Liberals fearing fascism are taking control of the private sector for partisan purposes

Article content

Over the course of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s tenure, the line between public and private has gradually blurred and become questionable. I understand why some Canadians might support this – and the Liberal tendency in general to limit corporate Canada – but I don’t like it.

One of the most recent points on this timeline can be marked in late May, when independent (and therefore functionally liberal) senator Julie Miville-Dechêne introduced bill S-285. If adopted, it would require every federally incorporated corporation to operate in such a way that, in addition to its shareholders, it “benefits broader society and the environment in a manner commensurate with its size and the nature of its operations.” it would also be necessary to minimize the harm it causes to society and the environment “in order to eliminate such harm”.

Article content

This is a radical change because the purpose of corporations has always been to pursue their own interests, not the interests of the state. Of course, they still have to obey the law in doing so, but it’s no different than what we expect people to do. Make money however you want by putting food on the table, but don’t steal food. Corporations can choose how to make a profit, as long as they don’t illegally dump chemicals, commit tax fraud, and so on.

But Miville-Dechêne would make the corporate body exist for the state, no longer a free-floating organism but a cell that was part of something larger. Some might think it would be nice if the private sector, rather than just the state, was tasked with benefiting “wider society and the environment”, but they should at least consider what this means in practice. There is no such thing as a free society in which corporations must fulfill the broad aspirations of the government.

It is possible that S-285 will not lead anywhere, because it is only in the first reading, but it is not the first initiative of this type that has been successful. The spirit of a proposed ban on any fossil fuel advertising that conflicts with government specifications introduced by NDP MP Charlie Angus in February became law with Royal Assent in Bill C-59 on Thursday. Sufficient evidence must be provided for any company’s environmental claims, giving the government the responsibility to regulate the truth.

Article content

Article content

The leash has been tightening for some time now. In 2020, the Liberals amended the Canada Business Corporations Act to require federally incorporated entities to begin publishing annual diversity data on the composition of their boards of directors and senior management, as well as any diversity policies in place with respect to staff in these positions. (In 2024, federal authorities announced they would expand these requirements to all federally regulated financial institutions.) This is not a difficult mandate, but it does put pressure on those who are not already committed to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI).

The federal procurement system provided another lever for companies to comply. In 2021, a “social procurement” policy was introduced with the aim of increasing the number of procurements “aimed at achieving the government’s socio-economic objectives”. The government’s website now states that public considerations in the selection of architects and engineers are being consulted.

They’re not forcing anyone to use DEI, but given how competitive public procurement can be, it certainly makes it more likely that they will.

Article content

Earlier this year, Employment and Social Development Canada created a database showing diversity and compensation statistics for all federally regulated companies with at least 100 employees. Objective? “(Shed) light on the barriers to equality experienced by women, indigenous peoples, people with disabilities and members of visible minorities in federally regulated private sector industries.” It shows which companies in banking, air transportation, telecommunications, etc. underemploy and underpay women and minorities, according to federal metrics.

Of course, being under- or over-targeted is not necessarily a sign of racism, sexism, or acceptance; One company’s pay demographics are the result of complex factors that can end up skewing one way or another, even if management is fair. Still, Labor Secretary Seamus O’Regan Jr. continues to promote the idea that organizations are systematically discriminating if their staffing is not a certain way.

The encroachment of government social tasks into private activities is progressing rather slowly. Some data collection and disclosure here, some new socio-economic selection criteria added… neither move seemed all that radical (although changing the core purpose of the corporation would be). But gradually companies are being urged to proactively join the Liberal mission to create a diverse and fully equitable Canada. Interesting, considering this is the same party that always warns against rising fascist waves.

Article content

Liberal Independents would object that corporations have achieved this: they have a history of discriminating, polluting and cheating; now it’s time for deeper changes in the source code. But these violations should be addressed through proper enforcement, which is already a struggle for the authorities. The same can be said about people: not all of us should have to do regular community service because some of us are chronic vandals.

We should not give in to the youthful desire to take over corporate companies for social purposes. Let’s hope S-285 will be stuck in obscurity.

National Post Office

Article content