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.
Conservative
Professor, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I'm just tuning you out.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Marilyn Gladu
Yes, you don't have to stay.
Anyway, there are three little corrections.
First, paragraph 2 says “decisions that are currently recorded and not reported”. They want to strike everything after “decisions”. They want to report “decisions”, because otherwise it gets into the weeds about what those decisions are.
The second one is that this letter actually calls for all case decisions to be put online. I think the intent of the committee was just for the sexual assault cases to be put online.
The third one is that this draft recommends that they expand the available training to “judges in the provincial court”. There's a recommendation that instead we refer to “provincially appointed judges” instead of the courts, because the courts are all named different things.
It's mostly grammatical changes that are being suggested.
Is there any discussion?
Ms. Malcolmson.
NDP
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
I have some other questions and suggestions as well. I would suggest, partly because the bill is still in process, that we don't need to rush this, but especially I want to make sure that the people who receive this letter really understand what it is we're asking for and why. I would thus rather see an expansion of some of the rationale, because this is really an advocacy letter to catch the other ministers up on what they missed.
In the very first paragraph, then, I think some expansion of what the bill does—some bullet points that summarize the contents of the bill—could be added, so they will understand what Bill C-337 is.
In the second paragraph, I think we need some rationale. What's the imperative for making transcripts widely available? If we simply give the ask without saying why, then I think it will have less impact.
We could, for example, select a piece of witness testimony, if we didn't have anything else that described the imperative. I have one suggestion. Elaine Craig, from the Dalhousie faculty of law, had a quote that we could provide, if that's helpful and if others agree that we need to have a bit of background.
Then, in the paragraph on training I think we should make sure that we are reflecting the vocabulary used in the bill. “Trauma-informed training” is an example: I'm not sure this is the language that ended up being in the bill. Again, if we were able to provide one example—maybe a sample line of testimony....
Finally, I just wasn't clear from the draft to whom we are directing this; whether we're aiming it to the justice minister and saying, “Can you, please, at a government-to-government level, on our behalf convey this to the provincial ministers?”; or whether we're writing to the justice minister and cc'ing all the provincial and territorial ministers. I think we should just have clarity on that before we send the letter.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Marilyn Gladu
My understanding was that we were going to direct the letter to the justice minister and let her disseminate the information to her provincial counterparts.
I think those changes are fine. Are there other changes?
Ms. Damoff.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I agree with Sheila. I think it should be addressed to the justice minister, though, and say, “In your role, as federal justice minister, we want you to convey this to your counterparts.”
Everything that was said is fine, but there are two things. We have said “all courts”. I think we were very specific that it was only the cases that were overseen by a judge, not judge and jury.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I don't know whether we need different wording on that.
Also, I would suggest we expand the part in which we say “importance of training for all persons who play a role” to include some of the crown counsel and the police—specifically name them—and maybe pull something from the testimony that we heard on the crown counsel and say how critical those roles are in formulating the case that eventually goes to the judge, just expanding a little on that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Marilyn Gladu
I think there was a good list in the recommendation that we initially brought forward in Taking Action to End Violence Against Young Women and Girls in Canada. There was a good list of all the people who needed training in the process.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Yes, just so that it's really clear what we're asking.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Marilyn Gladu
Are there any other comments? Good.
I agree with Sheila that we're not in a hurry with this.
Sheila, if you want to send your stuff to the clerk, I'll compare notes, and then we'll send the draft around again. I want to make sure that it has the approval of the committee before it goes anywhere.
Ms. Malcolmson.
NDP
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
I'll just follow up on Ms. Damoff's comments, which I agree with. I don't think we should pull testimony from the previous study into this. If we are to say who needs training, we should refer to some of the witnesses. I think they listed provincial judges, police forces, crown prosecutors, and lawyers, so it's targeted.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Marilyn Gladu
Can you send that? You're very good with the quotes. Excellent.
Now the third piece of business is by Mr. Duguid.
Liberal
Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
Madam Chair, thank you for this brief moment of the committee's time.
We've had Kyna Boyce sitting with us since December 2015. She's policy adviser to the Minister of Status of Women. She also assists the parliamentary secretaries, of which I am the second one. She will be taking a new position with Minister Duclos. I know, particularly on the government side, that she's been an absolutely essential link between the minister and this committee. She worked very hard on Bill C-337 and helped us all get to a consensus on it.
In her new role, of course, she'll be tackling issues such as EI, child care, and housing, some of the things that we know are so important to women. We wish her well in her new position and thank her for all of her service to this committee.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Marilyn Gladu
I do hope that after all the testimony you've sat through, understanding the things that we want to see in child care, parental leave, and everything else, you can advise Minister Duclos aptly in that vein.
At this point in time, we're going to suspend and switch the panels.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Marilyn Gladu
We are starting our second panel. We are continuing to study the economic security of women in Canada.
We have with us today, from Engineers Canada, Jeanette Southwood. From the Canadian Space Agency, we're pleased to have Marie-Claude Guérard and Dominique Breden.
We are looking forward to hearing what you ladies have to say.
We're going to begin with Jeanette for seven minutes.
Jeanette Southwood Vice-President, Strategy and Partnerships, Engineers Canada
Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to appear here today.
As the vice-president of strategy and partnerships for Engineers Canada, I'm very pleased to be here to discuss Engineers Canada's involvement in protecting women's economic security while promoting the representation and retention of women within the engineering profession.
Engineers Canada is the national organization that represents the 12 provincial and territorial associations that regulate the practice of engineering in Canada and license the country's more than 290,000 professional engineers. Together, we work to advance the profession in the public interest.
Engineers Canada has long worked towards facilitating the entry and success of women in the engineering profession. The entry and retention of women into careers in engineering is a key opportunity to increase women's economic security. After all, engineering, along with business and health, is among Canada's best compensated professions. In addition, the E in STEM, engineering, is a career that brings together the accomplishments of the sciences, technology, and mathematics—the S, T, and M in STEM—to make a difference in the world and to help people. In fact, according to an international survey described in a Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering report, the number one role of engineering in the next 20 years is to solve the world's problems. Number two is to inspire new innovation, and number three is to improve the quality of people's lives.
Despite engineering being a key opportunity, women, who make up 50.4% of the total Canadian population, comprise only 12% of practising licensed engineers and only 19% of undergraduate engineering students. While women can benefit economically from a career in engineering, Canadian society is better served when the engineering profession is representative of the public interest it protects. We must work together to attract under-represented groups, specifically women, into engineering education programs, as well as the profession, in order to enhance their economic stability and promote their representation in male-dominated industries.
There are many factors that impact a woman's decision to enter into the engineering profession. Some of these factors may include the pay inequity that exists between men and women, inflexible maternity and parental leave benefits due to the current maternity leave system, and the stereotypes that engineering is a male-dominated industry. There are also several other factors that are not well known or are often anecdotal.
Although these are all important topics to address, the focus of my testimony today will revolve around the need for federally funded research that is specific to engineering. This research is necessary to gain a better understanding of why young females are staying away from the engineering profession and to understand the possible interventions that stakeholders and policy-makers can take in order to support women's entry into engineering. This research is also necessary to gain a better understanding of the barriers to retention that contribute to women leaving the field of engineering.
Engineers Canada, along with all of the regulators it represents, is working on raising the percentage of newly licensed engineers who are women to 30% by the year 2030, a goal known as “30 by 30”. The current percentage of licensed engineers who are women stands at 17%, a percentage that has not increased in the last three years.
In order to address the issues that are discouraging women from entering the profession, engineering stakeholders need to be supported by national, government-driven policies that encourage youth, especially girls, to consider a post-secondary engineering education, as well as a career in engineering. This support begins at the primary, secondary, and post-secondary school level.
Foundational skills in STEM will prepare Canadian youth for any future career path they choose to pursue, regardless of their gender. However, while the representation of women on university and college campuses across Canada has increased over the past decades, post-secondary enrolment rates for women in STEM subjects, and especially engineering, continues to remain extremely low.
According to a 2011 analysis conducted by Statistics Canada, among high school students with grades between 80% and 89%, approximately 52% of boys chose a STEM university program, but only 22% of girls chose the same. Among those students who had grades below 80% and attended university, approximately 30% of male students chose a STEM program, while only 10% of women with similar grades did the same. This demonstrates that there is a discrepancy between male and female students entering into STEM programs, even if they hold the same educational credentials.
The enrolment rate is even lower in engineering programs. Undergraduate enrolment and graduation rates of women in engineering programs continue to be significantly lower than in other disciplines. In 2011, women between the ages of 25 and 34 in the science and technical streams accounted for 59% of all science and technology graduates, a stark contrast to the 23% of graduates in engineering who were women that same year.
There is consensus that youth engagement in STEM subjects is a key vehicle to increasing a child's interest in engineering. Engineering stakeholders are involved in delivering outreach programs for this reason, with the goal of increasing enrolment in engineering programs. These programs are often specifically targeted to young women, as they are less likely to identify engineering as a possible career choice.
Understanding the core reasons for why girls are less likely than boys to pursue STEM subjects beyond high school would better prepare engineering stakeholders to deliver targeted youth engagement strategies and interventions to young women. This information would be extremely beneficial at a time when young girls could be taking the necessary steps to enter the engineering field, should they choose to do so.
In order to attract young women into engineering education programs, as well as the engineering profession, federal research funding is required to gain a better understanding of why young women are not pursuing engineering as an educational path. This research should focus on identifying and addressing the factors that are deterring young women from pursuing post-secondary education disciplines, even though they have the necessary qualifications and credentials. Having this knowledge will be critical in allowing stakeholders to implement the appropriate interventions for addressing what deters young women from engineering.
We also encourage the federal government to commit to incorporating research into its funding criteria for federal programs, such as PromoScience, so that these programs can also address these root causes. Too often when discussing STEM disciplines the emphasis is focused on science, technology, and mathematics, with a lack of focus on engineering. For this reason, programs being considered for PromoScience funding should also specifically target engineering.
The attrition of women within the profession is also a real threat for retaining women in the profession. As a professional engineer myself, I've personally witnessed women who leave the profession due to workplace barriers. I was fortunate to be able to overcome many of these barriers in my own career path. I've had a good career in engineering. Next month, I will be receiving an honorary doctorate in engineering. However, many women may not have the necessary support or opportunities to overcome such barriers. Often such barriers, such as inflexible maternity leave, pay and equity, or workplace culture, result in attrition for women in the engineering profession.
There's evidence from the United States and several other countries around the loss of women from the engineering profession. However, beyond anecdotal information, there is limited data available in Canada that illustrates the extent of this challenge. Engineering stakeholders cannot make informed choices on how best to retain women in the engineering profession without Canadian-specific data to guide their efforts.
For this reason, Engineers Canada encourages the federal government to invest in workforce research funding for the engineering profession in order to better understand and combat the reasons that cause women to leave the profession and in order to increase opportunities for women in the profession. We want women to stay in a stable, well-paying profession to protect their economic security. As part of this investment, Engineers Canada also encourages the federal government to focus on research specific to indigenous women and women who are visible minorities.
Madam Chair, thank you for allowing me to present to the committee today on this important topic.
Conservative
