Canadian Heritage Committee on May 3rd, 2018

[Sophie Brière]

I think women are more reluctant to take action because of the work-life balance. It isn't a question of competence. Women are wondering how they can fulfill these mandates while caring for their children. All the studies show that, despite the sharing of household chores, women still bear the brunt of this responsibility. It's a reflex in women. This is very much in terms of women's mobility, whether it's regional, national or even international, as you've said. Women exclude themselves when it comes to going abroad, moving or accepting new challenges, because they fear that they can't reconcile these challenges and family.

If we don't find ways to reconcile work and family, this situation will continue to be a barrier for women. I think that's the situation that's in question, more than the skill or the interest. Indeed, I don't think there is a lack of interest.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Thank you.

Ms. Rosenstock, you're from the United States.

[Susannah Rosenstock]

I am. I've been in Canada for 11 years now.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

You've been here 11 years, and I believe you mentioned something about three or four other major art institutions in Canada that have people in the CEO ranges from outside Canada. One of the other witnesses mentioned earlier that we have very few who go over the $1-million production in the management role versus those who do the lower end.

Can you explain to me why that is? Why are we hiring outside Canada still? Is there a lack of skill or qualities here, or are there unique skills that you guys are acquiring in other countries because you've been at it a little longer?

[Susannah Rosenstock]

I don't know that it's the skills. I think it's really the lack of training, the lack of succession training here in order to put people in those positions. From what I know, there are women who are leading smaller museums, mid-sized museums, and other artistic institutions across the country, but not at the very highest levels. I think that, because there simply aren't people being trained in any sort of succession training to take those jobs, the headhunters generally look outside the country. They look to the U.S., and they look to the U.K.

I know you spoke to Heidi Reitmaier of MOCA recently. She is Canadian. She has come back to Canada to take the job as director of MOCA, but she trained elsewhere for that position. She was in the U.S., and she was in the U.K.

I think in order to get that experience, from what I know, people do have to leave Canada, get that experience, and then hopefully they can come back for a job, but perhaps there is a way to have that leadership training here.

I don't think it's wrong to hire people from outside of Canada. I don't think it's wrong to hire Canadians who have trained in other places. I think it can definitely be an advantage to have people who have travelled, lived abroad, and trained in other places. They can bring that knowledge and those connections back here to Canada, but I do think that there is a lack of leadership in order to put people in those positions here, from what I know.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Maybe I'll go back to the witness who mentioned the $1 million, and more men in the upper levels than women.

Could you maybe explain a little bit more why you see that happening?

[Heather Allin]

That's information gleaned through the Telefilm study. What we have found and what has been reported is that the gender diversity and inclusion in films that have budgets of a million dollars or less is higher. There is a far greater penetration of women in that sector, but once it gets to be more than that, the circumstances change dramatically.

There's a study that came out of the U.K. that said that 4% of directors in a budget of that level are women, so that's a 96% success rate for men, and a 4% success rate for women. I believe that a lot of that is addressed by what Sophie was talking about in terms of the level of leadership, the succession planning, and the opportunity. It's not that women are not trained to do these things; in fact, they're very well trained, and there are a lot of them with that skill set.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Go ahead, Mr. Nantel.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you very much to all the witnesses.

I am very happy to see Ms. Allin and Ms. Downey. It's been a long time since we've seen each other.

Thank you very much for being here.

Actually, I would like to thank my colleague, Ms. Dzerowicz, for bringing this topic to the heritage committee. I think that we're quite in time.

There's an article by Mario Girard in this morning's edition of La Presse, that mentions, as Ms. Rosenstock did, that the Canada Council for the Arts is obviously in favour of parity. He quotes Simon Brault of the Canada Council for the Arts, “The question of women's place in the arts is currently being asked”. The article indicates that Simon Brault insists that “major work must be done in the field of classical music, where composers are overwhelmingly male”. It goes on and states, and this is very interesting, “These measures would be added to the practice of blind auditions, adopted by most of the major classical orchestras in the country”. I didn't even know that existed. It seems that it “gives visible results”. Mr. Brault says the Canada Council for the Arts “must come up with a plan very soon” on parity.

Mrs. Brière, thank you very much for your enthusiasm. Obviously, everyone was very excited about your findings and analyses, and we can't wait to read your documents. However, you raise the fact that appointing women to boards of directors is not a panacea for achieving parity. Moreover, I tip my hat to my colleague Ms. Dzerowicz on this subject. Rather, you suggest going to senior management, that is, managers and boards of directors.

You also mentioned the work-life balance, and I sincerely believe that a broader range of child care services in Canada would certainly be a step in the right direction. In itself, it can be said that this would certainly help women to be more visible in senior positions. It's also an incentive, not a brake. I went to Denmark and Sweden this fall to see to what extent early childhood services were used by men. I saw many dads go out with their children. It was striking; I didn't spend my time counting them with a digital counter, but it was obvious.

I would like to take this opportunity of having ACTRA with us today to ask them a question. In all your observations, one thing struck me. You gave the example of the law firms. The succession is there, but there is indeed a kind of societal model that could discourage this aspiration to a management position. I think the people at ACTRA are directly tied to film sets, and they can see that.

Do you believe that we could do better in the models that youth see on television and in movies? Should we impose criteria?

I'm sure Ms. Downey has a position on that, and she doesn't cease calling for better roles for all members of her union.

Perhaps we can start with the witnesses who are joining us remotely; it would be simpler.

[Ferne Downey]

I'll just dive in very quickly. We certainly believe in the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media's ethos “If she can see it, she can be it”, so Heather and I and our home union have worked to create opportunity at all levels, be it in union leadership—where Heather and I have both been leaders—leading actors and advocating for policy change at the highest level. It's a top-down inspiration for society, for our members, and for the movies.

We're hoping, in our home union, that we've made opportunities for the young emerging artists, to say, “It's your world. You're going to be running our whole world. If you want to be the next president of this union or be running your own theatre company or be in your own movie, start now. You are it. You are the change. You are the everything.”

We mentor. We give opportunity. However, it's experience that makes you happy to take the next step, isn't it? It's having the opportunity first, when there is so much systemic advantage for the men in our industry. At 36, the women in our industry as actors are not as sought after. We see the trajectory. Men have opportunity right into their seventies.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

So, when we talk about education to be a change or a factor, education in entertainment is much more insidious. It brings in a perspective for women that is not officially in the books, but what you see is what you perceive and it is what orients the girls.

[Ferne Downey]

Yes, so you become role models, and that changes the stories that you tell. That ends up really...because we're looking for long-term, systemic change. We want society to behave differently with each other, and the disadvantage has been too systemic for too long. All of those things have to simultaneously happen—the leadership opportunities and what we see.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mrs. Brière, do you think the entertainment industry has a role to play?

[Sophie Brière]

Yes. I really have a lot to say, the systemic changes are so complex. I would like to be able to tell you what to do and offer you a short 10-step guide, but the fact is that for some people to occupy decision-making positions, you have to prepare the entire sector and the entire organization. But it takes 20 years. I've studied cases where the proportion of women started at 20% and increased to 40% or 50%. But, it took about twenty years.

First, how do you recruit people and how to train them on arrival? Often, once people are recruited, they are left to their own devices. They are asked to organize themselves, on the pretext that they are the ones who wanted to do this job. But it's not necessarily about people who have been doing this job forever.

Then you have to see what working conditions are offered to them. In all the sectors I studied, people who had a first child lost credibility, and their progress was slowed down. I apologize for saying it, but that's the reality.

I'm currently studying police officers in Quebec. This is a very big step backwards. When policewomen have their first child, they are said to be careerless and not real policewomen. If they have a second one, it's worse. If they have a third, it's a question of their credibility. You have to know that they continue to accumulate seniority even if they have been gone for three years out of a total of six years, for example. All other police officers are very frustrated that these women are being offered a decision-making position when they have been home for three years. According to them, they only had to not have any children. That's what people tell us.

It remains that it is a choice of society. This is the reality: women have children.

The problem comes up in law firms as well. Women with children lose their cases. This environment is so competitive that wanting children is associated with not being a careerist. It is considered that it will be up to these women to get by when they return to work. In this system, it's performance at all costs.

To really change things, you have to focus on those values. If people have children or haven't worked in the film industry for 25 years, they have to be given a chance. They need to be supported and offered good working conditions. When they come back to work, they have to be followed, integrated, helped and accompanied to decision-making positions. You see, it will work for women as well as members of cultural communities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Thank you very much.

[Sophie Brière]

That's what needs to be worked on. It takes time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

That is well put.

We now have Ms. Dzerowicz for three minutes.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I want to thank everybody for their excellent presentations.

Hello to those who are presenting by video conference.

Hello, Ferne. Hi, Heather. Good to see you again.

Because I only have three minutes, I'll just ask a couple of questions quickly. Ferne and Heather, you've made some wonderful recommendations. The second one was that groups getting funding should get funding to ensure gender equity right across all roles. Is there a particular time frame that you would suggest for that? Should we say we should target within a period of time, or should we say we just want to be tracking progress?

My second question is around tracking and publicly reporting on the progress and that recommendation. Do you believe it's enough to just publicly report it, or do you think someone needs to be in a leadership role, monitoring and encouraging people to really move forward on achieving...? Do you publicly state it or do you...? I'm not suggesting quotas, but someone who is in a leadership position to actually push for results....

[Ferne Downey]

In terms of the public reporting, we work closely with academics. The transparency of reporting is integral to having truth be shared with the whole society you're trying to change.

You're absolutely right. In addition to that, it can't just be compartmentalized and be a little piece of paper in someone's report. There has to be continual systemic activity. Policies have to change. Priorities have to change. If inclusivity and diversity is a top priority, then everything...every day, strategic planning has to happen.

[Heather Allin]

We haven't talked about a time frame, but I'm going to refer to a project called the 2xMore campaign, which was started by Rina Fraticelli in Women in View and worked with the Directors Guild of Canada.

I will note that when women were directing live action, 55% of the top four roles went to women, as compared to 41% when men were directing. When women were writing, 58% of the top four roles went to women, as opposed to 40% when men were writing.

This 2xMore campaign was designed to double the number of women in series and film directing positions in a three-year period. After two years, they had actually made significant achievements in those systems. This was—

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Can I just stop you for a second, because unfortunately I've run out of time. I just wanted to make two comments and then I'll end in 15 seconds.

This comment is for Professor Brière. As a woman who's worked mostly in business, and now in politics at senior levels, and someone who's been promoting women in senior roles for a really long period of time, I found three things in addition to what it is that you've presented. If you have any comments, if you could write them in, I'd be grateful.

For me, it's not just mentorship. It's actually sponsorship that was really needed. If women aren't actually sponsored and brought into the conversation, we don't get anywhere. There's coaching. It's more than just training. We have to be coached. There are a lot of weaknesses. Men automatically do that in the business world. It's not automatic for women.

The last part is women supporting women. You mentioned that slightly in your report, but also it's not an automatic thing that women will go and actually support and bring women along as well.

I don't know if you have some additional comments. You won't be able to do it now, but if you're able to address that, it would be interesting to me.

I just wanted to say thanks very much to Ms. Rosenstock. Your comments around diversity are very well placed and very necessary, and something that we'll definitely be considering as part of our recommendations.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

We're going to suspend very briefly. Could everyone can stay close to the table while we change witness panels so that we can move on.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

We're going to start up again because we have four witnesses in this round, and we're already a little bit tight for time.

We will begin with the people we have by video conference.

We have Ms. Schirle.

We have Ms. Young.

We also have with us Angèle Bouffard from the YMCA, and Catherine Benoit from Spira.

Ms. Young, why don't we start with you for your presentation, please.

[Professor Margot Young, Professor of Law, University of British Columbia, As an Individual]

I wasn't given explicit directions about precisely what you wanted me to talk about, other than gender parity and gender representation on cultural and arts boards, so I'm going to talk very briefly about the sorts of things that I'm happy to take questions on.

First, I think it's clearly important to be concerned with diverse representation on these boards, particularly as recipients of federal government funding. The nature of accountability that the government needs to provide to the representativeness and the fairness of both the process, but also the outcome, of board membership, is critical really. A number of countries around the world are moving towards gender quotas, to gender targets, specifically. Indeed, one of the commentators has called it a kind of quota fever around the world. We see quotas being used in terms of electoral systems, and also increasingly in terms of corporate boards. So we have a measure in Canada, introduced in Canada, but Norway is really the leader in this having introduced the requirement of 40% women across all kinds of public and private boards in addition to electoral representation.

There are, of course, a number of studies about the process of these placements and increases of women and what they're able to say about changes in perceptions of women in leadership roles, and also with respect to the kinds of decision-making that happen at a particular institution. We could talk a bit more about that.

My primary expertise is in constitutional law, in equality law and theory. Of course, there's always great concern about whether the idea of some kind of external structuring of the number of women on boards raises equality problems, as opposed to being a response to equality issues. I think it's clear from our equality law that there is much support constitutionally for a notion of equality that is substantive and understands different kinds of treatments in the name of equality, and supports affirmative action measures as features of equality.

Maybe I'll just end there and take questions. I would argue that it's very clear that it's sustainable to have some kind of government regulation of board membership under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and some people would go further and argue that there may be an affirmative obligation on the government to take positive measures, in light of its international human rights obligations for full participation of women in public life, to ensure that we see higher representation of women, and other under-represented groups, other equity groups, in these kinds of institutions, on these sorts of boards.