INDU Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
Minutes of Proceedings
Mark Schaan answered questions.
The Committee resumed its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.
The Committee resumed consideration of Clause 24 and of the amendment of Elizabeth May, — That Bill C-25, in Clause 24, be amended by replacing lines 5 to 7 on page 9 with the following:
“information respecting diversity – including in regard to gender, disability, race, ethnicity, Aboriginal or Indigenous heritage, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression – among the directors and among the members of senior management as defined by regulation, as well as any prescribed information respecting diversity.”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 6.
“information respecting gender representation and diversity – including in regard to colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability – among the directors and among the members of senior management as defined by regulation, as well as any prescribed information respecting diversity.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Brian Masse and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Earl Dreeshen, Ben Lobb, Brian Masse, Alexander Nuttall — 4;
NAYS: Chandra Arya, Frank Baylis, Majid Jowhari, Lloyd Longfield, Terry Sheehan — 5.
“information respecting diversity – including in regard to gender, national or ethnic origin, Aboriginal or Indigenous heritage, disability status, age, religion, official language preference, and socio-economic status – among the directors and among the members of senior management as defined by regulation, as well as any prescribed information respecting diversity.”
Debate arose thereon.
Brian Masse moved, — That the amendment be amended by adding after the word “gender”, the words “sexual orientation,”.
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Brian Masse and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Earl Dreeshen, Ben Lobb, Brian Masse, Alexander Nuttall — 4;
NAYS: Chandra Arya, Frank Baylis, Majid Jowhari, Lloyd Longfield, Terry Sheehan — 5.
Brian Masse moved, — That the amendment be amended by deleting the words “disability status”, and substituting the words “mental or physical disability”.
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Brian Masse and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Earl Dreeshen, Ben Lobb, Brian Masse — 3;
NAYS: Chandra Arya, Frank Baylis, Majid Jowhari, Lloyd Longfield, Terry Sheehan — 5.
The question was put on the amendment of Earl Dreeshen and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Earl Dreeshen, Ben Lobb, Brian Masse — 3;
NAYS: Chandra Arya, Frank Baylis, Majid Jowhari, Lloyd Longfield, Terry Sheehan — 5.
“(1.1) The directors of a prescribed corporation shall place before the shareholders, at every annual meeting,
(a) if the corporation has adopted a written policy on diversity other than gender among the directors and among the members of senior management, a summary of its objectives and key provisions;
(b) if the corporation has not adopted a policy on diversity, the reasons for not doing so; and
(c) information, if any, regarding the last audit undertaken by the corporation with respect to diversity.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Brian Masse and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Earl Dreeshen, Ben Lobb, Brian Masse, Alexander Nuttall — 4;
NAYS: Chandra Arya, Frank Baylis, Majid Jowhari, Lloyd Longfield, Terry Sheehan — 5.
Clause 24 carried on division.
On new Clause 24.1,
Earl Dreeshen moved, — That Bill C-25 be amended by adding after line 14 on page 9 the following new clause:“172.2 (1) Within three years after the day on which section 172.1 comes into force, and every five years after that, a committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by the Senate and the House of Commons for that purpose shall undertake a comprehensive review of that section.
(2) The committees referred to in subsection (1) shall, within a year after a review is undertaken under that subsection or within such further time as may be authorized by the Senate or the House of Commons, as the case may be, submit a report on the review to Parliament.”
Debate arose thereon.
Brian Masse moved, — That the Committee proceed to the consideration of matters related to Committee Business.
The question was put on the motion and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Earl Dreeshen, Ben Lobb, Brian Masse, Alexander Nuttall — 4;
NAYS: Chandra Arya, Frank Baylis, Majid Jowhari, Lloyd Longfield, Terry Sheehan — 5.
The Committee resumed consideration of the amendment of Earl Dreeshen, — That Bill C-25 be amended by adding after line 14 on page 9 the following new clause:
“172.2 (1) Within three years after the day on which section 172.1 comes into force, and every five years after that, a committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by the Senate and the House of Commons for that purpose shall undertake a comprehensive review of that section.
(2) The committees referred to in subsection (1) shall, within a year after a review is undertaken under that subsection or within such further time as may be authorized by the Senate or the House of Commons, as the case may be, submit a report on the review to Parliament.”
Debate arose thereon.
Brian Masse moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing the word “three”, with the word “two”.
The debate continued.
At 10:45 a.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.