Status of Women Committee on March 7th, 2017

[Eva Nassif, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

The community chapters of your union offer certain opportunities to people employed in non-unionized workplaces.

Can you explain how these community chapters work? What are the benefits of joining a community chapter?

[Lisa Kelly]

That's an excellent question. Again, I really recommend that the government take a look at these alternative accesses to collective action, democracy, and voice.

I'll give you an example of the East Danforth Community Chapter. It's made up largely of Bangladeshi women who have self-organized and are then a community chapter. They have access to support through the union about methods of organizing, advocating for their rights, and determining out of their membership what their needs are. They were one of the groups that made a presentation to the Ontario government's changing workplaces review, and did a very effective job at reaching in to those precarious workers we so often don't hear about.

It's that interim place where the methods of unionization that we have right now don't address the working structures that happen. It's a way of supporting democracy and voice within those workers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Excellent.

I want to thank all of our witnesses today for your testimony and the work you're doing to improve the economic status of women in Canada.

Thank you to my colleagues.

We're going to adjourn so we can switch the panels.

We are very fortunate today to have Pam Damoff taking over as the chair for the next two sessions.

Let's suspend.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Pam Damoff]

We'll bring the meeting back to order. I'd like to welcome all of our witnesses.

We'll start with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

You have seven minutes.

[Dr. Kate McInturff, Senior Researcher, National Office, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives]

I'd like to thank the committee for inviting me to speak today and for undertaking your work on this very important issue.

My name is Kate McInturff, and I am a senior researcher at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

By now the committee will have heard a number of recommendations about what they should do. I would like to take a moment to talk about the cost of not doing anything.

In spite of equal levels of education, there is still a gap of 7% in men's and women's employment rates. The OECD projects that gap is costing our economy $8.7 billion, with a “b”, annually.

The women who are employed are twice as likely as men to work part time, and last year more than 700,000 women in Canada were working part time for involuntary reasons. There were 275,000 of those women who cited the lack of child care as the reason. If those women who were working part time involuntarily were working full time, they would have brought home an additional $20.6 billion in wages last year.

Women across employment sectors at every age and education level are paid less than men. If only the women who worked full time last year earned the same hourly wage that their full-time male counterparts earned, they would have taken home an additional $42 billion. That is the cost of doing nothing.

If we want to do something, then we need to address some of the root causes of women's economic and equality, and those are unpaid work, occupational segregation, and violence.

First, on unpaid work, women in Canada continue to spend more time than men on unpaid care work. As long as there are only 24 hours in the day, that unpaid care work will put an absolute limit on the number of hours of paid employment that women can take. More to the point, it also limits the kind of paid work that women can do. Thus we see a concentration of women in occupations with hours that accommodate their unpaid work. These are occupations like nursing, teaching, and retail. We also see the overrepresentation of women in part-time work.

Second, with regard to occupational segregation, men and women in Canada tend to work in different occupations. More then one out of every five women working today works in health and social services. Now that in itself should not lead to a gap in pay or employment if we value the work of women equally. However, we do not. The occupations in which women are most likely to work in Canada include some of the lowest-paying jobs. For example, the medium employment income of an early childhood educator or a home care worker falls below the poverty line.

Increasing representation of women in predominately male employment sectors may pay off for women in the longer term. However, the rate of change is very slow. For example, while the federal government has invested nearly $5 million over the past five years in programs to increase women's participation in the mining, oil, and gas sector, the share of women working in that sector has remained unchanged at 19%. The wage gap in the oil and gas sector for full-time workers remains one of the largest of any occupation, with women earning 64% of what their male counterparts earn. Again, that's working full time.

Further, unfortunately, we also see that where we are successful in moving more women into traditionally male fields, the value placed on that work diminishes. There's been some very good research in the United States that's come out in the last year, which has shown that as the share of female employees increases in an occupation, wages stagnate or decrease.

Third, violence against women is an economic issue. Although women from every income level experience gender-based violence, it is clear that violence against women is exacerbated by economic insecurity and is itself a cause of economic insecurity. Shelters consistently report that women return to violent homes because they can't afford to move out. Violence can cost them their jobs, their health, and their education. Justice Canada estimates that violence against women costs our economy more than $12 billion each year.

Here are four things the federal government can do this year to make a difference to women's economic security.

First, it can invest in a publicly managed system of high-quality, universal child care. The result: more women will be able to move back into paid work. Part-time workers who want to work full time will have access to that work. Single mothers will not continue to face one of the highest poverty rates of any group of women in Canada.

Two, it can invest in the sectors where women work. Investments in infrastructure are important and necessary, but women continue to make up only a fraction of the workers in the fields where jobs will be created. If we invest equally in the sectors where women are likely to work, we will see higher employment levels, not only for women, but overall. We will also see a diversified, and thus more stable, economy.

Three, it can table proactive pay equity legislation today. The result: greater economic security for women, economic growth that lessens inequality rather than contributing to it, and increased government revenues.

Four, it can implement a national action plan to end violence against women. The result: women will be safer, both in their homes and their workplaces, and survivors of violence will be adequately supported.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Pam Damoff]

I'm sorry, I'm not used to doing this, and I realize I have to call on the next witness—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Pam Damoff]

I'm just busy listening.

Next we'll move to the Canadian Labour Congress.

You have seven minutes between the two of you.

[Vicky Smallman, National Director, Women's and Human Rights, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you.

I'm happy to be here with my colleague Angella MacEwen, our senior economist. I'm Vicky Smallman and I'm the national director of women's and human rights at the Canadian Labour Congress.

We're the national voice of 3.3 million workers in Canada, bringing together national and international unions, along with provincial and territorial federations of labour, and 130 district labour councils, whose members work in virtually all sectors of the Canadian economy, in all occupations, and in all parts of Canada. We're really pleased to be here to participate in this study on women's economic security.

In our statement we intend to focus our time on solutions that help address systemic barriers to women's economic security. The realities facing women and their barriers to economic justice are well documented: unequal access to decent jobs; higher rates of unemployment and precarity, and under-employment; lower retention and promotion rates; and lower earnings.

What women in Canada need is action to break through the status quo. Economic justice for women will never be achieved unless we lift up all women, including, and especially those who are most marginalized. We know the barriers to equality are magnified for racialized women, indigenous women, and women with disabilities, as well as lone mothers, so if we focus attention on women who already have privilege, say, by preoccupying ourselves with economic leadership positions, as this study puts it, then we will not make progress. As Rosemary Brown said, “Until all of us have made it, none of us have made it.”

We want to put on the table some simple, concrete initiatives that the government can act on right away. Number one, let's get proactive pay equity legislation tabled. It seems you've heard this already. We don't need to repeat the points that the CLC and others have made for more than a decade to this committee and to the recent special committee on pay equity.

The government has committed to tabling proactive pay equity legislation, but not until the end of 2018. We're concerned that this timeline would not allow for the new legislation to pass before the next federal election, so women would have justice delayed yet again. The work is already done, thanks to the pay equity task force which made detailed recommendations for action. Unions and other experts are ready to help draft the legislation, so why wait? Let's get this done in 2017.

Number two, let's get a national child care framework signed and funded. Child care helps parents, particularly women, take part in the labour force. We all benefit when people can go to work knowing their kids have a safe place to play and learn. It's good for women, good for kids, and it's good for the economy, but in Canada it is hard to find and hard to afford.

The Advisory Council on Economic Growth recently noted that the wide availability of affordable child care has made Quebec a national leader in women's labour force participation. We know that negotiations toward a new framework for early learning and child care are under way and that's great, but we need that deal and we need funding to provinces and territories to ensure all Canadian families can access quality affordable child care. Let's get this done in 2017.

Number three, let's get paid domestic violence leave into the Labour Code. Domestic violence does not stay at home, it follows people to work, putting jobs and safety at risk. Our recent study revealed that one in three workers in Canada have experienced domestic violence in their lifetime and more than half say they experience the violence at or near their workplace. Paid domestic violence leave can help keep victims safe. It means being able to take the time that you need to deal with police or lawyers, get new bank accounts, find a new place to live without worrying about losing your job.

Manitoba's government recently passed a law giving all workers the right to five paid days of domestic violence leave, the first of its kind in Canada. Now we need the federal government to do the same with the federal Labour Code. Let's get this done in 2017.

[Angella MacEwen, Senior Economist, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you.

Let's help precarious workers. The most important thing that governments can do for precarious workers is to provide high-quality, universal public services, such as health care and child care. Almost as important, though, are effective employment standards legislation and proactive enforcement of those standards.

It's true that the federal government can only legislate the employment standards for less than 10% of the workforce. However, it's not true that all federally regulated jobs are already decent jobs. There are many low-wage jobs in banking, telecommunications, airports, and airlines.

Women in Canada earn less money than similarly educated men and are more likely to have incomes that put them below the poverty line. Women dominate low-wage, precarious work. One in three women earns less than $15 an hour, compared to one in five men.

We think that federal leadership, in setting a $15 minimum wage and establishing a proactive employment standards enforcement team, would not only help low-wage workers employed in the federally regulated sector, but also provide important leadership for the provinces.

Finally, let's improve access to employment insurance and make sure that EI redresses labour market inequalities.

There are three elements that would improve women's economic security through employment insurance.

First, recent research shows that Quebec's parental and maternity leave does a better job at reaching low-income families than the program available in the rest of Canada. There are several elements behind this, including a lower entrance requirement, additional "use it or lose it" weeks of leave for the non-birthing parent, and higher replacement rates for portions of the benefit period. These should all be considered.

Second, add an improved low-income supplement, based on individual income rather than household income. For example, impose a floor on benefit levels.

Third, improve access to benefits and the fairness of EI with a uniform, national entrance requirement of 360 hours.

Thank you.

[Vicky Smallman]

In conclusion, we just have to say, why wait? In 2017, we call on our government to act to put women in Canada on a path toward economic justice.

Thanks.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Pam Damoff]

Thank you very much. You were well within the time frame.

Next, we're going to go to Canada Without Poverty. Thank you for being here. Again, you have seven minutes between the two of you.

[Megan Hooft, Deputy Director, Canada Without Poverty]

Thank you, and thanks everyone. Good morning.

My name is Megan Hooft and I'm the deputy director of Canada Without Poverty. I'm joined by my colleague Michèle Biss, our legal education and outreach coordinator.

We are pleased to make this submission on three critical factors that we believe are impacting women's socio-economic security. These are poverty, the need for the full implementation of human rights, and government accountability.

For those of you who are not familiar with Canada Without Poverty, we're a federally incorporated charitable organization dedicated to the elimination of poverty in Canada. Since our inception in 1971 as a national anti-poverty organization, we have been governed by people with direct, lived experience of poverty. This experience informs all aspects of our work.

The discussion of barriers to women's economic security in Canada comes at an opportune time. Tomorrow is International Women's Day, and around the world the women's movement is perhaps the most energized it has been in some time

In the Canadian context, it seems as though we're ready to take steps in the right direction towards gender equality. Our Prime Minister has called himself a feminist. In an August 2016 letter to the ONE campaign, he acknowledged that poverty is sexist and that nowhere in the world do women have as many opportunities as men.

As members of a national anti-poverty organization, we applaud such public statements. We believe our government leaders must also recognize that poverty within Canada is similar to poverty in developed countries to some extent. Poverty is sexist here at home. Women in Canada experience significant levels of poverty, inadequate housing, homelessness, and hunger that are disproportionate to the country's economic wealth.

Lone-parent mothers enter shelters at twice the rate of two-parent families. It is estimated that four out of five women in prison are there for poverty-related crimes. Social assistance rates are so woefully inadequate that only in Newfoundland and Labrador can a lone parent receive support that brings them above the poverty line.

The statistics are particularly striking when looking at women who are members of marginalized groups. For example, 36% of first nations women living off reserve experience poverty. Poverty rates are also higher among elderly women, who make up 73% of all poor seniors living alone.

Canada's reputation as a leader in women's rights is disconnected from the reality on the ground. In 1995, Canada was ranked first on the United Nations gender inequality index, but today this ranking has dropped to 25th. In recent years, Canada's approach to women's poverty has been piecemeal and based on emergency responses. From food banks, to inadequate shelter spaces, to pockets of money for child care, such patchwork programs represent band-aid solutions. They're not tackling systemic causes.

For Canada to say we are a leader on gender equality is one thing, but to act like a leader is something else entirely.

[Michèle Biss, Legal Education and Outreach Coordinator, Canada Without Poverty]

The world is looking to Canada to be a leader, and this government has an opportunity to break the barriers that stand in the way of women's economic empowerment. Canada has a shared responsibility to the sustainable development goals, in particular goal one to end poverty, and goal five for gender equality, as well as our international human rights obligations.

In October 2016, the United Nations CEDAW committee reviewed Canada's compliance with women's economic and social rights. The committee issued Canada a number of concrete recommendations, many of which have been reflected on this panel today, that speak directly to the barriers women face to achieving economic security.

In particular, I'd like to draw your attention to the first recommendation, that Canada ensure that its poverty reduction strategy and national housing strategy protect the rights of all women by integrating a human rights, gendered approach.

The second was that Canada increase the amounts of transfer payments to provinces and territories, earmark sufficient funds specifically for social assistance, and set conditions on those payments based on human rights.

Third was that we intensify our efforts to revive sufficient numbers of affordable child care facilities and affordable and adequate housing options.

This is not the first time that we've heard these recommendations from a United Nations body. In fact, these points were articulated recently at the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in February of 2016.

It's time to recognize that women are rights bearers, and the responsibility to address poverty stems from our obligations under international human rights law, something that must be reflected directly within our laws, policies, and programs. Good laws and policies are a start, but it's crucial that they be framed in international human rights.

We're very much encouraged that Canada is already taking steps toward some of these important recommendations by the CEDAW and other United Nations committees, in particular Minister Duclos' commitment to the creation of a national housing strategy and Canadian poverty reduction strategy.

Further to these and other initiatives by the federal government, including the gender budgeting aspects that we're anticipating in budget 2017, we further recommend that this committee call on the Government of Canada, first, to implement a review mechanism to assess, through a rights-based and gender lens, all national laws, policies, and programs that serve to support women's socio-economic rights in light of the sustainable development goals and international human rights obligations. Such a mechanism should allow for input from civil society experts and women with lived experience of poverty.

Second, we recommend that the Government of Canada ensure that national strategies such as Canada's national housing strategy and Canadian poverty reduction strategy use a human rights framework that makes direct reference to international human rights obligations and women's economic and social rights.

We thank you for your time and we look forward to your questions.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Pam Damoff]

Thank you very much.

We're going to go to our first round of questions with Mr. Fraser.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you very much for being here. I have about six days' worth of questions and so I will jump right in.

Ms. McInturff, I'll begin with you. I found the way you opened very interesting as you described the economic impact of the employment gap between men and women.

One of the things I foresee as a problem when we try to correct this social issue is that there are a limited number of full-time positions in Canada generally, and that, if we have a lot of women who are currently working part-time for one of many reasons but who want to work full-time, there may not be opportunities for everybody who wants to.

You mentioned that one of the things we can do is invest where women work to help create those opportunities. I was hoping you could be a little more specific and say what kinds of investments and which industries would make the biggest difference.

[Dr. Kate McInturff]

Thank you. Absolutely.

First, I would say that, while I agree that there isn't an endless supply of full-time jobs out there, we've seen the government make investments to produce jobs, for example, in the sectors that will benefit from infrastructure spending. I think that what we need to see is greater investments by the federal government, working with provinces, in health and social services. For example, I welcome the $3 billion investment in home care, but I would say as a caveat that we need to think about the fact that home-care workers' median wages right now fall below the poverty line. We need to think both about investing in a sector like home care, but also ensuring that the investment and those jobs come with a living wage.

The other thing I would point out is that more than a third of the women who work part-time voluntarily do so for reasons of child care. I think investments in child care will free those women up. When the labour force surveys the people who are working part-time, and they ask why are you doing that, the women are not saying they can't find full-time work. You can say you can't find full-time work and, indeed, many women do say that's the problem, but the 275,000 women don't say they can't find full-time work, but that they can't find child care. I think that tells us that there are some jobs out there for them, that they're trying to move into them, and that they're being hamstrung by the lack of accessible child care.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

To build on that, if we're making investments in child care and look at the wait times that exist now and want to bring those down so more women can find child care, where is the deficit right now? Should we be investing in child care infrastructure? Should we be subsidizing child care service providers? Should we be putting money in the pockets of parents so they can afford child care?

What's the right approach? Maybe it's a combination of these different approaches.

[Dr. Kate McInturff]

We have a very good natural experiment here in Canada, because Quebec has made very significant financial investments in subsidizing child care. I'm sure my colleagues from CLC can speak to this as well, but there are a couple of take home lessons, I find, from the Quebec example.

One is that if you simply look at the cost of running child care—paying your rent and your overhead, paying child care workers a living wage, which by and large we do not at the moment, and meeting your safety regulations—you have to charge parents more than they can afford, essentially.

We thus have to have government subsidies. The math just doesn't add up unless we provide government subsidies. The market will not fix this, because you can't make ends meet as a child care organization and not charge people exorbitant fees.

The other lesson I would take from the Quebec model is that it needs to be universal. I know that people say that's not fair. We've had this discussion even within Quebec. Should people with high incomes not be paying more? The answer is that they do pay more. They pay more when they pay their taxes.

Also, if we don't have universally accessible child care, what happens is that we create a whole lot of paperwork, which is very expensive; also, the poorest Canadians will not be able to access that child care, because they won't have a regular home address, they won't be able to provide all the receipts, and they won't have all of the paperwork they need to access to go through the income testing.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you for that.

I just have a couple of minutes left, and there are two issues I want to hit on.

I want to touch on domestic violence leave, which I think Ms. MacEwen raised—or maybe Ms. Smallman. Either can answer.

Do you have a suggestion as to what the appropriate amount of leave for domestic violence would be? One thing triggered in mind as a sort of “part B” is the question whether there is a role for the federal government to extend, say, EI benefits, as we do sickness benefits, for 15 weeks, but maybe for domestic violence or something of that nature.

[Vicky Smallman]

There are two types of leave that we're talking about.

What women really need is what we call paid safe time. These are days to be taken not consecutively but whenever needed, and maybe not full days; there could be half days.

Then it's possible that some women may require longer periods away from work, but that would be very rare.

The EI-funded component of it, then, wouldn't be our immediate priority, because what women really need is time during the workday to go to do the things they need to do to keep themselves safe.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

For this, the labour code is the right place .

[Vicky Smallman]

Exactly. We're talking about employment standards and the Canada Labour Code.

Manitoba has five days; Ontario's private member's bill suggests 10.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Okay.

[Vicky Smallman]

Let's start there.