Status of Women Committee on Dec. 10th, 2020

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

I want to welcome everyone to meeting number 10 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House Order of September 23, 2020. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. The webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee.

In order to have an orderly meeting, let's talk about a few rules.

Members and witnesses may speak in the official language of their choice. Interpretation services are available, and at the bottom of your screen you can choose “floor”, “English” or “French”.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you're on a video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute your mike. For those in the room, your microphone will be controlled as normal by the proceedings and verification officer.

I offer a reminder that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair.

Now we'll go into our panel on unpaid work.

Today as witnesses we have Andrea Doucet, who is a professor and Canada research chair in gender, work and care, and from the Vanier Institute of the Family, we have Nora Spinks, who is the president and CEO.

Each of you will have five minutes to make your opening remarks and after that we'll go into our round of questions.

Andrea, we'll start with you for five minutes.

[Professor Andrea Doucet, Professor and Canada Research Chair in Gender, Work and Care, As an Individual]

Thank you for inviting me to speak on this timely topic of women's unpaid work. I am speaking as the Canada research chair and project director of a new seven-year partnership grant funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. This grant is focused on policies, especially child care, parental leave and employment policies that support families' paid and unpaid work.

I am pleased to say that three of our grant partners are here today, Women and Gender Equality Canada, Statistics Canada and the Vanier Institute of the Family.

My short remarks are also informed by my 25 years of research on caregiving fathers and my methodological writing on how we measure unpaid care work.

I frame my remarks around what British feminist economist Diane Elson calls the three Rs for analyzing unpaid work: recognize, reduce and redistribute.

I will turn now to recognize. We recognize that care and the care economy underpins and makes possible the so-called real or essential economy. We recognize that our economy, in the words of my colleague Nancy Folbre, is actually taking a free ride on the care economy. Society gets a pass while women, especially mothers, take on the work and the costs of care. We recognize that care is a human, not a female, capacity. Men's involvement in care can be transformative for men, for families and for societies. We recognize the extraordinarily high socio-economic value of unpaid care work and the high economic value of investing in high-quality paid care work, including elder care and child care.

The economic benefits of investing in child care are well detailed in recent studies from the U.K. Women's Budget Group and from Jim Stanford of the Centre for Future Work. These economic benefits include, for example, direct and indirect job creation, increased tax dollars and increased GDP.

That brings me to my second point, reduce. How does one reduce unpaid work? In the global north, including Canada, a key social infrastructure to reduce women's unpaid work and to facilitate their paid work is child care. As well said in the recent throne speech, the time is now for significant, long-term, sustained investment in high-quality, affordable, accessible child care.

I will turn now to redistribute. A 2019 report by the International Labour Organization on unpaid care work analyzed time use surveys from 23 countries around the globe, including Canada. They concluded, “Across the world, without exception, women carry out three-quarters of unpaid care work, or more than 75 per cent of the total hours provided.... There is no country where women and men perform an equal share of unpaid care work.”

To redistribute unpaid work, there are at least two things to consider. First, how do we support father's involvement in unpaid work? One important argument repeatedly made by parental leave scholars, including myself, is that fathers' take-up of parental leave is a lever for gender change in paid and unpaid work. Just as the federal government is looking to the Province of Quebec for lessons on child care, we should look to Quebec for lessons on policy design that will support more fathers taking parental or paternity leave. I am happy to discuss this more in the question period.

A second point about redistributing unpaid work is how to measure it. The 1995 Beijing platform for action called upon countries to make visible and to measure unpaid work through time use studies. However, time use studies can only go so far in measuring unpaid work. They measure care and housework tasks, but they do not measure responsibilities for unpaid work. As I have argued for 25 years, it is the responsibilities for unpaid work that are extremely difficult to shift.

We need stronger methodological tools for measuring the responsibilities for unpaid work, for example, combining time use diaries with qualitative research on people's stories about how they use time and live time, or time diaries that include open-ended questions that tap into socio-cultural norms that underpin gendered responsibilities for unpaid work. We also need disaggregated data so that we can track diversity, equity and inclusion in unpaid work.

To conclude, according to the ILO, it will take around 210 years to close the gender gap in unpaid care work. The time to act is now.

Canada has been a leader on gender equality. It needs to act now on child care and parental leave. We need more and stronger data, and we need to harness that data in policy development.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll go to Ms. Spinks for five minutes.

[Nora Spinks, President and Chief Executive Officer, Vanier Institute of the Family]

Good day and thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony here today. I would like to first acknowledge our meeting on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people and pay my respects to indigenous elders past, present and emerging.

It's an honour to appear today with my fellow panellists. I'm the president and CEO of the Vanier Institute of the Family. The institute is a research and education organization dedicated to understanding the diversity of families and the complexity of family life in Canada.

We are here today to discuss the critically important role women play in our families, communities, society and economy. To understand the valuable contributions women make, we need to frame women's paid and unpaid work caring for and supporting children, youth, adults and seniors within Canada's care economy. We need to deepen our understanding of and increase our investments in the care economy.

Historically, Canada, like most countries, has focused on creating a vibrant and prosperous market economy. Historically, care was largely provided by women in private homes. Today, the systems of care have become much more complex and more diverse. COVID has highlighted the strengths and vulnerabilities in our market economy and the need for a strong dynamic care economy.

Developing a strong, adaptable and vibrant post-pandemic care economy will make it possible for the Canadian government to meet domestic and international commitments and to meet or exceed public and global expectations. Today in Canada, as in most countries, care is still provided largely by women—care to family and friends, care provided through civil society, in the non-profit and philanthropic sectors and care delivered through government services such as hospitals and health science centres.

The market economy is our traditional frame of reference. A care economy is our emerging complementary intertwined economic force. The market economy has a financial focus based on the movement of financial capital and markets in businesses. The care economy has a human focus based on the movements of human capital between homes and communities. The market economy measures success by growth and wealth. The care economy measures success by growth and health.

When you buy a wheelchair, you make a purchase in the market economy. The wheelchair is a commodity. However, the occupational therapist who measures you for optimum fit, teaches you how to use it and supports you to integrate it into your life is part of the care economy. The care economy is driven by humanity and compassion, is based on dignity and respect and is framed around equity and fairness.

In the market economy, someone sells and someone buys goods or services. Goods and services have a cash or monetary value. In the care economy, someone provides and someone receives care. Care has intrinsic value. The market economy is based on cash transactions, on competition, market share and ownership. The care economy is based on relationships, compassion, sustainability and equity.

The market economy is based on private gain, measured by gross domestic product, or GDP. The care economy is based on public good, measured by gross domestic experience, also known as the human well-being index. The two economies together are required to maximize our national potential. The two economies together are core to our social and economic well-being. They are intertwined.

The two economies impact and are impacted by families. The two economies are influenced by cultural, political and environmental factors. They are interdependent. Either of the two economies can't function effectively without the other. They are like a ladder, with the two side rails being the market economy and the care economy, and the rungs of the ladder represented by the various systems—our monetary system, health care system, child care system and justice system, just to name a few.

For people to grow, to prosper and to progress up the ladder, all components need to be present and function well together. Investments in a care economy will benefit all Canadians regardless of socio-economic status, gender, abilities, immigration status or cultural background, but those who will benefit most in those investments are women.

In conclusion, if we recognize that women's unpaid and paid labour is critical for our social and economic well-being, if we frame women's contribution as part of the care economy rather than simply a subset of the market economy, and if we focus on the importance of relationships of care within the care economy, then together we will be able to optimize women's well-being.

I look forward to our conversations today. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

That's very good. Thank you so much.

Now we're going into our first round of questions, starting with Ms. Wong for six minutes.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair; and thank you to all of the panellists on a very important topic.

COVID-19 has served to highlight the critical intersection of family, aging and care work, especially for women. As we know, seniors are the most vulnerable and have borne the brunt of serious cases of COVID, including deaths.

Prior to hospitalization, many of these seniors were recipients of caretaker support, both formal and informal, as indicated by both of our panellists. Actually, those who have managed to avoid hospitalization are also receiving caretaker support.

My question is addressed to our second panellist.

On your website, you have a fair amount of literature discussing the impact of COVID-19 on the family. Has your organization done any research specific to informal caregiver support? If you have, what have you found? If not, is this something your organization would consider looking at in the future?

I have learned so much from both of you. As a former researcher myself, I'll say we've definitely gone to a new paradigm right now.

[Nora Spinks]

Thank you for that great question.

It has been a really important period of time for social research. We have this unexpected opportunity to deeply understand the dynamics and the interplay with families and community. A big part of that is the role that caregivers play.

When we talk about care, we talk about two distinctive groups. Often both groups represent women largely, the caregivers and what is often referred to as the informal care providers. We don't like the idea of “informal”. There's nothing informal about it. They're giving care and they give it without any recognition, without any support and without any acknowledgement in a lot of cases. They give care. Care providers provide care. They're paid. They're structured. They might be volunteers, but they are associated with some type of entity.

During COVID, going back to March, we started working with some partners to poll families week over week. Since then, we have been exploring all aspects of COVID and the impacts it has on family.

One of the most significant ones is the challenge that families face in either being locked in or locked out during lockdown with respect to senior care. I might be locked in and not have access to supplementary care. Over the summer, I was providing palliative care. I was locked in providing senior services. The care sector was locked out. They couldn't come in. The palliative care nurses stopped coming. The personal support workers stopped coming. They weren't available to me. My colleague was locked out of the long-term care facility that her mother was in. She used to go regularly. She used to attend. She used to provide supplementary supports.

The research shows that both those experiences are real and have a huge impact on our ability to participate in the paid labour force, but also in the quality of the experience that seniors have. Whether you're locked in or locked out, there are excruciating decisions that need to be made. There are circles of support that need to be in place in order for that to happen. We've seen women having to leave paid employment for periods of time, if not permanently, in order to fulfill their care responsibilities. Therefore, it is a really important thing that we need to continue to monitor as we go forward.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Thank you very much.

You already answered part of my second question. That's about the impact of COVID on being locked in and locked out and the social isolation. Seniors are probably the hardest hit, as I mentioned in my first question. Because of the death toll in homes for seniors and long-term care homes, a lot of families are reluctant to even send their seniors back to care homes. Now you have additional family care duties for the caregivers, whether they be parents, children or even young people.

My focus is on caring for the carers. They put so much passion and human value into it, which is exactly what our panellists just mentioned. My focus is on caring for the mental health especially of our caregivers. Do you have any insight on this, please?

[Nora Spinks]

Research is showing very clearly that connections make the difference. You can be living alone in a single-person household, but if you have connections, whether it's over the phone, online or in person, you will be in a position to achieve greater success and to experience less isolation and loneliness.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Very good. That's time.

We'll go now to Ms. Dhillon for six minutes.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Thank you to our witnesses for being here this morning.

I'll start with Andrea Doucet, who spoke very eloquently about the role of men when it comes to caregiving.

First, you spoke about the throne speech and our government's commitment to have high-quality care. What suggestions would you make to the committee on how we can give people good-quality care and fulfill our throne speech promise?

[Prof. Andrea Doucet]

On good-quality care, are you talking about child care in particular or just more broadly?

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

In general.

[Prof. Andrea Doucet]

If we look at the different policy domains and start with child care, we need well-paid child care workers. In the same way COVID-19 revealed the problems with marketized private elder care homes, where the care workers were moving between sites and were not supported, it's the same with child care. It's a low-paid occupation. Because it's low paid, a lot of men don't go in to it. There are a lot of arguments about how to change the social norms around care. It would be good to have men also involved in the early years of care.

It's about well-paid care. In same way that Nora was drawing the intraconnections between paid work and unpaid care work, which I think we both agree on, the ILO has what's called the “unpaid care work, paid work, paid care work circle”. The paid care work is really, really important. Why are these workers so devalued? If we're going to value care work, it also means paying well the care workers, such as elder care workers and child care workers. That is how you recognize their work. You don't just praise them or clap for them at the end of the day, the way people do for health care workers. It's great, but it's not enough. We need to put money behind that.

That would be one answer in terms of how to recognize and value unpaid care work. Allow people to have a livable wage where they can work one job.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Perfect.

You spoke also about men providing care. Have you noticed, between the care men provide and women provide, if...? It's very curious, because care does end up falling to women, whether it's child care, an elderly parent, a sick spouse or anything like that. This is how it happens. We've noticed with COVID how much more intense that's become. Do you find that when men are doing the same care, they are facing the same challenges women are facing, with the same diminishment of funds, or even poverty, or getting to that line? Are men also facing that?

You said earlier that giving care is human work, that it shouldn't be men's work or women's work; it's human work. I found that very interesting. It speaks to equality as well. Do men become as disadvantaged or sacrifice in the same way women do when they have to leave their workplace? It would be very interesting to know that. We don't talk much about men giving care, because it's predominantly women.

[Prof. Andrea Doucet]

Thank you for the question.

Absolutely, to care is a human capacity. I would just make that point again. Thank you for picking up on it.

I've studied stay-at-home fathers, single fathers and LGBTQ fathers or gay father households. When men leave work to care, they face the same disadvantages as women in some ways, but one of my colleagues, R. W. Connell, argued many years ago that there is still a patriarchal dividend, so for men, even when they leave work, there is still an assumption that men are primary breadwinners, that there are still connections between men and power and public life.

They don't experience it in the same way socially, but certainly when men leave paid work to care, they do face some of the same disadvantages. Also, having studied this for over 25 years, I'd say they face different challenges, because in communities when fathers go into playgroups and these sorts of what I've called maternal-dominated spaces, it can be very challenging for them. We need to change the social norms. That's why parental leave and paternity leave have been very important to me as a scholar, because when you see men walking around with strollers, as you do in the Nordic countries, it begins to shift the idea that it's only women who can do that work, especially with young children.

I know there are cultural differences around this that we need to be really sensitive to. It means really looking at the social norms and how they are changing, but I would say, having studied men in caregiving, that when men do it, they change enormously, and it has benefits for women, for children and for families. They can do it as well as women can. There should be no difference. Sometimes it's in the eyes of the viewer that they see the difference.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

That's perfect. I just want to say—

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

That's your time.

Ms. Larouche, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

My thanks to the witnesses for their presentations. It was a pleasure hearing what they had to say.

When you hear my questions, you will understand that I have been following this issue for a very long time and that it is very close to my heart.

However, witnesses and colleagues, I apologize because I would like to begin by introducing a notice of motion on an issue that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women may be considering in the near future. The issue was in the news this week and has affected us all very much. I'm sure you'll understand.

I'm just introducing a motion. I'll ask my questions right afterwards.

Let me read the motion once and then I will forward it to you after the meeting:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study on the sexual violence and exploitation experienced by women resulting from the distribution of pornography and child pornography for electronic commerce purposes by Canadian companies and companies that distribute pornography, including child pornography on Canadian soil with total impunity and under no Canadian legislative framework; that the committee examine as part of its work: (a) the case of the Pornhub digital platform that is owned by the Canadian business, MindGeek, whose headquarters are in Montreal, and that globally distributes pornography, including child pornography, produced and distributed with total impunity and without restrictions—

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

On a point of order, Madam Chair, does this relate to the topic of the study?

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

My understanding is that she can bring the notice of motion, but there will be no debate on the motion. She just wants to make sure it's on the record so that we can discuss it at the January meeting.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

We will indeed have other opportunities to debate the motion. I will finish reading it before asking my questions:

...(b) the devastating psychological effects on victims of sex crimes and the effects on the lives of women who appear in pornographic videos produced or distributed without their consent; (c) the legislative measures that could be taken to prevent the production or distribution of non-consensual pornography and all child pornography...

I will forward the motion to you after the meeting. Thank you very much for giving me the time to introduce this motion. I think it is an important issue.

I apologize again to the witnesses.

Since I do not have much time left, I will get right to the heart of the matter.

I was involved in the creation of the first Maison Gilles-Carle Foundation home, which provides care for caregivers. In my riding, in Granby, we also have the Maison soutien aux aidants, which does exceptional work.

It is essential to help caregivers, but I would like to know how it can be done if we do not have studies on the phenomenon. As you mentioned, it is important to measure the impact of invisible work. Questions prompting more information about invisible work may have been removed from the long form of the Statistics Canada census, and that's certainly not without consequences.

I'd like to hear what both witnesses think about this issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Ms. Doucet.

[Prof. Andrea Doucet]

Statistics Canada has been collecting the time use surveys, the time use studies, and has received high praise for doing that really well. It has been doing it for decades. Certainly since the 1995 Beijing platform for action, it has been accelerating on this. It's only every five years. The United States collects time use data every year. There is a question of whether or not we could collect it more often, but it is done with the census.

As I said in my remarks, I think we could do more. I think time use data tells us a lot about the activities and tasks that people do. There are ways to do it better especially if people are keeping time diaries during the day, rather than doing them retrospectively even within a day. I also believe that we should combine those with qualitative research, where we're interviewing people and shadowing people, spending time with them to see how they actually spend their days.

I think that's especially important with diverse populations. I think in indigenous populations there may be different conceptions of time. There's a lot that we could still tap into and do a better job of looking at how people live their everyday lives, but you can only get so much of that through numbers and through statistics. I think some of it is through stories and narratives, through talking to people and listening to people, and then telling those provocative, compelling stories, so that people understand and can create social change from those stories.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

We also discussed the importance of designating a day to raise public awareness about invisible work. Do you think that's a good idea?