Status of Women Committee on April 19th, 2010

[Dr. Kathleen Gartke]

I'm not sure that your question came through in the translation quite the way you meant it. Is it violence by surgeons? Is it on the part of surgeons? Is it a specific incident?

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Is there violence in your workplace, among your coworkers? Does that violence get carried back into the home?

[Dr. Kathleen Gartke]

I would say no. Now, I'm just talking from personal experience. No, I haven't seen violence in the workplace.

[Dr. Janet Dollin]

I think you're talking about a big literature on harassment and intimidation in the workplace, and that certainly there is. There's a lot of literature about the same issues coming up in medicine as would come up in any other profession in which women are not the majority, and those are issues of harassment and climate. The women are facing harassment by patients, by colleagues, by supervisors in their workplaces that makes it a place that's difficult to navigate or that makes them want or choose to opt out.

But a lot of good measures are being put in place. I think Dr. Gautam could speak to all of the preventive.... Just the fact that we're naming it—calling it what it is—and are pretty good at that has improved things immensely.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you.

I have one minute left, Ms. Pageau.

[Gisèle Pageau]

I will do it very quickly, because I can't repeat.

I can tell you that we have to develop proactive laws if we want to change things. We have to start thinking outside the box.

What happens, at present, is that we have all stopped at the same spot, and we can't think of what might be done differently for people. We have to have funding to support groups like NAWL that have lost their money. We have to do more proactive studies so we can think outside the box, to improve the lives and experience of women at work.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

Thank you. Ms. Mathyssen is next.

Your time has run out, according to our.... I'm sorry for jumping in.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Chair, before I ask my question I have a correction to make with respect to the record. At no point in my remarks did I make any reference to the word “equality” being removed from Status of Women Canada's mandate. It was indeed removed, and because it became such a political problem it was reinserted—not the spirit of equality, just the word. I want the record to reflect that.

I'd like to throw out a question to everyone here. We heard from CIAFT that you've been working among many groups for many years—30 years of sustained work—with regard to the issue of women being represented in non-traditional work. You said something about the state pulling out.

When you talk about the state not being there for the training, for the support, for the kind of work that needs to happen, would you include the federal government in that? I wonder if you could provide examples of where the state needs to be there to support women.

[Jennifer Beeman]

I don't know history well enough to state an opinion about the federal government. Because generally it is in an industry under provincial jurisdiction, unlike other industries that are under federal jurisdiction. That's why we talk a lot more about the case of Quebec than about things in federal industries.

Our experience, the experience of the people responsible for programs, counsellors at Emploi Québec or employability groups funded by the government, is that there have been systematic cuts, because it is expensive to support a woman in non-traditional occupations. It's an investment, these are long-term changes.

Based on purely economic calculations to determine what is cost-effective, there has been a complete change of direction to give preference to rapid re-employment. Women are being sent overnight into secretarial jobs, and the groups were having to achieve a high placement rate quickly. That meant not giving women new training, and not reintegrating them elsewhere, where they had a chance of really improving their living and working conditions.

That is why, over the last 10 years, there has been considerable ground lost when it comes to integrating women into non-traditional occupations. It's because government resources are no longer available to support them in their efforts.

[Dr. Kathleen Gartke]

Actually, if I could add to my wish list, let me say that we have terrific statistics in Canada; we keep good statistics about medicine and the practice of medicine. But what we need is to analyze our own data. It's always a bit disheartening to have to look to the U.K. or the U.S.A to find the reasons and to delve deeper into the numbers. It would be really nice to have the kind of support that would allow us to do our own analysis.

[Nancy Peckford]

Equal Voice is entirely funded by the private sector, except for the Experiences program, which is a specific initiative for which we receive Status of Women Canada funding.

There have been some conversations within Equal Voice about whether or not the public funding mechanism at the federal level to support political parties could be used as an incentive to ensure that more women run and win. Certainly that's been done elsewhere in the world, and I think it's worth looking at here. Could we use public funding as a way to encourage parties to run more women candidates and reward them for their success if they have success? It's something to think about.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

That would be a good reason to maintain public funding.

[Nancy Peckford]

It would be a good reason to maintain it and potentially increase it.

[Dr. Mamta Gautam]

It's a little bit difficult, because although we're talking about federal initiatives, health care is really doled out in a provincial way in Canada. But there are a couple of things. The 2008 election promise to invest in human health resources would certainly improve the working conditions of both male and female physicians within our profession. I would request federal support for initiatives by the Canadian Medical Association or the Federation of Medical Women to improve job flexibility, child care, and other working conditions.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Perhaps politicians could learn something from the medical physicians about work-life balance in hours worked. I don't have any idea, but I suspect it's not very balanced.

Just as an aside, I am doing some renovations in my office. When I went back this week a young woman who was a journeyman carpenter was doing the work. I thought, “Here we are doing a study on women in non-traditional roles, and without any quotas there she is working ahead”.

I'd really like to delve into something right now that has come up time and time again. For two years I was involved within the province of British Columbia in the regulatory area of child care. I'll give you one example of what I found during that time.

A beautiful licensed facility opened up beside the hospital. The intention was it would be used by nurses and people working extraordinary shifts. It was thought that it would be this absolute boon and a win. But this place just fell flat. It didn't get customers. Physicians who were on call had such a disrupted lifestyle they didn't want to use it. The nurses didn't want to leave their babies there for 12-hour nights. So people found many other ways to accommodate their child care needs, whether it was with nannies, next-door neighbours, or some sort of system.

I absolutely believe we need to have quality child care. During that time I found that if you didn't have a lot of income you had pretty good support from the province. But the people who were making good money...and we had some people talk about incomes in some of the trades being $90,000.

When my children were little I had the challenge of living in a rural community. I was very pleased to be paying for my child care. I didn't actually want the government to subsidize it.

I believe we need a whole range of child care options. We absolutely need licensed child care places that are easy to get. Sometimes we need the employer working with the employee.

I'd like to get some general comments on that, Dr. Gartke.

[Dr. Kathleen Gartke]

I think you're completely correct there isn't one solution to fit everybody. I believe there are a number of different solutions depending on the circumstance, the workplace, and the needs. There should be support, but I don't think that legislating government child care is an answer at all. People are far too diverse.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Dr. Gautam.

[Dr. Mamta Gautam]

I would just add that it's not just that people are diverse, but people's needs are diverse. With my three children, over the last 18 years I think I've used probably six different child care options based on the phases they were at and what their needs were and what my needs were. So I think there really needs to be a basket of options available, but the support and the intention to support is crucial.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Ms. Beeman.

[Jennifer Beeman]

I come from Quebec, where there is a universal $7 per day system. It is popular, major, important. The quality of the services is excellent. There are CPEs, where there may be several dozen children, and home-based care, where there is one teacher for six children. For the youngest children, it works very well.

It is difficult for women in non-traditional occupations because of the hours. In general, the schedule is 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. So there are constraints, and problems. It isn't easy. However, what it means for women and the labour market in Quebec is very important, in every respect.

[Nathalie Goulet]

Women's employment rate has risen by one percentage point a year since the early childhood centres were set up in Quebec, in 1998. The job of child care worker, which was once under the table, is now recognized. Wages and unionization rates for these women have doubled. What that means in Quebec, in terms of women's participation in the labour market, is incredible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Madame Goulet.

Ms. Pageau.

[Gisèle Pageau]

I'm going to refer this to my colleague.

[Josh Coles]

There are two undeniable facts about construction in regard to child care. The first is we still are at 4% women's participation. Obviously, it is surprising to see a journeyperson carpenter, because we're only at 4%. So obviously child care is a barrier. It's part of the glass door.

The second part--and I share these concerns with the construction industry, who are the ones who are asking the hardest questions about this, the owners of construction--is that when you have a construction labour shortage, as we do in Canada, and everybody accepts that it's chronic, clearly we are ignorant to ignore the possibilities of bringing more women into construction. And clearly day care and child care is one of those issues that we have to cross. When you have these massive job sites in northern Alberta of 10,000- to 15,000-person camps and not a single day care within 200 kilometres, clearly the family issue is front and centre.

So for the industry--and I mean from oil companies to construction contractors--and for the labour providers such as ourselves, and also even in some senses the Alberta government, which has taken some good positions on this, it's a hurdle we have to address front and centre; otherwise the construction crisis will continue and the barriers to women's participation access in construction will continue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Coles.

I want to thank the witnesses for coming and for giving us their time. I think it was an interesting panel.

We have to move in camera, so I'm going to ask for about a minute while the witnesses leave. Thank you again.

[Proceedings continue in camera]