Status of Women Committee on March 31st, 2010

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I too appreciate the discussion here today. I think we've had some really good discussion, including on many new things that we haven't talked about before in this study, which is a very important one.

My first question is that while we've done a lot of talking about the relative influences of family and mentors, has there been any research done at all on the relative importance of the different components?

[Wendy Cukier]

There are some studies, and if the committee is interested, I'll be happy to send a more complete bibliography. But for sure, with young girls, it's more their parents than their peers, and there is research that says that.

There's definitely research that shows that fewer girls than boys in high school know what an engineer is.

The other thing I'll say, just on the mentoring point, which is so important, is that there's no question about mentors and role models, but anyone who has a teenage daughter or a 22-year-old, as I do, also knows that the messenger is as important as the message. For me to go and talk to high school girls and say there are great careers and come be rich with me in technology is not going to have nearly the same impact as a university girl going to talk to the high school girls about how much fun they're going to have at university, building stuff and learning how things work.

It's really important. Mentoring works under certain conditions, with certain kinds of people, etc. That's why I think the evaluation and the targeted and nuanced strategies are so important.

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

I also really appreciate comments about the mismatch between the training and the opportunities. Certainly computer science comes to mind. I look at Ottawa, and you've had, of course, a huge number of people heading into that industry and the collapse.

So I appreciate your comments around having some broad-based strategies, but we don't really want to be funnelling and targeting, because that could be dangerous and difficult for students. I guess you're saying that creating for young women and girls the opportunity to dream and to know that they can have access to any opportunities is the message, not really focusing on anything in particular.

Is that fairly accurate?

[Wendy Cukier]

Can I comment on computer science, though, so that my friends at ICTC, CATA, and ITAC won't disown me?

One of the things that drove down enrolment of girls in technology was this notion that the ICT sector collapsed: Nortel laid off, Mitel, and so on. The fact is that there is a huge number of ICT jobs not in the sector.

If you think about the banks, the banks have technology operations as big as many small technology companies, and people don't understand. Whether it's retail or any industry today in this country, it has a technology component. There are technology jobs in those sectors as well, and it's really important that we communicate that.

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

You talked about 8% of women. Has there been any research done that talks about a lower or higher socio-economic status as having more success or non-success in terms of making that shift? Has anything been looked at there?

[Yaroslaw Zajac]

I don't know of any specific research, but again, this has been spoken about at this table earlier.

Depending on your socio-economic level, you have more or less access to those people who can in fact be the influences. Someone at the higher economic level can have access to people, neighbours, and family who are in fact engineers, lawyers, or whatever. Unfortunately, those at the lower level of the socio-economic stream may not necessarily have access to that and therefore not have access to those role models.

That's unfortunate. If you recognize that reality, can you build a program that in fact will somehow address that reality? Can you take young women and bring them into a laboratory at the community college?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Zajac, I'm going to have to ask you to wrap it up. We're getting to five minutes now on this question and answer. We're cutting into our time.

[Yaroslaw Zajac]

Madam Chair, my only comment is that hands-on experience is something we need to build.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

That's good. Thank you very much.

In fact, Cathy, with regard to some of the questions you asked, the Canadian Council on Learning has published some indicators that looked at socio-economic status as one of the strong indicators of people's ability to have access to certain occupations, traditions, learning, post-secondary education, and all those things.

I would suggest, then, that perhaps Ms. Cool could send for that document as background information, because it deals with a lot of things that were heard here but actually compares us with the OECD and looks at how Canada is different and how it is similar to other countries.

Thank you very much.

I want to thank the witnesses. You did a great job. It was very exciting and interesting, and we talked about a lot of things that we haven't talked about before. So thank you very much.

I'm going to suspend the meeting. We're not going in camera. I'll just give time for everyone to leave so we can move into business.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I am calling the meeting to order.

We only have half an hour, and we're eating into it.

I would like us to move forward. We have three motions to deal with. The first one was tabled on March 25, a motion by Madame Demers, and it says

That the Committee invite the Minister of International Cooperation to appear before the Committee to present a detailed plan of the maternal and child health strategy which the Prime Minister intends to present to the other G8 leaders before their scheduled meeting in June.

I think that's a self-explanatory motion. So I would like to open up discussion, starting with the mover, Madame Demers, who can just quickly say what she means by her motion. Then we will discuss the motion.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Very quickly, Madam Chair.

First, take out the first part; we don't have to "report to the House".

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I was informed that you would allow for the removal of that preamble.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Yes, but since you didn't say it, I prefer to say it to make sure that people know. Because it's still there, Madam Chair. That's the only reason.

Obviously, that we ask the Minister of International Cooperation to inform us about the various ways the strategy will be implemented, and to come and tell us about that before the G8 Summit. I have been told that she might be available in about May, which would be a very good time to do it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Madame Demers.

Now I'm going to entertain a list of people to discuss this motion.

We'll start with Ms. Neville.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to propose, as a friendly amendment, if the mover will accept it, that the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of State for the Status of Women be included in that as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I take it, Madame Demers, that you are accepting that.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

That's a very good idea.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

All right, just before we go, there is a friendly amendment, which the mover has accepted. So this invitation will be extended to the Minister of International Cooperation, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Minister of State for the Status of Women.

Three names are now invited instead of one. So we now are dealing with that new motion, because it was a friendly amendment by the mover.

Yes, Madame Boucher.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

We asked the Minister of International Cooperation, first and foremost, because it is her responsibility. I don't see what the Minister for the Status of Women will do, since the maternal and child health strategy comes from CIDA. It is the Minister of International Cooperation who should come, first and foremost, and present the detailed plan of the strategy. Not the Minister for the Status of Women or the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Madame Boucher.

Is there any further discussion on this motion?

Yes, Ms. Mathyssen.

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

I rather like the motion as amended, because it seems to me that all three ministers have something they can add to the discussion. Because we've heard very little in terms of detail, I think it's important for this committee to have that chance to talk with all of them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Go ahead, Monsieur Desnoyers.

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

Certainly the Minister of Foreign Affairs is going to play an important role in terms of the G8. So he has to hear what we have to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Yes, Mr. Calandra.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Having attended the last G-8, I can tell you, you spend a lot of time without your Minister of Foreign Affairs and without anybody. The Prime Minister is in a room and that's it.

If the lead, as Madame Boucher has said, is the CIDA minister, I'm not following why we're bringing in these two other ministers so we can tell them what we think, if that's what I just heard you say, Mr. Desnoyers. We might want to share with them what the committee might come up with, what you might think, and just send them off a note from the committee. But to drag in two ministers who aren't the leads on the file between now and the time of the G-8 strikes me as being a bit of overkill. We're fast approaching this thing. Let's focus on who's going to play a role. If that's the CIDA minister, then let's bring in the minister and we'll talk to her.