Status of Women Committee on Feb. 7th, 2017

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

You also brought up marginalized taxation. That's where you're switching from a non-taxable to a taxable program. For instance, if you're going from Ontario disability, you lose your medical benefits and all of those sorts of things.

[Valerie Carruthers]

Yes, absolutely.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

We're finding that people are better off staying at home than going back to work, because they're going to be paying out more. This is extremely unfortunate, but at the same time, we recognize that in the long term it's more beneficial to be employed.

What are some of the fixes? How must we collaborate to fix that?

[Valerie Carruthers]

I think that at the provincial level, if people are actually making a choice for work, there has to be more attention to some of the things that they're losing. If they are losing their drug card, there need to be programs out there so that they can get at least the equivalent coverage. If you have a medical condition or anything like that and you need medication, how can you be expected to take a job? Even at provincial level, right across the country it varies, but it doesn't usually equate to what they get when they're attached to a provincial system.

I think there's a lot of collaboration needed on that to make real incentives to go to work, because they're quite capable of going to work. In fact, just from personal experience, we know that the health care costs for women who go to work go down. Quite often you don't get data on that, because of privacy or because you're in a different department.

We know that women will come in if they're home and don't want to be home, but this is how they have to live. They're able to find a way to be productive in a different way. They're not going to the doctor anymore. They're not seeing the psychologist anymore. They're not on medication anymore. Those ripple effects are not even considered.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Ms. Reynolds, I just want to get your take on the sharing economy. I had asked earlier about it. We talk about the sharing economy, Uber, Airbnb, and those sorts of things. What do you see it evolving into, and how can it benefit women?

[Jennifer Reynolds]

The sharing economy?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Yes.

[Jennifer Reynolds]

In terms of sharing of work and those sorts of things as well?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

I guess that could be a part of it.

It's when we talk about renting your own personal goods. When I was in France, they were talking about home ownership becoming a different thing in Europe. People were buying their homes, or not choosing to buy a home, because they were travelling and doing things of that sort. I met a person who actually doesn't live in her home. She has a mortgage that other people are paying because she rents it out all the time and she travels for work.

What do you see happening on that, and how can that impact women in a positive way?

[Jennifer Reynolds]

The reality is that there's a giant gender wage gap out there. Women are just less wealthy. Those types of alternatives provide an easier way to fund where you live, or to fund having a car or sharing a car and all these different things.

If you go into these shared spaces where people are working nowadays, as opposed to having offices, I think we're seeing a lot of female entrepreneurs in those areas as well. It brings down the overall cost to fund your business, certainly, or to fund your life effectively too. Once you have children, you tend to be stuck in one location, though, so those benefits sort of go away.

One earlier point that I would pick up on in terms of funding for female entrepreneurs is that I spent two years in the venture capital industry. It's a massive problem. Only 4% of venture capital goes to female entrepreneurs. We need to think about that. A big part of the reason is that all of the partners in venture capital firms are men. They don't get the pitches that are coming in. I have seen them. They don't get it. They say, “I'll go home and ask my wife what she thinks.”

That's not the way we should allocate money. The government is giving money to all of these funds that I just mentioned. You need to think about where that government money is going, and whether you have any sort of diversity requirements around where the funding then goes to in the economy.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Excellent. Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Excellent.

We go now to Ms. Malcolmson for seven minutes.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thanks, Chair.

To Jane Stinson, I want to pick up your theme of saying very forcefully that there are structural barriers to women participating in the economy and that this is not just about women's choice.

I'm elected in British Columbia, and even getting to employment opportunities is a very strong theme in my own riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith. People from the Stz'uminus reserve don't have any public transit. They can't get to the jobs that are there. It's especially tragically evident in northern B.C., in relation to the Highway of Tears. Women are hitchhiking, and our indigenous women particularly are killed.

Then we also have the problem in urban centres, where particularly we hear that women with disabilities who don't have accessible public transit cannot physically get to the jobs that are there.

Can you talk about this government focusing its investment more on public transit to give women the full opportunity to be participants in the workforce?

[Jane Stinson]

Yes.

It was surprising to me in our research on changing public services that public transportation came up as frequently as it did as a public service that women rely on. Perhaps that's because I wasn't thinking. If you think about it, it's particularly people who have lower incomes who use public transit, because they can't afford their own cars. Women have lower incomes, so it's not surprising.

It's interesting, though, and I think about how it's changed. I've been doing some work recently on the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. It's the 50th anniversary this year. Public transit was not an issue that was raised then, but it is now. It is a big issue, for some of the reasons that you mentioned.

Through our work in the Feminist Northern Network, another research project that CRIAW was involved in, certainly in the north the absence of public transit in northern communities is a major problem. It puts women at risk, as you mentioned. The Highway of Tears is perhaps the most shocking example, but I'm sure it's not alone; it's just better known. In lots of cases in the north women have to hitchhike, as do others, to get around.

In urban locations, our research in Ottawa showed that it was very serious. It was accessibility, and that meant cost—the cost was too high for people—and also lack of schedules, and sometimes where the routes went.

Again, there's a responsibility with the federal government, even in local transportation. It's a question of transfers. So much is downloaded to municipalities with so few resources that transit is something that they continue to cut.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

I'm going to switch gears to other witnesses and then hope to come back.

To Rosalind Lockyer, in my riding of Nanaimo–Ladysmith, we have a lot of new immigrant women in our community, which should be great for our economy. However, we are hearing that their language skills are a barrier to entering the workforce. I'm interested in hearing more about language training that we could bring to support that as a federal government, to remove that barrier to immigrant women's economic success.

I'd also like to hear your thoughts about whether you've found that the foreign credential regulations and work visas are contributing to the economic insecurity of immigrant women, even though these women are often very highly trained and very well qualified to fill gaps in our labour force.

[Rosalind Lockyer]

Language is a barrier. Language is a barrier if you're a francophone woman and you're living in an English community. Many immigrant women coming in are francophone, and they seem to fare better. I think this illustrates the fact that if the language barrier is not there, they can move forward more quickly. Recognition of their experience and their work credentials is the biggest barrier that immigrant women have when they come into the country. Then it's being able to move forward in a way that they can get some experience.

I can give you an example. My executive assistant, Fabiola, is a young woman from Mexico. She's also an engineer. I said to her, “Faby, what can we do as an employer to make this job a job that will be good for you?” She went right to the child care, and told me that if she had flexibility to be with her children when they needed her, she wouldn't consider herself to be underemployed. She said, “I want this job because I want the same kind of experience that I will get at the PARO Centre for Women's Enterprise.” I've provided what she wants, and she's provided what I need.

I think that's what we need to get out to the workforce: hire immigrant women. Hire them. Give them a chance. Their language skills will improve. I mean, Faby right now is trilingual. Her first language is Spanish, she's learned French since arriving, and her English is not bad.

We're moving forward, and that's just one example.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

My time is short, so I'll move on here to Jane Stinson.

I very much appreciated your focus on gender-based analysis, on publicly asking the federal government to use a gendered lens to ensure that public services are sufficiently funded. I'd like to hear more about the impact on women's economic security if the government does not consider the consequences of its spending and its policies on women.

[Jane Stinson]

I think it continues to roll us backwards and it increases the gap of inequality, with women being the ones who suffer more. It's clear that public services have been good jobs for women, have paid well, have had benefits. That is being eroded. There's now research that shows that precarious public sector employees are far less likely to have benefit coverage and pension coverage and that they have less control over their work schedules, with fewer hours generally. The federal government as a source of good jobs, then, is becoming eroded. That increases women's poverty and inequality.

It's so clear that women rely on many public services federally, provincially, and locally. Adequate funding and transfers to provinces are absolutely essential.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Very good.

We'll go to Mr. Fraser for seven minutes, please.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you very much.

Let me start by saying thank you. I thought it was awesome, every minute of your testimony, and I really appreciate your being here.

Ms. Lockyer and Ms. Carruthers, you each spoke about the need to potentially expand EI benefits, specifically to reflect eligibility for people who may work in non-traditional sectors or people who may be self-employed. I think that's fantastic. One of the issues I have, in terms of finding the right mechanism, is that I don't view EI to be the government's money. Instead, it's the money of those who pay into the fund.

Is there a different way to achieve the same social outcome that you guys have discussed without giving to other members of the community the money that certain people have paid in ?

[Valerie Carruthers]

I think there are a couple of things here. One, when it comes to looking at part II, which is the funded training part, that particular pot of money doesn't come from contributions. I think this is something that really needs to be revisited in terms of who can access it, who can be funded, who can apply to actually transition into the labour market. Where are the needs? Why does it have to come from that particular pot?

I think that's a really practical way to do that. It won't cost the government any money. It's just deciding where it belongs.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Sure.

Ms. Lockyer, do you have a comment?

[Rosalind Lockyer]

Yes. I think that self-employed people don't trust that if they pay in, they will be able to claim. That's what has been shown to them over the years. There needs to be a clear way for them to understand that if they pay in this much on an ongoing basis, and they need to put in a claim, they will actually be able to get a return. I think once that's there...and I think it's really important. I don't think the government realizes what's coming down the tube, with automation and so on, and the number of people who will choose self-employment. If they can't get sick leave or maternity leave and their business has to close.... I mean, people don't close their business and go bankrupt by choice. If that happens, they need the security of those social systems.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I appreciate the need for certainty.

Ms. Reynolds, I want to hit a couple of issues with you.

One of the words that you used that jumped out at me when you were talking about board representation was “perspective”. I know that at home when I was a kid, when people talked about diversity, we thought they were talking about Protestants, and when I come to Ottawa now, the room isn't filled with people who look like me, and it's great, and it changes the conversation that we have dramatically.

One of the things you talked about the federal government being able to do was to introduce some sort of transparency. You mentioned the Lord Davies initiative they had in the U.K. Should this be a legislative requirement for transparency that we should sort of foist upon the private sector and say, “This is going to lead to great social outcomes, so we're going to require by law that you do it,” or is there a better mechanism that we could introduce?