SCYR Committee Meeting

SUB-COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN AND YOUTH AT RISK OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND THE STATUS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

SOUS-COMITÉ SUR LES ENFANTS ET JEUNES À RISQUE DU COMITÉ PERMANENT DES RESOURCES HUMAINES ET DE LA CONDITION DES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, March 29, 2000

• 1540

[English]

The Chair (Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.)): In our usual fashion, we're going to expect that other members will join us on this crowded Wednesday afternoon.

I'm not going to take much time with the opening statement, which is simply to remind members that we are....

[Translation]

We are pursuing two streams of research: one on family life or work and personal life, and the other on the role of communities in providing services to improve the lives of children and families.

[English]

I'm going to ask our witness to come to the table. Judith MacBride-King comes to us from the Conference Board of Canada and is really addressing the first issue, which is how we can best understand this question of improving working conditions for families and how the federal government can do it within its own shop, as we promised in the Speech from the Throne, and how we can also help those in the private sector and across Canada to do a better job.

So we are delighted that you're here. We hope others will join us, but now that we're officially underway, we can have a proper transcript and a proper meeting.

We welcome you, Judith MacBride-King.

Ms. Judith MacBride-King (Associate Director, Research, Centre for Management Effectiveness, Conference Board of Canada): Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.

Shall I proceed then?

The Chair: Absolutely.

Ms. Judith MacBride-King: Good. Again, it's an honour for me to appear before the subcommittee and speak about what I consider to be a very important topic, and that is the work-life challenges of Canadians.

We at the Conference Board, just as a matter of introduction, have been focusing on this issue for well over a decade, and I believe you have copies of the slides I'm presenting today.

In fact, when we launched our work-life research in the late eighties, we were the first organization to carry out such research on a national scale.

In 1991 we created a network of executives and managers in 25 or 30 organizations across the country and across sectors who meet periodically to discuss these issues, to discuss work-life issues, the challenges they face in their organizations, and to seek innovative solutions. That group is still in existence today.

Over the years, of course, we've held special workshops and seminars on work-life, and it's part of our role really to bring together various stakeholders in the public and private sectors and across communities and labour groups to sit and explore and look at these sorts of issues. All of this is to say that we aren't newcomers to this issue.

Permit me also to say that we began our work in this area, and we continue on it, for one important reason; we believe that in order for organizations to be successful, and consequently for our citizens and our economy to be healthy, we need to focus on the human side of organizations. We need to pay attention to the people issues within our institutions.

Certainly more recently, academic research and company studies in both Canada and the U.S. have clearly demonstrated a quantifiable link between employee satisfaction, customer satisfaction and loyalty, and the bottom line. All of this is to say that attending to people makes good business sense.

In that context then the question remains: what factors contribute to employee satisfaction or to workforce commitment? Recent research has demonstrated that while compensation, advancement opportunities, recognition, and a strong learning environment are important to Canadian workers, particularly youth, the factor that correlates most strongly with workforce commitment and employee satisfaction is recognizing and acting on the work-life needs of workers. In fact, a recent study from Aon Consulting has supported that as well. It is important then to recognize and act on the work-life needs of workers.

We also know through our work in the Conference Board with students and people in hard-to-fill positions that they look to their employers or potential employers to be savvy about these issues and to be responsive to the life-stage needs of employees.

Young people today, perhaps because they saw their parents work harder and harder with no guarantee of stable employment, want, they told us, both a rewarding job or career and a life.

One year ago we replicated to the best of our ability the study we had undertaken a decade ago. That is, we surveyed both Canadian workers and Canadian employers about this issue, about the challenges faced and the potential solutions.

It's to this study I want to speak to you today, and in in this context my plan is, in the short time I have with you, to provide some key messages out of our research then and now. I hope through the context of the presentation to provide you, through all of that data we've collected over a decade, with some thoughts and ideas about where you as a committee may wish to focus in the future—certainly where employers should be focusing in the future.

• 1545

First, ten years ago, one in five Canadians told us they were experiencing significant difficulty balancing their various roles at work and at home. Today, that number, as you can see, is one in four. Those reporting experiencing a very difficult time juggling both their work responsibilities and their personal responsibilities has doubled. As a consequence, stress rates are up. This slide clearly shows you that the proportion of those reporting significant stress levels, a lot or a moderate degree of stress, has risen dramatically from 27% ten years ago to almost 50% today. Again, this is in keeping, if you've been watching our local newspapers in Ottawa, with recent studies coming out on this important issue.

In our research, as it was a decade ago, parents, especially parents with younger children, lone parents, women, and those in the sandwich generation, were most likely to report high degrees of difficulty and more significant levels of stress. When they're having difficulty, Canadian workers were more likely, as you can see here, to tell us they don't have enough time for themselves; they're more likely to say they're feeling anxious or stressed; they're more likely to say their sleep suffers and their health is impacted.

Of concern to employers other than this—which ought to be—is that in terms of job satisfaction, when people are feeling the pinch, when they're feeling squeezed and trying to do it all, do well on the job, at home, and in their communities, job satisfaction suffers. Moreover, I suspect that many of those who are feeling pressure on the home front and at work may feel dissatisfied with many other aspects of their lives.

I want to take a moment, if I might, to speak about the sandwich generation. By the way, that's a term we're all familiar with now, but a decade ago it was not a common term. As we all know, these are Canadians who provide some form of care for an elderly or infirm family member while they still have children at home. Their numbers, by the way, have grown from about 9.5% in our survey a decade ago to 15% today. I expect, given the aging of our population and the age of mothers at first birth, that this population, the sandwich generation, will only grow.

People in this situation, in the sandwich between providing care for children and providing support to elderly or infirm family members, are particularly susceptible to stress, and they report greater difficulty balancing their various roles. Elder care, whether done while children are at home or once they have left, will grow. Ten years ago, about 16% of those we surveyed said they'd had these responsibilities—16%—and now that number is up to 23%. This is a serious issue. Given some of the changes to our health care system, for example, early discharges from hospital and a growing reliance on community and home care, more and more Canadians will be called upon to provide rather intensive care in the home. Almost 25% of those we surveyed with elder care responsibilities told us they're currently providing very significant or intensive care. They dress, feed, and bathe those in their care on a daily basis. These additional responsibilities affect individuals and families, and children in those families, and of course from our perspective they affect workplaces.

So whose responsibility is it to solve the child care and elder care issues of Canadian workers? According to those we surveyed, most Canadians agree that they have primary responsibility to manage their own lives, but a majority also agree that their employers and their governments have important roles to play. They were, however, less likely to look to their unions for support.

While workplace support and recognition of the work-life challenges of workers was important to Canadians, four in ten actually told us they felt their “employers weren't doing enough” to help employees balance their responsibilities.

What then? What form should this support take? When we asked respondents what their employers could do to help them find a more comfortable fit, they told us that flexibility matters. They're looking for greater flexibility in work options, in hours of work and leave policies, and some recognition of their work-life responsibilities. They tell us they could use more help vis-à-vis child care, especially in finding affordable quality child care spots either on the work site or near the work site. Access to quality spaces remains a key concern for working parents. This is in line, obviously, with the recent report released in Canada where it was found that finding and paying for licensed child care remains a key issue for Canadian parents.

Canadian workers told us that having managers and their organizations merely being sensitive to their family realities—being compassionate, being understanding—would be of great help to them. The latter point really is important, because what's the sense of having all of these sorts of benefits and opportunities if the culture of the workplace is such that to use them, to access them, is to appear to be somewhat of a corporate weakling, uncommitted to the job?

• 1550

In our study, almost two-thirds of Canadians indicated that they're expected to leave their personal problems at the door. This isn't good news, and it indicates that organizations still have a long way to go in changing their cultures. Changing the mindset and culture in organizations, from the top of the house to the bottom, remains a major challenge for employers, even those who may, on paper, have a number of policies and benefits to support the work-life needs of workers.

Increasing workloads is also a factor. We asked Canadians why things had become more difficult for them in managing their various roles. Workload, more tasks, and fewer resources were reflected in three of the top four reasons mentioned. So again, this is a key issue.

In terms of the organizational response, in the late summer of 1999 we undertook a survey tapping into employers' responses to these issues and we compared our data to that of ten years ago. This survey was in fact a full replication of our work a decade ago, and the story has a good news side and a bad news side.

First, the good news: our analysis of the data from employers—from over 200 across the country, at any rate, and across sectors—suggests that there has been movement in areas such as child care, elder care, employee assistance programs, stress management, wellness programs, and certainly in terms of flexible working hours and work-at-home arrangements.

On the other hand, very few organizations are focusing on the work side of work-life equation. Finding ways to deal with workload issues and ridding the organization of re-work or non-value-added work, for example, is important in this context. Focusing on changing the culture and building the support and accountability structures to ensure that managers have the knowledge, the tools, and the resources they need to deal with these issues is also important.

We've learned through our research and that of others that the relationship between the worker and the manager is key in terms of job satisfaction and in terms of finding a comfortable work-life fit. Managers are the purveyors of corporate culture, the translators of corporate culture, and they are the gatekeepers to these various initiatives. We've also learned in our work that when individuals leave organizations they actually are often leaving their managers, not the organization, because the managers are not supportive of their needs.

To conclude, I believe that while we're seeing some movement in some organizations, much more needs to be done. Too few organizations are really taking this issue seriously. Too few understand the impacts of not responding to the work-life needs of Canadians.

In organizations, some of the impacts of not responding are higher absenteeism, reduced productivity, and lower morale. Employers tell us that in the data from them and so do workers in our survey.

For families and children, the impact of not responding means that more families are stretched. Parents and caregivers to the elderly are feeling pulled in many directions and are feeling that they're not doing a good job in either sphere. The children, the next generation of workers, feel the impacts of an imbalance in their parents' lives. While I'm not a child psychologist, I can only assume they do. I did—no, scratch that from the record.

In terms of the role of government, what can government do to help? There are several roles, I think, that one could look at. For example, I believe there's a lot we don't know about the issues facing the sandwich generation and the impact of caregiving on Canadians and on their families. Frankly, as a nation, we haven't done a lot of thinking about the aging of the population and its implications for the state, for the family, and for employers. Research and dialogue is important in this context and I believe government could support that.

I also believe government could act as a facilitator of change. More could be done to educate employers about this issue and to encourage them to act, to help them learn about various options out there—what other employers are doing, what's worked, what hasn't worked—to help them get started, and to help them change. As an employer, government can act as a role model, modelling the behaviours, the programs, the policies, and so on that are necessary to support today's more diverse workforce. Particularly in looking at some of the data coming out of the survey of the public service, there are opportunities there as well.

So those are only a few of my insights into this matter. That said, we do know that Canadians see their government as playing a significant role in ensuring the health and safety of themselves, their children, their parents, and others.

• 1555

That concludes my formal remarks. I look forward very much to having a discussion with you and to answering any questions you may have.

The Chair: The hands have started to go up. I saw Libby Davies first, then Madam Folco.

[Translation]

I know, Ms. St-Jacques, that you are a little pressed for time.

Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Unfortunately, I have to leave.

The Chair: Fine. Libby.

[English]

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Thank you, John.

First of all, thank you to our guests for being here today, and sorry we were a bit late.

I think your information and your research is very interesting. In my mind, there's just absolutely no doubt that the so-called sandwich generation, or families generally, are facing greater stress in trying to balance family and work, in trying to find the right balance. I think it's just creating a huge amount of stress in people's lives.

I have a couple of observations. One, I noticed that in your slides you actually don't deal with it on the basis of gender. I would wager that every woman in this room would have a million stories to tell of how this primarily—not exclusively but primarily—affects women. I just wonder if you actually did break it down by gender in your survey. The results are very interesting, but I'll bet that the coping, the stress levels, the difficulty levels, all of those things you've looked at, are much higher for women—

Ms. Judith MacBride-King: Accelerated—

Ms. Libby Davies: —and I think that's a really serious problem. As women we want to pursue equality, right? We want to see women have opportunities in the workforce, to get the promotions, to have the responsibility, and we know that the capability is there, but if the support mechanisms.... I could say that even for members of Parliament this is an issue.

An hon. member: Top place—

Ms. Libby Davies: Okay, we'll put ourselves somewhere near the top of the list. I know women members of Parliament who have little kids and who go through terrible difficulties trying to get back home. And there are the stresses of being an MP; you have to be in the riding and you have be in Ottawa. But every workplace has stresses. I'd be interested in your observations on that, based on gender.

The other thing I want to say is that I'm working with a group in my riding—in Vancouver—and a consultant who actually works for the B.C. Children's Hospital and is working with a group of parents who have sick kids, kids who have cancer, kids who require prolonged treatment and have to be away from home. Again, the issues there are.... And the same argument could be made for elder care, right? You have parents who are in hospital or who are in and out, taking chemotherapy, whatever. When you look at what is actually available through collective agreements, through government policy, through EI, or through parental leave, it's just minuscule.

I am interested in whatever observations you have in terms of kinds of public policy. We have this announcement about parental leave, but it seems to me that it needs to be hugely expanded in order to really have an impact and to say, yes, we believe in equality, but we also are going to have the support mechanisms and, as you say, the understanding in the workplace to actually bring this about so that it's not just written down on paper and doesn't translate into any action.

Sorry to take so long, but I feel strongly about it.

The Chair: A great agenda for a further discussion.

Ms. Judith MacBride-King: Thanks.

First to your inquiry about gender, absolutely, without question, Canadian women workers are more likely to experience stress and higher levels of stress and are more likely to indicate that they experience difficulty, etc. Also, they are more likely to have primary responsibility for a variety of child care tasks and more likely to have responsibility for elder care, for caring for elderly or frail family members.

It's interesting, though, when one looks at the difference between child care and elder care, that is, men were more likely to be involved in elder care than they were in making child care arrangements, for example, because often those requiring their care are their parents. It's a different and interesting dynamic going on there. So I concur with you.

• 1600

One of the things we've argued in our organization, because we do believe it's something very important for employers in Canada to consider, is demographic and social change. Employers have to be prepared for that change if they want to be successful as organizations.

We argued very early on that this is not only an issue for women, however. It's not only an issue for men. It's an issue for women, men, families, and your organization. That's a very important message, because we like to ensure that, from the business perspective, they're aware that we consider this to be not only important for children, families, and communities, but also to be central to successful organizations. I thought I should mention that to you as well.

What does it take to change and, within organizations, what can we do to implement change? By the way, on the micro scale, it often helps when the CEO or the head of the organization is a woman or has children, frankly, who are about to enter into some of these situations, or if they've had children.

I can't speak on the public policy perspective. I should tell you that my organization is a non-policy prescriptive organization.

Ms. Libby Davies: What does that mean?

Ms. Judith MacBride-King: Non-policy prescriptive? It means we research various issues that we think are important, we provide the information, and then we ask individuals and organizations to think through the implications. We can draw the implications. That's what it means.

So for me to speak on public policy from my organization's point of view would be difficult at this time.

I appreciate your questions.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Folco.

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): My question is along the same lines as the one put by my colleague. There has been a fundamental change in the make-up of the labour force over at least the past two generations, with the arrival of large numbers of women onto the labour market after the Second World War.

You said that the government can act as a role model. I think that for a number of years already, governments in general, both at the provincial as well as at the federal level, have been setting in place a certain number of measures that would allow them to serve as models.

I think that the problem, at this time, does not lie with the large corporations that have the means at their disposal to set up day care facilities for young children either on site or close by. I think the problem is with the small and medium-sized businesses, the SMEs. The SMEs are, after all, the backbone of Canada's economy. I'm thinking of the small businesses with three, four, or ten employees at most, making very little profit, not making very much money at all.

I know that you have just said that your organization does not suggest solutions, but, rather, points out the elements of a problem, but still. First of all, can the SMEs do something? My question involves mostly the government of Canada, because that is why we are here. What role can the government play, not to help the multinationals or the big corporations, but to help the small and medium-sized businesses so that they might help mothers—and I mention mothers rather than fathers for obvious reasons, and a lot of them are heads of single-parent households—and also to help young children? Can you give us any suggestions on that?

[English]

Ms. Judith MacBride-King: Thank you. That's an excellent question.

When we began our research a decade ago, we looked at what organizations were doing across the country, small, medium, and large. We discovered that a lot of the smaller organizations in fact could be and are very flexible. They don't define what they're doing in that context. They don't see themselves as being family friendly, but in many cases they are, in fact. I have examples from a small town in New Brunswick in which a caterer allows her employees to bring her kids in when they need to come in if their schools have a storm day or whatever. There are lots of examples like that.

In terms of what government might do to assist particularly smaller employers, I think raising the issue provides some information or some knowledge for them. That's very important. Also, help them to celebrate what they're doing, frankly. I know that sounds a bit trite, but it isn't. When we go to smaller communities and have discussions with employers about what successes they've had, the ones who are interested are there but don't see what they're doing as important. In fact, it is important, but they don't make the links in their communities as to how effective they've been.

• 1605

But mostly I would say it's providing small employers with information about why this issue is important, about what their employees might be facing, and about what some options are that they might provide, again just simply in terms of flexibility. Frankly, for many Canadians it's simply recognizing that this is an important issue in their lives.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: You're talking mostly about

[Translation]

incentives and the promotion of programs that already exist and that are created by small and medium-sized businesses themselves.

[English]

Ms. Judith MacBride-King: Promotion, yes, but again it depends. Perhaps it's helping smaller employers in communities linked to form some consortiums. Again, when I think of child care in communities, employers have told us that child care is very expensive. They're concerned about it, and they're concerned about liability issues and expense issues. But if you bring together a small number of employers in the community—public sector, private sector, etc.—to perhaps work on some aspect of child care, such as the development of a child care centre, etc., that would be helpful as well.

The consortium model is a very powerful model, we're finding, and it's working very well.

The Chair: Eric Lowther, welcome.

Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

I'm sorry I missed your presentation, but I have been studying your slides in some depth. I may ask a question that you've covered off in your presentation. If so, I apologize, and I can pick it up from the transcripts, I guess. You don't have to re-plough the old ground too deeply if I happen to hit on that.

I'm just thinking of some of the businesses I'm familiar with in my own area and ones that I've bumped into. I can think of one. The Calgary Herald, for example, has a very extensive day care facility provided right in its building for its employees. I remember going there about a year or two ago and asking how much it was used. I was surprised to find out that it was hardly used at all. It sat there kind of empty.

I know one of the companies I worked for didn't have that kind of a facility, but it had a kind of flex-time arrangement in which people could split full-time shifts between two working people if they had kids and wanted to wind down without losing company benefits. It seems to me that there's a variety of flexible options out there, and I noticed the word “flexibility” in your slides.

I sometimes think we look at the world from Ottawa here and we forget how diverse not only are companies but regions of our country. To try to come up with one solution that fits all is just such a loser. There are subtleties, there are cultural differences, there is the rural and the urban. There's such a variety of differences that I tend to feel that solutions are best developed at a very almost microcosmic level, like maybe a few companies together. But they're developed almost by the people who are going to use the facility, or those who are going to use whatever services are provided. They have a say because it works for their culture, be it corporate, be it the community, or be it regional. Trying to say we have a cookie-cutter approach for everybody leaves many people out.

Do you have any comments?

Ms. Judith MacBride-King: Absolutely. I couldn't agree with you more. One of the lessons we've learned over the past decade is there is no one-size-fits-all solution. There is no magic bullet. From an organizational point of view, if they're looking at becoming a bit more family friendly or a bit more responsive in this context, it is essential that they understand the needs and the life stage of the people in their place. They have to understand where people are coming from.

By the way, I know the child care centre of the Calgary Herald. I remember when they built it and when they started. In fact, they built it at a time when they really needed it. If I remember rightly, it caused a bit of a baby boom at the Herald at the time. It was quite a popular thing. Perhaps its day is over because the population has aged, etc. But again, it is essential for employers and organizations to keep their finger on the pulse of where their people are, where their employees are in terms of their life stage. So I couldn't agree with you more.

• 1610

There are many options and opportunities and ways in which organizations can respond, and, I guess to address an earlier question, that's important as well. One has to understand those options and understand that this isn't all about child care. In fact, a lot of people find their child care arrangements in other ways. But there are a myriad of things, and you have to understand what it is you need to address.

Mr. Eric Lowther: I think it's a very valid point that there are a myriad of things beyond just child care.

I was looking at your one graph here, where it says 59% don't feel they have enough time for themselves, and that 48% have been feeling anxious or stressed lately. Those are very much higher than the rest. Another says, “When I need more time, I tend to cut back on my sleep”. This sounds like an MP's profile to me.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms. Judith MacBride-King: No comment.

The Chair: I think Eric raises a couple of very interesting points.

One of the things that seems to be changing—and this plays to your notion of flexibility, Eric—is that organizations like the labour unions...I think of the auto workers, for instance. In another era, a previous era, they would build a facility on location because it seemed to make some kind of sense. They suddenly realized that it actually made more sense in many cases to have the facility closer to the house where the auto worker lived, and that this allowed both parents to be closer. That turned out to be a better answer, and that's why they went for the child care arrangement in the last collective agreement.

Actually, I went to a conference that the Conference Board put on last fall. It was one at which the subject was related to this. It was about early childhood development and the role of small and medium-sized businesses, the point Madame Folco was raising. Sort of independently, a guy who had 300 workers said it didn't make sense for him to have a facility on his turf because he didn't have a critical mass of people who were going to consume it. He asked if he had to get together with all the other little businesses, and if it would make more sense for there to be a public alternative that we would call a publicly funded day care so that the community picks it up. We don't organize the education system this way, where someone has to get together with all the other little businesses and organize grade 1. Why would we do that anywhere else?

All of this is to say that this will also play into the other piece of work of our committee this year, which is the notion of integrated solutions at the community level that take into account the variety that you have described and take into account the different conditions of parents. Those do change through the life cycle of the child and through the work cycle of the parent.

So there is no magic bullet, but there is a flexible group of integrated solutions.

I think that was an editorial, but what I was going to do was just ask a couple of questions.

You deal with the private sector. Part of what will get the message out is that there's some kind of public recognition of corporations that do a good job in this field. My first question is whether there is a system of rewards or recognition for family-friendly organizations in Canada today, either public sector or private sector. There are things like the hundred best companies to work for. Is that a factor when people compile those lists? Is there a place that you know of that collects the best practices across organizations, both public and private, in this country?

By the way, I think the one very useful perspective—we have a huge number of very useful perspectives—that talks about keeping an eye on both ends of the age scale is the one that we really need to focus on. Otherwise, we're not capturing a growing reality by focusing uniquely on children and not recognizing the other demands. I think that's hugely important for our work.

I guess another question would be about the best practices internationally. Do you know of any examples of where they really do this very well and it clearly pays off in terms of loyalty? And how do they get there? Do they get there through some sort of prescriptive legislation or through incentives? I think that's playing to Madame Folco's question.

And my final one—sorry about this—is this: If you're not a policy-prescriptive organization, if you describe the facts and let somebody else do the prescribing, then in your experience, who in the policy realm is the best at taking what you do and translating it into policy in Canada, or indeed anywhere else?

I'm sorry this is such a terribly long list. It will be somebody else's turn and I'll shut up.

Ms. Judith MacBride-King: Thank you.

• 1615

If I might, before I answer your questions, Mr. Chair, I'd still like to pick up on the point about the flexibility of being aware of the variety and diversity in communities and organizations. Again, I believe that very strongly. Just to let you know—and I will provide this committee with copies of our study when it's published and available—we actually asked organizations from A to Z about various initiatives they'd undertaken, everything from providing information referral programs to help parents find the type of child care they need, where they need it, at a price they can afford, to providing the more sophisticated on-site child care. So there are a number of options that organizations put into place. I'll make sure you get a copy of that.

To your question about whether there are awards for this type of initiative, there are certainly awards offered through the federal government. The Employment Equity Merit Awards is an annual event, and in that, often organizations that have dealt with issues related to work-life are included as one of the criteria. A number of other organizations are considering implementing awards. We also have a new National Healthy Workplace Award through the National Quality Institute, which includes as one category the work-life needs of individuals.

So although I talked about celebratory opportunities, perhaps that's not the best way to go, and I would encourage the committee to think of different ways. Maybe it's an accreditation process such as an ISO 9000. It's not to win an award, but it's the steps to becoming a family friendly organization. That's very important, because you know the pride organizations have. If you drive along the highway to Montreal, you see the ISO 9000 or ISO 9001 sign: “We're proud”. So I might suggest you think about that.

I do believe some work is being done through the University of Guelph to assess whether an awards program is really necessary. I would wager, although I don't know, that they would suggest a move to an accreditation process.

In terms of collecting best practices or a depository for that information, that is required in Canada. There are pockets of knowledge, pockets of capability, etc. We have some information at the Conference Board; the University of Guelph has some information; our colleagues at Carleton University have some information. So I do think that would be an opportunity to really pull that together—again, not a type, not one single model, but various initiatives and what's worked and what hasn't worked, so that organizations don't have to recreate the wheel; they can learn from others.

The Chair: That's the issue of collection and then diffusion to those who need to know this, right?

Ms. Judith MacBride-King: Yes, absolutely.

Again, if I might say, the Conference Board is well situated for that from the public and private sector point of view. But there are many pockets of this information, and your thought to pull it all together is a good one.

Concerning best practices internationally, there are indeed other best practices. I would say though that in Canada we have a number of organizations that are demonstrating leadership in this issue. I would look to them first and then move elsewhere to look at best practices.

You asked me, how do those organizations in other countries get there? Is it through policy or is it through incentive, etc.? I know when we began our work many years ago, we used to compare ourselves to the United States and what organizations were doing in the United States on this issue. We thought ourselves to be way behind, and in fact we were way behind. Only a small percentage of Canadian employers, 8% at that time, had information referral programs for employees.

When one thinks about what could be the possible reasons for that discrepancy, again, if you remember, our neighbours to the south do not have the same social safety net that we here in Canada do, so as a consequence, employers fill the void to a greater degree. That would be my argument, at least then and for that situation. So we need to look at the broader public policy approach to these issues, particularly around the social safety net, and see if that has a different—

The Chair: I'm hearing a “then” and I'm anticipating a “now”, that somehow you're suggesting things may have changed vis-à-vis the United States.

• 1620

Ms. Judith MacBride-King: We are, thank you. Yes, in fact I would say many organizations in Canada have really stepped up to the mark with this, and they've done it for good business reasons, because they want to get, keep, and motivate the best.

When we began our work in this area, the unemployment rate in Toronto was 2%. Employers were raiding other employers. And guess what? We're moving back into a situation where the labour market is tightening and will continue to tighten. As a consequence, the timing is right, in terms of various policies and interests, to come together.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Gagnon, it's your turn if you have a question. Then, it will be Libby Davies.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): I apologize for missing the beginning of the questions; I had something to take care of.

It seems to me that we are always trying to find the best way to help families, but there are niches that already exist and that would allow us to begin offering support to families now. Parental leave, day care, and a better tax system are all examples that come to mind. We all know that finances represent a cause of stress for a young family with young children and that often they have a hard time making ends meet.

Once again I will criticize the government, but if I were in Quebec, I would discuss this with the Quebec government and the governing party. Here, at this time, the Liberals are in office.

For example, they doubled the length of parental leave, but without taking the analysis far enough to determine who will be entitled to it and how much it will cost. How many women will be able to afford a year of parental leave, with only 55% of their salary? That's the first thing. They talk about good news, but without having taken into account all of the aspects of parental leave.

The same thing applies to day care. In Quebec, they have a day care service that costs $5 a day. We know full well that the federal government is $70 million richer because families can no longer claim a tax credit for day care costs beyond a certain amount. Once again, how can we encourage the government of another province to move forward with an unpopular policy because it is tied to the National Child Tax Benefit? The provinces were told that they could also take the family allowance payments from families if they developed better services for them.

There again, I'm not sure that they considered the whole problem or the series of measures that could be taken to help the family. The government could have given the money separately so that the province, in this case Quebec, could develop its own day care services. Today, they have just announced a measure which will prove very unpopular: they will be taking many millions of dollars from the National Child Benefit Fund.

The same applies to the tax system. They could have, at least for low-income families, been much more generous in cutting taxes so as to help families to make ends meet. Therefore, there are at least three avenues that already exist, where there are great weaknesses in terms of the help that could be given to the family. I would like to ask if you feel that these three areas are essential in supporting the family. It's a beginning. We might say that this does not prevent us from doing other things, but they are basic initiatives.

[English]

The Chair: Do you have any comments?

Ms. Judith MacBride-King: Again, I hesitate to answer, to stumble ill-prepared into the policy realm. I would say, however, that more and more employees, people we talk to, are telling us that respect for parental leave is important.

Quebec was the first province in Canada to have a family responsibility leave of five days. Organizations across the country have learned from Quebec's experience, and many more organizations, when they do have family responsibility leave, are in fact offering five days or more. So public policy can in fact inform the employers in other ways as well.

But I hesitate, and I apologize; I can't speak to the other factors you've asked me about.

The Chair: Can I just do a follow-up? Was there anything in the survey that indicated that Quebec, because of the family responsibility leave and other measures, was doing a measurably better job in terms of satisfaction?

• 1625

Ms. Judith MacBride-King: In terms of the survey, I can't recall that, and my colleague who's done a lot of the analysis isn't here. I'm happy to provide that provincial breakdown for you. I don't think there were significant differences. I can't recall that there were.

The Chair: Libby.

Ms. Libby Davies: I wanted to pick up on a point you made in relation to what Eric said about the child care centre at the Calgary Herald.

It's actually amazing how much we don't know. A lot of people would recommend child care centres at the workplace, and John made the point really well. But even just in terms of commuting time, I know a lot of families in the lower mainland of Vancouver, and they can commute to work for an hour and a half each way every day. If you're dragging kids along to day care because it's at the workplace....

So many of these issues we're learning about. While I agree there must be choice, and you've made that point very well—no one's talking about a cookie-cutter, one model fits all—I have to say I do have concerns that sometimes the word “flexibility” can be a code word for, “You're on your own. Sink or swim.” We're very good at that in Canada. The absence of public policy, the absence of a more universal approach that does provide choices, leaves us with this great Canadian patchwork, where in some places you might be doing okay and in other provinces.... With Quebec's model, they have a huge demand for their $5-a-day program—I'm talking about child care now—and in other places there's practically nothing.

So I do worry that “flexibility” becomes translated into “survival”. And of course that has a huge impact on income, which we haven't talked about. If you have resources to provide a live-in nanny or that kind of stuff, great, but there are lots of families in this country who are just struggling, and flexibility for them really means they're hanging on for dear life every month.

I know you can't deal with public policy, but what should the private sector itself be doing in terms of corporate responsibility? What venues does the private sector have? Maybe it's through the Conference Board; I don't know. But this idea that hopefully some places will pick this up and do a good job, as opposed to.... Even within your own sector, there must be some kinds of vehicles whereby you can communicate this information and say to IBM, Bank of Montreal, Safeway, or whatever it is, “You do have a responsibility, as an employer, to deal with family issues and workplace flexibility.”

I'm just wondering if you could answer that.

Ms. Judith MacBride-King: Sure. I'd say a couple of things.

I agree with you in terms of the use of words such as “flexibility”. It can be a catch-all word and it's undefinable, unless you're very specific about it. So I wanted to support that.

In terms of what venues organizations have, I believe in any community, frankly, there will be one or two organizations that take the lead, whether it's through their chambers of commerce or boards of trade or whatever, and they will bring others along. It's important, from my perspective, to find those leaders and support them. So in terms of what you might consider venues, they would be chambers of commerce, boards of trade—organizations like our own.

I actually believe, frankly, that we're the only organization in Canada that has a networking group for employers who want to get together to discuss these issues. That's the network I talked about, which we've had in place since 1991, where executives and managers from organizations who are wanting to learn.... There are different levels of the continuum, from the beginners to the sophisticates, in terms of what they're doing. They learn together. We bring in best practices for them, we help them learn from other organizations, etc. We endeavour through our work to help share that information about what works well and what doesn't and help let organizations know what they lose by not responding: they lose good people and they lose in terms of health costs, if you're looking at the bottom line of organizations. They lose in lots of ways.

• 1630

So from the business case perspective, one can argue this case very strongly, and that has been our tradition, to argue, because we see it as good business issues.

In terms of corporate social responsibility, absolutely, more and more organizations are recognizing that their employees are a part of the communities within which they operate. In that context many are starting now to link these issues to that. I would have to say that probably only a handful of the organizations are there, and they're largely the larger organizations.

The Chair: I have on my list Madam Folco and Madam Gagnon, but I know Mr. Lowther has to leave and wants to ask a short question, if you will permit. Okay. We'll have a quick question from Eric, and then we'll move on.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Thank you so much, and thank you to the other members for that.

Some of the companies I was involved with were experimenting with the work-at-home scenario. I know a lot of parents work at home, but in my experience it has largely been an entrepreneurial kind of thing where maybe they're on contract to do some part-time work or they're involved in a little venture out of the home. Those do okay, from my sense of it.

Does the Conference Board have any field data, research, or trending on when someone works not for themselves but for an employer and this move, which was so much talked about in years past but which you don't hear as much about today—at least I don't, but maybe it's just the circles I'm moving in—toward people working at home for an employer? There was always a debate in my company about, how is this going to work? Who is going to keep track as to whether or not there's real performance happening? What happens when the kids have an accident and the mom's there? We tried it and kind of fumbled around with it, and I got elected before I actually saw the end of that experiment. How is that trending?

Ms. Judith MacBride-King: It's up. I think 10% or 11% of the organizations we surveyed in the late 1980s indicated that they had work-at-home or telecommuting relationships, and now it's well over 30% of the organizations we've surveyed. So it is up, and there are issues. We've always argued that this is not an answer for child care. Anybody who has worked at home with a two-year-old knows this is not the answer for child care. But it is helpful that people have the flexibility to go home when they need to and can do what they need to do there. But as a long-term child care arrangement, I wouldn't recommend it.

Organizations and individuals who engage in that kind of relationship need to understand very fully the advantages and disadvantages of doing so. For individuals, for example, there are questions of isolation, of being out of sight, out of mind. There are all those questions. There's also the psychological sense of being on one's own, which works for some people but not for others. It's important to understand that and to know the upsides and the downsides of that. I think for many telecommuting is sort of an upscale type of work-at-home arrangement, but we have a lot of people in Canada who work as needleworkers and textile workers in the home. That's certainly not a high-end job. So the issues about safety are, I think, very important for organizations to consider.

With regard to the point you raised about how we would know whether this person is actually functioning or is out walking as opposed to doing whatever they're supposed to be doing, I have a simple response to that. If you're not measuring face time but you are measuring outcome, then it doesn't matter.

Mr. Eric Lowther: In a nutshell you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out. If the kids are very young, this working out of the home is pretty tough. But if they're older, school age—I'm thinking back to some of our scenarios—it actually worked pretty good for some of those who had school-age kids, because they were gone during the day, and when they came home, the parent was there, instead of having to have an interim care provider between the end of school until the parent got home. When you have infants, there's a different dynamic in the home, obviously,

• 1635

Ms. Judith MacBride-King: It's interesting, because some people who work at home also have very young children, but their children go out to a neighbour or a child care centre. So even that model is now shifting a bit. But it's true that for people with school-age children, the advantage for them is to be at home when their kids come home, and then they can pick up when the kids are in bed or whenever after that.

As for your point about two individuals sharing one job and sharing prorated benefits, etc., I think it's very important that individuals understand again the advantages and disadvantages of working in those ways. But when there's choice—and I mean real choice—and people choose that option, there is some evidence that it's working very well in terms of productivity, increased satisfaction, feeling better about this place, feeling better about myself, and so on and so forth. There is some data to support that.

Mr. Eric Lowther: One of my staff had her third child, and she does all my letters from home. She drafts some of them for me based on my talking points, and I approve them. It works really well for us. She's a good letter writer, better than I am. Perhaps I shouldn't confess that on the record of the committee.

The Chair: Your little secret is safe with us. Thank you very much.

Madam Folco, and then Madam Gagnon.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I want to react to Mr. Lowther's questions and remarks. I come from a milieu where a lot of ethnic women work at home in the needle trade and raise their kids. Whether the kids are young or not so young, whether they're infants or going to school, from what I've seen, it means a very heavy burden on the woman. It means that the woman is taking care of the home and doing whatever the job is. When the kids are put to bed, no matter how old they are, that's when she starts not necessarily working on a computer, but doing the needlework. So my impression of women who work at home for someone else and who are raising kids, particularly if they're working at the lower end of the wage scale, is that it's a very, very, very heavy burden, and I wouldn't recommend it to anybody, from what I've seen.

Now, in the case of this woman who works for you, it seems to me those are fairly exceptional circumstances in the sense that I don't imagine you give her that much work to do in any one day. It's once in a while.

Mr. Eric Lowther: She takes it on when she wants to.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: So she has an easy time of it. But for people who must work at home because they have to work, who can't absent themselves from the home because they have very young kids, and who perhaps come from a cultural milieu where it's not necessarily good to be seen parking your kids somewhere else, that can really be very tough.

But I had a question.

[Translation]

What surprises me in your presentation and in the questions that have been asked around this table, is that we have mentioned the chambers of commerce, large corporations and banks, but we haven't touched upon the sector of society that, to my mind, is extremely important, that is, the unions. I'm surprised that Ms. Davies didn't mention them.

With respect to the unions, you mentioned—I'm sorry, I'm going back a little—the American model. I have often thought about and read about the European models: the German model, the French model, the Italian model, etc., where unions play an important role. Of course, I come from a province, Quebec, where unions do have an important role to play.

Are we seeing these new trends in the contracts that are now being signed between unions and management? Are they still serious about parental leave? If so, is this leave paid or unpaid? Is there also leave not only for parents of young children but also for people who are caring for elderly parents? This is something that we have not been concerned with, but as everyone around this table has said, more and more, we are becoming part of this sandwich generation. Therefore, I would like to hear about the new trends in the role of unions in Canada.

• 1640

[English]

Ms. Judith MacBride-King: Thank you. In fact, while I didn't mention that, from our survey of Canadian workers, the information I provided you today suggested that if they were to rate the priorities of those they look to for support, it was first themselves, then their employers, then their governments, and fourthly, their trade unions.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: What was fourth?

Ms. Judith MacBride-King: Fourthly, the trade unions—labour. That was their perspective. We do know there are a number of....

First of all, to your third question, in terms of whether leaves for older parents and parental leaves are up, absolutely. Are more and more trade unions negotiating them? Absolutely. So they're up. In fact, that trend has been going upward since we started looking at this in the 1980s. So we are seeing that.

One of the new trends we're seeing, and one thing you may want to keep in mind as this committee works, is that, as I understand it—again, I'm not a labour relations expert—as individuals move to work more from their homes, as we stay in our homes to do our work, more and more trade unions are looking at community organizing. I find that very interesting, because it's an opportunity to link workers in various neighbourhoods to a trade union for support, etc. I would keep my eye on that, frankly. I don't know a lot about it, but that to me is a very interesting thing that's happening as a result of increased technology and new ways to work, etc. I suspect more and more unions will look at that.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: But what is the trade unions' role in this—an observer, an initiator?

Ms. Judith MacBride-King: In my own view, it's as a partner, very much so.

If you don't mind, I'll tell you a story about when years and years ago we were looking at this. It was interesting. We'd speak to both employers and unions. This was a long time ago. Both parties would come to the table with their lists of things they would negotiate on for that particular arrangement, and often the first thing that both would let go, whether it be the employers or the trade unions, was support for individuals and families—the family responsive types of things. This was a decade ago.

I don't know where that is now, but speaking to both parties in the past, that was quite common. It was kind of the give-away. It was “Well, it's not that important and we'll drop it”, from both sides.

We are seeing, however, wonderful relationships with various unions and employers. I think right here in Ottawa-Carleton there's an interesting consortium of labour and various employers who've worked together and linked together to create an emergency short-term child care support to parents and members of labour groups who work in these various organizations. I think the Civic Hospital was involved, and others. So there are some very positive initiatives.

I hope that's helpful.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Yes.

The Chair: We should take note of that, possibly, as someone might want to come and visit us.

Madam Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I will come back to what Ms. Davies began a little earlier and deal with the importance of having more general help from the government.

Earlier, you said that in the United States, the employers had taken over where the governments had left off. But we also adapt to the new reality in the market place. For example, with self- employment and seasonal work, fewer benefits are available from companies. We know that in a time of downsizing, employees do not remain within the same company for as long as they used to. So, even if employers set up day cares and offer additional help, the state must still play an essential role to ensure a stability in the help that is offered. When a contract employee or a self- employed worker changes jobs quickly, that person isn't always covered by all of the services that are offered by the company.

• 1645

This brings me to tell you that in my riding, there is an initiative that can be used as an example: it is a neighbourhood shelter for underprivileged children. You can do something bigger, but those children learn to work with computers and seem healthy. It is in a house that was built in the 1920s, and it feels like home. University students are sent there as interns. The children are given nutritious well-structured lunches. They learn to deal with everyday problems, because they have no support or because they live in an environment that does not give them access to a certain quality of life or to better nutrition. The parents are also made aware of the importance of good nutrition for their children.

Therefore, there must be a whole host of initiatives that take into account the reality of various environments and various communities. As actors on the political scene, we must work to ensure that this support will be permanent. That's the only way that we will accomplish something.

We didn't deal with this at length, but self-employment is the lot of 15% of the population. It is an everyday reality. Have you given any thought to the problem of self-employment?

[English]

Ms. Judith MacBride-King: In fact, we ensured that some of those we serve—obviously, it's a cross-section across the labour force—were self-employed. I think the point you make about the traditional contract workers receiving lower benefits is a valid one and one we also had looked at in an earlier study at the Conference Board. It's something that I think is an important issue for organizations, employers, and governments to consider.

I believe it is a broader issue. I believe it is a complex issue. And in that context, I also believe very strongly that there needs to be better dialogue between government and the private sector, and between employers, to really delve down deeper into some of these issues. I think often what happens in organizations, as it happens in government, communities, and families, is we forget sometimes that when you change something over here in the system, there's an impact somewhere else in the system.

I think it's very important in that context that employers and governments consider that when something happens over here, you can bet there'll be a reaction there. When, for example, we increase the number of positions where there are no benefits, you can bet there'll be an impact on the family. So I concur with you there and I think it is an important issue that individual organizations, employers, and governments need to consider and be aware of.

Is that helpful?

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Yes.

Ms. Judith MacBride-King: Thank you.

The Chair: I have one organizational note, because we're drawing to the end of our time, and we are going to pursue this theme of work and family for the next two sessions. In fact, without blowing their cover—you're allowed to guess—we have representatives for next week's witnesses from HRDC, as well as, I think, a witness the following week from Treasury Board, which has been attending to what we've been talking about. I think it's extremely helpful that you folks are going to be able, I hope, to segue from what we've been talking about.

My question, unless there's a burning desire—and of course, we could have more questions—would be, without breaking any confidences, have you a couple of examples of really outstanding organizations—I assume they wouldn't be embarrassed to be praised—either from the corporate world, the union world, the not-for-profit world, or the government world, where your survey has actually turned up some remarkable things? And, of course, the nasty question is, how did the Conference Board do in terms of work and family as an employer?

Ms. Judith MacBride-King: I refuse to answer the latter question on the grounds that it may...no, let me just say, yes, there are wonderful examples, and I would be delighted, because we've already spoken about them and published about them.

I think, again, my concern in many organizations is that they'll move ahead in certain directions and they'll not deal with this workload situation, the overload situation. IBM Canada, in my mind, is an excellent example of an organization that has looked at diversity in its broadest sense, including diverse family types, etc., and has looked at this issue and at workload. I'm proud to mention that IBM is also a member of the network that I spoke about.

• 1650

So I recommend IBM. I have quite a long list. I can't go through them all. IBM and MDS Nordion here in Ottawa-Carleton are focusing on the broader health and wellness issue, and on the workload issue, which I think is very important. The base, of course, is equity, fairness, and safety in the workplace. They've done a good job there.

So I recommend them as examples. And there are others. In terms of unions, the Canadian Auto Workers was the first union in Canada to negotiate a child care subsidy in their collective agreement, and it still exists. They've done some great work. I'd be happy to supply the committee with other names as well.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Are there any other questions before we say thank you very much for what I think has been a wonderful beginning to this subject? You've really given us lots to think about. As I say, I think it will tie in very nicely with our other major theme, which is the role of community and how corporations tie into that as well.

It's been a great afternoon. I think you felt that from the quality of the questions and the degree of interest from the members. We thank you very much for coming.

Ms. Judith MacBride-King: My pleasure. Thank you.

The Chair: We look forward to getting your document, by the way.

Ms. Judith MacBride-King: Indeed. I'll make sure you get it.

The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.