Okay, why don't you?
Evidence of meeting #185 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was women's.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #185 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was women's.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:50 a.m.
Director, Community Initiatives, Canadian Women's Foundation
It's counterfactual.
9:50 a.m.
Director, Community Initiatives, Canadian Women's Foundation
First off, Mr. Cross addressed the terrible problems with increasing the minimum wage. The majority of minimum wage workers are women. The majority of part-time workers are women. Child care, which is one of the things the royal commission recommended back in the early seventies, is a huge barrier to women in the workplace. The evidence from the introduction of low-cost child care in Quebec is definitive in terms of increasing women's labour force attachment, increasing GDP, increasing women's incomes and reducing the number of single mothers on social assistance by more than 50%, all in the first 12 years, I think.
There are clear remedies and we are speaking to some of them today. Pay equity is a clear remedy to this situation. When we talk about the areas that women work in being paid less, partially there's a devaluation of work that happens when women go into it. For example, the incomes of doctors have decreased as women have become more dominant in that field. Also, there's a balance of work and life that women pursue, so the differences are partially due to all of these barriers we're talking about.
There are clearly huge structural problems here. I will reiterate what I said earlier: Women are more educated than men across the population. It's a problem for Canada if women can't have the same kind of labour force attachment as men.
9:50 a.m.
London North Centre, Lib.
Thank you very much.
I'll go to Ms. Doucet because of your expertise in gender.
9:50 a.m.
Prof. Andrea Doucet
I'd like to hear from the two pay equity experts as well.
It is one of the most complex problems in terms of trying to figure out why it occurs, but I agree with you that structural barriers are extremely important. There is a well-documented motherhood penalty that occurs for women across all countries after they give birth to a child. There is also something called the fatherhood premium in wages after the birth of a child.
After a family has a child there is a moment at which the pay equity can diverge, with women earning less and men earning more. Some of it is that we do not have in place high-quality, affordable, accessible, universal child care, which I and many other people would have really liked to see in the gender equality budget, or good parental leave policies that actually encourage men to take time off work.
I've seen a study from the Swedish labour department that links fathers taking parental leave with women's rising wages.
The other thing I'd like to say is sort of a counterpoint to the earlier argument by my colleague here. An OECD report came out in May 2018 at a social policy forum hosted by Minister Duclos. It demonstrates that 50 years of family-friendly policies in the five Nordic countries are leading to higher levels of gender pay equity and gender equality, increased growth, higher women's employment and an increase in the GDP of 10% to 20%.
We need to start seeing things like care work, motherhood, parenting, supporting maternal employment and fathers' involvement in care work as part of a prosperous economy.
9:50 a.m.
London North Centre, Lib.
If I understand you correctly—and I appreciate that you put so much on the table—you're saying that in terms of looking forward and creating the conditions for greater economic growth, pay equity is central to the conversation.
9:50 a.m.
Prof. Andrea Doucet
Pay equity is absolutely essential. Your government has laid out really well why we need women in the labour market.
9:50 a.m.
London North Centre, Lib.
To the Equal Pay Coalition, again, I'll read to you the quote from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute:
The reasons for the pay gap between men and women are not particularly new. Women tend to be clustered in fields that traditionally pay less than the ones that men choose, and in occupations that pay less as well.
Do you agree with that?
9:50 a.m.
Co-Chair, Equal Pay Coalition
The framing of that is incorrect. It suggests that this is a matter of individual choice. It is, in fact, a structural problem.
Pay equity only addresses one element of the structural problem, which is that the more gendered work is, the more it is devalued and the less it's paid, particularly in female-dominated workplaces like care, etc. The more female it is, the lower the pay. It's recognized as an entirely discriminatory valuation of women's contributions to the economy.
That gap we've talked about exists right across the economy, in every sector. Of 500 occupations tracked by Statistics Canada, women are paid less in 469. This suggests there are other structural drivers, such as lack of access to child care, the difficulty of unionizing in female-dominated workplaces, precarious work, the ways in which women predominate in precarious work, etc.
There are a number of different drivers that need different responses. The pay equity act addresses one aspect—gendering of jobs and low pay—and this is an opportunity to strengthen that act. This isn't a matter of getting rid of it, but amending it so it's actually effective.
9:55 a.m.
London North Centre, Lib.
I don't mean to interrupt, but I would like to hear from Mr. Cross.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We are out of time on this round. I will let Mr. Cross come in at some point maybe, but we are way over time.
Mr. Poilievre.
November 6th, 2018 / 9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Ms. Decter, I was happy to see you mention the challenges faced by women in medicine and the compensation levels for women in that field.
I was surprised that you did not point to the recent tax changes that are discriminatory against women in medicine. The government has brought in changes to the treatment of incorporated doctors. As you know, many—if not most—doctors are incorporated, and incorporation is particularly important for female doctors because it allows them to save for maternity leave within their company.
In Ontario, doctors are not employees. They are typically contractors for hospitals, clinics and other medical facilities. As a result, they don't have government pensions, government sick leave or government maternity leave. Instead, they have the ability to save within their companies, so that when the time comes for maternity leave they can draw from those savings and cover their family expenses in the meantime.
The government has brought in new penalties that raise taxes on people who save within their companies. Female doctors and other female professionals have told us this is a direct attack on their ability to save for maternity leave, sick leave and other expenses they may face.
Why did you not raise that as a concern when you testified about the structural challenges women face in the professions?
9:55 a.m.
Director, Community Initiatives, Canadian Women's Foundation
It's an interesting framing of the question: why I didn't raise something that I didn't raise.
I would say that our focus at the Canadian Women's Foundation is to move women out of violence and into empowerment and economic security. Women who are physicians are highly paid and we don't do a bulk of research on what goes on in that field.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Thank you.
It's just that you did raise physicians as an example.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
So that is an example. It is true that the government has penalized female physicians in a way that is discriminatory, as a result of their penalties for professionals who are trying to save for maternity leave, professionals who have no other way to save for maternity leave in the system.
I find it very interesting that witnesses who claim they are in favour of advancing social equality have not spoken more in favour of these women who are facing this discriminatory tax policy, which the government introduced in this budget.
So—
9:55 a.m.
Director, Community Initiatives, Canadian Women's Foundation
Not to interrupt, but the maternity benefits that exist within EI are available to women in the medical profession and strengthening them would be an excellent plan.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Yes, but that doesn't help if you actually have to pay for your practice to stay up and running. Do you think you can keep a medical practice running for what EI maternity pays?
10 a.m.
Director, Community Initiatives, Canadian Women's Foundation
My father was a doctor and he raised six of us in comfort, so yes.
10 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Okay, well I am talking about females who have the necessity to take maternity leave—
10 a.m.
Director, Community Initiatives, Canadian Women's Foundation
This is why we need strong social programs.
10 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
—and to suggest that you could keep a medical practice going—