LAW 722 Law and Canadian Business Section #1Final PaperProfessor: Avner LevinDate: 21 April 2015Word Count: 4,680

Gender Quota Laws and Resolving the Glass Ceiling Contributing FactorsAbstractThe objective of this paper will be to demonstrate how implementing gender quota laws in Canada similar to gender quota laws in other countries, such as Norway,[footnoteRef:1] will not resolve the problem regarding the lack of gender diversity and the women represented in executive and board positions in Canadian corporations; the percentage of women that make up board positions is 17.1%.[footnoteRef:2] This paper will argue the disadvantages to these laws and will demonstrate how gender quota laws will not resolve the barriers and contributing factors to the problems that hold women back from being promoted to executive and board positions. A United States Federal Commission found that these barriers and contributing factors are: Societal Barriers, which may be outside the direct control of business; Internal Structural Barriers, within the direct control of business; and Governmental Barriers.[footnoteRef:3] The Commission groups these barriers and contributing factors together and classifies the overall problem as a glass ceiling for women.[footnoteRef:4] This paper will set out arguments for possible solutions to this problem that will involve actions from the Canadian Government, corporations, and society in general. [1: Bertrand, M., Black, S., & Jensen, S. Breaking the Glass Ceiling? The Effect of Board Quotas on Female Labor Market Outcomes in Norway. University of Texas.] [2: Shecter, B. (2014). Women on boards increasing slowly, visible minorities lose ground. Financial Post.] [3: Federal Glass Ceiling Commission,. (1995). Good for Business: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital (pp. 7-8). Washington: United States Department of Labor.] [4: Federal Glass Ceiling Commission,. (1995). Good for Business: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital (pp. 7-8). Washington: United States Department of Labor.]

The starting point in resolving this problem starts with the government. An example from Ontario, the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) has proposed the implementation of comply or explain laws.[footnoteRef:5] Once implemented, these laws will force corporations that are listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) to annually disclose whether they have implemented policies that support the representation of women in executive and board positions.[footnoteRef:6] If corporations do not have such policies, they will have to explain the reasoning why such policies do not exist.[footnoteRef:7] The government forcing this type of disclosure will give society the information they need to exert pressure on corporations to implement more desirable policies to support women. This pressure will stem from two areas: Externally from organizations that collaborate to enhance and strengthen pressure and internally within the corporation through shareholder activism. Shareholder activists will have the means to ensure that corporations adopt policies that will induce meaningful change throughout the corporation. Corporations will not be able to ignore the internal and external pressures, therefore will be forced to make meaningful change to support women. Corporations that are forward thinkers and leaders of their industry will be in a position, without the influence of laws or pressure from society, to enact change in their organization and set policy standards on the type of support women should be receiving. Corporations that lead by example will demonstration that when a corporation has higher percentage of women who are in executive and board positions, they will be more successful overall.[footnoteRef:8] Corporations that are reluctant to support women and change will not be able to ignore pressure stemming from the government, society, and other corporations. Therefore, they will either have to adapt to a new culture that embraces women or risk becoming a pariah to society and other corporations, resulting in failure of the business. [5: The Ontario Securities Commission,. (2014). PROPOSED OSC AMENDMENTS TO FORM 58-101F1 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE DISCLOSURE OF NATIONAL INSTRUMENT 58-101 DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PRACTICES (pp. 2, 8). Toronto: Carswell.] [6: The Ontario Securities Commission,. (2014). PROPOSED OSC AMENDMENTS TO FORM 58-101F1 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE DISCLOSURE OF NATIONAL INSTRUMENT 58-101 DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PRACTICES (pp. 2, 8). Toronto: Carswell.] [7: The Ontario Securities Commission,. (2014). PROPOSED OSC AMENDMENTS TO FORM 58-101F1 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE DISCLOSURE OF NATIONAL INSTRUMENT 58-101 DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PRACTICES (pp. 2, 8). Toronto: Carswell.] [8: Status of Women Canada,. (2014). Good for Business A Plan to Promote the Participation of More Women on Canadian Boards. Gatineau: Government of Canada.]

IntroductionWomen in todays society face barriers and obstacles commonly referred to as a glass ceiling,[footnoteRef:9] when it comes to being promoted into executive positions or being considered for a position on a board of directors.[footnoteRef:10] Some countries, such as Norway, have implemented gender quotas to combat this issue.[footnoteRef:11] Other countries, such as Canada, are considering a softer approach and propose implementing legislation that forces corporations to report on whether or not their policies support women.[footnoteRef:12] While Norways approach has produced results, and some support the use of gender quotas[footnoteRef:13], it has been suggested that gender quotas have not obtained desired results.[footnoteRef:14] Gender quota laws may, on the surface, increase the number of women in executive and board positions, but they will not solve the deeper issue of the barriers and obstacles that plague women and their efforts to move up the corporate ladder. For this reason, the Canadian Government should not implement similar legislation that forces corporations to structure their companies where women make up a percentage of executive and board positions. Alternatively, other less forceful methods should be utilized to address the deeper issue of the glass ceiling that encompasses the involvement of the government, corporations and society in general. [9: Federal Glass Ceiling Commission,. (1995). A Solid Investment: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital (p. 4). Washington D.C.: United States Department of Labor.] [10: Mary, M. C., & Anita, L. J. (2002). A "glass ceiling" or work/family conflicts? The Journal of Business andEconomic Studies, 8(2), 73-82.] [11: Bertrand, M., Black, S., & Jensen, S. Breaking the Glass Ceiling? The Effect of Board Quotas on Female Labor Market Outcomes in Norway. University of Texas.] [12: The Ontario Securities Commission,. (2014). PROPOSED OSC AMENDMENTS TO FORM 58-101F1 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE DISCLOSURE OF NATIONAL INSTRUMENT 58-101 DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PRACTICES (pp. 2, 8). Toronto: Carswell.] [13: The Globe and Mail,. (2012). Roundtable discussion: Do Canada's corporate boards need gender quotas?.] [14: Bertrand, M., Black, S., & Jensen, S. Breaking the Glass Ceiling? The Effect of Board Quotas on Female Labor Market Outcomes in Norway. University of Texas.]

The Glass CeilingThe glass ceiling concept is defined as the unseen, yet unbreachable barrier that keeps minorities and women from rising to the upper rungs of the corporate ladder, regardless of their qualifications or achievements.[footnoteRef:15] There are three categories of barriers that have been identified that that contribute to women being held back from advancement in executive and board positions.[footnoteRef:16] These barriers are: Societal Barriers, which may be outside the direct control of business; Internal Structural Barriers, within the direct control of business; and Governmental Barriers.[footnoteRef:17] [15: Federal Glass Ceiling Commission,. (1995). A Solid Investment: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital (p. 4). Washington D.C.: United States Department of Labor.] [16: Federal Glass Ceiling Commission,. (1995). Good for Business: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital (pp. 7-8). Washington: United States Department of Labor.] [17: Federal Glass Ceiling Commission,. (1995). Good for Business: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital (pp. 7-8). Washington: United States Department of Labor.]

Three Categories of BarriersSocietal Barriers Societal barriers that contribute to the glass ceiling encompass gender differences, discrimination, stereotyping[footnoteRef:18] and social policy that perpetuates inequality regarding domestic obligations.[footnoteRef:19] Social policy contributes greatly to the issue. Women are encouraged to work part-time after giving birth while males are not afforded the same opportunity. [footnoteRef:20] This creates the social perception that it is the womans obligation to fulfill childcare responsibilities rather than the male, which reinforces the stereotype that the woman should become a stay at home mother while the male is the one who becomes the sole means of generating financial income.[footnoteRef:21] This stereotype also gives the impression that a woman with kids might not be as dedicated to their work because of childcare responsibilities. It should be noted that women have been increasing their participation in the workplace over the years but they still maintain their domestic responsibilities.[footnoteRef:22] The average American woman works 13.2 hours per week completing household obligations, compared to her spouse who works approximately 6.6 hours per week.[footnoteRef:23] This imbalance of household obligations put more stress on the woman which will affect her performance in the workplace. This work-life imbalance increases the likelihood that a woman may be forced to choose to stay at home to fulfill the household and childcare responsibilities over a career due to the lack of support she receives both at home and in the workplace. This unbalanced work/home-life only further perpetuates the issue that women would appear to not be committed to their job, therefore should not be promoted into more demanding positions. [18: Federal Glass Ceiling Commission,. (1995). Good for Business: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital (pp. 28). Washington: United States Department of Labor.] [19: Schwanke, D. (2013). Barriers for women to positions of power: How societal and corporate structures, perceptions of leadership and discrimination restrict womens advancement to authority. Earth Common Journal Special Issue, 3(2), 17.] [20: Schwanke, D. (2013). Barriers for women to positions of power: How societal and corporate structures, perceptions of leadership and discrimination restrict womens advancement to authority. Earth Common Journal Special Issue, 3(2), 17.] [21: Schwanke, D. (2013). Barriers for women to positions of power: How societal and corporate structures, perceptions of leadership and discrimination restrict womens advancement to authority. Earth Common Journal Special Issue, 3(2), 17.] [22: Schwanke, D. (2013). Barriers for women to positions of power: How societal and corporate structures, perceptions of leadership and discrimination restrict womens advancement to authority. Earth Common Journal Special Issue, 3(2), 17.] [23: Schwanke, D. (2013). Barriers for women to positions of power: How societal and corporate structures, perceptions of leadership and discrimination restrict womens advancement to authority. Earth Common Journal Special Issue, 3(2), 17.]

Internal Structure Barriers The Internal Structure Barriers women face from a corporation begins before a woman even signs an employment contract. Outreach and Recruitment Barriers are a contributing factor when corporations do not have adequate recruitment policies and process in place that put a woman on equal footing.[footnoteRef:24] Once a woman joins a company, they face a corporate culture that alienates and isolates them.[footnoteRef:25] The predominant executive culture of many companies is a white male culture.[footnoteRef:26] This white male dominate culture creates a difficult company culture for women to break into.[footnoteRef:27] Women are often uncomfortable and unfamiliar with the different social interactions of their male counterpart;[footnoteRef:28] such as bonding over beers after work or sessions at the gym.[footnoteRef:29] These differences in social interaction are often seen as barriers to build a rapport within the company and help with advancement during promotion periods. [footnoteRef:30] In addition, women face the problem of being unable to commit the extra time outside of work hours for these male bonding sessions due to their home commitments of childcare and house maintenance,[footnoteRef:31] which compounds the issue. [24: Federal Glass Ceiling Commission,. (1995). Good for Business: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital (pp. 32). Washington: United States Department of Labor.] [25: Federal Glass Ceiling Commission,. (1995). Good for Business: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital (pp. 8). Washington: United States Department of Labor.] [26: Federal Glass Ceiling Commission,. (1995). Good for Business: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital (pp. 34). Washington: United States Department of Labor.] [27: Schwanke, D. (2013). Barriers for women to positions of power: How societal and corporate structures, perceptions of leadership and discrimination restrict womens advancement to authority. Earth Common Journal Special Issue, 3(2), 18.] [28: Federal Glass Ceiling Commission,. (1995). Good for Business: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital (pp. 34). Washington: United States Department of Labor.] [29: Schwanke, D. (2013). Barriers for women to positions of power: How societal and corporate structures, perceptions of leadership and discrimination restrict womens advancement to authority. Earth Common Journal Special Issue, 3(2), 18.] [30: Federal Glass Ceiling Commission,. (1995). Good for Business: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital (pp. 34). Washington: United States Department of Labor.] [31: Schwanke, D. (2013). Barriers for women to positions of power: How societal and corporate structures, perceptions of leadership and discrimination restrict womens advancement to authority. Earth Common Journal Special Issue, 3(2), 18.]

For those women who can overcome these barriers they still face other barriers related to being supported by the company, which include: a lack of mentoring, a lack of management training, a lack of opportunities for career development, and a lack of opportunities for training tailored to the individual to name a few.[footnoteRef:32] This lack of support for developing womens skills and ability further perpetuates the struggles they face in the workplace and almost guarantees that they will not be successful despite their best efforts. If woman are to make any progress in their pursuit of advancement into executive and board positions then the policies, culture and attitudes of the company need to change. [32: Federal Glass Ceiling Commission,. (1995). Good for Business: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital (pp. 34). Washington: United States Department of Labor.]

Governmental Barriers Governmental Barriers encompasses a lack of reporting and dissemination of information relevant to the glass ceiling issues, lack of consistent monitoring and law enforcement, and weakness in the collection and breakdown of employment related data.[footnoteRef:33] Governments data collection agencies do not make the best practical use of appropriate categories that are required to track and monitor the progress of women.[footnoteRef:34] These categories are too broad in nature, such as managerial, executive, and administrative, and do not allow for a detailed analysis of glass ceiling issues.[footnoteRef:35] This lack of detailed data collection makes it difficult to tackle the glass ceiling issue due to the inability to properly monitor progress, if any, of the issue and to determine whether or not specific issues are decreasing in nature. [33: Federal Glass Ceiling Commission,. (1995). Good for Business: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital (pp. 29). Washington: United States Department of Labor.] [34: Federal Glass Ceiling Commission,. (1995). Good for Business: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital (pp. 29). Washington: United States Department of Labor.] [35: Federal Glass Ceiling Commission,. (1995). Good for Business: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital (pp. 29). Washington: United States Department of Labor.]

Many agree that the government does very little to provide information to the public who are interested in what is happening with the issues.[footnoteRef:36] The majority of CEOs agree that regulatory enforcement helps keeps the issues on the front burner but the when the threat of regulatory enforcement is not real, compliance programs, that are designed to ensure discrimination or increase support for women, lack any real effect on female employment.[footnoteRef:37] If there is a lack of regulatory enforcement from government then this will give the impression to the public and corporations that the issues are not serious, therefore less effort should be made to make improvements. This lack of seriousness on the issues from businesses will only further perpetuate the barriers women face regarding their efforts to advance into executive and board positions. [36: Federal Glass Ceiling Commission,. (1995). Good for Business: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital (pp. 30). Washington: United States Department of Labor.] [37: Federal Glass Ceiling Commission,. (1995). Good for Business: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital (pp. 30). Washington: United States Department of Labor.]

The Problems with Quota LawsImplementing gender quota laws inherently goes against the principle of equal opportunity for all. In the context of employment, the principle of equal opportunity is that all members of society are assessed by their merits, and their merits alone, and only the most qualified, according to appropriate criteria, are offered positions of employment.[footnoteRef:38] Equal opportunity is an ideal that opposes a society where there is a caste system that puts preference on people who are perceived superior over those who would be perceived as inferior.[footnoteRef:39] A caste system does not necessarily have to be a formal social construct system, such as what is found in India,[footnoteRef:40] but can be one of perception made up of cultural biases related to gender, financial, educational or ethnic background. The latter can be observed in the Canadian culture where one ethnic background is looked at as inferior to another, or someone who has a low education level or low financial status appears to be less wanted, or even burdensome, on society.[footnoteRef:41] [38: Arneson, R. (2015). Equality of Opportunity. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Standford: The Metaphysics Research Lab for the Study of Language and Information.] [39: Arneson, R. (2015). Equality of Opportunity. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Standford: The Metaphysics Research Lab for the Study of Language and Information.] [40: O'Neill, T. Discrimination against India's lowest Hindu castes is technically illegal. But try telling that to the 160 million Untouchables, who face violent reprisals if they forget their place. National Geographic.] [41: Access Alliance (2011). Research Bulletin #1. Labour Market Challenges and Discrimination faced by Racialized Groups in the Black Creek Area. Toronto: Access Alliance]

Implementing gender quota laws would create a system of inequality where women are favoured over men until the quota has been satisfied. Gender quota laws may resolve the issue of the lack of women in executive and board positions, but it does so at the expense of men. Improving the representation of one gender at the expense of another will not solve the deeper issue of what causes the gap in inequality to begin with. Gender quota laws would essentially create more inequality in the workplace and society rather than making women and men equal. The glass ceiling issues are comprised of barriers from society, corporations and the government, and gender quota laws will not fundamentally solve these barriers women face. Gender quota laws are not the approach required if gender equality is to accomplish the goal of enhancing the social welfare of women in Canadian society. Kofi Annan, who was the 7th Secretary-General of the United Nations[footnoteRef:42], has said, Gender equality is more than a goal in itself. It is a precondition for meeting the challenge of reducing poverty, promoting sustainable development and building good governance.[footnoteRef:43] If women are to obtain a meaningful status of equality in the workplace and society then more is required than a mere law that can only increase the number of women in executive and board positions, but does not address and resolve the overwhelming number of barriers women face from a corporation, government and society. [42: Kofi Annan Foundation,. Biography. ] [43: UNICEF,. Statement of UNICEF Executive Director Ann M. Veneman on International Womens Day. ]

There are also constitutional issues with the implementation of gender quota laws. Section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states, Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.[footnoteRef:44] Gender quota laws inherently favour women and discriminate against men when it relates to being promoted. It could be argued that under Section 15(1) of the Charter, the implementation of gender quota laws would be unconstitutional because it infringes on mens right of equal benefit and protection from discrimination based on gender. [44: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s 2, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982,being Schedule B to theCanada Act 1982(UK), 1982, c 11. s. 15]

The counter argument would be related to Section 15(2) of the Charter which states, Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.[footnoteRef:45] The objective of gender quota laws is to attempt to improve the gap between the number of women in executive and board positions because women are at a disadvantage regarding advancement in the workplace. It would be argued that Section 15(2) of the Charter is exactly the objective of gender quotas; therefore the discrimination against men could be justified. [45: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s 2, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982,being Schedule B to theCanada Act 1982(UK), 1982, c 11. s. 15]

From a political perspective, this issue has not been debated by many federal or provincial politicians.[footnoteRef:46] Evidence has shown that the general public and political leaders question the appropriateness of this type of measure.[footnoteRef:47] The challenges of implementing gender quota laws, from a political and legal perspective, are complex and only create further difficulties in attempts to resolving glass ceiling issues. The pursuit of gender quota laws would see vast resources wasted if its implementation failed politically, legally, or both. The risk of wasted resources could be circumvented if less contentious means were explored, which will be discussed later on in the paper. [46: Totten, C. (2003). Constitutional Precommitments to Gender Affirmative Action in the European Union, Germany, Canada and the United States: A Comparative Approach. Berkeley Journal Of International Law, 21(1), 19. ] [47: Totten, C. (2003). Constitutional Precommitments to Gender Affirmative Action in the European Union, Germany, Canada and the United States: A Comparative Approach. Berkeley Journal Of International Law, 21(1), 19.]

It could be argued that on the surface, gender quota laws help to tackling the contributing factors of gender diversity and promoting women through the ranks into executive and board positions. But on the fundamental level, gender quotas will still hurt women and their efforts. Gender quotas may open the door for more opportunities but due to the many internal structure barriers, many women may still feel the obligation from society, their spouse, or both, to leave the workplace to become the primary parent at home.[footnoteRef:48] Therefore, these opportunities will not be utilized to the extent that is hoped for. For those women who chose to have kids and stay in the workforce, they could have the negative perception attached to them that they are not committed to their job or are unable to perform their duties to the best of their ability due to their family obligations.[footnoteRef:49] [48: Carol, A. I., Kaatz, A., & Carnes, M. (2012). Deconstructing the glass ceiling. Sociology Mind, 2(1), 80-86.] [49: Zaleski, K. (2015). Female company president: "I'm sorry to all the mothers I worked with". Fortune.]

It should be noted that this perception is not limited to just men alone, but females can also be guilty of adopting this negative perception of other women. One specific example of this scenario is from Katharine Zaleski, who then was a manager at the Washington Post.[footnoteRef:50] She admits that before she had children, she was an individual who used to look down on women who were mothers because of the negative perceptions she held that they would not be able to perform their duties to the best of their abilities due to family obligations. [footnoteRef:51] Since giving birth and having her own children to raise, she now admits that she was wrong about her previous preconceived notions and that women with children are just as capable in performing their duties as women without children.[footnoteRef:52] [50: Zaleski, K. (2015). Female company president: "I'm sorry to all the mothers I worked with". Fortune.] [51: Zaleski, K. (2015). Female company president: "I'm sorry to all the mothers I worked with". Fortune.] [52: Zaleski, K. (2015). Female company president: "I'm sorry to all the mothers I worked with". Fortune.]

For those women who are promoted into executive and board positions, they might have the stigma attached to them that they did not earn their position by merit, but they were only promoted due to gender quota laws. Some women, who, from their own perspective, earned their position by merit before the implementation of gender quota laws, might look down on those women who were promoted after the implementation of the gender quota laws. This possible scenario could disrupt the company culture and create a further divide; instead of the traditional view that women do not hold the same merit compared to men, there will be an addition category of negative perception added to this issue, where the women who earned their way to the top will look down on those women who only reached the same level as them due to gender quota laws. Now those women, who are in executive positions due to the gender quota laws, will face stigma not only from men but also from a specific group of women, further perpetuating the issue of women inequality. How can men be expected to change their attitudes towards women if women themselves look down upon those who did not earn their position by merit? At this fundamental level, gender quotas may further hinder the issue rather than help. It would be counterproductive if gender quotas were implemented but created a new form of discrimination in the workplace. Meaningful change that has impact not only on the numbers but on attitudes, perceptions, and the contributing glass ceiling factors must be explored elsewhere. Involvement from the Government and Society and Changes RequiredThe government can be a driver of meaningful change, but cannot be the only driver in supporting women through implementing policies that are focused on raising awareness and promoting gender diversity practices in corporations.[footnoteRef:53] To support broader gender diversification of women in executive and board positions, the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) has proposed a comply or explain model for corporations listed on the TSX.[footnoteRef:54] Corporations would have to annually disclose whether they have implemented policies that support the representation of women in executive and board positions.[footnoteRef:55] If corporations did not have such policies, they would have to explain the reasoning why one did not exist.[footnoteRef:56] [53: Johns, M. L. (2013). Breaking the Glass Ceiling: Structural, Cultural, and Organizational Barriers Preventing Women from Achieving Senior and Executive Positions. Perspectives in Health Information Management / AHIMA, American Health Information Management Association, 10(Winter), 1e.] [54: The Ontario Securities Commission,. (2014). PROPOSED OSC AMENDMENTS TO FORM 58-101F1 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE DISCLOSURE OF NATIONAL INSTRUMENT 58-101 DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PRACTICES (pp. 2, 8). Toronto: Carswell.] [55: The Ontario Securities Commission,. (2014). PROPOSED OSC AMENDMENTS TO FORM 58-101F1 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE DISCLOSURE OF NATIONAL INSTRUMENT 58-101 DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PRACTICES (pp. 2, 8). Toronto: Carswell.] [56: The Ontario Securities Commission,. (2014). PROPOSED OSC AMENDMENTS TO FORM 58-101F1 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE DISCLOSURE OF NATIONAL INSTRUMENT 58-101 DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PRACTICES (pp. 2, 8). Toronto: Carswell.]

Comply or explain laws will allow the opportunity for various types of organizations to collaborate, review and critique corporations that have implemented gender diversity policies, if at all, to ensure that corporations are going far enough to support women and promote women diversification.[footnoteRef:57] For those corporations who have not implemented gender diversity policies, those collaborative organizations will be able to advocate and exert pressure on corporations to implement or improve gender diversity policies and make meaningful change. With the use of comply or explain laws, collaborative organizations will have access to corporate information (for publicly listed corporations) and they will be able to use this information to their advantage when questioning corporations on their gender diversity policies and making suggestions on how to make improvements. On a fundamental level, allowing this information to be accessible will also deter corporations from using typical deflective vague responses to questions from collaborative organizations who demand substantive answers regarding lack of gender diversity policies; collaborative organizations will be in a strong position rebuttal any lackluster answers from corporations when they have access to this information. [57: Status of Women Canada,. (2014). Good for Business A Plan to Promote the Participation of More Women on Canadian Boards. Gatineau: Government of Canada.]

While collaborative organizations exert pressure externally on corporations, internal pressure can be exerted on a corporation through shareholder activism. Shareholder activism is when a shareholder, of a company that trades publicly, uses their rights as a shareholder to bring social change.[footnoteRef:58] A shareholder activist can be either an individual or an organization that holds shares in a corporation and attempts to enact change. Shareholder activists attempt to influence the board of directors and management through either, informal dialogue with management to raise concerns about an issue, to formal proposals that are voted on by all shareholders at a company annual meeting.[footnoteRef:59] [58: Investopedia,. (2005). Shareholder Activist Definition | Investopedia.] [59: Investopedia,. (2005). Shareholder Activist Definition | Investopedia. ]

It is possible to think that shareholder activism might not be legal because the behaviour involved is deliberate to disrupt the behaviour of the corporation. The case of National Bank of Canada v. Weir proves otherwise. This case involves a judgement in favour of Mr. Weir to allow two of his proposals that relate to improving the quality of the minutes recorded and a change to the companys termination of employment policy, in the National Bank proxy circulars and to allow for voting on these proposals at their annual general meeting.[footnoteRef:60] The courts allowing Mr. Weir to exercise his right as a shareholder demonstrates that shareholders, regardless if they are activist or not, have the legal right to submit proposals to raise issues of concern and influence change in a corporations policy. A corporation will not be in a position to make a legal argument that a shareholder activist does not have the legal right to make proposals due to their contentious and disruptive nature. [60: National Bank of Canada v. Weir, 2006 QCCS 278 (CanLII)]

Changes required from within the CompanyThe comply or explain model from the OSC would be a viable approach to contributing to resolve gender diversity issues and the contributing glass ceiling factors. This approach reinforces to society that there is an issue that requires attention and action from the government and society in general, but is not over regulating corporations by forcing them to adopt gender quotas. This model does not impose change on corporations who would be resistant to this change but fosters dialogue for change. That dialogue starts with corporations disclosing their policies that have been implemented and if no policies are in place, explaining why that is the case. Comply or explain laws is one avenue to initiate change; from the corporations perspective, if corporations want to have a positive public perception of being a responsible corporate citizen and build or maintain a positive corporate image, in both the business world and Canadian society in general, then there will be large incentive to initiate change throughout the corporate structure to adopt modern values and attitudes towards women. Corporations would not want to have their brand tarnished in the mainstream media or on social media due to the perception of society that their company appears to not support women. Corporations should be held directly accountable for the lack of women in executive and board positions. If the government implements gender quota laws then corporations will not have to answer to society for the reasons they are not promoting more women into executive positions and supporting women in a broader sense. Implementing gender quota laws will merely force corporations to abide by the law but will not induce real meaningful change in the values, attitudes, and ethics of the corporation, nor will it resolves any other contributing factors to the glass ceiling issue. Real meaningful change in society comes from changing attitudes and perceptions of the issue, not through law to force desired behaviour. This meaningful change must come from the corporations themselves. Corporations must voluntarily implement polices to initiate change in their corporate structure. This implementation can start with training programs for management personnel where the goal is to educate managers on discriminatory practices and how to identify and prevent them.[footnoteRef:61] Training programs will send a clear message from the corporation to managers regarding what behaviours towards women are expected of them and how old perceptions and attitudes are no longer the social or cultural norm within the company. The overall goal of these training programs will be to change the corporate culture in the company so that it is more receptive of women and replace the perception that women are unequal in ability compared to their male counterpart. [61: White, C. How to Promote Gender Equality in the Workplace. Huston Chronicle.]

Another area of support that is required is when a woman becomes pregnant with a child. Karyn Bradley described her experience when she became pregnant with her first child during a panel discussion in the LAW722 class on March 5th, 2015. Karyn Bradley practiced law for 4 years as an associate at Gowlings until she became pregnant with her first child.[footnoteRef:62] She decided to leave her practice of law to become a stay at home mother.[footnoteRef:63] She was the first woman in the corporate department to have a baby.[footnoteRef:64] Individuals in her firm told her that she was committing career suicide by leaving to become a stay at home mother.[footnoteRef:65] She was informed by one of her superiors that once she leaves the firm to the have her baby she is gone for good and not coming back.[footnoteRef:66] Karyn was a house wife for five years during which she had a second child.[footnoteRef:67] After those five years she decided to return to practicing law and was able to get a position back at Gowlings.[footnoteRef:68] She is now the managing partner of the largest office in the Gowlings platform.[footnoteRef:69] [62: Bradley, K. (2015). Women in Law Panel. Presentation, Ryerson University.] [63: Bradley, K. (2015). Women in Law Panel. Presentation, Ryerson University.] [64: Bradley, K. (2015). Women in Law Panel. Presentation, Ryerson University.] [65: Bradley, K. (2015). Women in Law Panel. Presentation, Ryerson University.] [66: Bradley, K. (2015). Women in Law Panel. Presentation, Ryerson University.] [67: Bradley, K. (2015). Women in Law Panel. Presentation, Ryerson University.] [68: Bradley, K. (2015). Women in Law Panel. Presentation, Ryerson University.] [69: Bradley, K. (2015). Women in Law Panel. Presentation, Ryerson University.]

Karyns description of what she had to endure is an example of if women are not supported in the workplace when they become pregnant, it becomes an ultimatum of either a career or staying at home to raise a child. This situation has improved though, at least at her firm. Gowlings now offers a program where associates can take up to a year off for maternity leave with assistance to handle the stress of transitioning out of and back into the firm.[footnoteRef:70] Karyns story is an excellent example of how a lack of support for expecting mothers at a company can make a woman feel pressured to have to choose between their career and staying at home to be a mother. [70: Bradley, K. (2015). Women in Law Panel. Presentation, Ryerson University.]

Another company that has proven that women can both have a career and be a mother is IBM. IBM is known to be a supporter of women and their advancement in the workplace. They have policies in place to support women who have children, which allows women to have a career and be a mother at the same time.[footnoteRef:71] 2/3 of women who are in executive positions at IBM are mothers, proving that women do not have to choose between motherhood and a career if a corporation has appropriate support programs in place.[footnoteRef:72] [71: IBM,. (2013). Corporate Responsibility Report (p. 67).] [72: IBM,. (2013). Corporate Responsibility Report (p. 67).]

From a practical perspective, increasing the representation of women in executive and board positions can also help a company financially. Studies have shown that companies with women directors score, on average, better than companies without women directors.[footnoteRef:73] One possible reason for this improvement in company performance is that individuals in the company are promoted based on merit and not on other bias characteristics.[footnoteRef:74] Basing promotion on merit ensures that both women and men are equality able to achieve high management positions and women are not being looked over due to their gender. Improvements in financial performance further supports any notion that women lack the capabilities and skill sets required for high management positions. The increase in financial performance further incentivizes companies to develop and implement policies and programs that support women due to the positive impact a diverse board and management team can have on overall company performance. [73: Lckerath-Rovers, M. (2013). Women on boards and firm performance.Journal of Management & Governance,17(2), 503] [74: Lckerath-Rovers, M. (2013). Women on boards and firm performance.Journal of Management & Governance,17(2), 507]

ConclusionWomen face many challenges that stem from a glass ceiling in todays society regarding being promoted into executive and board positions in corporations. Some countries aim to combat this issue through gender quota laws. It is possible for Canada to implement regulations that take a similar approach to combat this issue as other countries have, such as Norway.[footnoteRef:75] This approach though is not ideal as these laws will only force the behaviour of corporations to change but will not solve the fundamental driving forces behind the attitudes, values and culture of society and corporations in Canada. Meaningful change for the glass ceiling issue must come from society, government and the corporation itself; the government can act as a facilitator of this change by implementing comply or explain laws. Comply or explain laws will put this issue in the spotlight by forcing corporations to explain why they do not have policies in place that support women.[footnoteRef:76] Society will be in a position to exert internal and external pressure on those corporations who do not have appropriate policies in place, with the overall goal of implementing meaningful change in the corporate culture to support women and allow them to obtain executive and board positions based off merit, without gender being a negative factor during consideration. [75: Bertrand, M., Black, S., & Jensen, S. Breaking the Glass Ceiling? The Effect of Board Quotas on Female Labor Market Outcomes in Norway. University of Texas.] [76: The Ontario Securities Commission,. (2014). PROPOSED OSC AMENDMENTS TO FORM 58-101F1 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE DISCLOSURE OF NATIONAL INSTRUMENT 58-101 DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PRACTICES (pp. 2, 8). Toronto: Carswell.]

BibliographyAccess Alliance (2011). Research Bulletin #1. Labour Market Challenges and Discrimination faced by Racialized Groups in the Black Creek Area. Toronto: Access Alliance. Retrieved from http://accessalliance.ca/sites/accessalliance/files/documents/ISRH%20Research%20Bulletin%201%20Labour%20Market%20Barriers%20faced%20by%20Racialized%20Groups.pdfArneson, R. (2015). Equality of Opportunity. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Standford: The Metaphysics Research Lab for the Study of Language and Information. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equal-opportunity/#pagetoprightBertrand, M., Black, S., & Jensen, S. Breaking the Glass Ceiling? The Effect of Board Quotas on Female Labor Market Outcomes in Norway. University of Texas. 8-10. Retrieved from https://www.utexas.edu/cola/_files/jd25763/norway_boards_5_2014.pdfBradley, K. (2015). Women in Law Panel. Presentation, Ryerson University.Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s 2, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982,being Schedule B to theCanada Act 1982(UK), 1982, c 11. s. 15 Retrieved from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.htmlCarol, A. I., Kaatz, A., & Carnes, M. (2012). Deconstructing the glass ceiling. Sociology Mind, 2(1), 80-86.

Federal Glass Ceiling Commission,. (1995). A Solid Investment: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital (p. 4). Washington D.C.: United States Department of Labor. Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/reich/reports/ceiling2.pdf Federal Glass Ceiling Commission,. (1995). Good for Business: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital (pp. 7-8). Washington: United States Department of Labor. Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/reich/reports/ceiling.pdfIBM,. (2013). Corporate Responsibility Report (p. 67). Retrieved from http://www.ibm.com/ibm/responsibility/2013/downloads/IBM_CR_2013-full.pdfInvestopedia,. (2005). Shareholder Activist Definition | Investopedia. Retrieved 17 April 2015, from http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shareholderactivist.aspJohns, M. L. (2013). Breaking the Glass Ceiling: Structural, Cultural, and Organizational Barriers Preventing Women from Achieving Senior and Executive Positions.Perspectives in Health Information Management / AHIMA, American Health Information Management Association,10(Winter), 1e. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3544145/ Kofi Annan Foundation,. Biography. Retrieved 17 April 2015, from http://kofiannanfoundation.org/kofi-annan/biographyLckerath-Rovers, M. (2013). Women on boards and firm performance.Journal of Management & Governance,17(2), 503, 507. Retrieved from http://journals1.scholarsportal.info.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/pdf/13853457/v17i0002/491_wobafp.xml

Mary, M. C., & Anita, L. J. (2002). A "glass ceiling" or work/family conflicts? The Journal of Business andEconomic Studies, 8(2), 73-82. National Bank of Canada v. Weir, 2006 QCCS 278 (CanLII). Retrieved on 3 April 2015 from http://canlii.ca/t/1mfmnO'Neill, T. Discrimination against India's lowest Hindu castes is technically illegal. But try telling that to the 160 million Untouchables, who face violent reprisals if they forget their place. National Geographic. Retrieved from http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0306/feature1/Schwanke, D. (2013). Barriers for women to positions of power: How societal and corporate structures, perceptions of leadership and discrimination restrict womens advancement to authority. Earth Common Journal Special Issue, 3(2), 16-17.Status of Women Canada,. (2014). Good for Business A Plan to Promote the Participation of More Women on Canadian Boards. Gatineau: Government of Canada. Retrieved from http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/initiatives/wldp/wb-ca/wob-fca-eng.htmlTotten, C. (2003). Constitutional Precommitments to Gender Affirmative Action in the European Union, Germany, Canada and the United States: A Comparative Approach. Berkeley Journal Of International Law, 21(1), 19. Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1229&context=bjilThe Globe and Mail,. (2012). Roundtable discussion: Do Canada's corporate boards need gender quotas?. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/careers/management/board-games-2012/roundtable-discussion-do-canadas-corporate-boards-need-gender-quotas/article5425261/ The Ontario Securities Commission,. (2014). PROPOSED OSC AMENDMENTS TO FORM 58-101F1 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE DISCLOSURE OF NATIONAL INSTRUMENT 58-101 DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PRACTICES (pp. 2, 8). Toronto: Carswell. Retrieved from http://www.osc.gov.on.ca/documents/en/Securities-Category5/ni_20140116_58-101_pro-amd-f1.pdf UNICEF,. Statement of UNICEF Executive Director Ann M. Veneman on International Womens Day. Retrieved from http://www.unicef.org/media/media_35134.htmlWhite, C. How to Promote Gender Equality in the Workplace. Huston Chronicle. Retrieved from http://work.chron.com/promote-gender-equality-workplace-10258.html Zaleski, K. (2015). Female company president: "I'm sorry to all the mothers I worked with". Fortune. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2015/03/03/female-company-president-im-sorry-to-all-the-mothers-i-used-to-work-with/

2