Status of Women Committee on April 30th, 2019

[Dr. Lia Tsotsos]

Certainly. The way we've often described it is as reciprocal benefits research, where both parties receive benefits from participating in a research project.

A lot of times, particularly in the context of work with older adults, we run the risk of elderspeak, which is a tone or an approach that can sometimes be perceived as very patronizing. You might see it sometimes in health care settings. You'll hear, “That's okay, dear,” or “Here are your pills, sweetie.” It's that type of language and that tone.

The idea is to avoid discussing the issues as if those older adults are not fully engaged, concerned participants in that same challenge and in their own solutions.

When we say “with us, not for us”, it's not researchers saying, “Here is how we're going to help you old people. There, there, we'll take care of you.” It's much more about engaging with them because they're the ones who best understand their situation and the challenges they're facing. If they can be participants in the creation of their own solutions or their own strategies, those will likely be far more sustainable and far more impactful, and maybe more tailored.

As we're talking about in the example of the English-speaking older women in Quebec, those solutions and strategies might be much more relevant if we engage directly with them to understand what they are facing, and then we might be better able to allocate the right types of resources to the right services.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

On having them be part of the solution, maybe you can expand a little further. How do you make sure that the autonomy or the personal choice of individuals is respected?

For example, many senior women chose to stay at home part time or full time and to invest in child rearing. As a result, then, of course, one of the things you're identifying is that there is some economic instability that can come with that in their senior years. Nevertheless that was a personal choice. It was their autonomy played out. It was a decision they made, probably in partnership with someone else. How do you respect that and make sure that provision is made for that choice without demoralizing it?

[Dr. Lia Tsotsos]

That's a fantastic point and it comes up very frequently, particularly in the conversation around isolation and loneliness.

People may chose to be alone, and that's the way they prefer to be, so we can't make the mistake of perceiving that to be either loneliness or unwanted isolation. You're quite right, and preserving their autonomy is really important. Some of the ways you can do that is by not.... I refer to it as that gender-specific ageism. It's preventing an ageist approach in general and not making assumptions that, because you are a woman who didn't go to work and who is at home, therefore, you need service X. It's making sure that service X is available and accessible to those who would choose to take advantage of it, but it's not making the assumption or enforcing a blanket approach or blanket policy.

Make sure that they have the right and the privilege to choose how they would like to age on their own terms. You're quite right.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

In contrast with that, though, the question then would also be this: What is the role of family? We can talk about the role of government, and that's an important discussion, especially here at the committee level, but there is also a societal role for family members to play, and then there's also a role for community to play.

I'm wondering if you can expand on your observations and the research that you've done. What is the role of family? What does it look like to engage with members of society who are 65-plus, let's say, within their senior years? How should a family be engaging with these individuals? What is their role?

[Dr. Lia Tsotsos]

That may take more than seven minutes. If I get cut off, I quite understand.

In our own work with older immigrants who are at risk of loneliness and isolation, the vast majority of them were living with family, which may include grandchildren and/or adult children. I think one of the other parts of making sure that information is accessible and available to people is also considering the role for adult children, children and adult grandchildren as part of a global family approach.

I know, for example, to refer back to my own personal example, a lot of times when people think of caregivers for someone with dementia, they think of the children of that individual and not technically the grandchildren, yet I found that, in my case, I was often just as engaged as my mother was in caring for her father.

It's recognizing that family support means a lot of different things to a lot of different people and once again not making the assumption that this particular role or this particular individual within a family unit or structure is the one to engage with. We're not going to target only the adult female children, even though they may typically provide the greatest level of care. It's recognizing the diversity of ways people can provide support through technology, through finances and through brokering of other services.

If I arrange for lawn care, that's me providing a level of support for an older adult in my life. It's trying to figure out all the different pathways and how we can make all things more accessible to more people. As you say, they don't necessarily need to be government programs. It's just an awareness that anyone can hire a lawn service for an older adult in their life. It doesn't necessarily have to be the power of attorney or their key financial decision-maker.

I don't know if that gets at your question in a minute and a half.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

That's perfect. Thank you very much.

We're now going to move over for seven minutes to Irene Mathyssen.

Irene, you have the floor.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you all for being here. Thank you for your advocacy. It's very important.

I'd like all three of our witnesses to jump in on these questions and see if we can put some things on the record that we can work on as a committee.

First and foremost, the issue of women as caregivers, perhaps not fully engaged in paid work, is something that I'm very concerned about. The reality is that the work of women is underpaid very often. It is not valued as it should be. As a result, because of pay inequity and the lack of regard for caregivers, women very often in their senior years are faced with poverty and financial limitations.

We have a drop-out provision in terms of employment insurance and caregiving. Would a drop-out provision for CPP be a way of addressing this issue of unpaid and undervalued work?

[Michael Udy]

I'm not familiar with a drop-out provision.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Simply, the time that a woman is devoting to the very important work within the home or as a caregiver is not paid. As a result, her CPP does not accumulate in the same way as it does for someone who does paid work and accumulates pension benefits. Do we need a drop-out provision so that the time spent caregiving and the time spent raising a family is valued and is considered in terms of CPP?

There's a second part to this, increasing the GIS. It's not enough for a woman who has done that caregiving. It's not enough for her to get by on.

On those two pieces, do you have any thoughts?

[Michael Udy]

I think the question sort of answers itself for me.

When I look at the number of English-speaking senior women who are living on or under $20,000 a year, I see it's a substantial percentage. I think the provision you're talking about would have helped some of those women.

I think it's pretty easy to conclude that, yes, measures like that would be helpful.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you very much.

We talked about the fact that senior women don't have a great deal of access in terms of programming. One of the things that bothered me—I was a seniors critic and a veterans critic—was that government is using technology more and more. They're putting things online and the answer to someone who needs help is “Well, it's online”. To someone who is not literate in terms of that, that doesn't help.

We have all of these 1-800 numbers, and if you sit there for 45 minutes listening to the recording, it finally drops off and you have to start all over again. I think this lack of human contact is problematic. Is there a role for the federal government in terms of re-establishing that human face to programs, the things that people need, so that they can access them as they did in the past?

[Dr. Lia Tsotsos]

I would say there is a need for that, not only to provide a level of human contact but also to take into consideration the fact that, in addition to not being technologically literate, people may not have those technology devices, the Internet or the ability to get to a place where there is Internet, like a library, for example.

I think the removal of some of those person-based services really does a disservice to a much wider group than one might think upon first reflection. We just think, “Oh, you don't know how to use to a computer”. Well, they may not have access to one, they may never have had access to one and they may not have the ongoing ability to then continue that technological engagement as they continue to age and as they continue to develop sensory or mobility challenges, for example.

Maybe now it's okay that they can get themselves to a library, but two years from now they could have had a hip fracture and no longer be able to. I would say that, yes, the bare minimum of services should be able to be conducted in an in-person forum, or somehow talking to a person and not solely online, because that would really just impact a much larger swath of people than I think we might realize.

[Vanessa Herrick]

I think it requires a certain level of creativity. I was at a conference recently and I saw a really interesting presentation from a local CLSC in Quebec, and it was having difficulty with this. How do you reach these communities? How do you reach people who aren't online or who can't afford the Internet?

What they did—which I thought was really brilliant—was that they sent out messages with the Meals on Wheels people, and they had little notes saying, “Would you like us to call you with these services?”

This way it's not put on the senior to phone them. It's not onerous for them to find these people and find the information. Many of them are already benefiting from Meals on Wheels. These are people whom they know and are comfortable with. All they have to do is tick off a box, give it back to the person bringing them the meal, who is responsible for bringing it back to the CLSC, which follows up and says, “Okay, you expressed interest in these different services; what can we do for you?”

They had a really high level of success. It just takes some creativity and not always relying on the same ways we've done things.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

How widespread is that kind of approach? You talked about it in Quebec, but does anyone know if it's something that is utilized in the other provinces and territories?

[Vanessa Herrick]

I haven't heard of it anywhere else, but I don't know. I can't speak to that for sure.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

I think everyone has touched on the role of health professionals. One thing that concerns me very much is that there's a shortage of gerontologists. The needs of a senior change as the individual ages, and the medicine that worked five years ago may conflict with what is needed now.

I'm thinking in terms of my own mom. Her general practitioner didn't seem to have any idea about what was happening to her and for all intents and purposes wasn't even listening. By the time someone who really was concerned—

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

We need to get to the question.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

—saw her, she was in distress. Is a need for better training for health care professionals something you see, or was my mother a special case?

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Make it a very short answer.

[Vanessa Herrick]

I think that's definitely part of the answer. The other answer is our doing more work to support and educate our seniors on what questions to ask and on how to ensure that they are seeing the right professionals to answer their needs. That's a super-short and simplified answer, but I think it works both ways.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Excellent.

We're now going to pass it over to Rachel.

Rachel, you have seven minutes.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

If you would like to complete the question....

[Vanessa Herrick]

I was going to say that often, I agree, there's a real issue, but I also think that people sometimes struggle. They are intimidated at the doctor's office. Certainly, English-speaking seniors don't know how to express what their needs are, so as advocates for that community we need to do more to empower them by telling them how to ask questions and making sure they're seeing the right people.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you for taking the time to come to committee to provide your testimony. Thank you for the advocacy work you do.

I must say that one statistic you mentioned, Mr. Udy, is particularly striking for me, that more than twice as many women as men are living on less than $20,000 a year.

I wonder whether, in your work, all of you have had discussions with senior women about their knowledge of government programming, be it at the federal level or at other levels of government. Do you find there is sufficient understanding of what help is available from government?