Okay.
In the few minutes I have, I will explain the objectives of my brief. Then, I will explain the what should be done to reach those objectives.
This is a quick little story of early times. Men were hunters and gatherers; women were closer to home, tending the young, preparing the food, and nurturing the sick. The hunter needed someone at home to tend the young, and the caregiver needed someone to go out and get the food.
Money was made a commodity but assigned to the male role, the one away from home. The woman at home still worked as hard, but she was considered not deserving of money. She was dependent on the money that the one away brought in, but he still depended on her for the caregiving. It was still a partnership.
Slowly the stigma developed of not earning money. Economists now said being out of the home earning was the only role that was work, the only useful or productive role. Slowly we sank into what women have noticed for at least a century, the degrading of care work in the home. That trend continues.
Though we are several thousands years later, the needs of humans have not changed. We don't send hunters out to bring the bacon home, but they bring home money to buy the bacon. Babies still need to be washed by hand, and the care role has not evaporated. Much has changed, but much is the same.
Every adult is faced with dual obligations of earning and family, career and home, or, as some put it, work and life. There are many ways to resolve this. With the Internet, many people do their paid work from home. We're seeing a return to a medieval tradition of the home-based business, as well as the high-tech option of contact in the office while you're halfway around the world. You can take your child to paid work, or have the tribe, the community, take care of your child while you earn. People want different solutions.
What we should notice and what I urge you to think about is that we still, and you still, define usefulness, productivity, and competitiveness only in terms of money. Think about that. We have a male paradigm takeover that still devalues roles in the home. The government may say it values women; it only values women who get paid. It may say it values children, but it only values children in paid care. We have treated the home-based role as one of no value.
We've tilted economic forecasts way out of whack, because they don't count the human factor. They don't count that we're all one car accident and one phone call in the night away from being caregivers. We've become obsessed with money; and our kids, whom I see because I'm a school teacher, are hurting. They show stress and anxiety disorders, eating disorders, early gang affiliations, drug use, and overuse of alcohol. Lonely singles, I think, in Fort McMurray are having some of these problems. Our kids are crying for someone to be there for them, but the government is pressuring that someone to be away to earn money.
For women who stand up for the care role and dare to do it anyway, there's a huge financial penalty and disdain. As a woman, I think we have to reassess that attitude. It permeates the tax system. When you talk of labour force participation, you're only talking of paid work. You're ignoring unpaid work. You're ignoring volunteer work. LIstening ears that help the teen feel that life is still worth living actually add to the nation's productivity. Time invested to make a child feel special and take them to the science centre benefits the community. Our tax system penalizes people who do this. There is a single income tax penalty on households that's 45% higher for single income. When we speak of quality of life, we're not providing the time element.
You ask what spending measures to recommend to make sure citizens are healthy. I urge you to look also at emotional health. You want businesses to be competitive, but unhappy workers are not productive. You ask for suggestions about infrastructure, but there's a question before that question.
Ken Dryden a year ago wanted to build an infrastructure for national day care--a huge system, a glorious standardized, regulated program for all children in Canada to be taken care of by non-family members. He was excited about this infrastructure, and so was Paul Martin. It was like they were building a corporation--consulting stakeholders, writing specifications, and institutionalizing and regulating a basic relationship: the parent-child bond. If children were cars or widgets, it would have worked, but they aren't. The national child care policy was so women could work--notice the goal.
There was a conference yesterday in Ottawa. Sixteen pension rights groups, 2.25 million seniors, are angry at the tax penalty because one of them was a caregiver in the home. They want pension splitting. Last year I was part of 17 demonstrations against only funding day care, not against day care but against only funding day care.
I just want to alert you, having listened to the last group, that you are hearing a lot of people who are all saying, “I would like money.” I'm not actually saying the same thing. But you are hearing from people who, if you think of it, are saying, “Give only me some money, because my needs are special.”
My goal is to have you say, give people the money more broadly and trust them a bit.
Just to point out to you, fitness centres do not own fitness; you can take the kid for a walk. Bookstores do not own literacy; you can go to the library. And even though you're going to fund some of these people, we should not exclude others from funding.
