Status of Women Committee on Nov. 6th, 2014

[The Chair, NDP, Hélène LeBlanc]

Good morning.

Welcome to the 34th meeting of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

We are pleased to have with us, via videoconference, Ann Armstrong, Academic Director and Lecturer from the Business Edge Program, at the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management.

Ms. Armstrong, thank you very much for your contribution today.

[Dr. Ann Armstrong, Academic Director, Lecturer, Business Edge, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, As an Individual]

Thank you for having me.

[The Chair, NDP, Hélène LeBlanc]

Today, we will listen to a presentation for 10 minutes, followed by a round of questions. The meeting should end around 9:45 a.m., at which point, the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women will meet.

Ms. Armstrong, you have 10 minutes for your presentation. You may go ahead.

[Dr. Ann Armstrong]

Thank you very much. I'm delighted to have the opportunity to address this group.

I've chosen a couple of topics. I know that I only have 10 minutes, so I'd first like to focus on what we in Canada can or need to do to make Canada a welcoming place for internationally educated professionals. That would be my first area of conversation. Second, I'd like to talk about the role of the non-profit sector and what it can do to provide some prosperity for women in Canada. I think there's a relationship between the two.

As you know, much of our growth comes from immigration. We attract very, very talented people to Canada. We have noticed, however, that immigrant women who come with many credentials and so on do not do as well, in terms of salary and so on, as native-born Canadian women. This issue has been I think a very significant one, because we attract wonderful talent, and then we turn around and we don't provide the opportunities they deserve; they can also contribute to Canada.

You mentioned in your opening remarks my role as academic director of Business Edge. If I may, I'd like to take a minute or two to explain what we're doing there. It's not because I want to brag about the program; I think it's something that perhaps could be used across Canada to provide the supports necessary for internationally educated professionals.

Our program began with a focus entirely on women because we were impressed by the research by Reitz, Curtis, Elrick, and others that while it was still difficult for internationally educated men, it was more difficult for internationally educated women. As a result of that research, we decided that we needed to develop a program that basically provides guidance on how to navigate the Canadian workplace. As someone who comes from a family that's been in Canada a long time—we are all immigrants, but I'm just one who's been here a little bit longer—I've come to realize how very different and perhaps even odd our workplace must seem to people coming from other countries. We tell them not so much that this is how it is in Canada; rather, we try to give them the unwritten rules, the unspoken rules, or just the tools to navigate.

We spend about six months working on everything from courses to coaching, both workplace and language coaching. It's amazing to see how we can take talented people whose talents are not properly recognized here yet, and, in a very short period of about six months, turn those people, who were perhaps rather dejected, into confident, contributing members of the Canadian workforce. They often are promoted and perhaps get new positions.

It's the underemployment, or really the lack of employment, of talented, internationally educated professionals, women in particular, that we try to address in a small way. We have seen some success. It would be very exciting, I think....

It's not a complex program to replicate. It focuses, really, on what the issues are and on the skills and talents we need to either reinforce or perhaps develop a little further. I can give you a rather superficial example, but I think it makes the point.

One of our participants commented that nobody was answering her e-mails. That seemed odd to us. Her language skills were excellent. She was a professional with an M.B.A. from another country. We asked a very simple question—that is, if she would mind just showing us her e-mails—because it didn't seem to make a lot of sense. Of course, the moment we looked at them, we saw that they were all in capitals, every word. She didn't know that in Canada that meant that she was angry or frustrated or something. In her own country of origin, everything was supposed to be in block capitals. It's a very minor example, but I think you can see the potentially very serious miscue—unintentional, and in fact unknown—that could derail her career.

We've really worked on how to basically provide the insights on how to navigate the workplace. We've seen, as I've said, some real success in that work.

The reason I want to move on in a minute or two to look at the non-profit sector is that within it there is a remarkable overrepresentation of women. About three-quarters of its employees are women, but sadly still, most of the people in the senior positions in the non-profit sector are men.

I see a particular link between the wonderful opportunities and talents that our internationally educated professional women bring and the possibility of their moving into the non-profit sector, where we absolutely have a real need for leaders. We need people who have some of the sensitivities and understanding of the social justice issues that we face here. Having had the real honour of working with internationally educated professionals, I can see that they bring a lot of really different perspectives, a kind of diversity of thought that would fit very well in the non-profit sector.

That isn't to say, of course, that the non-profit sector is not without its problems. It's certainly not as diverse as we would hope, given the values of the sector, or at least the proclaimed values of the sector. One of the areas where we see a particular deficiency is the degree of diversity on non-profit boards.

One of my colleagues, Pat Bradshaw, and her colleagues did a study that found that non-profit boards, quite shockingly, were not as diverse as you might expect given the nature of the work they do.

So I saw these two topics as something that were really ones that your committee and others could address head on, because we have talent that is not being used to its potential and that is not able to contribute to Canada to the extent that I find internationally educated professionals would very much like to. We also have a leadership gap in the non-profit sector, and marrying the two seems a possibility to me.

The issue still remains, though, of the systemic discrimination issues, as well as the differential pay issues for women in both those sectors. But I do think those are ones that I'd like your committee, in particular, to consider, given that we have gaps in our non-profit sector in one sense, and we have an overabundance of new Canadians with many talents who wish to contribute to our economy.

[The Chair, NDP, Hélène LeBlanc]

Thank you for a very good and interesting presentation, Ms. Armstrong.

We will start the first round of questioning, with Madame Truppe, for seven minutes.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Ann, for being here. I appreciate your coming to speak to us.

I loved your example about the e-mail. It's so funny that in one country it means something totally different when you're using caps.

You were talking about it being more difficult for internationally educated women versus men. I think you said that you spent perhaps six months working on coaching them.

What was the biggest challenge you found when you were working on this?

[Dr. Ann Armstrong]

The main challenge we found was that people, not surprisingly, were rather nervous about what this coaching might lead to. There was also a fair amount of discomfort—again, not surprisingly—about language coaching.

We never took the view that we were trying to do things that people have done in the past, like eradicating accents and so on. We weren't trying to do any of those things, because we thought those weren't appropriate. But we really want to make sure that everyone is conversant in, and able to function in, the workplace language.

One of the issues we noticed was that people were resistant as to “how informal” we seemed. From their countries of origin the interaction with a boss would be much more formal and distant.

The other issue I think we faced, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, was real second-guessing on the part of our participants around whether it was right that they had come to Canada, and how they needed to rebuild their self-confidence and find opportunities for them to showcase and to use their talents.

Those are really two issues that we faced.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you. So those were the biggest challenges you had.

What good came of it? Was there a best practice that you thought was really working and that would really help them, that you'd like to share?

[Dr. Ann Armstrong]

Of course.

One of the things was more what I would call a process. Those of us involved in the program very much acknowledged some of the changes and the struggles of people who had come, and the positive choice and the confidence they had in coming to Canada.

Many of the people in our program are people in their twenties, thirties, and forties who have come on their own. They are basically starting again, having had successful careers elsewhere.

The other thing that I think was one of the key success factors was the detailed and frequent coaching. Each participant had frequent meetings with people who were trained career coaches. They also had language coaching, again not in a wordsmithing way, but just to understand how to write an e-mail that would fit appropriately in a Canadian context.

Those were the two: I think the process of legitimating their experience; and then providing, very much, one-on-one coaching.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

When I was hosting round tables across Canada, mentorship came up all the time. Mentorship is very similar to coaching, because they're getting that direct feedback.

Do you find that a lot? I'm just picturing or thinking that with your experience and where you are, you would probably have women coming up to you, even young women, and asking about how they can start their own business or can be an entrepreneur, or maybe what problems they're experiencing, whether it's financial literacy, or of just not knowing where to go.

What advice would you give them? What are some of the problems you've heard?

[Dr. Ann Armstrong]

Well, because of my focus on internationally educated professionals, it tends to be a very practical one of having enough Canadian credibility and credit to get some kind of loan from a bank or a credit union. Those are some of the kinds of issues.

More broadly, because I teach in the M.B.A. program as well as the commerce program, I do get those kinds of questions around mentorship. I always recommend that someone find a person within an organization who is perhaps two levels up so they can have that kind of mentorship.

I think what you were implying in your question was the importance of mentorship. I agree, very much, that this perhaps is one of the most critical decisions that anyone early in his or her career would make.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

Yes, actually I agree with the mentorship because that came up many times in every single round table. Whether it's a woman or man, people just seem to need some type of help or guidance if they have a question. They simply didn't know where to go.

I think you mentioned funding as well, and that seemed to be big as well.

Just very quickly, you talked about the leadership gap in non-profit sector, I think you said. What would be the biggest issue? What advice would you give so we could close that gap?

[Dr. Ann Armstrong]

A couple of things. One, I think that governments at all levels could do a lot better in basically highlighting the successes of the non-profit sector. I think the non-profit sector is often seen as some kind of poor second, third, or tenth cousin, when, depending on which economist you talk to, it represents approximately 10% of the GDP of this country. I think there should be a focus on what this sector does.

Also, I'm afraid the gap is also one driven, in part, by money. Clearly, the non-profit sector does not, cannot, and some would say, should not pay at the market rate. But it does create, potentially, a leadership gap because people are expecting to be paid something reasonably similar to what they could have got in the marketplace.

However, the non-profit sector also gives us opportunities to work in very meaningful ways, where perhaps compensation would not be, or perhaps should not be the sole driver.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

Great. Thank you.

Am I still okay? Thirty seconds.

Is there one best practice you would like us to take away today that you think might help a young woman?

[Dr. Ann Armstrong]

Yes, I think the most important practice, dovetailing with what you've already said, is to create a formal mentorship program that is both well supported and well advertised. By that I mean one that's legitimated by senior people in organizations, so that it's just part and parcel of everyday work and not seen as something odd or special, or as somehow that, “I must be inadequate because I need a mentor”. It should be the accepted way of doing work, so that mentorship is part and parcel of everyday work.

[The Chair, NDP, Hélène LeBlanc]

Thank you very much. You're right on time.

Ms. Sellah, you have seven minutes. Please go ahead.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Armstrong. For a very long time, I had buried many things deep down, and you stirred up experiences I had gone through before coming here and standing up for women.

I am a doctor by training. I chose Quebec because I felt an affinity for the province's language and culture. I was happy to come to a country where equality, democracy and justice were the norm. When I came here, I chose Quebec, so I am not speaking for Canada in general. I was aware that the system was very different from that in my home country. I will tell you parenthetically that I had 10 years of experience and that I worked as a volunteer doctor during the Gulf War.

Forgive me, talking about it brings back a lot of emotions.

I am very happy to be here, in Canada, and to be where I am today.

In terms of my struggle at the provincial level, I have always said that the immigrant has to put in 50% of the effort, as does the host country. We have no objection to going through a process because the cultural values of foreign doctors—except U.S. doctors—are not the same as those of the host country. Everyone can agree on that. The problem foreign doctors come up against is dealing not with government agencies but with professional bodies. Unfortunately, those bodies do not have the resources to foster an environment that is conducive to integrating foreign doctors. I have always said that is the fear of immigrants coming here who want nothing more than to integrate into the profession. And I have repeatedly pointed out the fact that these doctors did not cost the Quebec nation or Canada a dime.

The reason I fought so hard was the acute shortage that had plagued Quebec for decades. And I realized that what was lacking was genuine political will to help these immigrants integrate into the profession and to take advantage of this wealth of individuals with foreign credentials and skills arriving in the province.

What would you recommend to the committee in terms of how the federal government could enhance the leadership and economic prosperity of these women here, in Canada?

[Dr. Ann Armstrong]

Thank you very much for both your very thoughtful opening remarks, and also your challenging question.

As I listened to you I thought of some of our other participants who have had similar kinds of emotional discussions and who have also been very helpful to us.

Before I answer your question I'd like to say one thing. A person from South Africa who is an international sensation, at least in Africa, has said she came to Pearson airport and couldn't understand why there weren't people with signs saying, “Welcome to Canada.“ She was a TV personality and she found it very hard to go from being a TV personality to someone whose talents were not recognized. I think we have, to some extent, a little bit of the same lived experience, but in my case indirectly.

To respond to your question, one of the challenges that I would note—and again I'm not as clear on the jurisdictions that would be appropriate—is that our different levels of government clearly need to make it much easier for internationally educated professionals to become fast-tracked more quickly into being able to practise their profession.

We had one student who was a dentist from Lebanon. He was working as a security guard. He was one of two people, I think, who were successful in writing whatever the exams were to be able to go back to dental school. His experience was clearly not atypical. Whatever we can do to both assess the talents and credentials and fast-tracking internationally educated professionals, be they doctors, dentists, lawyers, and so on, is critical in making sure that we have the basic systems in place so that not every application is a one-off.

Clearly we can reasonably standardize what X kind of doctor should be able to do. By standardize I don't mean standardize the work, but to be able to say, “Okay, here is our checklist of the necessary skills and talents that X kind of doctor needs“ and whether you're from X jurisdiction or Y, either you have it or you don't. I think that kind of ability to fast-track by using processes and working with universities to create opportunities.... Our particular program is basically focused on what people in the system are calling the “soft skills”, which I call the “hard skills” because they're hard to do.

As for working with professional faculties, I think we have a great opportunity to say, “Here, we have talented people who want to work and we need doctors in particular.“

That would be my recommendation to develop a standardized process that's based on research of the talents and skills that professionals from other jurisdictions already have.

[The Chair, NDP, Hélène LeBlanc]

Thank you, Ms. Sellah and Ms. Armstrong.

I will now turn the floor over to Ms. O'Neill Gordon for seven minutes.

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for joining us today and taking time to share your thoughts and ideas.

First of all, I want to congratulate you on your many awards and especially the Graduate Teaching Excellence Award. It certainly is an honour for anyone to receive that.

It's so nice to hear you say how these people who come to Canada bring with them confidence, talents, and experience, and that is up to us to take advantage of that. We need to capture their talents and put them to use.

What to you is the main theme you want our committee to take away from your presentation today? You certainly have lots of good ideas, but what would the main one be ?

[Dr. Ann Armstrong]

My main request to you as a committee to both reflect and, more importantly, act on is to see what you can do to reduce barriers to the progression of our internationally educated professionals. Whether it was the example that I just gave, particularly doctors and others, we need to come up with processes and further research so that we can say to internationally educated female professionals that this is what we can do to help you not only to get caught up to what you were doing before in your country of origin, but also to excel in the Canadian context.

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

Thank you.

You mentioned those barriers for doctors, which we were speaking about. What are some of the barriers that other people face, especially women, when they come here ?

[Dr. Ann Armstrong]

I think one of the main barriers is actually simple ignorance—and I do just mean ignorance, lack of knowledge—by organizations about the actual talents that women from other jurisdictions bring.

I think the other major barrier—and it's one that we spend some time addressing, both through class and action—is the discomfort or just unfamiliarity with the importance of networking. Clearly, networking is the way many people get jobs. Some people from different countries of origin are not familiar with the ins and outs of what that means.

One of our participants, who is originally from Russia, said she never had a problem networking in her country of origin because she knew everybody. I think that's why we need to put much more effort into actually not only emphasizing the importance of networking, but also, more importantly, providing the tools and the opportunities to do that.

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

That's a very good idea, and it's so true. When you're in your own homeland and you know where to turn, that makes things much easier.

I'm thinking that, as well, is where mentorship comes in, having someone to guide them. Would you say it would be important for us to try to set up a mentorship program with these new people coming in, to set them in the right direction? They certainly have lots of talent, but they just don't know where to turn.

[Dr. Ann Armstrong]

I couldn't agree with you more. We're really trying to see the work we do not as a settlement kind of program—there are many excellent organizations that do that—but basically as a bridge so that people can, through mentoring and networking and so on, have a successful career in the sector of their choice.