FEWO Committee Meeting

     Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we will continue with our study on increasing the participation of women in non-traditional occupations.

     Today we have witnesses with us, and witnesses from Moncton on video conference. The witnesses with us are Susan Russell--well known to us--executive director of the Canadian Federation of University Women; and Jacinthe Guay, Dimension Travail, liaison officer. The second group of witnesses are on video conference from Moncton, and they're from the Canadian Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs.

    Thank you again for joining us. Everyone will have a 10-minute presentation. I will really try to keep you aware of how your time is going so we don't go over. Then we will hopefully have two rounds of questions: the first for seven minutes each and the second for five minutes each.

    We will begin with Susan from the Canadian Federation of University Women for 10 minutes.

    Thank you. First off, happy St. Patrick's Day to everybody.

    On behalf of the 10,000 members of the Canadian Federation of University Women, I thank you for the opportunity to present before this committee. CFUW is a non-partisan, self-funded organization of graduate women, students, and associate members in 112 clubs across the country. CFUW supports better public understanding and recognition of non-traditional work for women and encourages fostering pride in those occupations among women as well as men.

    In general, widespread discrimination against women workers in male-dominated trades and occupations ranges from subtle to overt at work sites, colleges, and training centres. It is more overt in some trades than in the university or professional setting.

    Most of the background for this paper came from British studies.

    A 2007 Canadian study provided the following information on women in universities. At the undergraduate level, women students had reached more than parity. Fifty-eight percent of students at the undergraduate level were women. Women made up 51% at the Master's level, 45.6% at the PhD level, 41.4% of assistant professors, and 34.7% of associate professors. However, when we reach the level of full professors, only 18.8% were women, and as presidents of universities, women were the exception, at 13%.

     In January 2005, then president of Harvard University, Lawrence Summers, suggested that the under-representation of women in science and engineering might be due, he said, at least in part, to inherent sex differences in cognitive abilities in math and science. Many felt that Dr. Summers' comments reflected deep-seated stereotypes about men's and women's natural abilities.

    The question is whether cultural stereotypes help to diminish women's interest and performance in domains that have traditionally been dominated by men. From an early age, children are bombarded with cues that advertise which toys are appropriate for boys and which are for girls, and they soon develop different beliefs about their own competencies in certain fields. Many studies have shown that gender socialization leads girls to devalue math and science more so than do boys. What needs to happen to make sure that more women enter what are currently male-dominated careers is to educate the parents, teachers, and counsellors so that girls will be encouraged to take up these fields.

     Gender differences in attitudes and beliefs appear to develop in early adolescence. Girls often experience low confidence of success in mathematics. In one study, twice as many men as women chose majors with a moderate level of mathematics, such as architecture, business, and economics. Men were four times as likely to pursue majors with high mathematical content, such as pure science, physics, engineering, and mathematics. At the same time, women, on average, scored lower on important standardized tests, thus constraining opportunities to receive advanced placements in math-related fields, which often leads to the fact that they end up in lower-paid jobs.

     Socialization influences women's interest in and perception of different activities. Even where teachers, parents, and peers are supportive and the individual wants to pursue a career in a male-dominated profession, repeated exposure to stereotypes can negatively affect career aspirations. Some women may successfully buffer themselves from the experience, but they eventually get tired of trying to succeed in an area where they are expected to fail, must repeatedly disprove the cultural stereotype, or deal with an inflexible workplace, and they decide to opt for another career choice.

     Several things need to happen. At interview, it is important to ensure that the interviewer does not allow stereotypes and bias to influence his ability to judge the real merit of the candidate. Once the candidate is hired, the workplace must be one where the woman can receive the respect due to her for her qualifications. Co-workers need to be encouraged to be both collegial and supportive.

    Finally, it is found that when there are few women in a field, that field is seen as essentially male-dominated. As more women enter the field, greater numbers of other women are encouraged to join that field, and there is more support and more networking, and so on. Women students need to be assured that when they graduate, they will be hired on the same basis that men are hired and that the workplace they enter will value their contributions.

     Regarding pay equity, when women are hired, it is important that their work be valued and that they be paid the same as men in that workplace. Currently, women earn 71¢ for every dollar that men earn. This means that after university they take longer to pay off their debts, contribute less to EI, and receive lower pensions in the end.

     In the workplace, women need appropriate facilities on site, for example, washrooms.

     Child care is important for women who are mothers so that they can compete in the workplace on an equal basis with men. Women can be mothers and yet not have a partner available to look after the children.

     Access to flexible work patterns would be helpful when women need to care for dependants.

    The following are solutions.

    There needs to be a coordinated effort to increase women's participation in male-dominated domains. Threat-free environments would be helpful. Parents, teachers, counsellors, and the public need education about the role of social context in shaping women's performance in male-dominated areas.

    If women are to stay in a male-dominated workplace, that workplace needs to be women-friendly and offer fair opportunities for advancement on career paths. Women's increased entry at the undergraduate and college levels indicates positive change. Society needs to allow itself to hire women in non-traditional roles, on an equal basis with men, and provide them with the support and protection needed to keep them there.

    I'm finished.

    I was going to say that you have one minute. Are you finished? If you have anything to finish, you have a minute.

    I'm finished.

    Oh, good. Thank you very much, Ms. Russell.

    Now we will hear from Madame Guay.

    Good afternoon. My name is Jacinthe Guay, and I am from Dimension Travail. We are honoured to be invited to appear before the committee, and we thank you for the opportunity. I am very happy to be here.

    Our approach is more hands-on. We work directly with women, supporting them in their job search and providing guidance. We are also responsible for coordinating the Table lavalloise des femmes dans les métiers non traditionnels for women in non-traditional jobs in Laval. The round table brings together a number of key stakeholders in Laval, including the Laval school board, Service Canada, Collège Montmorency, the CCQ and Emploi-Québec.

    First of all, I want to tell you about some of our projects, which, I believe, met certain needs and provided us with a lot of information about women.

    The first project is Option gagnante, a full-time seven-week project to provide guidance to unemployed women. The projects gives women the opportunity to explore all trades without discrimination.

    Through workshops on materials handling, and visits to job sites and training schools, a number of women discovered they had an interest in non-traditional jobs, which they did not expect.

    It is important to note that women rarely choose non-traditional jobs as their first career choice. Only women who are intrinsically motivated, who are encouraged by friends and family and who are exposed to a parent model in the job who can provide them with information choose a non-traditional job.

    Many of our clients instead choose these jobs as a second career choice. They are often women who have decided to explore their interests and their ability to leave unstable low-paying employment, to follow their dream and to take training that will help them qualify for gainful employment.

    We also have a support group for female students in non-traditional jobs, as well as female workers in non-traditional jobs. The group provides a place outside work where they can get together, meet other women—as women are often alone in their teams—and share ideas and strategies for improving their work lives.

    We also work to raise public awareness. As Ms. Russell mentioned, everything starts at a young age. Everything we teach children is already separated between boys and girls. Girls are given a model to follow and, unfortunately, we think that it harms them in the long run.

    In the course of working with women, we realized that many of them were interested in and had the skills required for a non-traditional job, but that the actual conditions of the job were not in line with their family situation.

    Non-traditional jobs work based on the ideal worker model. That ideal worker does not exist. It is someone who is available at all times to work alternating shifts, for example, starting work very early in the morning when day care centres are not yet open or doing overtime hours when necessary. For most women, that is not possible. Despite their manual skills or their interest in a non-traditional job, many women are not able to consider it as an option.

    We also noted that, in both training and work settings, women are isolated and may have to deal with discrimination or harassment. Reverse harassment is no more helpful to women. It consists of giving them extra benefits that are not given to other workers. It contributes to isolating female workers even more and further promotes bias.

    We believe that, in both the workplace and in training programs, women should have access to the tools, the information and the facilities they need, even if it is just a washroom, the same as every other worker.

    Furthermore, our experience with employers has shown us that most of the employers that have tried to integrate women into their work teams saw a noticeable improvement in work quality. Among other things, women pay more attention to health and safety, which reduces the risk of injury. Women encourage team work and often come up with better work strategies, such as ways to reduce the physical strength needed to perform a task.

    Employers who refuse to allow women on their work teams use preconceived notions to justify their decision to us. Most of the time, they do not have facts to back up their claims. When a critical mass of women is targeted in a workplace, all preconceptions go out the window, and we see excellent cooperation among men and women that draws on the strengths of each.

    In some fields, we have seen a division of tasks based on gender. Take printing or silk screening, for example. A number of employers find that women are more meticulous. They give them silk-screening duties and pay them less, claiming that men, even with the same training, are more established, and they get paid more.

    We see the same thing happening elsewhere too. Clients in carpentry-joinery have told us that they experience a similar division of duties, where they are put in the position of doing most of the work, while the man is established and does the work.

    Why do we want to increase awareness? We mentioned stereotypes, but we also think that women need role models to identify with. The models they have in their families often have typically feminine roles. They need to see more models out in the community.

    That can happen at all levels, such as in a management position. I am sure that seeing women in Parliament inspires a lot of other women.

    They need a lot of information in order to make their decisions. They often have their own preconceptions and think that non-traditional jobs are jobs where workers get dirty and frequently injure themselves, when that is not the case. They also need to try out the job and use the tools, as they often lack self-confidence.

    Finally, our position at Dimension Travail is that we must continue to work towards changing society's thinking by eliminating preconceived notions, to raise awareness and especially to open more doors to women. They need a chance to try out the job and carve out a place for themselves.

    Thank you.

     That's it? Everybody is doing so well. You have another two minutes left.

    Thank you very much, Madame Guay.

    I would like now to move to Sue Calhoun, who is on the video screen, as you can see. She is president of the Canadian Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs.

    Ms. Calhoun, can you please tell us who is with you?

    Yes.

    Carolyn Hull, who is our national treasurer, is with me.

    Thank you.

    Will the committee please note that Carolyn Hull is the other person there.

    Would you begin your presentation, please? Again, you have 10 minutes. I'll let you know when you're running out of time.

     Thank you, Madam Chairman.

    Good afternoon, everyone. It's a pleasure for us to be here today.

    Il nous fait grand plaisir d'être avec vous cet après-midi.

    I have to tell you that spring has arrived in the Maritimes.

    The Canadian Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs—we call it BPW Canada—has been around since 1930. Our mission is to develop the professional and leadership potential of women in Canada through education, awareness, advocacy, and mentoring within a supportive network. Our main focus is really on women in the workforce.

    BPW Canada was a founding member of our International Federation of Business and Professional Women, which has clubs in more than 90 countries around the world, and which has category 1 consultative status at the United Nations.

    We are a volunteer organization that receives no government funding. My job as president of BPW Canada is a volunteer job, and to make a living I run my own company.

    Over the years, our members have presented several resolutions on the issue of access for women to non-traditional jobs, and as an organization we certainly support greater access for women to what are considered non-traditional jobs.

    From doing a quick review of the literature in preparation for this presentation, I think it's fair to say that for many years women have been encouraged to enter non-traditional areas of employment. During the 1970s and the 1980s, Canadian women did precisely that. As women experienced higher levels of education, as well as increased labour force participation rates, women also became a growing presence in a diverse range of male-dominated occupations. Some examples of that were veterinary practice, financial management, and law, just to mention a few.

    In the 1990s, however, with the recession and pressures of economic globalization, women continued to enter male-dominated occupations, although they did it more slowly than before. I think it's fair to say that in the last couple of decades we have not seen the kinds of programs that encourage women to pursue non-traditional occupations that we had seen earlier.

    Statistics Canada's Women in Canada report, for example, reported that the majority of employed women in 2004 continued to work in occupations in which women have traditionally been concentrated. In 2004, for example, 67% of all employed women were working in teaching, nursing and related health occupations, clerical or other administrative positions, and sales and service occupations. The situation in 2004 was approximately the same as in 1996, so things over that decade did not increase that much.

    The 2006 Statistics Canada report also noted that women had increased their representation in several professional occupations in recent years, in particular as doctors and dentists, business and financial professionals, and in managerial positions. There are some statistics in my report, which you will hopefully read.

    I'd like to address the question of why women should be actively encouraged to go into non-traditional fields. It's more than a matter of fairness, justice, or equal opportunity.

    First, many researchers believe that a well-trained labour force is the only way that Canada will achieve and maintain a competitive advantage in today's global business market, thus providing training has been advocated by many as sound social policy for competitiveness.

    When we talk about competing globally, we inevitably talk about innovation, about developing new knowledge and new technologies, and about using the new knowledge and new technologies to produce new products, services, and processes. What's needed is scientists; what's needed is people skilled in information and communications technologies. Women are woefully under-represented in both. Even though the ITC sector is crying out for more workers, women for the most part are still not going into IT.

    If we look at the skilled trades, women are even more under-represented. There is already a major shortage of skilled trades workers in Canada, and with the looming demographic crunch, the situation will only get worse.

     So women are an untapped resource in many sectors. Gender limitations mean that employers draw on a much smaller pool of talent. The irony is that women may offer advantages in some of these jobs, as my colleague Madame Guay just said. As an example, in IT, companies are starting to realize that to be successful they need more than the techie types, more than the geeks. They need the communicators, employees who can actually talk to the customer to build the bridge between what the customer needs and what the technology can do, and women are actually very good at doing that.

    Secondly, when we talk about the wage gap in Canada, a good part of the wage gap is due to the fact that women are still largely concentrated in the so-called female occupations. As women move into what have traditionally been male occupations, and assuming that they are paid the same as their male counterparts, the wage gap should begin to close.

    Thirdly, from the government’s point of view, when women are more fully employed and better paid, they are paying more taxes. They are contributing more to the economy, which in turn means that governments have more money and they can provide more social and economic benefits to all citizens.

    So what needs to be done?

    The federal government needs to be more proactive in encouraging women to pursue non-traditional jobs. I know that Canada’s economic action plan, for example, included an investment of $40 million a year in a new apprenticeship completion grant to encourage apprentices to complete their program. I think it's a good initiative, but when I went on the website and looked at the video, I saw almost no women in that video. My conclusion is either that the government isn’t interested in encouraging women in particular to pursue the trades through this program or that it doesn’t know much about marketing.

    Secondly, the federal government needs to be a model employer in both recruitment and workplace support—for example, in the Canadian Armed Forces, in the RCMP, in the federal institutions. It needs to implement very proactive workplace programs to prevent and punish workplace harassment. While labour and education are provincial jurisdictions, the federal government can set standards for diversity and add incentives for contractors doing business with the federal government.

    Thirdly, the federal government should offer and promote training in non-traditional fields through the employment insurance program, followed up with robust placement programs.

    The federal government should continue to support initiatives in the private and non-profit sector to encourage women to pursue non-traditional jobs. One example that I know was funded in the last fiscal year was a project by the Canadian Advanced Technology Alliance, Women in Technology, which received $400,000 to attract young women to consider a career in the technology sector. That kind of support needs to continue.

    It’s clear that there is not one thing that we can suggest that will result in more women going into non-traditional occupations. Rather, there needs to be a multi-pronged approach where government actively encourages and puts programs and supports in place to make it happen.

    But on the employer side, acceptance of women in non-traditional jobs is still an issue, as my colleague alluded to. There can be resistance from co-workers, some bad behaviours, escalating to the point of actual harassment in some cases. That needs to be stopped. The federal government needs to take an active role in educating the workforce, especially companies wanting to do business with the federal government, that this kind of behaviour is no longer acceptable.

    Employers must be encouraged to see the value of hiring more women in non-traditional jobs and maybe provided with incentives to do so. And women themselves must be encouraged, provided with incentives, have role models, and see success stories.

    We thank you again for the opportunity to be here today.

    Thank you very much, Ms. Calhoun. You actually have 30 seconds left, so there you go. Everyone has been really great in terms of their timing.

    Now we will begin our seven-minute question round. I'd like to explain this a little bit. Those seven minutes are for questions and answers. If you want to get a lot of questions in and a lot of response and interactivity, I think we would like to make sure that everybody gets to be as succinct as they can.

    I will begin this round with Michelle Simson, for seven minutes.

     Madam Chair, would it be acceptable if I ask the question and get all three to respond?

    You can do whatever you like, yes.

    Thank you very much.

    Thank you, everyone. I really appreciate your appearing before the committee as witnesses. I went on all three of your websites and you actually appear to be doing such wonderful work.

    Having done as much research as was possible, because this is a new committee for me, my one observation is that this is a rather complex issue. There have to be two strategies, one long term and one short term. In as succinct a way as you can, so I can get in some questions, for the short term, in addition to any funding that can be directed at trying to correct this inequity, what's your feeling in terms of state-driven intervention in terms of legislation to mandate that a certain criteria be met by companies in the short term for the workers we have now, the women who are graduating from university, say, or who are unemployed right now?

    If you permit, I will answer this question in French.

    We think that, in the short term, the Employment Equity Act and the Pay Equity Act need to be reinforced so that employers respect the rules and so that a women with the same skills as a man receives the same working conditions and pay. That is the short-term solution.

    At the same time, of course, I think these women need support outside their workplace. There again, reverse discrimination harms them more than it helps. Favouritism in the workplace will not solve anything. I really believe these women need support, a place where they can meet with other women in non-traditional jobs.

    Ms. Russell.

    I agree that it's a very complicated issue. I feel from the treatment I've been through this past week that there's a lot of overt and covert discrimination in both groups, and even at interviews people may find that they do not get hired simply because they are women. There seems to be a need to have to prove themselves. I spoke to one woman and she said she got tired of 20 years of having to prove that she could do the job as well as a guy. And I'm not sure how you legislate that.

    So you don't see that as just short-term strategy?

    For the short term, I think women need support, they need child care, they need places where they can go, they need mentors, that sort of thing.

    Okay, thank you.

    Ms. Calhoun.

    It definitely is a complicated issue. There's no doubt about that. We in the non-profits tend to be hampered by the fact that there's not a lot of research going on these days. For example, Status of Women used to fund research into these kinds of issues, and we haven't been seeing that as we did in the past. A lot of non-profit organizations, like BPW Canada, used to rely on that kind of research.

    Legislating in the short term...you're right that it's a complicated issue, which is why I said it really needs a multi-pronged approach. Better enforcement of the Employment Equity Act definitely would make a difference, I think, from an employer's point of view, and also from women's points of view. So I'm not convinced that coming in with new legislation in the short term would necessarily be the answer.

    It was touched on that educators could be part of the problem. I was reading a study that says in grades seven through twelve, in the maths and sciences, teachers were eight times more inclined to call on the boys in class than the girls. That gets very discouraging. Is there something we could introduce in our education system, not unlike civics classes, and get everyone exposed? We know gender stereotyping occurs very early in life. There are many things that impact that, not just education, but home life, cultural background. Is that something we could look at long term? I know it's not immediate, but there has to be a bit of a cultural change I think here.

    Right now, in Quebec, there is only one guidance counsellor for a school with approximately 2,000 students. Clearly, that is not enough to inform students of all their potential career choices. Another long-term strategy would be to diversify extracurricular options.

     I'm talking, though, about starting as early as public school, because I think the train's already off the track by the time you get into high school.

    Is that something that could work?

    Do you mean primary school?

    Yes, sorry.

    Primary school, okay. Thank you.

    I mean exposure, in terms of not getting into the gender stereotyping in the first place.

    I think that children are exposed to stereotypes from a young age, be it through the stories we tell them or the activities we encourage them to take part in. It goes back to day care, before they are even old enough for school. One corner is set up for girls and another is set up for boys. It starts in childhood. Activities should be diversified, and all distinctions between boys and girls should be eliminated.

    The time is up.

    I know if Ms. Russell or Ms. Calhoun wanted to give an answer to that question, perhaps when you get another question you might take the opportunity to put your two bits' worth in on this.

    The next person would be Mr. Desnoyers.

    Thank you very much, Ms. Fry.

    Welcome.

    What I am hearing today really makes me think. It seems that we are starting from a long time ago, that women have been taking up this fight for many years and that little progress has been made to improve women's access in school, university—in engineering, for example—or the workplace.

    We mentioned equity legislation earlier. As far as jobs go, it seems that certain legal aspects are not working. The government has equity legislation, but it is not enforced. I wonder about that.

    Do we have enough people to enforce this legislation? At the federal level, there was pay equity legislation. It used to be in force, but it no longer exists.

    I would also like to hear your opinion on wage gaps. Ms. Russell, I want to know whether women who gain access to jobs in engineering, specifically, stay in those jobs or whether family or other conditions cause them to leave those jobs. According to a study in the university setting, in your field specifically, there are not enough female professors. They make up only 14%, and, unfortunately, those who stay on permanently make up just 7%. Does that not have a major impact, especially in your field?

    I may also have questions for Ms. Calhoun later.

    From what I've heard, talking to young women, the crunch comes when they start a family. It's very difficult to juggle. A lot of them want to get ahead because it's a profession and a career. If they take time off, that really disadvantages them in the long run and they lose their career path.

    I really believe that pay equity is important. I hear from young women that, on questioning their peers, they find that X, X, and X have been hired at the same time for the same job for a different salary. I feel that is unconscionable. If they're doing the same job, they should be having the same salary. That finding rather surprised me.

    Evidence suggests that while stereotypes exist, no evidence exists that women are in fact inferior to men in these spheres. It's just the idea that they may be inferior. And that is a big, big battle for women, because they have to prove that they're as good and they have to prove it every time they go through a new job or go that route.

    Child care and pay equity are very important. The other thing I heard, particularly in the trades, is there's a lot of inappropriate innuendo and joshing and outright abuse that goes on in the workplace--not so much in the professions, but I heard it goes on a lot in the trades. That should be more readily reportable and totally unacceptable, because women should not have to be harassed just because they're earning a salary.

    Ms. Guay, I listened to what you said, and I understand that your round table seems to be an important tool. I would like you to elaborate a bit more on your position on that table.

    I cannot give you up-to-date statistics on pay. But what we have seen is that, for a given position, the duties are separated between men and women, and the less important duties are given to women, which justifies the fact that they are paid less than the men.

    What else can I tell you?

    Do you have a more general recommendation you can give us? You have told us a lot about day care centres, pay equity and employment equity, but is there something else that would further help women gain access to jobs? Does that also apply to the university setting?

    I think employers need information. Prejudice comes from a lack of understanding of female-male work teams. Something can be done on that end, as well.

    Ms. Calhoun, do you have anything to add?

     I certainly agree with Mr. Desnoyers' comment about the equity being lost. I don't think we're prepared to say it's lost, but we're certainly going backwards on the equity in this country.

    Sexual gender stereotyping starts very early, of course, and it's very ingrained, but it's helped along by the things we do every day. I'll just give you an example. I work a lot with the community college system, and I've done a lot of research on IT. Every time I go on their websites--and this morning is an example--I open my paper and there's an ad for a community college program on sheet metal fabrication that is starting. The picture in the ad shows a man--and I don't think we should underestimate that. I went on it because we're addressing federal politicians.

    I went on the armed forces website. It says “Wanted”, and there's a list of six different occupations, including air traffic controller, aircraft technician, and mechanic. I looked at each of those videos. One out of six was narrated by a woman, and there were very few female faces in those pictures. I don't know about you, but I think that's very important. I know the armed forces have been trying to recruit women, because they've been a sponsor at our national biennial convention the last two times. If I'm a young woman making a career choice and I look at those videos, they tell me that those occupations are really still male occupations.

    So from the federal government's point of view, one thing we need to do is have more of a lens. If we're serious about getting women into these occupations, we need to make an effort. We need to show women's faces.

    Thank you very much, Ms. Calhoun.

    The next person is Ms. Wong.

    Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks very much to all of you for coming.

    I just want to give you a little background on where I came from. I used to work for a polytechnical university, where we trained a lot of students going into different trades and a combination of management and trades. So some of the questions will probably be related to my past experience.

     I don't know whether my question is addressed to Ms. Russell, but there's also a common trend now for university graduates, especially from the sciences and arts. Because of the job situation, they want to go to technical institutes for an extra six months or twelve months of training to go into trades.

    Are you aware of this trend, Ms. Russell, and that there are more jobs available in the non-traditional areas like trades and blue collar jobs, rather than white collar jobs?

    That's my impression. I have a son, not a daughter, who went into nursing after doing chemistry simply because of that. I'm quite sure that works for girls too. There are more opportunities, but the workplace has to be right because the dropout rate is frightening. The job atmosphere is not that favourable to women, from what I understand.

     Yes. In other words, as I agreed, I think this is a complex issue, but I think the government has done quite a bit in encouraging that generally. For example, it was mentioned earlier by one of our witnesses that there now are grants for apprenticeships. Also, if they complete their red seal, they'll probably have more money coming in to help them buy tools. The same thing would probably apply to men and women.

    I also fully agree with the fact that we have to start educating the parents and the younger generations. Little girls really should start looking at those options as well, even in primary school.

     Am I right to say that we need different partners working together--not just the federal government--in trying to raise awareness?

    I'm also aware of stereotyping. I would also take this opportunity to ask for the need for doing another study on how women are portrayed in different trades, and by the media as well. In other words, it's not just in government ads and company ads, but in the whole media portrayal of white collar jobs and jobs for women. Maybe this is something we can work on down the road.

    What are some of the challenges and solutions in addition to what you just said, Ms. Russell?

    In the skilled trades?

    Yes. That's for any of the three of you, but Ms. Russell, you can start.

    I read some notes about that. I'm just going to look at what I have.

    What I have here is that they've found gender discrimination in promotion and job assignments, which you referred to, and in performance reviews and recognition for a job well done. Another challenge was, in some cases, inappropriate facilities and equipment, i.e. not enough washrooms or appropriate washrooms for women. Other issues were overt sexual and gender harassment; lack of employment equity procedures; non-supportive attitudes for women entering this particular workplace; inflexibility about work assignments, and that would be shift work, I would think; lack of child care; and lack of an ability to arrange dependant care.

    It's clearly not just a government issue. I think it's everybody's. It's the education. It's home. It's schools. It's a really complicated and interwoven issue.

    Yes.

    I also know of a model whereby students or young people go into trades in the early years but then have the option of becoming a business owner in that trade. I can see that women probably would feel more comfortable in that role. They start by going through the trade, they do it well, and then later on they can actually own and manage their own business in that specific trade. Do you think this might be a model that universities and colleges should follow? It was happening in B.C.

    For women to go into business...?

    Yes, after the trade. They learn the skills of the trade and then they can see the future. A lot of women would not like to go into a trade because they see it as a dead end, but what if there were a combination? There are degrees now.... For example, at Kwantlen Polytechnic University they can do the first two years in a trade and then move on to entrepreneurship. They can start with the trade first, so they know the trade, they're there, and they know the challenges. Once they become business owners, they will solve the challenges and questions you've just raised. Would that be a feasible model to follow in other parts of our nation?

    It might be attractive.

    What do other witnesses think?

    What about the other two witnesses? Do you think this might be something to help encourage parents to see that there is a prospect of becoming management, of managing your own businesses after that?

    Sue, please.

     I think it's an interesting model of one of the challenges that women face going into trades. When you go into a trade, there are periods when you're an apprentice and you need to find an employer. That can be a challenge, because some employers are still not prepared to hire a woman as an apprentice welder or in some of those typically male jobs.

    But I think it's definitely an interesting model for women who can make it through the trade and come out the other end.

    I think there's a lot of research missing regarding the career path or trajectory of a woman who goes into trades and gets her trade, becomes an electrician or becomes a plumber. When you try to find her in the workforce five years later, she's not there. There's very little research being done to look at what's actually happening to those women. I would suspect it's the difficulties in the workplace, not only the harassment that she might face but a lot of the other things that Susan has mentioned already, such as being required to work shift work or to work early in the morning when the day care centre isn't open.

    Regarding your earlier comment about university graduates then going back to community college, as I say, in my work life I do a lot of work with the community college system. That is happening to some extent.

    I think as well that the IT sector is changing. Everyone has this image that if you go into computer science, you come out the other end a geek, and you sit in a room and program for eight hours a day and you don't talk to anybody. That's the image IT has had for a very long time, which is why women who go into it tend not to last, because it isn't necessarily appealing as something they want to do.

    I think IT is changing in the sense, as I said in my statement, that there's a recognition that people who have IT skills also need to be able to communicate with people who don't, like employers and businesses--

    Ms. Calhoun, I'm sorry to interrupt, but could you wrap it up, please? We've now gone two minutes over time on this round. That's okay; finish your sentence.

    So I think the IT sector, for example, is changing to the extent that women are starting to come in a bit more, but there's still a long way to go.

    Thank you.

    We now go to Ms. Mathyssen.

    Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank all of the presenters here today. I think you've given us a great deal to think about and have certainly identified some significant problems. I hope you'll all feel free to respond to my questions.

    I wanted to start with Ms. Calhoun. I thought I very clearly heard you say that despite these apprenticeship programs and the $40 million that was invested, women are still not taking up the offer. It seems to me I saw a statistic that only 2% of the applicants were indeed women.

    We talked a bit about child care and the fact that the lack of child care is a problem in regard to women taking up these opportunities. I'm wondering what you think about a more flexible kind of child care. One of the things my colleagues and I have been proposing is a more comprehensive and flexible national child care system so that you don't have the situation that the facility opens at 9 a.m. and it closes at 4 p.m., thus precluding a lot of women. Is that a possibility?

    Second, I wanted to pursue what Ms. Wong was saying regarding the fact that women could take up trades and could become trained and then go into business for themselves. It would seem to me that in order to go into business, you would have to have access to capital. Are there prejudices and problems when it comes to women who wish to be involved in their own business being able to access capital?

     Thank you very much for your questions.

    I think in response to your first one, a national child care system that was more flexible.... I think at this point we would be happy with a national child care system that functioned from 9 to 5. Obviously we don't have that in this country, but if we had one, that would be terrific.

    You're absolutely right. We need to have a more flexible system where the child care facility opens at 7 in the morning or stays open until 7 at night, for women to be doing these jobs where they are actually working shift work. So absolutely, that's definitely a possibility.

    In answer to the second question, I haven't looked at the statistics lately in terms of access to capital for women business owners. I know that in the past it was definitely a challenge for women to get access to capital to start businesses. I think the environment has changed a bit around that, but what I don't know is, if I'm a welder and I want to start my own welding company, will the bank or Community Futures think I can actually do it--because I'm a woman and I'm a welder. I think that would be a good area to research.

    I'd like to go back to your first comment. I had mentioned in my statement Canada's economic action plan and this investment of $40 million per year in a new apprenticeship completion grant, where the idea is to encourage people to finish their programs and get their red seals. When I looked at the website, I tried to find something that said that women are being encouraged to access this as well, or that non-traditional trades areas are a good thing for women, or something that would make me think the government really wants women to have some take-up in this program. I couldn't find anything.

    If the government really thinks that non-traditional jobs should be more accessible for women, then we need to be proactive. It's like the picture in the paper, right? We need to show the women's faces. We need to say something that convinces women they might actually receive one of these grants.

    I think there's a lens missing. If we're serious and we want to do it, we need a lens where we say skilled trades, IT, and all the other traditionally male jobs.... What's the lens that's going to help women get into those?

    So there's a gender-based analysis lens missing from policy and these processes, and we need to pursue that.

    Thank you for that clarification.

    Two minutes? Oh, dear. I'll ask a quick question then.

    Ms. Calhoun made reference to the fact that the research function of Status of Women Canada is missing. The dollars for research have been cut, and that creates a problem for new, immediate research into resolving the challenges women are facing. I wonder if you would all comment on that--in less than two minutes.

    I think the challenges are similar to those that existed a few years ago. In fact, in Laval, the status of women in non-traditional jobs is about the same as it was in 2000. There has been very little progress, and, in certain fields, the opposite has happened. There are even fewer women enrolling in training programs, and women are not staying in the trades.

    In addition, in terms of female entrepreneurs, there is the matter of capital. Female entrepreneurship is different from male entrepreneurship. Women are often more cautious and will hesitate longer before starting a business. They do not tend to take risks. There is also the impact on their families. For example, a women who has been married for 20 years and who has worked at home—raising kids for the past five years—tells her husband that she wants to start a business. Her plan may not be welcomed with open arms. That is a reality we are seeing.

     We have one minute left, so I'm sorry, we'll have to move on.

    We're into the second round, a five-minute round that again includes questions and answers. We'll begin with Ms. Neville.

    Thank you.

    I too want to thank you for being here today. I have lots of questions, but to begin, I'm just going to pursue two lines of questioning.

    It is, as we're listening here, a very complicated matter and there are many layers of issues. But there seem to be a number of systemic barriers for women's success in non-traditional trades, and there are two on which I want to focus.

    I think it was you, Ms. Guay, who said that a number of men refused to hire women in work teams, in work situations, because of bias, prejudice, and failure to follow through, because they believe women won't stay with the job because of the challenges of families, child care, and whatever. My colleague talked about the lack of flexible child care, let alone any child care for many, and having to pay a dollar a minute when you're late for your child. Is that part of the challenge to all of you?

    In terms of my other line of questioning, two of you raised the issue of punishment for harassment in the workplace, that there must be a way of dealing with it through some kind of punitive action. Some years ago I managed a program of women in non-traditional trades, and the stories of harassment were horrendous. I'll always remember an electrical apprentice coming into the office crying because of the acronym that was used to match different wires, colour-code the wires to the instrument, and it was pretty vulgar. That was just one manifestation of the harassment in that workplace.

    So I see the family challenges and the harassment challenges as two really significant barriers for women's success in this area, and I'd like any one of the three of you to comment on it.

    In terms of work-life balance, women who already have children often will not consider a non-traditional job so they can have time for their family and children. But, when it comes to women who are already in non-traditional jobs, if they ever leave the job for good, it is due to a buildup of all the little pitfalls along the way. One is okay, but when something happens every day, eventually, the women cannot take it any more.

    That is why I said that a support service was essential for them, until more permanent solutions are found. I am aware that it is only a temporary solution.

    Does anybody else wish to respond—Ms. Russell or Ms. Calhoun?

    I'm interested in your comments about punishing I'm not sure who and how, but punishing for harassment in the workplace.

    Ms. Calhoun.

    In terms of punishing, for a lot of employers, especially the larger employers and the ones who do business with the federal government, there are already systems in place for misbehaviour on the work site. First you get the verbal warning, then you get the first written warning, then the second written warning, and then on the third warning you get suspended, or that kind of thing. That exists within a lot of workplaces in Canada.

    I think the problem is that we still have a culture in a lot of workplaces, especially workplaces that are traditionally male, that making these kinds of comments is okay. I think it's going to be a matter of trying to change that culture. I don't know how that happens, but with the system in place already, if employers, for example, thought or were told that they were no longer to accept this kind of harassment of women because they are in non-traditional jobs, if employers started to be more diligent about cracking down on those kinds of things, there's no doubt about it that it's a major cultural change, especially for a lot of work sites.

    I'm sorry, Anita, that's it.

    Lois Brown.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I would like to say I meet regularly with the university women's organization in Aurora and we have some wonderful conversations.

    Just to put on the record, Madam Chair, I do believe that many of these things that we've been discussing here today do fall under provincial legislation. In Ontario we have the Employment Standards Act, and it is enforced by the Ontario legislation.

    However, I just want to say, by way of background, that when I was in secondary school, I was in an academic program but had the opportunity to choose from the technical programs that were available because of the credit system. I chose mechanical and architectural drafting. When I was pursuing my music degree--and I'm a classically trained pianist--I worked in an engineering office as a draftsman or draftsperson and I was responsible for architectural, civil, and industrial design work. I had the opportunity to participate in survey crews as part of my responsibilities to the civil work that I did. Obviously all of that has met with constructive destruction, as they say. It's now done by a CAD system, and I see many women who are pursuing that.

    I went back and did business and economics later on, and I am the proud owner of a business now that does disability management for corporations. I worked in construction fields all the time, meeting with injured employees and helping them back into the workplace.

    But what we've also seen over the past number of years is an incredible number of women.... I speak to the enormous number of very competent women in Newmarket--Aurora who are business owners. I'd just like to read this into the record:

    It goes on to give the stats.

    So it seems to me that we need to be not only addressing the issues of employment and how we see women in non-traditional jobs, but also that many women are moving into non-traditional positions in owning their own businesses. So we have a multi-pronged problem. We need multi-pronged responses to it. So if we say that we want to encourage women into the trades.... And right now, we have a demographic problem. If you look at the average age of people who are in the drywall industry, they are 57 years of age. The average plumber right now in Ontario is 53 years of age. So we're coming up against some significant barriers, and we need to be encouraging people to go into these jobs, male or female.

    But if we're looking at women going into these businesses.... And they are going into business for themselves because that's where they're going to earn significant dollars, being self-employed and having control of their own futures. How do we put things in place that are going to be of assistance to them? Do you believe that the things we're starting to do in legislation...? For instance, we've passed the Fairness for the Self-Employed Act, where women can now access EI benefits if they choose.

    I went through the process in business. I had small children. I had a disabled mother-in-law. All of these are barriers for women. They have these things that they have to do.

    How do you see these pieces of legislation assisting women who are going into business for themselves because they see that as a very positive and very productive future?

    First, I don't see women going straight into business from university or training college. I see that happening after a period of being in the workforce.

    We were talking about harassment in the workforce and some provinces--I think Ontario is one and Manitoba and Quebec are others--have anti-harassment legislation. This is not a federal jurisdiction; it's a provincial jurisdiction. That needs to be enforced. I'm not quite sure how it works, but it's really important legislation. I think women will benefit from that.

    Access to loans for women going into business is important. I find that it can be difficult for women to get a loan. If there's microcredit, if there's assistance, I'm quite sure some women would take advantage of that.

    Women are very competent managers, but they do need that initial period of time when they're in the workforce and get that experience before they can go into business. They just don't go straight there.

     Thank you. The time is up.

    I'm going to move on to Ms. Brunelle.

    Good afternoon, ladies. It is a pleasure to meet you.

    Ms. Calhoun, you said something I found interesting. You said that you own your own business. I was wondering whether it is a business in a traditional field or not. And perhaps we can get some opinions on this, because we are well aware of the difficulties.

    What makes you successful in your field, especially if it is a non-traditional one?

    So I'm brilliant.

    Like all women, Ms. Calhoun.

    In response to the previous speaker, in 2003 there was a task force report on women entrepreneurs. At that time there were almost a million women entrepreneurs in Canada. They were creating businesses at twice the rate of men. So I think we need to be careful. We're not suggesting that there are not many, many very competent women doing very interesting things. Shortly after that, in 2005, my own company surveyed 500 women business owners in Atlantic Canada for ACOA, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. That was to establish the baseline data for the women in business initiative. We went into that study assuming that we would find women in certain categories, certain fields. Retail was an example. A lot of people had the idea that women businesses were all in retail. We were surprised to find a diversity. There was a wide range of different areas of endeavour that women had started businesses in.

     This new legislation came into effect in January so that self-employed women can access maternity parental benefits as well as passionate care and sickness benefits. This is something we have asked for, for a long time. We're happy to see it. We like the choice part of it because we're not sure a lot of our members will do take-up on it, but some members definitely will.

    I agree with the previous speaker.... I'm sorry, I didn't get your name.

     There are a lot of very competent women who are working in other fields. To go back to that, it is a multi-pronged approach that is needed. We can go back to the way boys and girls are raised. If you look at the newspapers and the websites around us, you see who is working in the skilled trades. Until we get some more women's faces in there...that area is changing more slowly.

    You know, we can see that networking is important, at least based on my experience as a manager. In politics, a woman's network is important. That is one of the big secrets that men have with their boys' clubs, where university classmates, for example, successfully organize themselves. That is something that women are really lacking. I see that you have a businesswomen's club, so I think it must be the same principle.

    But I would like to ask you another question. You mentioned working on an EI program for non-traditional jobs. What exactly do you mean by that? Does it mean giving grants to employers who hire women to work in non-traditional jobs? Is that what it is?

     I used the example in my statement. There are two new initiatives that the federal government has started for EI. They're called the extended employment insurance and training incentive and the severance investment for training initiative. Both of those are geared towards people who have been employed long term, who have been laid off, who have collected EI very little in the past decade. They can be on EI to go back to train for a new career. Again, when I went on that site and looked around--I'm assuming, for example, that a woman who was laid off from a secretarial job, after being there 10 years and not collecting EI, could potentially access EI to go back and take training to be a carpenter. I don't know that by looking at the website.

    It comes back again to what I said earlier about having that gender lens. There's already a program for self-employment. If you get laid off, you can start your own business and be on EI. But there's nothing on this website that suggests to me that women going back for training in non-traditional areas would be a good thing to do.

     Irene Mathyssen.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I want to go back to the issue of mentorship. Madame Guay talked about winning options and the success in the kinds of things that program did. I would ask all three, if you were creating a mentorship program, something you felt had real substance and would really be helpful for women, what would the mentorship program that you create look like?

    If I may, our Option gagnante program was very successful in allowing women to try out trades. I say “was” because we were not able to get more funding. Unfortunately, the program ended. The results were excellent. Women left with a good idea of the trade they wanted to work in and what was really involved.

    Why was the program terminated?

    There was no more money.

    From?

    From Emploi-Québec. That was provincial.

    Would some federal funding be helpful?

    Yes, of course, more funding would make it easy to get the program going again.

    I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cut off any others who wished to respond.

    In my opening statement I mentioned an example of a program that was funded in the past fiscal year, a women in technology program whereby they received money to attract young women to consider a career in the technology sector. I don't know enough about that program to know if it included a mentorship aspect. I would assume that it did because mentorship is so important, especially for younger women wanting to go into non-traditional jobs. It's really critical that they have access to those mentorship programs.

    We also need to mention that there is a need for mentorship in the professional areas of engineering and those sorts of areas. Women are dropping out in large numbers. My niece, for example, did electrical engineering and never went any further. Another young woman did architecture and never went any further. It is an awful waste of education for that to happen--good brains are being wasted. Perhaps if something was provided to universities so they could call back to their professors--women tend to lack networks when they are in non-traditional professions, and networks could help with the mentorship issue.

    Of course, the key is getting more women into both apprenticeship trades and non-traditional professions, but I think that is really important, and I have a feeling that we need more up-to-date research on the subject as to what is really happening in Canada. We did a women in university study in 1992 and my colleagues flatly told me that was out of date, and it is. We need more research. I'm not quite sure how to go about it, perhaps having mentors within the workplace itself and a woman-friendly atmosphere.

    Another profession equal numbers of women are going into is law, but it's not a friendly place to be for a woman.

    You have 30 seconds.

    We appreciate your comment with regard to research. We do indeed need research so that we can crack what has been characterized as a very complicated problem.

    It is interesting that you mentioned women going into law and not staying there. We had a witness last February, Gwendolyn Landolt, who said that women are going into professions like teaching and the service industry because it suits them better. They just prefer to be there, rather than it not being a choice they would make if they had more options. I wonder if you have a take on that.

     Sorry, the take cannot occur because the time is up.

    Ms. Boucher.

    Good afternoon, and welcome everyone. This is quite interesting. After listening to everyone's comments, I noticed that it often comes back to our image of women. The image that we project of women, whether at the federal, provincial or municipal level or in society, does not include non-traditional jobs at all or rarely. I have two daughters, 21 and 22 years old. When they talk about career choices at school, women are never encouraged to go into construction or electricity, for example. The image that is projected is never one of a strong woman.

    There are women with leadership skills, a number of them are at this table. I think that, in order to disabuse us of our notion of where women belong, we also have to talk about the image that society projects. It is not just an issue that concerns governments or governance. Governments have to play a role, but society also has to convey the idea that women are just as strong as men, if not more so. For that reason, I wanted to thank you.

    Ms. Guay, I have here the paths taken by the group of Laval women, and I looked at it very carefully. I find it very interesting. I hope that you will be able to renew the program. It is from 2006-2007. I know you received funding, and I hope you will be able to run it again.

    We also talked about mentorship. In every province, projects were funded through the Women's Community Fund, a Status of Women program where every person or group can set up and carry out a project. Nova Scotia has the Tools for the Trade: Promoting Economic Security for Women in Cape Breton project, Quebec has the Pour que les femmes continuent d'avancer project, New Brunswick has the Power Up! Mentoring project and Manitoba has the Cultivating Holistic Community Leadership project. These are the kinds of initiatives we need to continue. We often talk about large organizations, but, in many cases, small organizations also need our help, and we are here to help them.

    I have a question for everyone, but especially Ms. Guay.

    I requested a study, which will be available later. I want to know to what extent you think the image that the media projects of women affects society and our children.

    I will give you a very simple example. At the Olympic games, when the Canadian women's hockey team won, the media made a big fuss. So the public started to think that it was scandalous. I really think the media have a role to play in this.

    It is important to promote the fact that women have their place and are not taking the place of others, but their own. Parties, be they federal or provincial, or even society, could all work together to change this image and make it so that our kids and grandkids could work in non-traditional jobs. They may have been reserved for men to date, but some education is needed.

    It is a long journey, but given all the progress that women have made in recent years, I think we can get there.

    Ms. Russell, what do you think about the image issue?

     Most of what I was talking about was on the stereotype. It's not the reality. It's what people think and what the girl starts to think, because she internalizes what other people think. She then starts to think that she can't, while the reality is that she could.

    I believe it has to start early. It has to start in the family and in school. It has to start at home. It then has to start with the teachers.

     The images in the media sometimes puzzle me. Right now, little girls are princesses. It really disturbs me, because I'm not sure that princesses do carpentry. I find it a little disturbing. I don't think it's what we really want for our little girls.

    Would you support a study on the image of women projected by the media so as to change society's image of us?

    I'm sorry, we're now a minute over. We'll have to end it.

     I want to thank those of you who came: Susan Russell, Jacinthe Guay, and of course both Ms. Hull and Ms. Calhoun, thank you very much. You gave extraordinarily important input into this committee and covered a lot of ground. I want to thank you very much for being here. Thank you for your presence.

    In the meantime, we have bells at 5:15 for votes at 5:30. The vote is down the hall.

    We have some important things to do, and I would ask that we move in camera. I will suspend for a minute so that the witnesses can leave and we can prepare to go in camera. We can try to get some quick and dirty work done after that.

    [Proceedings continue in camera]