Thanks very much for inviting us to appear on this important topic. CRIAW has a long-standing interest and publication record on this question. I'm here with Jackie Neapole, who is our lone staff person. I'll deliver the remarks, and Jackie will participate in any questions.
We want to focus on a few things. One is the structural economic inequality for women and to recognize it as a structural problem, to see the consequences in terms of women's economic inequality and poverty, to look at the impact it has on women's caring work, and to recognize the importance of public services for women's economic security. We will end with some recommendations.
First it is essential, in our view, to recognize that insecurity for women is a structural issue. It's not just about women's choices, which is often how it gets framed. That means it is deeply rooted in many systems, programs, and policies, much as our colleague was just saying. Those include many things for which the federal government is responsible, including directly as an employer in terms of the practices it has and the example it sets across the country. I mean things like pay systems, hiring systems that may have targets—God forbid—employment systems and what they are like, the EI system, parental leave systems, and the absence of a child care system, among other things. These are the systems that make a difference for women's economic equality and security, or not. It's not just about whether or not we choose to pursue certain jobs.
Women have been entering the workforce for the past 40 years, and things have not changed. We continue to be concentrated in administrative positions, teaching, and service jobs, which are, in our experience, undervalued vertically and horizontally. Either in the sectors in which we're employed or within an organization, women still tend to be paid less, often because of where we are concentrated.
The fact that this situation has persisted for decades indicates that it's structural. We need to get deeper and deal with the underlying reasons and barriers to change. We really disagree with the focus being put on individual women having to make different choices, because that puts the burden on women to solve their own economic insecurity. Instead, those who have much more power to make a difference are governments and employers. The focus should be on things like targets to address hiring or undervaluing of women's work, the need to recognize and value women's paid and unpaid work, and social programs that are needed to support women's participation in the paid labour force and in society generally.
Women clearly have economic inequality and greater poverty in Canada. Throughout our lives we make less money than men do, and this then means we're poorer in our retirement and our older years as well. A gender-based analysis plus, GBA+, which the government has adopted and which CRIAW also calls an intersectional analysis, is very important, because we know that not all women are affected equally. There's an uneven distribution of benefits and costs, and we need to get at those differences.
For example, women living with disabilities are doubly affected. Not only do they experience lower wages generally, but they often can't find work or keep it, and so they are underemployed. Female-led single-parent families do far less well than do male-led single-parent families, and in fact, the UN committee CEDAW has recommended that Canada focus on this persistent problem.
Part of what's at the core is women's caring work. It has a fundamental impact on our economic insecurity, because women still bear the majority of domestic and caring work. It's true that men now spend more time on housework: over 20 years, it's 20 more minutes a day. At that rate, we should have equality in how many years?
Therefore, more has to be done. This conflict is serious for women, because women are often the ones who end up staying home when there's a conflict between care and paid employment. There are many things, but better parental leave provisions—something within the purview of the federal government—would help. Those, in addition to what exists for women, would give men an opportunity to also share in child care at an early age. There is evidence that if men start early, they will have greater participation throughout the child's life.
The importance of public services for women's economic security can't be understated either. They're important not only as a source of good jobs—although that is eroding, and it's a serious concern—but also because so many women rely on public services. We did an investigation in Ottawa, and a group of women identified hundreds of public services as needed in their daily lives. What's happening to the public sector with cuts in public services and with the growing precarity is a serious concern for women's economic security, or insecurity.
In conclusion, women's economic security over the past decade or so has worsened—the data shows it—partly because of this rise in precarious employment, which is also happening in the federal government, and also due to cuts to public services, both federally and in the reduced transfers to provinces and the cuts there.
We have a number of recommendations for action by the federal government.
One is to play a leadership role in establishing greater economic security for women in all aspects of our lives. Another is to promote an understanding of structural inequality. It's not just about women's choices. Identify where cuts and services are having a greater impact on women and on specific groups of women to get at that intersectional or GBA+ understanding.
Start with a rigorous and public GBA analysis of this federal budget. I know it's starting internally, but it should be public as well. Require GBA+ in environmental assessments. Our work in the north shows that this is an opportunity to ensure that women's needs—especially those of local women in the north—are met in the context of resource development, if such a thing were required.
Play a leadership role in creating more affordable, quality, non-profit child care spaces across the country. I think we've all talked about that. Make EI easier to qualify for and add parental benefits. Improve funding for public services. Require StatsCan to start collecting, or make sure they're collecting, data on time spent on domestic work and on gender division within the family. Canada has been a leader in that area, and it's important to keep monitoring. Finally, stem and reverse the trend towards precarity across the federal public sector through your federal collective bargaining.