It's interesting that the labour program actually does not measure or ask companies to report on pay equity. We ask them to report on gender issues and on diversity, so when they do their reporting they'll say that they have made certain progress here and there, but we actually don't go into pay equity.
Many of the measurements have been incorporated, like I say, through other provincial requirements. As I said, 84% of the private sector companies are now within the Ontario and Quebec proactive regimes. It is important, then, for you to consider exactly what measurements. That is how we monitor. We use data and science to see whether we're making progress or not. At this point, the present regime doesn't.
We've seen some significant changes because women and unions have launched complaints. We have a complaint system right now. It took Canada Post 30 years. As well, I've noted that the Peterborough Public Library was finally awarded compensation. CUPE took them on and complained. It started in 2011. They had a relatively swift result, coming to a conclusion in February 2016, but it's still such a long, protracted, costly procedure. Every one of these hearings is probably represented by legal counsel, and it's all very formal and litigious.
The Human Resources Professionals Association issued a white paper on April 12 of this year. The name of that report is “Closing the Gender Wage Gap: A Review and Recommendations”. In that report, 912 professionals were surveyed. It actually cites that StatsCan estimates the wage gap at between 12% and 31.5%. When we look at those numbers, I think it's clear that if we look at our indigenous people they are in general earning less than the regular population. As well, if you are female and indigenous, it is twice as bad, because things are even more challenging.
I'll never forget being involved with a program to try to get women from a local reserve to be heavy equipment operators. The point was that many of them would make excellent drivers. Women are easier on heavy equipment. They don't rev the motors as much, they're more gentle with the touch, and they like large toys. They can handle it, but as soon as a woman would be interested in going, she would lose her housing. Her kids would not have a school. Their supports wouldn't be there.
Somehow, our system does not provide that transition, which is so important, and then it goes into the bigger wage gap. If women were able to be operating the large equipment, they would then be more likely to make a healthy wage and participate in our economy.
Those kinds of systemic problems occur, whether it's in chemistry, in geoscience, or in my background, minerals. We could make it into the laboratory or generally to the VP level, but it's very difficult to go higher. The number of women who are mine managers is tiny. It's less than 2%. It's not that there aren't women with enormous experience who are capable. These are systemic discriminatory issues that come from the culture, which is a kind of a boy's culture. For years and years they felt if you put a woman underground that would be unlucky.
I've always remembered that a mine in Snow Lake had the highest number of women underground in Canada, and that very mine won the safest mine in Canada award two or three times in a row. The mine shut down, as is typical for many, and they're all now tellers at the bank or whatever. They tell me they would be glad to go underground if given the opportunity.