that Bill C-29 decreased consumer protection and infringed on Quebec's jurisdiction.

What the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent was saying in his question is that the minister seems to be suggesting that he is going to come back with new consumer protection legislation, even though this is an area of provincial jurisdiction.

We did not want to know whether the government was going to introduce new consumer protection legislation or not. What we wanted to know was whether the government was going to get the consent of the provinces, including Quebec, before doing so, so as not to infringe on provincial jurisdiction.

[Consumer Protection, December 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, before the Minister of Finance decided to give the banks a sweet Christmas present, everything was fine. The Supreme Court ruled that Quebec's Consumer Protection Act applied to bank customers.

The Liberals' Bill C-29 created a problem where there was not one before. By creating a conflict with Quebec law, the minister is trying to usurp power that he does not have. He cannot fix things and placate people by handing over a blank cheque and buying time. A law either passes or it does not.

Why is the minister playing constitutional politics at the expense of Quebec consumers?

[Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, December 9th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

This comes up every time we talk about an important trade deal. We understand how significant this agreement is. When the three main parties talk about these things, people always say that the NDP is dogmatic about trade and always takes the same stance.

However, I would like to point out to my colleague and the rest of the House that, as far as I can remember, or at least since the 1980s, the Conservatives and the Liberals have never voted against a trade agreement. We, in contrast, have voted in favour of some trade agreements and against others.

That makes us the only party to take a responsible stance and to actually take a close look at what is in these trade agreements. When it comes right down to it, a trade agreement is a contract.

I would like to know if my colleague agrees that a trade agreement is also a contract and that one must examine its provisions before deciding whether to support or oppose it.

[Canada Business Corporations Act, December 9th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, these are big questions. I do not think I have time to respond to all of them, but the last one is indeed relevant. The “comply or explain” or “trying to shame” approach is to try and ensure that corporate boards be accountable for diversity or lack of diversity.

In passing, I would note another element that is missing from the bill, and that is a definition of diversity. We want more diversity, but how is that word defined? That is a fundamental question that is passed over. However, “comply or explain” is good only in those cases where there are shareholders or a group of militant shareholders who are really interested in issues related to administration, and who attend general meetings. For companies that have few attending shareholders or those with a high percentage of proxy voting, there will not be much impact on this issue.

It is my impression that in many companies, “comply or explain” will unfortunately not be as important as quarterly performance or major future projects for the next five or ten years. On paper, it seems good to have something like this in the bill, but I am not convinced of the impact it will have. In that sense, I concur with my colleague who wants to re-examine this clause in the next five years to assess its effectiveness, if it is adopted as it stands.

[Canada Business Corporations Act, December 9th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Trois-Rivières for his question, to which I do not have an answer right now. I would like to hear what government members have to say.

It is not as though this were a partisan issue. Pay equity is a straightforward issue. A woman must earn the same as a man for work of equal value, which is currently not the case. By refusing to acknowledge pay equity for at least another two or even three years, especially in the public service, they are perpetuating an illegitimate, unethical, and unfair situation. Everyone in the House recognizes that.

In light of the number of statements and motions in the House denouncing pay equity, it makes no sense that we must wait two to three years to correct this situation, which everyone recognizes as illegitimate and unfair. This majority government had promised to fix this problem.

[Canada Business Corporations Act, December 9th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which certainly gets people talking.

During his speech, he mentioned the annual study conducted by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which determines at what point corporate CEOs have earned the annual income or average annual salary of one of their employees. The Fraser Institute likes to talk about tax freedom, which generally occurs in July or August. However, it does not take into account all of the benefits people get in return for paying taxes, because there are benefits. Such organizations often ignore that fact.

When CEOs are able to earn an average employee's salary by January 3 at noon, that is a problem not only in terms of equity but also in terms of respect for the labour force, which is extremely important to a company's profitability. Profitability is what leads to increased earnings for CEOs. However, it is also important for our society as a whole because people who earn the average salary in a company will spend a greater share of their income than the CEO. They will be able to save less because they need more of their income for everyday living expenses. They therefore contribute a lot of money to the economy.

Meanwhile, CEOs either save their money, spend it on luxury goods, or invest it abroad, which is much less beneficial to the economy. We are talking about huge amounts of money that are being invested this way.

I therefore believe that there is work to be done to close the gap between the salaries of CEOs and employees and bring it down to a more reasonable level.

[Canada Business Corporations Act, December 9th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that very relevant question. The governments have been very slow. I do not want to point fingers at either the current government, the previous Conservative government, or even the Liberal government before that. Ever since the struggle for pay equity began, successive governments have stood in the way.

I remember very well when Nycole Turmel, the former member for Hull-Aylmer, even had to go court over this when she headed the Public Service Alliance of Canada. That is what it took. She had to take the matter to court and jump through all the legal hoops just to get the government to accept a principle as basic as pay equity, in other words, women's right to earn the same as men for the same work. Not only did she have to go to court, but the government challenged it every step of the way. This was about the Public Service Alliance of Canada, but there was also of the issue of male and female postal workers and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.

We now have a government that promised to respect pay equity, although it is putting it off as long as possible, until two or three years from now. If the government really took this issue seriously, it could be resolved, just as it has been in several provinces. This government could definitely be taking this matter a little more seriously.

[Canada Business Corporations Act, December 9th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I will require the full 20 minutes at my disposal, but I did want to comment before the House on some aspects of Bill C-25, which we are discussing.

The first comes up often in conversations, and that is gender parity. We know that there is presently a marked imbalance on corporate boards, in both the private and public sectors. We also know that efforts are being made by the House to try to correct this situation.

We discussed, among other things, Bill C-220 sponsored by my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith, who is building on another bill introduced by my former colleague, Anne-Marie Day, who represented the riding of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. I believe that this type of bill is necessary as it puts the spotlight on this imbalance, this inequality that can exist.

We are often asked why we are calling for a quota system, a gender parity system. I understand why the question is asked, but it needs to be reworded. It is not about setting aside competency. On the contrary, when we say that competency trumps diversity, we are saying that there are not enough women who have the necessary skills for these positions.

That is not the problem. The problem has more to do with lack of understanding and systemic discrimination against women regarding their ability to manage organizations.

Why do we need a gender parity system and why should we even try to enforce it, while still acknowledging the importance of competency? It is these prejudices and biases that blind us and prevent us from selecting skilled women to fill this type of position.

This morning I was listening to the radio on my way to Parliament. On Radio-Canada, they were talking about how gender parity was imposed on the improv world in Quebec. That might seem like a stretch from what we are talking about, but there is a direct correlation. The Ligue nationale d'improvisation in Quebec had a gender parity system that forced every troupe to have an equal number of women and men.

That measure gave female comedians' amazing but hitherto overlooked talent a platform. In the 1970s and 1980s, there were very few women in the comedy business, and the Ligue nationale d'improvisation played a critical role in raising the profile of female comedians. This morning's guest, Christian Vanasse, shared a list of 15 female comedians who made a name for themselves thanks to the Ligue nationale d'improvisation.

Still, the problem persists. Women are never selected to host galas. Even though they are on the scene and they have star power, gala organizers do not even consider them and always opt for male comedians to host these events.

Even the gender parity system designed to put women's talent in the spotlight in the comedy world will not fix anything without a shift in people's mentality. The same holds true for the field of administration.

Getting back to administration, Bill C-25 falls short because all it does is make companies talk to shareholders about diversity. That is completely out of touch with reality and what public and private administration need right now.

The aspects of Bill C-25 on governance are quite good. The move to eliminate directors being elected as a group is quite positive, as is holding annual elections. Ensuring that directors are elected to boards of directors by majority voting is another positive aspect.

There is another interesting aspect that has not really been debated in the House and that is the elimination of what are called bearer shares. These are shares where the shareholder is not identified on the share certificate. The shares and the vote belong to the stock certificate holder. The share is not necessarily registered in the name of the shareholder, the owner of the stock.

This measure, which is being somewhat overlooked in our debates, will allow for greater transparency with regard to governance and administration.

Aside from gender parity on boards of directors and within company management, the bill falls short in other aspects. Let us not forget that the changes we have before us come out of a three-year consultation that began in 2013. One aspect that has been discussed many times is not only the gap in compensation between shareholders and corporate executives, but also the fact that shareholders still cannot vote on and approve executive compensation at shareholder meetings. This is important because compensation is taken from the company's revenue and profits and therefore the returns that the shareholders can expect.

I think that is a major shortfall of this bill. That is why we are voting in favour of the bill at second reading but proposing amendments. If the bill is not improved, then voting in favour of it at second reading does not guarantee that we will be voting in favour of it at third reading.

[Canada Business Corporations Act, December 9th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Regina—Lewvan for his excellent speech.

I would like him to comment further on what he said at the beginning of his speech about how long it takes for a CEO to earn as much money as an average employee in the same company.

We hear a lot about the day when Canadians have earned enough to cover their taxes. If I remember correctly, that is usually in July or August. Too little is being said about this other extremely important indicator. I think it has gotten worse over the years. In the 1970s, the gap between CEO pay and worker pay was much smaller.

I would like to give my colleague an opportunity to talk more about something that I think is important, even though most Canadians are unaware of it.

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, December 7th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, he is talking about the auto pact. Conservatives opposed the auto pact at the time.

We look at each and every trade agreement. We vote for those we feel will have the greatest benefit for the country and will help Canada, and we oppose those that will not help.

Conservatives support all trade agreements, regardless of the impact they will have.