Above all, these amendments recognize the great asset that is our country's diversity. Canada's business community would have a crucial role in promoting diversity. Some have already done so, and I know that others will step up to show that they are committed to growing our economy by tapping Canada's full potential. By modernizing our ground rules and aligning with international standards, Canada can position itself for the inclusive innovation and growth that would propel this country going forward.

One of the key features of this bill is that it positions Canada among world leaders in corporate governance. For example, most member states of the European Union have implemented gender diversity legislation. Both the United Kingdom and Australia have required disclosure, including a comply or explain model in the latter case, which saw significant improvements in terms of board representation.

To address this legislative gap, the bill would update the Competition Act's rules on affiliation and would make the rules business structure-neutral. This update would ensure, clearly and explicitly, that businesses that are engaged in joint ventures with their affiliates are not subjected unwittingly to the act's enforcement provisions.

That process could require notifying the Commissioner of Competition. It could also incur a fee and a significant amount of paperwork. There is also the risk that a collaborative project between two affiliated companies could be treated as an arrangement between competing firms. It could be misrepresented or misinterpreted as harmful competition or outright collusion.

The existing law does not fully account for non-corporate structures, such as sole proprietorships, partnerships, or trusts. This uncertainty could lead to companies being needlessly exposed to sanctions under the act, and reorganization among affiliated companies could be interpreted as a merger of competing firms.

The bill would also amend the Competition Act to broaden the understanding of what makes one business entity affiliated with another. Currently, because of its outdated definition, there is a risk that business between affiliates could be viewed under the law as a joint action with competitors.

The fourth amendment would make it clear that CBCA corporations and federal non-financial co-operatives would be prohibited from issuing share certificates and share warrants in bearer form. Much like cash, a bearer share is owned by whoever holds the physical stock certificate. The issuing firm neither registers the owner nor tracks any transfers of ownership, and when these instruments are issued in blank form, they can be used as a vehicle for money laundering or terrorist financing. That is because they are easily transferrable and untraceable.

The bill would modernize shareholder communications to align practices with how businesses are conducted today. The bill would permit CBCA corporations and co-operatives incorporated under the Canada Cooperatives Act to provide their shareholders or members with online access to relevant documents related to an annual meeting. This notice and access system would reduce costs, conserve resources, and increase business efficiency.

Third, the bill would permit shareholders to vote explicitly against a candidate in an uncontested election, that is, when the number of candidates was the same as the number of board positions to be filled. Even when there was no competing candidate, a prospective director would still need enough votes in support of her candidacy to make up a majority of the votes cast to be elected.

First, the bill would require the prescribed corporations and co-operatives to hold annual votes for the election of corporate directors. Currently the law permits directors to hold office for up to three years before a vote is required. The entrenchment of company boards can hamper innovative thinking.

As part of the reforms to the CBCA, corporations would be required to disclose to shareholders the composition of their boards and senior management. They would also be required to make public their diversity policies. Those corporations without a diversity policy would have to explain why they do not have one.

The Marrakesh Treaty benefits three million Canadians who are visually impaired or print disabled. As a result of the treaty, they will have better access to books and other copyrighted materials. As a result of better access to knowledge, these Canadians will be able to fully participate in the economy. That is how our government's commitment to diversity allows Canadians from all walks of life to become productive members of society.

Earlier this year, this Parliament unanimously passed, and this was a point of pride, Bill , which allowed Canada to become the first G7 country to adopt the Marrakesh Treaty. I was proud to announce this piece of legislation in the House and see it receive the support of all parliamentarians.

Our government is committed to doing all we can to unlock the full potential of Canadians, especially those who are under-represented in certain sectors of today's economy. I know that all parliamentarians support this goal as well.

We live in an age when anyone with a smartphone can connect, create, collaborate, trade, and sell, regardless of distance. Because the tools to create knowledge and value are now available to everyone, a teenager can start her own technology company.

Under-representation of different segments of our population is not only a question of fairness, it affects the bottom line. In the boardroom, as in life, taking into consideration viewpoints from a variety of perspectives can lead to innovative thinking and better performance. Innovation requires fresh ideas, new ideas, and the best ideas can come from anyone, anywhere.

October is Women's History Month. This is a time when we celebrate the women who have shaped Canada's history as leaders, entrepreneurs, scholars, artists, and trailblazers in all spheres of life. Let me address what the bill does for diversity.

The Competition Act is a law of general application that addresses anti-competitive business conduct. It examines and seeks to address the activities of firms that may be harming competition in the marketplace. By improving and clarifying the rules under which our firms operate, we are positioning them for long-term growth.

The bill would increase business certainty and flexibility as well. It would allow Canadian businesses to focus on what makes them most productive, efficient, and innovative. The laws being amended in this bill include the Canada Business Corporations Act, or CBCA.

The goal is to attract the best and brightest from as wide a talent pool as possible. This is how Canada can make full use of the competitive advantage granted to us by this extraordinary diversity of our population.

Technology also allows transactions to happen quickly across the global, and the global marketplace is more interconnected than ever before. A disruption or discovery in one part of the world can have profound consequences in another.

They also promote investor confidence and a competitive marketplace. These conditions support long-term investment and economic growth, and this bill would make it easier for Canadian companies to harness their innovation to succeed. It would also position businesses to operate in the global and digital marketplace.

The government's inclusive innovation agenda is a plan to drive economic growth through innovation. As legislators, we have a responsibility to set the ground rules for doing business, and we have the means to create the winning conditions for people and companies to innovate and thrive.

If that is not going to work, I would ask if the minister is open to an amendment I will be proposing that there be a review of this legislation within five years. I want to ensure that there is actually going to be a continuation of this goal of having greater equity in boardrooms across this country. I believe that there will be quite a discussion about comply or explain at the end of committee deliberations, but what is the backup plan?

Some jurisdictions that have gone with this have not been successful in making the transition, so I would suggest that perhaps we need a stronger stick. The carrot-and-stick approach is often used with corporations that have not been doing a good job with regard to some of the equality issues we have had to deal with, and this is one of them. It is not just in Canada, in particular. We are in a time when we need to make sure that there is going to be greater enforcement.

The minister is looking at a comply or explain strategy, but why not take the full step and set targets to chase after to ensure that we do not have to wait around to see what is next.

Madam Speaker, comply or explain is one way we can go about having gender equity on boards. It is important to note that this is only the second time this bill has been looked at and amended. We are looking at 40 years of not being actively engaged on this file, and we have seen a lot of financial issues that affected Canadians not only here at home but internationally.

That is the underlying premise of this bill. It is promoting diversity, different viewpoints and thoughts, and coming together with a progressive agenda that really speaks to our diversity, and the fact that we want to have an inclusive agenda going forward.

I do acknowledge that the member opposite has put forward some ideas and thoughts with respect to amendments. There is a process in committee to look at that. As a government we do not have a monopoly on good ideas. We always look forward to the opportunity of engaging the opposition, and seeing what ideas they come back with.

This is the challenge with which we are dealing. The idea of comply or explain, and putting forward this policy is really a reflection of watching what happened in the U.K. and Australia, when they put these measures into place. They did see a significant jump in the number of women at the senior level positions, senior management, and at the board level. We are trying to see how this unfolds.

The member is right. The last time we had significant changes to the framework and the framework laws was in 2001. He is absolutely correct in his assessment of the situation at the corporate board level. Only 13.1% have women corporate directors right now. That is absolutely unacceptable. There are 40% of companies that do not have any women on their boards.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his very thoughtful question and his engagement on this bill. We have had numerous discussions about the subject matter that he raised.

Does the minister agree that it is not only about having more women on boards, because it is good to have more women on boards, but because of the ripple effect that it can have as to the way we do things in this country? It can have a ripple effect that could actually bring gender parity all the way through different ripples, if we include more women.

Just today, I was at a lunch where we talked about the media coverage of women in sport. One of the issues that came up was that at a board of directors meeting, if there are not that many women present, and they are discussing what kind of coverage they should have of women in sport, the discussion might be quite different if there are more women sitting at the table and participating in that discussion.

We also want to not only show leadership at the government level but to tell corporate Canada and businesses that they have a responsibility, an obligation, to promote diversity. I am confident, when they put forward the diversity policies, it is going to be very engaging for the shareholders, and it is really going to be good for the bottom line.

We want to make sure that we see this replicated, not only in corporate Canada but at the government level. Under the leadership of our we want to demonstrate that, as we move forward with appointments, we have a process that is really going to bring the best and brightest forward. We are also going to have a strong diversity lens to make sure that we reflect the true diversity in society in the government appointment process.

Madam Speaker, the member raises a very good point. It is not simply a moral duty and obligation that we have as a society to make sure we see better diversity reflected at the most senior levels, at the board level, and senior management, it is also good business practice. It is good for the bottom line. It is good for the customers. It is good for having new, creative ideas and solutions, and being innovative, thoughtful, and progressive.

[Translation]

Has the minister thought of other ways to promote these positions on corporate boards? It is good to show openness, but we must pave the way and ensure that women really do have a place, and not just a symbolic place.

I was the mayor of Thetford Mines for seven years, and there was only one woman around the table of ten councillors. When she decided to step down, I was very worried that the council would not have female representation. That would have been unfortunate. Together with other community members, I had to find ways to attract women to the job and to ensure that they were engaged and not intimidated by the overrepresentation of men. They have their place on municipal councils and also on boards of directors. I believe that women really do have a place there.

Again, there is more support from the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan. We want to create this new inclusive culture that promotes diversity at the board level. Hopefully, it will expand to different levels of government, and different aspects of society because it is not only the right thing to do but it is also good for businesses.

His view is shared by many in the House, and those who were part of the consultation process. Just to highlight that, the Canadian Coalition for Good Governance, for example, is very supportive and said when these amendments are enacted, the federal government will have made many of the important changes required to bring Canada's federal corporate laws to best in class global standards.

I am curious, if there are no targets, what is the government planning to do to at least measure whether this is actually having any impact or not moving forward?

We want to see how progress is being made, and that is part of our government's overall objective in promoting diversity. With respect to amendments or changes, I look forward to the discussion that will take place at committee with hon. colleagues. I also look forward to appearing before committee as well to speak about that and many other issues that will be presented.

Madam Speaker, the objective of the bill is to change behaviour. The objective of the bill is to see improvements at the corporate level, at the management level, and we will be monitoring it very closely.

The proposed amendments in Bill would further implement many policies and practices that are already addressed under TSX rules and security laws. Modernizing the acts addressed in Bill is a welcome improvement to the federal corporate statute and a reflection of the need to enhance companies' corporate governance practices.

I am pleased to see that shareholder democracy and participation will better align with securities rules and that corporations would be required under the CBCA to hold annual elections, elect directors individually, and use a majority voting standard. This proposal will bring an end to the debate over those circumstances in which an under-supported director may remain on the board.

We took a number of steps to reduce red tape facing businesses. Indeed, since 2012, the red tape reduction action plan has proven to be a successful, system-wide control on the growth of regulatory red tape. Our previous government saved Canadian businesses over $22 million in the administrative burden, as well as some 290,000 hours in time spent dealing with the unnecessary regulatory burden.

Our previous Conservative government set a precedent, the first of its kind in any country in fact, when we introduced the one-for-one rule, which brought a new level of discipline to how government fosters a more predictable environment for business through the reduction of red tape.

The changes proposed to the Competition Act, as we are discussing today, will do just that. They would reduce business uncertainty, create a competitive marketplace, and prevent anti-competitive practices. The amendments would also reduce the administrative burden on businesses.

When it comes to modernizing corporate governance and reducing red tape, our previous government made massive strides. We believe in fostering an environment in which businesses can grow and contribute to Canada's long-term prosperity. In fact, we recognize that businesses play a vital role in creating jobs and generating economic growth, and that strong business strategies are central to a company's success in creating and sustaining a competitive edge.

However, looking at Canada as a whole, in larger companies women make up an average of 34% of boards. Implementing the widely used comply or explain model is the first step to seeing those numbers increase too. If enacted, that change would affect about 600 of the approximately 1,500 companies on the TSX.

Our Conservative Party believes in merit not quotas. I am pleased we are not going to be missing out on talent, nor will we be losing out on that talent because of artificial quotas.

Our Conservative Party has never been on the sidelines when it comes to diversity firsts in Canada. In fact, it was the Conservative Party who had the first female prime minister; who elected the first female MP to the House of Commons; the first Chinese, Muslim, Black, Latino, Hindu, Pakistani, Japanese, and physically disabled MPs; and that list goes on. That is a record of which to be proud.

I am pleased to see that the Liberals moved forward with the comply or explain model that we recommended. It has been proven that more diverse boards lead to better overall decision-making, better corporate performance, better organizations, and, indeed, better economies.

If adopted, Bill would result in changes to the corporate governance regime for reporting issuers incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act. The CBCA is the incorporating statute for nearly 270,000 corporations. Although most of these are small or medium-sized and privately held, a large number of Canada's largest reporting issuers are also governed by CBCA.

I am really pleased to see that all the hard work that our previous government did is continuing through the Liberals, and their need to produce at least some form of legislation, but I cannot help but wonder if this is what the Liberals meant when they talked to Canadians about real change.

I hate to steal the minister's thunder, but Bill is the minister's second piece of legislation he has tabled since being in office now for one year. Just like his first piece of legislation, this, Bill C-25, came straight from our previous Conservative government's 2015 budget.

...the Government will propose amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act to promote gender diversity among public companies, using the widely recognized “comply or explain” model...Amendments will also be proposed to modernize director election processes and communications... to strengthen corporate transparency through an explicit ban on bearer instruments...Amendments to related statutes governing cooperatives and not-for-profit corporations will also be introduced...

After our previous Conservative government concluded the consultations in 2014, we made a proposal to modernize Canada's corporate governance framework in our 2015 budget. For those in the House who may not be aware, let me read an excerpt from page 140 of that 2015 economic action plan:

The proposed amendments by the Liberals in Bill stem from a House of Commons committee-led statutory review in 2010, which in turn led to further consultation undertaken in 2014 by our previous Conservative government. Stakeholders raised many important and complex points on a number of aspects of corporate governance during those consultations.

Would the member not agree that not only is it important that Canada bring forward this legislation but also that it demonstrates the good will we have seen from the and other jurisdictions in Canada to date?

Madam Speaker, I suspect the bill would not have been necessary if the former prime minister and Conservative government had been successful at getting the job done on the file. However, I am glad and grateful that the official opposition appears to be supportive of the legislation.

As a woman, I do not want to think I got the job just because of the way my jacket buttons, if the buttons are to the right or to the left. I want to know that I got that job because of my abilities. We want to make sure that boards do the same thing, which is why we do not believe in quotas. We know, too, that all the records show that as the diversity of boards increase, so does the performance of the company.

Not only that, but all of the women who were in cabinet were paid according to their responsibilities. It was not just equal pay for equal title, but equal pay for equal work, which I believe is important. It goes back to being a meritocracy.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate those comments and would follow up on the comply or explain model to look at what has taken place in Germany. Chancellor Merkel, one of the strongest women leaders we have known in our generation, just passed legislation to have quotas because in Germany they have been stuck for many years at a smaller amount under comply and explain. Therefore, they have moved to a quota system that will take place rather quickly, by 2018, mandating 30% for blue-chip companies and 50% for the public sector, that being hospitals and not-for-profit organizations.

The question becomes, does the company do better because of hiring those people, or is it a better company because it hires those people? The smart companies do bring on people who have a range of perspectives and talents, and they do not artificially hold anyone back. We want to make sure this happens here, not something that is introduced through artificial quotas.

Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that numerous studies have been done over many years to try to determine what the effect is of having more women on boards and of having people with disabilities on boards, and, indeed in the workplace. In fact, just a few years ago, it was shown that having people with disabilities included in an organization, in particular on the board, increased the morale, productivity, and overall performance of the company.

[Translation]

Madam Speaker, I really liked my hon. colleague's comments to the effect that having a seat on a board of directors does not depend on whether the buttons on your jacket are to the right or to the left. Many women are very talented. A large number of women and people of diverse backgrounds have a lot of talent, but they still hesitate to apply for a job and take their place.

[English]

Madam Speaker, one of the best ways of recruiting board members is the word of mouth of those who are in the business. One of the biggest things that can happen to help promote more women to boards is for other board members to recognize the talent and promote those individuals that they know will do a good job, because, frankly, once the board members see what a good job these women are doing, they will go looking for more. I truly believe that.

[Translation]

In order to grow and thrive in the global economy, Canada needs a strong corporate governance framework that both reflects and facilitates the best practices of Canadian corporations. I will therefore be voting in favour of this bill, which the previous government worked so hard on, while the current government is reaping the benefits of that work today.

The law is no longer up to date if we want to remain competitive in an increasingly globalized world. Good corporate governance is one of the mechanisms that help support economic efficiency and growth. I believe that the proposed legislation will act as a critical foundation upon which Canadian companies can innovate and grow to scale in the modern economy.

With respect to diversity on corporate boards, we should also talk about the age of board members. I think we need incentives related to that, too. In 2013, a Quebec organization called Force Jeunesse surveyed board members of 22 large crown corporations in Quebec, and the results were disappointing. Only 0.07% of all board members were under the age of 35. The Régie des rentes du Québec was one of the very few crown corporations with a board member under the age of 35. At the time of the survey, the average age of board members was 51.

However, the law does force boards and crown corporations to recruit women and ensure proportional female representation. Those who were listening to what my colleague was saying earlier will know that the idea is for women to become board members because of their skills and what they can contribute, not because corporations are forced to fill a quota. I think that is important.

Many activities were initiated to promote greater gender parity on Canadian boards. The resulting momentum will help increase the representation of women on boards to over 30% by 2019, as recommended in the report entitled “Good for Business: A Plan to Promote the Participation of More Women on Canadian Boards”, which was tabled in 2014.

In June 2014, the minister of labour and status of women at the time tabled a reported entitled “Good for Business: A Plan to Promote the Participation of More Women on Canadian Boards”. This report set out the methods that the public and private sectors could use to increase the representation of women on boards. Even at that time, there was talk of making changes to boards.

Jean-Philippe Décarie said the following in La Presse : “Large pension funds and institutional investors have been calling for this fundamental rule of democracy to be applied for years. They want boards of directors to do more to defend the rights of shareholders.”

It is a bit embarrassing to see that Canada is still out of step with the rest of the world on such a fundamental issue as corporate governance. Whatever the historic reasons, the time has come to adopt a majority voting system in Canada to allow shareholders to have a say in how their corporation is run.

The coalition's efforts are definitely starting to pay off, given that, over the past few years, more and more Canadian firms have adopted such a policy. Nearly everywhere, particularly in the United Kingdom, Europe, and Australia, and in most developed countries and markets, boards are elected by shareholders through a majority vote, that is, they must obtain a majority of the votes cast and not simply a plurality of votes, as is presently the case in Canada.

About 10 years ago, Canadian shareholders began working with the Canadian Coalition for Good Governance to call on Canadian businesses to voluntarily adopt a majority voting policy, which means that when a board member gets less than the majority of votes, he or she must step down from the board of directors, which must accept the resignation, unless there are exceptional circumstances.

For years now, shareholders big and small have expressed frustration with the way corporate boards are voted in. They can clearly see that these boards have no accountability, because shareholders have little to no voice when it comes to electing them. When board members become inflexible or too tied to the opinions of management and they no longer represent shareholders' interests, in a way, shareholders no longer have any flexibility to remove individual board members or the entire board.

Some will even say that the election of corporate board members in Canada is more dictatorial than it is democratic. The current process only gives shareholders one option, and that is to vote for a candidate for a board position, or to abstain. In other words, if no one can vote against a board member, it only takes one vote for a candidate to be elected.

Now, let us return to the matter we are debating today. An American president once said that he liked the noise of democracy. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of corporate boards in Canada, because the democratic process used by many Canadian companies is much more silent. At present, shareholders can vote for directors, but their vote is largely meaningless and has little to no influence on the outcome, as surprising as that may seem.

Back in the day, we were lucky because each region of Canada had its own economic development minister. I am sure that brought some diversity and some interesting debate to the table during cabinet meetings. Unfortunately, this government decided to get rid of that diversity in cabinet by not appointing ministers responsible for regional economic development agencies.

I had to laugh when I heard the promote diversity on corporate boards and talk about the importance of considering viewpoints from a variety of perspectives, from all kinds of people and cultures, considering that he advocated for a single economic development minister for the whole country. Seriously.

I am very pleased to see this bill because this matter was important to the previous government, our government. It is the product of the work done by my colleagues who were here at the time, along with the other members of that Parliament. It stems from a legislative review that a House of Commons committee conducted in 2010, which led to more in-depth consultations in 2014 and the solutions we saw in budget 2015.

[English]

It is important to recognize that the objective of the bill is to increase shareholder democracy and participation. It would increase women's participation on corporate boards and senior management. Improving corporate transparency is something that is really important, as are reducing the regulatory burden and increasing business certainty. These are all very important attributes of this piece of legislation.

Madam Speaker, I am delighted that the Conservatives are going to be supporting this piece of legislation. It is a good piece of legislation and we are always prepared to share credit. We hope to see it pass second reading relatively quickly, but we will wait and see what takes place.

[Translation]

Does my colleague believe that the amendment that the NDP plans to propose calling for a legislative review of the bill every five years is appropriate? I do believe we should not wait another 40 or 20 years to review the measure.

When we look back over the past 40 years, this is only the second time that Parliament has addressed this type of issue. In my neck of the woods, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, the museum of women decided it would organize a big meeting to encourage women to step into the boardroom. Alexandre Taillefer, from XPND Capital, even came by to tell the women that their contribution and ideas were needed.

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech. It is nice to see a topic like this one come so close to achieving unanimity. Everyone seems to be working toward the same thing and that is very good.

On the specific question of my colleague's amendment, I will look at it once it has been drafted. If the amendment is worthy of our support, it will have it. However, we must first take the time to read it carefully.

I did the same thing with my municipal council. My greatest fear was to lose the only woman councillor we had. I am very pleased because three women were elected. It does take effort. The issue has to be addressed. There are competent women who can take their rightful place on our corporate boards.

[English]

[Translation]

However, I would like to remind the of the importance of diversity. It is also important at regional economic development agencies. We need diversity, we need ministers responsible for the different agencies to represent Canada's diversity within their departments. I would like to take this opportunity to remind the minister of that.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I would just like to say that we will be supporting the bill. It is worth supporting. I am pleased that the parties all seem to want to support this bill.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for , Infrastructure; the hon. member for , Small Business; the hon. member for , Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

[English]

: Madam Speaker, I am here to speak to something that is very important and it is good that this Parliament is bringing this forward. I think Bill is a positive initiative. Madam Speaker, I am here to speak to something that is very important and it is good that this Parliament is bringing this forward. I think Bill is a positive initiative.

The minister mentioned the Marrakesh Treaty. That was a treaty that Canada signed onto through a bill passed here, which was important for the blind and for other Canadians, for larger print. It is one of the indications that we can actually move things through the House of Commons and we can have things done for Canadians.

The bill is movement in the right direction. As New Democrats, we are going to support it, for sure. There is no way that we would not support the initiatives of the bill, but there are some shortcomings with the current proposal. We will point out a couple of those, but we want to hear testimony from witnesses as well.

Bill is an act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Canada Cooperatives Act, the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, and the Competition Act. Essentially what we are talking about is boards of governance in general, when we put the three core elements together. It is an opportunity to update and to include modern changes that are reflective. On the private sector model with the private corporations, blue chip corporations, and others, they have been very derelict, quite frankly, across the world in not having more of an inclusive nature. This is why it has come to the forefront, not just in Canada but across the world.

When we look at Europe and even at the United States, Canada has become known as a laggard with regard to this and there is no doubt about it. When the Conservatives talk about this getting through, after the 10 years it took them to bring something forward, right now we are happy to do so. Unfortunately, we are getting into a bragging competition between the Liberals and the Conservatives about this. However, I wonder why the bill is being launched again, another year and a bit later, basically the same as what it was before, especially given what we have seen with the more fundamental changes that are taking place in Germany and other places, which I will get into later, that are very important.

We are here today to at least take that first step forward in this process. To be clear, the most recent change to the measures in the bill was in 2001. That was just prior to my time here. It was under Jean Chrétien's government at that time, and prior to that it was decades before. We are really looking at nearly 40 years of letting them have the whole show so to speak. Right now, and this is how far things have come along and how difficult it still is, we require a legislative arm on this because still the right thing is not being done. Our corporate boards and tables across this country, where decisions are made about employees and about Canadians, do not even reflect anywhere near the diversity they should, and that is a shame. It is a shame that we have had to come this far.

Hence, one of the amendments that the New Democrats will be bringing forth is to have some type of a review of this process in the legislation. There will be a good debate. I know some civil society organizations and some governance organizations, especially related to the advocacy of women, have questioned the voluntary element in this initiative and said that there should be some monitoring of that.

The one way we can do it, and it is a very respectful way, is to make sure we have this coming back to Parliament so that we and Canadians have a voice to ask why a company is not complying and being reflective to some degree of the Canadian people, or at least coming to the benchmarks, generally speaking, that reflect our society. There are those people historically who have popped through the different barriers that take place. However, I have a concern because of the thoughts we have had in the past related to boards. They were referred to as the “old boys' club”, and that is very real.

It is also an indication that not only is this an issue of gender, ethnicity, and diversity, but also of social class. We have people who are basically disavowed and ruled unable, unequal, or unworthy of rising through the ranks. They have to go through exceptional circumstances to break those barriers, and they have been some of the most ingenuous people we have had. However, the time and day has come when everyone should count on who they are, what they think, what they do, and how hard they work, versus whom they know or who their family are, or at the very least, what their gender is.

We need to make sure that a number of things will be looked at here. These are very important.

The bill would have annual elections for directors. Right now, it can take up to three years for a director to be looked at. An annual director position can set the course on how a corporation responds to its shareholders.

If we believe in the essence of capitalism at face value, the argument there is that the shareholder is a voter and that in a democracy there are voting rights as a shareholder for the board and the CEO who controls it at that time. However, the current situation is that those meetings are not held, and if there is not that connection between the board and the shareholders, accountability can be avoided. Accountability can also be avoided by not publicizing meetings, or by not making sure that there is enough time in advance so that people can attend the meetings. Therefore, barriers can be created, similar to what I would call “non-tariff barriers”. When we are trying to sell products in another country, we cannot do so, because the non-tariff barriers or rules are so bad. It is the same with shareholders.

When we talk about shareholders, we are talking about ourselves. They are people who have invested their pensions or earnings. They buy those shares and the company gives them that equity in it, but if they cannot have any direct control whatsoever in terms of voting, because the CEO does not have the proper rules in place or has not been following them for up to three years. Then it becomes a problem. Therefore, the bill would require an annual meeting, which we are very supportive of.

Also, there is the structure of the old boys' club that was there regarding the election of directors as individuals. They used to run slates in the old boys' club, so to speak, making it more difficult for some other individuals who were trying to advance because the old boys' club was grouped against them. We would call that bullying today, but the reality is that we had a number of people who could not get through because the fix was in, so to speak, and the slate was developed. Now, with individual votes for those board members, at least there will be an individual case to made for each person.

I think that is the right way to do it, because, for example, some slates carried baggage where one could basically say, “I like three of the four, and I can live with them”. They would come out with a number of different things, as opposed to giving the right and basically saying that a single selection should be the way to go. I think that is going to be a good advancement.

On the issue of comply or explain, I noted that different countries have done different things. However, comply or explain is a way to bring the numbers up, and the current 18% or less share of women on boards is obviously not reflective of our society. With women making up over 50% of the population, but occupying less than 18% of board positions, it is an obvious problem that has to be fixed.

In surveys we have found that when comply or explain was used in the past in other countries and there have not been improvements in these numbers as a result, they have argued that not enough qualified people applied. That is the ceiling that is created. It is hard to challenge that, because we cannot have access to the confidential documents and information about who applied, who got left behind, and a number of different personal things that are very complicated, and so the target does not move at all. That is one of the reasons Chancellor Merkel in Germany moved legislation on this and now has a target of 30%.

Germany was simply fed up and said that for CEOs and blue-chip corporations the rate would be 30% and that they would have some time to bring that in. The time was shortened because they would need some time to comply or explain. For German not-for-profit boards and others, the rate is going to be 50%. There is a difference between 30% and 50%.

I was not privy to the debate and have not looked at what has taken place in the German legislation, but I am sure it will come out in testimony. Not-for-profit boards are found in hospitals, public institutions, and so forth. On those boards, of course, the rate should be 50% because taxpayers pay for those boards, and with 50% of our population being women they are directly paying 50%. We know that to be a fact. They need to have the same representation. In fact, they deserve to have the same representation. It is an absolute shame if they do not. This can be easily corrected. If women are supposed to be equal, then they deserve an equal voice in running those boards. We New Democrats are arguing for at least a review of this.

This goes back to what we are proposing in terms of an amendment, so that people at the very least are made aware of this. There might be others who do more on comply or explain. There could be a better amendment, and New Democrats are open to that. However, we are not going to give a blank cheque to this piece of legislation. There is no way we are going to let this legislation go through without fighting tooth and nail to the end, without adding accountability to change the current situation. We will not let that happen. We have not come this far on so many other measures, and we still have much further to go, that we would basically put up our hands on the bill and say good luck, we will leave it to the other guys, and we will see everyone later. We are not going to do that. We have done that enough. I have seen that happen too often here in the chamber, most recently with another bill that looked at gender parity with respect to electoral reform, and it was turned down in the House. Sadly, it was another lost opportunity.

This cannot be another lost opportunity. This cannot go back in the record books for another 40 years without any action taking place. That is why I am particularly interested in the German case. Germany has gone through it and has changed.

We do know that the provinces have moved on this as well, and it will be interesting to hear the testimony at committee. They have moved on comply or explain and a few other things. We will be getting some of the results from them as well. I will be interested in hearing what is going on out there in committee. That will also give us a better sense of things.

Maybe we are wrong in the sense that corporations and not-for-profits will act quickly on this. I worked in a not-for-profit industry for a number of years and was successful in bringing in this model. Not-for-profits will comply and move toward that. This is our opportunity to bring it to Parliament and to Canada as a whole. We can find out if those who are laggards have a problem with it and how they are going to fix the problem. That is what we are going to see with this legislation. Hopefully we will see amendments that would make this happen, because we are just not going to leave it alone.

Another missed opportunity with respect to this issue is corporate CEO compensation. We are calling for more shareholders and investors to have a say on CEO pay. We are interested in looking at executive compensation as it is a part of the package. We have seen in Canada and around the world CEOs getting big bonuses while companies tank, and fire their workers left, right, and centre at the same time. We have to look no further than the CEOs at our banks. Their compensation was increasing at a time when banks were having some problems and we had to backstop some of them. The banks had record profits and their CEOs received increased compensation. During the last financial crisis, the average increase in their compensation was about 19%.

How is it that so many Canadians and so many small businesses are going through this problem that we have had. The challenges and the insecurity and the services they are supposed to get are challenged; government, which is funding this, is going into massive debt; and CEOs get almost 20%. Those banks have some of the highest credit card costs not only in Canada but across the world. When it comes to credit card service fees, just talk to small merchants. Look at what is happening in Australia. Australia has a 0.5% cap and it is reviewing this and lowering it because banks are still making lots of money. It is bad for small business.

Here our small business people struggle when they go to the banks to get loans, and if they can get them, they are at high interest rates. Or public institutions like the BDC, or credit unions, have stepped in on riskier loans. What do the banks do in response? They fire more workers, close more branches, and they increase service fees. They do all of those things and the Conservatives set up what is basically a voluntary system for credit cards. It is like playing hockey and getting a penalty for cross-checking someone, but it is a voluntary penalty and if players want to go in the penalty box they can time themselves out if they want to. If they do not, that is okay, play on, play on.

Meanwhile CEOs are making 20% profit. This sends a message that bad behaviour is rewarded. What person does that? We do not do that in our home life. We do not reward bad behaviour, and if we do, it will probably not lead to a good solution in the end. No one does that kind of stuff and that is what we have done with CEO compensation.

Look at Target, for example. It came in and took over a Canadian company, Zellers, which was making a profit. That is key. Zellers was making a profit. It also had a unionized workforce and a wage just over the minimum. It had some benefits and it was making a profit. It was a company that was fulfilling its mandate for people, being a place to work, a place with benefits, a place that respected Canadian laws, but Target came in and what did it do? It ended up going bankrupt and shutting Zellers down, and the CEO of Target, Gregg Steinhafel, received a severance package of $61 million, just $10 million shy of the total severance package for the entire Target workforce. Great, that is capitalism at its best. That is a wonderful example of the Canadian dream being fulfilled.

I recently reviewed the Investment Canada Act, which has had so many changes made to it by previous Liberal and Conservative governments, it is in shambles with regard to this type of behaviour. There was nothing wrong with forcing Target to have some type of mandate or guarantees when it came into this country, so that we could preserve these workers' jobs and stop a bunch of black holes in shopping malls in communities across this country just because of corporate greed.

At the end of the day, with $61 million I am sure that the former CEO is not in our country. The people with the compensation are here and wondering what to do. Guess what we do as taxpayers? We have to fill in the pensions, the employment insurance, and we have make sure that employees get retrained or find other jobs. So CEO compensation is significant and it goes on. The CEO with the highest pay, but worst stock return, is Donald Lindsay. His compensation right now is $9.6 million and there is no remorse on his part. Encana Corporation compensation is $10.8 million. Scott Saxberg of Crescent Point Energy Corporation gets $8.8 million in compensation, despite the company's shareholder falling by 34.5%.