Evidence of meeting #63 for Status of Women in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was engineers.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
9:10 a.m.
NDP
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to all three witnesses.
I hear all my colleagues around the table going “right”.... These are not New Democrat witnesses, I'm pretty sure.
I'm loving what all three of you are saying. Thank you very much for being so clear.
I'm going to try to fit a lot into seven minutes.
This is for the witnesses from the Conseil d'intervention pour l'accès des femmes au travail. You talked about proactive pay equity legislation federally. An all-party committee of Parliament recommended that the government table legislation next month, because women in Canada have been waiting for 40 years since it was first promised. The government has told us it will be by “late 2018”. Can you think of any rationale to ask women to wait longer?
9:15 a.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
9:15 a.m.
Member, Conseil d'intervention pour l'accès des femmes au travail
One of the reasons why we adopted proactive legislation in Quebec and in Ontario is that the complaints-based system, which is still in effect in Canada, has not given us any results.
Some of the cases have dragged on for 15 and 20 years. When Bell telephone operators got pay equity, what did Bell Canada do except get to rid of all its telephone operators? In Quebec, one of the problems we had was that although the employers had four years to implement pay equity, most of them did not, and the Quebec commission was not efficient in terms of enforcing the law.
Not only should it go into effect as soon as possible, but there should.... Employers don't need more than two or three years to implement pay equity.
9:15 a.m.
NDP
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
We have good models that can be followed. As we know from the case of the Canada Post employees, those women fought in court for 30 years. Some of them died in poverty before they ever got their settlement. It was shameful.
I want to move to all three witnesses on the question of gender parity in crown appointments to federal commissions and boards. Both panels of witnesses have said that we need to accelerate the rate of change, and that the status quo is just inching us forward in a way that is frustrating and not sustainable. I think both of you have recommended at least a 40% target to move toward and to have it on a quota basis.
The government is touting Bill C-25 as a comply or explain model, which is the same as that of the previous Conservative government. We've had many witnesses discredit comply or explain.
I have a private member's bill that says we should get to 50% within six years. It would be ramped up to 30% two years after the bill comes into effect and to 40% four years after. This would be just for crown corporation and federal commission appointments. Have you seen models like this in other places that have worked well? Does this feel like an approach that is consistent with your advice?
9:15 a.m.
Director, Conseil d'intervention pour l'accès des femmes au travail
Some 10 years ago, the Charest government, in Quebec, passed regulations requiring the boards of directors of public organizations—about 25 large public organizations were affected—to reach parity in a few years. The time frame was very short. I believe that it was three years. We are talking about parity, so 50%. Yet, the target was reached.
With a clear and specific objective, organizations establish an internal diagnostic and choose the methods they will use. They all have a specific objective and tight deadlines to meet. That kind of an objective leads to real mobilization. However—and this is especially true for political parties—a set of incentives must be applied, as well as penalties if the objectives are not achieved.
Yes, these are quotas. People don't like to talk about this. That said, whether we call it “corrective actions” or something else, we need clear objectives.
9:15 a.m.
Professor, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, As an Individual
To me, after so many years of pushing for more women on boards and senior roles, the Ontario government, the OSC, has introduced the comply or explain policy, which they have been monitoring now for the last two or three years. The excuses that companies put in their proxy filings are just hilarious. We actually researched them, and they say, well, it is merit-based and that's why there's no progress. Really? The excuses have been whitewashing everything that is currently status quo. So this is not happening.
The most disheartening part last year when we looked at public sector board appointments was that out of 521 board appointments, 76 went to women. That's 15%. Excuse me, after all the discussion and all the awareness, all the beautiful comply or explain and “shouldn't we be better by now?”, and “we are Canadians, a beacon in the global society of gender parity”, this is not happening without a quota. That's my point. Even after all the nudging, you do need a shock to the system. Without a quota, I don't think this will happen.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Great.
Do you have any words on some of the advice we've had from witnesses about parental leave? One way to break the pattern of patriarchy and get more men involved in taking more of the load of unpaid domestic care would be to offer “use it or lose it” parental leave for the non-childbearing partner, who is usually male. Do you have any observations on that?
9:20 a.m.
Professor, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Yes. In looking at countries that have introduced that, there are currently about 70 countries in the world that have paid paternity leave or shared parental leave. However, the ones that are the most forward-thinking have mandatory parental leave. Finland, Norway, Germany, and even Portugal have a better system than Canada—not that I want to play down Portugal. It requires fathers to take paid parental leave after childbirth, and it offers bonus leave to couples where fathers are home alone.
Can I just emphasize the “home alone” part? This is not meant to be a family vacation for three. This is meant to help fathers to understand and be part of gender equity in terms of involvement.
The beautiful thing that also has come out of it, an unintended consequence, is that the hiring bias in companies has been almost eliminated. If you look at young men and young women who are seeking the same position, she might take maternity leave, but now, both of them have to take parental leave. So the hiring bias has been eliminated too.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Marc Serré Liberal Nickel Belt, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to thank the witnesses for making their presentations and preparing for today's meeting.
My question is for Ms. Dart.
We are talking about fairly firm quotas. Other witnesses, including the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Canada research chairs program, told us they have a 30% objective. Yet it seems that, for Canadian universities, the standard is 15%. That is an issue you brought up.
You have a great deal of expertise on the economy.
Ms. Baker, from the University of York, came to talk about microeconomics. I just want to get your sense on it. Sure, with or without quotas, we have to work towards changing some of the policies to get there. I just want to get your thoughts about the World Economic Forum she mentioned and consider the lens of microeconomics and how we can change as a government when we look at infrastructure programs and the question of investing in roads versus the social side.
9:20 a.m.
Professor, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, As an Individual
First, let me just comment on the quota and the actual number, because I do believe that you have to set a number that is high enough. The last thing you want is a woman eventually ending up wherever it might be, whether on the board or in senior roles, and she's the token quota woman. That is almost the worst outcome. The stigma around of would counter and negate any progress we're trying to make with it.
The reason why most countries actually have jumped on at least 40% is that, once you have 40% women around a table, it's kind of hard to stigmatize somebody. I think there is a magic in the number, because you do need to have a number that is high enough. Slowly phasing it in at 10%, 20%, or 30% will not do. It would create a huge disservice, in my opinion, for the women who are the poor 10%, 20%, or 30%, until that number of 40% has been reached. For that reason, I would say that you do need to jump in with a high enough number that this whole issue of being ostracized or being the quota woman is not present. That would be one part of that.
Is there something that can be done on a larger scale or in various sectors? We have been looking at that. You might have seen, Mr. Chair, the 30% Club campaign, to get a minimum of 30% women in various roles—although it does vary by sector. Of course it does. We have the professional services sectors and the banks. They're behaving beautifully. Their trends over the last five to 10 years are all very positive and they have done a beautiful job in advancing women on the larger scale.
It is not kicking in at all in some industries where, I would say, the CEOs in many cases have not bought into the idea. You can almost categorize it into CEOs who have been converted and are happy to do something; the CEOs who believe in the cause, but don't know what to do; and the CEOs who do not believe in this at all and for whom there is no sensible business case for advancing women. You find that last category predominantly in the natural resources sector and energy technology companies, unfortunately, and it is the hardest to break into those areas. Even with conversations, it's difficult to get to the right conversation and the right discussion.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Marc Serré Liberal Nickel Belt, ON
Thank you for the last part, too.
That brings me to my second question, which is for Ms. Goulet and Ms. Rose-Lizée.
Thank you for the work you are currently doing with regard to the mining sector in Quebec.
Based on your success, can you make recommendations on other natural resource sectors across Canada?
9:25 a.m.
Director, Conseil d'intervention pour l'accès des femmes au travail
Yes. Thank you for bringing that up.
We just completed a three-year project that was funded by Status of Women Canada under the women's program. That project had to do with Quebec's mining sector in two resource-rich regions—Abitibi-Témiscamingue and the Eeyou Istchee James Bay territory. That was a very worthwhile program, where we were asked to completely transform the industrial mining sector, in three years, on a voluntary basis. In fact, no coercive measures, employment access programs or contractual obligations were to be applied.
In three years, we did manage to complete the project—and we are proud of that—to establish an internal diagnostic with community partners consisting of certain industries or companies. We even established a multi-year action plan that set out measures to increase the presence of women in the mining industry, especially in areas where very few women are employed. Their proportion is only 4% in production trades. In the case of those trades, entry level positions often make it possible, through internal training, to access trade positions. So we developed an action plan, but mining companies preferred to undertake small targeted measures. Very few of those companies were willing to adopt the action plan as a whole.
There are some useful measures, but that is not how we will fight systemic discrimination. That said, we are proud of what we were able to produce thanks to that report. We even developed a good practices guide for the mining sector. It would be a real pleasure for me to send relevant links to the committee. The guide is housed on the website of Quebec's Comité sectoriel de main-d'oeuvre de l'industrie des mines. Since its launch last November, it has been consulted several hundred times. That means that a need exists.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Marc Serré Liberal Nickel Belt, ON
Thank you very much.
In 10 seconds, I would like to ask Ms. Dart to send us the documentation on the success of the model she talked to us about earlier. It was an umbrella organization.
9:30 a.m.
Professor, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Thank you for the question.
A group of organizations have come together. All of them are pan-Canadian and have an impact across Canada. The ones I mentioned already are Catalyst, Women in Capital Markets, the ICD, the Clarkson Centre, the Canadian Coalition for Good Governance, and the 30% Club. We came together because, quite frankly, we believe that the efforts are too fragmented. We all have the same goal and that is to advance women, but we feel there are too many small parts. We all have small budgets so the impact is very small, based on our budgets.
Also, by collaborating we believe there's an opportunity to have a larger strategy for Canada. We would like to create an appropriate Canadian solution. Recently we have had a couple of U.S. for-profit organizations telling us how to advance women. I'm thinking to myself “excuse me”.
Why can't we create a Canada-wide solution instead of having all these smaller organizations out there? We are hoping to create an alliance or an umbrella organization, and we have been starting to do that. So far, the Ontario government loves it because it is using us as a think tank to run ideas or issues by this alliance and to ask for its recommendations.
We would hope to create a larger alliance Canada-wide, and ideally we would love to have the federal government's support for that. Quite frankly, you need to have a carrot, and the carrot is always our budgets.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Marilyn Gladu
Excellent.
Thank you very much to all our witnesses this morning.
We have a brief bit of committee business to take care of that we're going to sandwich here in the middle—three quick items. The first one has to do with the follow up from Bill C-337, namely, a letter that I believe we agreed we would send to the justice minister so she could distribute it to the provinces. There are three comments about the draft, which I think you received. The first one has to do with paragraph 2, where it talks about—
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
