Status of Women Committee on March 9th, 2021

[Jacqueline Neapole]

Go ahead, Laura.

[Laura Addati]

Yes, absolutely. The purpose of our study was to see how we could also take into account the care of seniors and those living with disabilities. That is part of this study.

In fact, the message we want to convey is that long-term care, in particular, and care—

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

I'm sorry, but your time is up.

We have Ms. Mathyssen for six minutes now.

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

Thank you so much.

My first question is for you, Ms. Neapole.

I'm very grateful that you raised very clearly the need for a universal, fully publicly funded, affordable child care system. It's something that I have been working for, and the New Democrats have been talking about, for a very long time.

One of the things we've heard is that the government, after 23 years, again has promised that national child care system, and they have provided some funding, so I'll recognize that.

However, within organizations that you mentioned, such as Child Care Now and all of those stakeholders, experts within the field of child care have said that in order to get to a place where they can provide adequate child care, they need $2.5 billion immediately, $10 billion over five years. They need a national child care act, a piece of legislation that's put into effect to provide national standards across the board to create that universal child care system fairly in every province.

Could you talk about the impacts? The government has given some money, but it hasn't given those full amounts, and what does that mean to implementing that national child care system?

[Jacqueline Neapole]

I think the challenge is that we have to go all in. If we value this and we believe that a national, universal, publicly funded child care system is what we want, we have to go all in and put the money there. We have to create a strong foundation for this system. It's been a hodgepodge of funding and a market-based approach. There are all sorts of different types of child care going on in Canada in the absence of a strong, universal, publicly funded system.

If we really value this, and we know that we do, I think we have to realize we have to invest in this and view this as an investment in not just women and women's rights but also in our children. All children should be able to access quality child care. I would say that a publicly funded system would mean that it's not just affordable but it's free because it's publicly funded.

We really have to go all in is how I would put it.

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

The lack of this full implementation would mean that we will continue on the path we are on now in terms of not having what truly women need. Is that what you're saying?

[Jacqueline Neapole]

Yes. I think that if we are still underfunding what we know needs to be funded, it will still be a mishmash of market-based spots. Maybe there will be more subsidized care; there could be more spaces that are freed up. However, it will not be the national system that we want.

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

Thank you so much.

Madam Addati, for the last 10 years the ILO has had domestic workers convention No. 189 on its books. Canada has not ratified that convention, which looks at the unpaid work and realities that you have so wonderfully brought to our attention today.

Can you maybe talk about governments who have ratified 189, the benefits that women have seen because of that ratification, and why Canada hasn't ratified, or why Canada should ratify, 189?

[Laura Addati]

If we look at the G7 countries, in one of the latest publications we are promoting around International Women's Day, we can see that, for instance, Italy and Germany are among those who ratified this convention in 2013. A number of countries have, around 35 overall in different regions, including low- and middle-income countries. The benefits are multiple. We have been observing that the fact that countries and legislation don't recognize domestic workers as workers is really the result of a lack of recognition of unpaid care work, work that is considered feminine and that women by nature are able to perform. This translates to how we undervalue workers in care jobs, including domestic work. It also brings in all the issues of intersectionality and migration.

It's really valuing and granting these workers the same rights, which is what the convention is calling for, and treating them like other workers. It recognizes their work as deserving the same labour rights and the same social protection rights. It goes hand in hand with recognizing the value of care work and guaranteeing the protection of the most vulnerable care workers. As well, given the fact that the occupation of domestic worker is highly feminized, we are recognizing that we are providing decent work to a large majority of vulnerable women.

There are a lot of benefits. It's really up to the countries to take up the challenge that can wait no longer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you. That's your time.

We're into our second round of questions now.

Ms. Shin, you have five minutes.

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you so much, ladies, for informing us today on this very important topic.

What I keep hearing over and over, even in the last statement, is the sense that there is a lack of dignity given to these domestic and caregiving roles. There are cycles created by that. One of those cycles is especially speaking about some cultures where they would prefer to have a family member care for their children or elders in their family. Usually they're women, such as a sister, a mother or a grandmother.

We know that socio-economically right now seniors live longer. They also work later in life. What happens in practice is that an aunt, for example, who is unemployed at a certain time picks up the gap and provides caregiving, or a grandmother who could potentially work does this as a favour because she loves her family.

Is there a way in which family members who are providing caregiving could be fairly acknowledged and compensated in a creative way? What are some ways in which those kinds of roles can be duly compensated and recognized so that we don't repeat the cycle of what the woman of the family was doing and just passing it over to some other family member to repeat that cycle? Do you have any thoughts on how that could be dealt with?

That question is for anybody.

[Jacqueline Neapole]

I was going to say that Laura kind of touched on this and she could probably touch more on how other countries are dealing with this, but I do think that pension credits are important. I do think we should value this as work.

I think there are two things going on here. We do need to make sure, though, that there are publicly funded options available. It's sometimes hard to know if people are choosing these options, because in the absence of other choices.... Of course we love our kids. I have a son and I love him. But in the absence of choice, it's hard to know if people are choosing this or if they are choosing it because they do care about the well-being of their children and grandchildren or their nieces and nephews.

Maybe Laura could speak more to some of the pension credits, or the different ways in which this can be valued and that have been effective.

[Laura Addati]

We have examples of this in a number of European countries, and we documented it in the report. I think it's an important thing for family members and for grandparents.

I also spoke about the transferability of child care leave and benefits. It's a possibility. I really would like to emphasize Jacqueline's point on choice. We know, for instance, from a study in Italy, about the consequences of the increase of the minimum pension age which suddenly jumped to 67 years. For a number of parents, caregiving was not an option anymore, because they had to work. There was a sort of trade-off between losing years of contributions to meet the new pensionable age and providing the care that their daughters and sons needed. Families were facing this unacceptable choice. We have to really emphasize the importance of having a choice for families of public, quality child care systems and enabling parents and grandparents. How and how much?

There is also a matter of providing a few hours per week. On being the main caregiver, that solution for a family can be bothersome for aging parents with the responsibility and the mental load. We heard about that. It should not be taken for granted, so we have to also take that into account.

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you. I appreciate those responses.

On a similar note, what are some ways the lack of dignity given to these kinds of roles could be improved culturally?

[Jacqueline Neapole]

I think that this is—

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Unfortunately, that's the time for that question.

Now we're going to Ms. Dhillon for five minutes.

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

Good morning, and thank you to our witnesses for being here today.

I would like to start with Ms. Addati.

You spoke about the sustainable development goals. I found it interesting, but because of a lack of time, you couldn't finish your testimony. Would you please elaborate on how we can best integrate these into our own system to optimize the respect of these goals and at the same time achieve the goal, which is to ensure equality when it comes to pay for women?

Thank you.

[Laura Addati]

In our simulation study, we looked at the targets that the international community has established for not only low-income but also high-income countries to meet by 2030 in terms of coverage of health care services, the number of teachers in early childhood education and the quality of jobs.

You will find a number in our research under the methodology. We are trying to integrate this target and trying to come up with the existing care needs in terms of the demographic projection of the population but also in terms of filling the number, for instance, of doctors who would be needed to meet those sustainable development goals, the teacher-to-student ratio in schools and child care facilities and providing a wage that is adequate with the level of qualification of health care workers, aides, child care aides, personal workers and assisted living workers.

There are all these elements in care needs which, if we are really serious, all countries, including high-income countries, have the responsibility to deliver. Also, if we want to prevent the COVID crisis that has generated what we have seen over this month from happening again, we really have to go all in with the sustainable development goals.

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

That was going to be my next question.

Could you tell us how other countries and ourselves here in Canada, because we have to go with our own Canadian reality as well, if God forbid there's another pandemic or another crisis such as this, how we can prevent women from being the most disadvantaged group, the most vulnerable people? If it comes to senior women, the LGBTQ community, racialized women, how do we make sure that women don't become as disadvantaged as they are right now with this pandemic? How do we protect them in the future?

[Laura Addati]

Yes, I think the task force was mentioned. It would be important that this is being created for the COVID pandemic. It's important to prioritize the representation of women and of all the groups that have an important stake in how we want to shape the recovery and the resilience after the crisis.

A recent study by the UN has shown the representation of women on the COVID task force has been marginal. This speaks to the importance of incorporating care in decision-making. If we want this to matter, it should be at the heart of big decisions on how to spend recovery packages, how to build a future that takes the interests and the needs of this population into account. It starts by making these people's voices heard when big decisions are taken.

Let's beware that austerity doesn't kick in after the pandemic has been solved, that we go back to the suffering and the job cuts and reduced working conditions we have been experiencing over these years.

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

Thank you for your perspective.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Now we'll move to Madam Larouche.

You have two and half minutes.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

During my last intervention, Ms. Addati was interrupted when she was going to talk about the long-term care study, so I would let her continue. Otherwise, I'd like to go back to Convention No. 189 as a tool to recognize invisible work. Perhaps both witnesses could comment on the importance of recognizing invisible work in Canada.

For example, in 2010, a Bloc Québécois member moved a motion on a day to recognize invisible work.

How could this kind of recognition tool improve the situation of those who do invisible work and who suffer the mental burden associated with it?

[Laura Addati]

There are very creative ways to recognize invisible work. In the report, we tried to incorporate the value of unpaid work into the calculation of GDP. It may be a bit of a mechanical exercise, but I think it can be done seriously. There are a lot of countries, especially in Latin America, that have tried to do this. So it could be done seriously and systematically.

Now we're talking about the green economy and how to get there. I think the feminist audience needs to stay on their toes, because there's a lot of creative discussion that's going to have an impact on the future, and that's where the economy of care needs to be raised.

Now is a good time to float ideas for the care economy.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

For example, the aging of the population should be taken into account more when making investments and transfers in health. Perhaps we should recognize that, in some places, the population is aging more quickly, and take that into account to support caregivers who will necessarily do invisible work with seniors and people who are sick.