Status of Women Committee on March 29th, 2010

[Suzanne Clément]

Yes, absolutely. Having some experience in working horizontally in the federal government will certainly serve in trying to do it in Status of Women Canada. You learn how to attract people to the table and how to present issues to be able to get the best response and the best participation.

As you say, the action plan--and I will weave in part of the answer to the previous question in the response--provides us with a very clear focus, so when I meet with a department to talk about what they're doing, I can bring the focus to violence against women and what they are doing to address that situation.

When we develop partnership initiatives, and these are quite extensive partnerships that come together, we're able to say--in economic security, for example, or women in non-traditional work--that this is the area we want to work with, this is what we want to try to address. We know retention is a major issue. One of the pieces under the action plan on economic security--a key element--for us would be the retention in non-traditional work. So it allows us to say no to things that are less responsive to that focus.

And it's true in the programs and in the research. No organization has enough resources to excel in every possible area of its mandate, but what it does for us is say that we need to be doing more work, we need to be doing our own research, gathering information that already exists in those three areas. In my view, if we can achieve success in those three targeted action areas, we're going to be progressing considerably on achieving equality for women.

So yes, the past work will help in convening tables across government.

The other thing that will be extremely useful is that, having moved around in about 12 different organizations in government, I know what kinds of programs they're dealing with; I know what they're working on. I was involved in the social security reform at HRSDC in the early nineties, so I'm very familiar with the LMDAs, the labour market development agreements, that are transferred to the provinces. Work needs to be done there. I know they're doing a lot for women, and a part of their clientele is women, but I think we need to bring out the information more visibly. We need to gather aggregated data from there and understand it better to see what changes might be needed--even delivery of those funds at the provincial level.

So all of that together will certainly help in better responding and advancing the work of Status of Women.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

That's it. You still have 10 seconds, unless you think you can get something in, in that time. Thank you.

Before we close, normally the chair asks a question if the chair feels there is something compelling she wants to ask. And I do have one small question. You did mention--and I agree with you completely--that you need to do your own research to be able to understand and to set some sort of indicators as to how you are getting where you are going and how to understand those areas.

How do you believe you can do that, given that the research arm, which is a substantive one at Status of Women Canada, has been completely demolished? Status of Women Canada used to do its own research and now it doesn't any more. So how can you achieve that goal of doing your own research if you no longer have a research arm and since you don't have regional offices to give you the information on the ground? We know that women in different provinces face completely different barriers and challenges. How do you see yourself being able to get a handle on that plan? Are you getting where you're going? Are you doing the right things? Those are some of the things I wonder if you could comment on. I know you're not allowed to say you want a research arm, or you want this, so I'm not going to put you into that box, but how do you see yourself creatively achieving those things without those two major tools? Do you have an idea of how you can do that?

[Suzanne Clément]

My understanding of the discontinuation of the research arm that you referred to, Madam Chair, is that it was a funding program that funded initiatives of research outside of Status of Women Canada. Internally to Status of Women Canada, as part of the strategic policy function and strategic policy group we have, I do have some research funds that we and all federal departments use to ensure we can get information, access to Statistics Canada studies, or we can ask them for specific questions within surveys that are being done. That's how I hope to be able to advance the use of that money more so in the future. We can partner with other research activities that are going on for a very minimal amount by adding a women's focus. So if HRSDC is undertaking a research--

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Madame Clément. I'm not cutting you off; I didn't want to take five minutes, as I only wanted to get that quick question.

I think Ms. Demers would like to remind you about something you said you would provide at the beginning.

Nicole.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

If possible, I would like a copy of the gender budgeting document that you are going to prepare.

You said that you were in the process of preparing a discussion paper to evaluate what is being done. Could we get a copy?

[Suzanne Clément]

You mean the evaluation document, right?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Yes, thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Madam Demers.

I want to thank Madam Clément, Madam Anand, and Madam Paquette for coming along today.

We have only 45 minutes left, so I really want to move quickly on this one. We're going back to our study, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), on increasing the participation of women in non-traditional occupations.

We have two witnesses today. Theresa Weymouth is the national coordinator of the education program from the Canadian Auto Workers Union, and Professor Kathleen Lahey, faculty of law, Queen's University, is a frequent guest here.

We have 10 minutes for presentations. We'll have to stick to the time, otherwise we won't have enough time. Probably one round is all we can do in terms of questions.

Ms. Weymouth, you can begin ASAP. Thank you.

[Theresa Weymouth, National Coordinator, Education Program, Canadian Auto Workers Union]

Thank you, Madam Chairman, and good afternoon, members of the committee and fellow witnesses.

Thank you for inviting the Canadian Auto Workers Union to this study on increasing the participation of women in non-traditional occupations. My name is Teresa Weymouth, and I am an electrician. I hold a construction and maintenance 309A licence. I am also the CAW national skilled trades education coordinator. This part of my job requires me not only to be aware of barriers to women entering non-traditional occupations but to influence change and retention through education.

I thought I would start with my journey as a woman to become a licensed electrician. I had worked for several years as a production sewer at one of our big three automotive plants, and while I was expected to stay in this well-paying position, as my mother had before me, I really wanted something more challenging and fulfilling. But before I could even start an apprenticeship, I needed to look at my education. I was in the same position as many women are today: I lacked the senior-level maths and sciences from high school. So in 1985 I took a leave of absence from General Motors' trim plant and upgraded. This gave me not only the requirements I needed to enter into an apprenticeship but the confidence to know I could succeed.

In 1986 I started my electrical apprenticeship, six weeks after my second daughter was born. My father-in-law reluctantly gave me an apprenticeship when I quit my job with General Motors. As an electrician the job pays well and is portable, I can work in many different sectors of industry or provinces, and I get to use my mind as well as my hands. All these are great factors for becoming an electrician. But the reality is, I was lucky. I was given the opportunity. If my father-in-law had been a carpenter, I probably would have been one too. After years of being told I couldn't, shouldn't, or would not like it, I now hold a construction and maintenance 309A licence. This was a 9,000-hour apprenticeship, requiring three intakes of schooling: basic, intermediate, and advanced. I worked in the construction field in a small non-unionized shop on residential and commercial properties. I was the only woman there, let alone female electrician.

In 1993 I was hired at Chrysler's Windsor assembly plant as a maintenance electrician. This was my second opportunity. The CAW negotiated a third shift at the minivan plant, requiring several hundred new hires. At Chrysler I worked with new technology such as robotics, plcs, assembly lines, and diagnostics. Again, education was a key part, with each new application or system requiring additional training. I was one of five women in skilled trades in the plant, out of 580 men total.

My third opportunity came in 2005. I was appointed to the position of the CAW national skilled trades education coordinator. In this role I have been able to develop several initiatives directed at skilled trades and technology awareness for women. Take our CAW 40-hour women's skilled trades and technology awareness program, launched in 2001, which has been introduced to over 500 women from our automotive production lines. This course includes an overview of the apprenticeship process in Ontario, an introduction to mechanical, numerical, spatial relations, verbal comprehension, and reasoning. Throughout our workshops the woman are asked to assemble and program robots, are introduced to the basics of electrical wiring, and health and safety, are given an overview of trade classifications, and participate in mock interviews, all delivered by women journeypersons and mentors who network and share their challenges and solutions to overcoming barriers. Women are absolutely changed by this program. We begin to hear “I can do this” as they move through the program.

Suddenly women are aware that they have, or should have had, options. Choice: it is one thing to choose not to go into a particular field; it is a whole other situation not to have even been given the option. I have just arrived from our first ever Saugeen First Nations women skilled trades awareness conference, which partnered with the CAW. This three-day program was adapted from the CAW 40-hour women's skilled trades and technology awareness program, with one major difference: this was a mother and daughter conference. Through the years of delivering the CAW program, we have repeatedly heard participants state that they wished they had been aware of the career opportunities in skilled trades long ago. It was wonderful to watch mothers and daughters explore and attain new skills, options, and choices.

As you know, the economic downturn has affected the automotive industry. Even though we have negotiated numbers for apprenticeship, we have very few members actively in apprenticeship today. This has not stopped the CAW from continuing to offer different initiatives to skilled trades awareness.

There are still barriers today, and I'll name a few. There is very little structured encouragement for women working in a non-traditional occupation; the title has a negative connotation in itself. There's a lack of information that is readily available, and a lack of women mentors and networks. There's a negative attitude to skilled trades as being a dirty and labour intensive job. There's the lack of opportunity. Too many employers are not establishing apprenticeships any more, and that needs to change. There's still an attitude that women need to have a thicker skin to work in skilled trades, instead of better legislation and implementation that will allow every Canadian the right to work in a harassment-free environment.

The CAW has initiatives for all these barriers: the CAW women's skilled trades program, inclusive language, high school presentations, networking, mentors, education, harassment-free environments, equity reps, and women's advocates.

Take a moment to look around this room, this building, your home, malls, our schools. Every building has been built by skilled trades--every road and highway. Our whole infrastructure is built by skilled trades. And women are not a part of it. Why?

The question is not whether there are barriers for women trying to enter into non-traditional occupations. That question has been asked and answered many, many times. Yes, there are barriers. The real question is, how will we increase the participation of women into non-traditional occupations?

We give them opportunities and choice by providing supports. Provincially, we can make women aware, but federally we have to support them. In my career I was given opportunities and choice, and look where I stand today. We can do great things if we encourage the women around us.

What can the federal government do? We see four things that the federal government could do to increase participation of women in non-traditional occupations.

One is to fix the EI Act. The EI Act should be amended to provide income replacement benefits for the full duration of upgrading and training programs, as it used to be in the 1980s. The current EEITI and SITI EI pilot projects provide such benefits, but they are scheduled to end for claims after May 29. They have too many restrictions and provide benefits to a very limited number of so-called long-tenured workers and a small number of potential trainees. These pilots must be extended beyond May. They must be expanded for access to others, including women who are entering, upgrading, and training for non-traditional occupations, until such time as the EI Act can be amended to make this pilot project for continued EI income benefits while in training a permanent program.

Two is to set conditions for the next round of infrastructure spending. A lot of money is being allocated for infrastructure as an answer to the economic crisis and action plans. The program should make sure that provinces and employers accessing these funds meet targets for hiring and training women in non-traditional occupations.

Three is to set conditions in the labour market agreement between the federal, provincial, and territorial governments. In the coming years the federal, provincial, and territorial governments will be renegotiating the terms of the labour market development agreements for the unemployed who are eligible for EI and the labour market agreement for the non-eligible, including employed workers not in receipt of EI. The federal government should set targets and monitor the use of these EI and general revenue funds to support higher entrance and completion rates for women in non-traditional occupations.

Last, but not least, is to initiate special projects for women to enter non-traditional occupations within the first nations and aboriginal programs.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Ms. Weymouth.

Now, Professor Lahey.

[Professor Kathleen Lahey, Faculty of Law, Queen's University, As an Individual]

Thank you.

I would like to slightly change the focus of the discussion that I gather has been going on in this study project.

I have heard the Status of Women Canada officers speak about the three pillars that will, if properly constructed, lead to equality for women in Canada. I have read the evidence of the Statistics Canada labour market experts giving data on a 20-year frame and how the great progress that has been registered over the last 20 years surely will lead to elimination of discrimination against women. However, I would like to remind people in this room that Canada, as a signatory to the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, has made a very solemn undertaking to eliminate all forms of discrimination on the basis that for decades now it has been internationally and globally agreed that women's disadvantaged status is not caused by one or two or three factors, and it didn't arise just in the last 20 years. It's historically embedded. It's structural. It is long-standing. It is the most intractable form of discrimination that the human race has struggled with, and with so little effect.

I would like to begin my submission to this committee by pointing out that this is a structural issue, and it's a structural issue that predates the industrial period. When industrial workforces were first constituted, as people left the unpaid work of homes and farms and so on, women's work had already been defined for centuries, and it was women's work that followed women into the first factories to do women's work in a place that was economically more efficient for the commercial sector that was arising.

I would like to share with you information that reflects a 100-year frame. The top 10 jobs for women in 1891 were, in order of priority, servant, dressmaker, teacher, farmer, seamstress, tailoress, saleswoman, housekeeper, laundress, and milliner. In 2001 the top ten occupations for women in Canada were clerical worker, secretary, sales clerk, teacher, child care and/or domestic worker, nurse, food and beverage server, cashier, retail food and accommodation manager, and, as a sign of the times, machine operator, in tenth place.

This is not a picture of change; this is a picture of deeply embedded discrimination, which is continually reflected in every statistical account assembled either by Statistics Canada or by other countries in the rest of the world. This is a pattern that has not ever changed anywhere.

Canada used to be at the forefront of leading the way out of structural discrimination, but now, as we know and as is even broadcast in Switzerland and Austria on the radio, Canada has fallen behind, because it's forgotten how to do it.

How do I know what I say is correct? There are four basic indicators that will always surface when you look at the structure of women's work.

Number one is the quality of work. Since 1976, when statistics on this issue were first collected by Statistics Canada, women have had either 69% or 70% of all part-time jobs in the country. A change over the last 35 years over a range of 1% is not change. It's incredible stability, and that's not choice, that's history. It's locking people's feet in cement, I suggest.

The second indicator is incomes. Women still receive only 36% of all market incomes earned in Canada. The private sector is still women's greatest barrier to economic equality. Between 1986, right after the charter came into effect, and 1991, there was rapid growth in that sector: women's share of incomes increased by 3.2%.

Since 1991, however, women's share of incomes has increased by exactly 0.9%—in the last 20 years only a 0.9% increase, from 35.1% to 36% of all market incomes.

Third, there's women's share of unpaid work. Now, that shows real progress. Women started with 70% of the unpaid work in Canada back in 1970, when the Royal Commission on the Status of Women reported. The percentage is now down to 65% or 63%, depending on which report you look at. But it's not going any lower, and it appears to be reversing.

And last, lack of access to non-traditional work is as entrenched as ever and is becoming more entrenched. There is regress going on here, not progress, with the result that it is I think unlikely that women will ever achieve even a good 22% of all non-traditional jobs.

One of the leading indicators is women's cohort gender wage gap, which, when applied to analyzing the incomes of women graduating from universities, shows that as of 2001, women's wage gap, when women are compared with men graduating from university with them, was higher than it was in 1981. In 1981, the wage gap was 15.6%; in 2001 it had already risen to 18.4%, and it is growing wider. The only question is how much wider it is going to get.

This brings me to the point that was just made, and that is that in the face of all of this overwhelming evidence of the deeply seated structural economic disempowerment of women in Canada—doing close to two-thirds of all of the unpaid work, doing a huge number of hours of paid work to little effect, and receiving just barely more than one-third of all market incomes—the federal government does not have in place a single national labour market adjustment program on the basis of gender, nor does it appear to even believe that such a thing could be conceptualized.

I draw your attention to the list of items that have been dedicated to the current iteration of the economic action plan, the $41.9 billion for fiscal year 2010-11. The infrastructure spending alone is heavily, overwhelmingly, aimed at the construction, engineering, heavy manufacturing, primary industry sector of the economy. The corporate income tax cuts send an even larger subsidy off to the corporate sector. And if a demographic analysis is done of who's going to receive that money, it's very clear that at the very best, women will get 22% of the infrastructure funding, a percentage allocation that will paradoxically actually increase wage gaps between women and men, because if you give women who right now have a 36% share only 22% of $9.6 billion, that's a very large number, and it will drag that 36% down. The same will happen with corporate income cuts.

I have put the single-parent UCCB tax cut item in this presentation to help put into perspective how to look at budgets, if you really care about the structural, deliberate, systemic inequality of women in Canada. Increasing, for the lowest-income single-parent UCCB recipient, by a maximum of $168 per child beginning in this fiscal year will cost the government $5 million, which is 0.0006% of one percentage point of total budgetary dedication, of this $41.9 billion. Statistically, even though 81% of that money will indeed go to women, it cannot possibly even shift so much as a single grain of sand on the big beach that is statistical analysis.

Those are my main submissions. Other points may come up in discussion, but thank you for listening.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Professor Lahey. You're right on time. Now we'll begin the questions.

This is a seven-minute question round. This means seven minutes, as you all know, for questions and answers. If we can keep them short, we can actually get through the round.

The first one is Ms. Simson.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you both, Ms. Weymouth and Ms. Lahey. Both of you had stunning revelations in your presentations, and I want to thank you for that. It was very enlightening and in some cases very depressing.

I want to start with Ms. Lahey. This committee has heard testimony from various witnesses and organizations, and we've been going through the obstacles and the challenges that women face in non-traditional occupations. What specifically do you see as the role of government in effectively addressing them?

We have a pretty good idea of what's happening—certainly, I have gotten more of an education today, based on what you had to say. What should we be doing to support and increase the number of women entering non-traditional career paths? If there's any way, I hope you can be specific; there are a lot of generalities.

[Prof. Kathleen Lahey]

I can be, I think not surprisingly, specific, because the big barrier here is the most invisible one, and that is the unpaid work that is still assigned to women by virtue of their gender. I agree that the pillar of domestic violence relates directly to it, because domestic violence is one of the biggest factors that keeps women in a situation in which they may spend more time than they'd prefer on unpaid work responsibilities, and their very identity may end up becoming beyond their control to shape it.

But the universally proven way to deal with this is to lift the burden of unpaid work from women's shoulders. It would actually take only an increase in the degree of sharing with men and with society to change that burden completely, and it could be done for less money than is being spent for an awful lot of other things right now.

I will give you a quotation from a very recent Statistics Canada study that looked directly at the very question you're considering, and that is this. The report said:

Mothers in the labour force in Quebec multiplied rapidly after its $5 [a] day universal care system was introduced in 1997.

Between 2001 and 2004, about 60% of all day care spaces added in Canada were [added] in Quebec, which has 43% of all Canadian children registered in day care.

During the same period of time, young women's rates of participation in post-secondary education and paid work in Alberta fell, as the number of child care spaces there remained inadequate and their birth rates increased.

Now, I'm an advocate of women's choice, and I believe that solving our future demographic employment labour market problems by isolating women and saying “choose to have more children” is not the right choice. I think Quebec shows the way, and the choice should be between affordable, accessible child care, supporting both the education phases of life and the working phases of life, and the choice, if someone can afford it with or without the assistance of government, to stay at home and care for their children.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Thank you.

We've also been examining—and this, again, is for you, Kathleen—and have included, I believe, CEOs, senior executives, and in the case of your profession of law partners as still being non-traditional occupations or careers for women.

Quite recently, I read in a series of articles with respect to women in law—I believe it was in the Toronto Star—about how so many of them who are striving for the brass ring of a partnership found themselves hiding illness. They take vacation time for cancer or other serious surgeries and they keep it a deep, dark secret. In other words, they're not comfortable coming clean to get ahead.

Is there any way, based on the fact that you come from that profession, that we could address things such as this? I'm sure it's not just in the law profession. I'm sure it happens with senior bank executives and with the bigger corporations. I'm sure that women feel that same way too, that they can't confide in their employers.

[Prof. Kathleen Lahey]

I think so, but the failure to feel free to confide in employers is very much a function of the fact that most of the young women in that age group have incurred school debt upwards of $50,000, to get that law degree or that MBA while they're still in their twenties. They know, because they can see very clearly that Canada remains a deeply discriminatory society, that they have to incur that level of debt in order to safeguard their own personal futures and their own ability to choose.

The withering away of pay equity, the privatization of human rights commissions, and the lack of serious systemic gender-based analysis of all policies produced by governments directly implicate a woman's ability to go through school on any kind of an equal basis, to graduate with an equal amount of debt, or to earn an equal income.

Right now it looks as if there are more women than men in the schools. This is actually reversing, as we sit here and speak right now.

While the women are in school, they have to incur huge amounts of debt. They earn less during the summer. They come to school--all study programs--with less money to begin with. Then when they go to work they may earn exactly the same during the articling year, but the discrimination in terms of pay rate sets in quite quickly as well.

So they're paying back bigger loans with smaller incomes, and they're falling further and further behind. But they will hide the toll it is taking on them because it is better than what it was for many of their mothers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much. That's it, Ms. Simson.

From the Bloc Québécois, Monsieur Desnoyers.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I am going to share my time with Nicole, of course.

My question is for Ms. Weymouth. I have to tell you that much of what you said impressed me. It is pretty well what we dream of hearing in this committee. I am thinking particularly of the implementation of apprenticeship training programs. Does that apply to all sectors: aerospace, hotels, fishing, CAW's trades program?

I would also like you to tell us how you went about breaking through the barriers of harassment and discrimination, whether through policies on employment equity or pay equity. Your apprenticeship training program, which seems to be at the heart of CAW's program, targets women, in particular, in order to give them access, if I understand correctly.

Furthermore, you make suggestions to the government on how it can solve some of these problems, so as to give women access to training, namely, through EI replacement benefits, when women have to take training courses.

If I understand correctly, you have managed to negotiate all this with employers. I would like you to elaborate a bit more on the various points I mentioned.

[Theresa Weymouth]

Initially this program was brought on in the 1990s. A study was done to address the barriers for women. As we know, in Ontario we lost equity, but we still said that's important. As the labour movement, that's still very important to the Canadian Auto Workers, who have women.... And remember, it's non-traditional to work in the automotive sector itself. We still aren't 50% of the population. It's like 25% of the population, just to work as a production worker.

Now even to have access to non-traditional occupations within the actual automotive industry, to allow us to have even higher pay.... The negotiated pay for the women on the production line is very good, a decent wage with benefits, but of course as a skilled tradesperson, there were other things that we were looking for and I was looking for. I was looking for portability of skills. I was looking forward to being able to use my mind and my hands versus the production where it was all physical. And of course the pay is increased because of it.

Through the CAW we have not only done the 40-hour women's skilled trades and technology awareness program, but we have evaluation at the end of every program. Through those programs we have evolved this program over the last nine years. Well, we actually have delivered it ten times, twice in one year.

We've evolved this program into what it is today, the hands-on workshops, the being able to--they're actually drilling and cutting and sawing and soldering. We have them actually physically going and doing things. Some people have never picked up a drill in their lives. We show them how to hold it. In the robotics, we wire a light switch and receptacle.

All of these hands-on projects certainly transfer to the women the idea that while they couldn't do it before, suddenly right there is instant gratification. We bring them step by step, which is acquired knowledge. The whole trade is acquired knowledge. We tell them this is acquired knowledge. Nobody knows how to be an electrician at the beginning of the process. That is why it takes 9,000 hours.

It's a step-by-step process that, given time, given some support system--which the CAW does provide--given the opportunity.... They negotiate for the actual numbers in the plants to actually put women in there and give opportunities, and then of course we have wage parity. That's huge. So there are lots of opportunities. It would be very beneficial to work with more unions that are addressing equality rights for both men and women.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Weymouth, some unions are still resistant to women taking up non-traditional jobs. I know you have done some outstanding work in terms of the auto trades, but some unions are still resisting. Some unions are very macho; they have a lot more men and very few women, and the women have a tough time integrating into these environments. I am thinking of the construction and electricity industries. In Quebec, Hydro-Québec has had some problems. Women were trying to get jobs, and they were totally squeezed out by men. It is very tough.

How do you explain your success in the auto trades? Can what you learned and what you did be transferred to other labour units? Are you in contact with them so you can share your information? I think what you have done is outstanding. It is critical to have women who do what you are doing and who offer training programs as you do.

[Theresa Weymouth]

The first thing I want to clarify is that the 309A licence I hold is a construction licence. I did get it in construction.

There were many barriers. One of the most common barriers is there are no washroom facilities. For some reason, you can't have a job because there isn't a washroom. The reason is because we're actually building the entity--a house or whatever--so there is obviously nothing there. I was just the volunteer to go and get the coffee, and I would use the facilities then. It was a very simple solution. It was not that I shouldn't work in a particular area. It was just that you had to adapt a little.

I had young children. It was six weeks after I had my second daughter that I found myself on a construction site. Yes, construction is inevitably very long. You may be working, by contract, so many hours, 14-hour days, or whatever, because you base your hours on whatever the contract stipulates. I did change my work environment. My children stayed up later at night--they were infants, of course, so I flipped their schedule around--so when I came in the door, I still had quality time with them. They slept when the babysitter was there, not when I was there, so I paid to have a babysitter. I paid a lot of my money to babysitters.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

I'm sorry, Ms. Weymouth, but we're about a minute over time on that question. Perhaps you can continue in the next one.

Ms. Brown.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, ladies, for being here. There's a great deal of information that we can learn.

Ms. Weymouth, particularly, I've really enjoyed your presentation.

My first question is, do we have a value for men's unpaid work? If I were to look at the amount of work my husband does around our house--he probably does dishes more often than I do.... Is there a value that has also been put on the unpaid work that men do? I'd be interested to know that.

I just spent this past weekend with the Newmarket Chamber of Commerce. They had their home show, and I had a booth there. I met an extraordinary number of enterprising women who own their own businesses. I like to use the example of Ingrid, who started a chocolate company called Fraktals, and if any of you have not tasted Fraktals, you've not had chocolate, believe me. She started her own business out of her home, and knocked on doors to sell these chocolates. She has made a phenomenally successful business.

I know that 47% of the new businesses started today are started by women. In fact, I met with Mark Adler last week, who has the Economic Club of Toronto, and he commented on the number of very enterprising women who are now part of the economic club because they're just becoming so successful.

I think of two twins from Newmarket, Heather and Beth. Heather went into mechanical engineering, and actually graduated from Queen's University. She's now working as a quality control engineer for a company that provides parts for the nuclear industry. Her sister, Beth, who is a technician for pianos, has started her own business. She has worked for people in the past, but now has her own very successful business in Toronto.

Theresa, my question to you is, first of all, how many women who come out of these programs are starting their own businesses, because there are extraordinary opportunities for success and really good money when they finish? Or are they more risk-averse, so they look for jobs on the line where security is more the issue they have?

Professor Lahey, you talked about larger student debt for women. Can you provide the committee proof of this? In my experience, women pay the same for tuition as men do. Young women who go to university are paying exactly the same amount in tuition when choosing courses, so I don't understand why student debt is higher at the end. I've hired young women and I've hired young men, and for the same job I pay them the same amount as university students. So I'd like to see proof of that, if you can provide that to the committee.

If you could both comment, please....

[Theresa Weymouth]

The information that would actually get you into a skilled trade is usually not being provided in high schools. We have the Ontario youth apprenticeship program in co-ops, but it's very specific. It's a huge industry in itself, so the counsellors do not necessarily have all of the information readily available. There is nothing like a college or university having a brochure that identifies every trade classification.

The fact that women are now becoming aware of and learning about this information.... The program we put together is definitely transferrable to any other sector, or whatnot. However, the women who are taking this particular course are very excited about the idea. It's as if there's suddenly an awareness of the options available.

As for taking risks and developing and becoming entrepreneurs, my own daughter is online right now doing self-help for women. She is a second-year electrical apprentice in Fort McMurray, Alberta, right now. I have another daughter who is a welding inspector. We live and practise what we preach and are definitely risk takers, as it's a risk to be in a non-traditional occupation. Every skilled tradeswoman I know is driven by an awareness that this needs to get out so that more...because there is wage parity. Women wonder, what's the difference. If they are going to work 40 hours in a job, they want to get paid maximum benefits for it. It's as simple as that. We're at an economic stage right now where women are doing it for the money and the security.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Professor Lahey, there is a question on the value of unpaid work by men, so you may want to address that as well, because I think it would be right up your alley.