Status of Women Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2020

[Leah Nord]

Maybe I'll start with some opening comments about the Canadian Chamber's resolutions specifically about supporting not only immigrants through, for example, foreign credential recognition or through pathways to permanent residency, but also....

I'll give you an example from the Canadian Chamber, a resolution from last year that was in response to, specifically, the Syrian refugee crisis. Concerning language training and its importance, we have a resolution that asks for increased child care, recognizing that refugee women—Syrian women and refugees—were not getting the language training they needed because of the lack of child care support. We need to support not only immigrants writ large not only with foreign credentials recognition, with labour market integration, but also prop up supports specific to women.

There has been some interesting work out of Ontario—Vicky, I'll hand it over to you, maybe, to speak a bit more about this— about the pathways and the ladders for many personal support workers, for example, to move into careers for which they're arguably qualified or will quickly gain experience in.

Thank you.

[Vicky Smallman]

I want to flip the discussion a little to immigrant women who have been really impacted: the low-wage workers who are highly skilled but whose skills are not being recognized because the work itself is undervalued. We're talking about care workers, many of whom are coming in with nursing qualifications and other qualifications, working as personal support workers or home care workers, but in conditions that make the work very difficult to sustain. This situation has also rendered these workers more vulnerable to not just job loss but also to infection.

We heard stories from the long-term care sector about workers who ended up out of work because they had to confine their work to one facility, because they were forced to work part-time, because the standards are so low and the job quality so poor, because the commitment to investing in decent jobs is not there in the industry.

What we hope to accomplish with the care economy commission is to look, really, at the quality of these jobs. These jobs are overwhelmingly populated by racialized women and immigrant women.

I think, also—

[Gudie Hutchings, Liberal, Long Range Mountains, NL]

I want to jump in because my time is—

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Your time is up actually.

We're going over to Madame Larouche.

You have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll now turn to you, Ms. Wise. You spoke with my colleagues about child care. As a member from Quebec, I can only point to the Quebec model for child care. This model has demonstrated that it enables many women to return to the workforce. I hope that we can take into account the work already accomplished in Quebec in this area when we discuss a national child care system. This will also give Quebec the opportunity to continue its work on child care services.

I spoke earlier about pay equity and the importance of paying women better and passing this legislation.

Ms. Wise, I want you to describe the barriers faced by women in decisional jobs, particularly at the senior level. How has COVID-19 affected women in decisional jobs? What measures could the government implement to increase the number of women in senior positions?

[Penny Wise]

The Quebec model for day care services has certainly come up in many of the discussions we've had and many of the great learnings as we think about the urgency of making sure we have the capacity to support day care.

Specifically to your question about decisional jobs, and women advancing through the organization and making sure that we continue to see women taking on more important decisional roles, I think there has been discussion of pay equity. There have been a number of elements about making sure that women are moving up and being promoted through the organization.

When Kevin and I both started working on the women's advocacy committee to talk about where we stood for women's advocacy or where we were taking that, the original plan was to think about how we could get more women on boards and in those higher positions. Obviously, given the urgency, the pandemic and what's happened, we've pivoted away from that and thought about what those urgent pieces are.

Again, it is about leading by example. It's about making sure that we're taking things forward and are demonstrating in our own organizations and in the business community how we start to accelerate. For the moment, our focus is to make sure that we get women back into the workforce and on a solid footing to be able to move forward, and then we can continue to develop and build from there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Now we're going to go to Ms. Mathyssen for a final two and a half minutes.

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

Since I wasn't able to get time for an answer to my previous question, I would like to afford that to Ms. Smallman.

Also, you had mentioned the ILO's convention C190, but there certainly also exists C189, which was looking at protection of domestic workers and unpaid work, and what Canada can do to play a role as a leader in that regard as well.

[Vicky Smallman]

Convention C189 is a really important convention. Domestic workers, and particularly those who come here as migrants, have slipped through the cracks of any support and recovery response measures that have been established through this pandemic.

There is a growing and organized force of caregivers in Canada that would be really interesting for committee to connect with. I do think that ratifying the ILO convention would enable us to put these workers on a path to permanent residency, and also address their working conditions—their wages and the way they're treated by their employers. I think that is a really important aspect of this committee's work.

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

Do I have more time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

You have one minute.

[Vicky Smallman]

I can expand on the long-term care, Lindsay, if you would like me to do that.

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

Absolutely, and certainly on what that task force you put forward would focus on....

[Vicky Smallman]

I do think that it's important for the sector-specific kinds of initiatives in long-term care and child care to continue.

What we really actually need is this big-picture analysis of who is providing care in this country. Who is doing the work, paid or unpaid? If these are paid jobs, what is the quality of these jobs? How is that connected to how the services are delivered? It's a model that really was advanced at the ILO. They have an excellent report on care work and care jobs, which I would highly recommend that the committee members look at. Taking that big-picture analysis and coming up with a labour force, a workforce, strategy is really important.

The reality is that care work is the future of work. A care job is the one type of job that can never be automated, so we can talk about getting women into leadership positions and all of those things, but at the same time, we have to look at who is providing the care in this country and whether we are able to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Very good. I'm really sorry, but that's the end of our time for this panel. I told you I would try to be kind.

I want to thank all of our witnesses. We could talk to you all day. You're all very experienced, so thank you for that.

We're going to switch gears and go to our second panel, which is on long-term care.

Today we have with us Tracy Smith-Carrier, an associate professor at King's University College at Western University; and Michelle van Beusekom, who is with Protect People in Long-Term Care.

Each of you will have five minutes, and we'll start with Tracy.

[Dr. Tracy Smith-Carrier, Associate Professor, King’s University College at Western University, As an Individual]

Great.

I am an associate professor in the school of social work at King's University College at Western University. I am presenting on behalf of the Coalition Canada basic income, Ontario Basic Income Network, and the Basic Income Canada Network, as well as the Basic Income Canada Youth Network.

Despite Canada's progress on gender equity, disparities remain, which, as we've already heard, disproportionately disadvantage women. Relative to men, women are more likely to experience poverty, shoulder a greater share of caring and emotional labour, be precariously employed in minimum-wage jobs, receive less in pension and contributory programs, and experience gender-based violence and abuse.

Multiple intersections occupied by women, based on age, race, gender, disability and so forth, compound disadvantage and lead to increasingly more harmful health, social and economic outcomes.

The inequities women experience have only been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The World Health Organization estimates that 70% of health and social service providers worldwide are women. These women largely represent front-line workers with the greatest exposure to the deadly virus. Women have also experienced poorer mental health outcomes and higher stress levels than men since the onset of COVID-19.

Thinking of employment. More than half of women in Canada are employed in the five Cs—caring, clerical, catering, cashiering and cleaning work. Given that a high proportion of women-dominated jobs reside in the low-wage retail and service sectors, women have experienced job loss at twice the rate of men in the working-age population. Countless others have seen their working hours significantly reduced during this period.

The pandemic has exacerbated the gendered division of labour. In 1989, Arlie Hochschild described the burden of the second shift, whereby women were expected to perform both paid and unpaid domestic, emotional and caregiving labour. Now, many women are finding themselves similarly in a third shift as instructors to their school-aged children in need of home-schooling or tutoring.

The prevalence of poverty among black and indigenous women, women of colour, newcomer women and women with disabilities is particularly high. As well as being feminized, front-line work is racialized, with up to 80% of women working as aides in long-term care homes in Montreal being black. Ongoing systemic inequalities increase the vulnerability of indigenous families living on reserves due to overcrowded housing and a lack of clean drinking water and water for regular handwashing, giving indigenous peoples, particularly indigenous women, greater exposure to COVID-19 than their non-indigenous counterparts.

COVID-19 has exposed and exacerbated existing inequities in addition to creating new ones. A strong economic recovery plan must recognize women's disproportionate vulnerability to financial and health shocks.

A basic income is a regular payment made through the tax system to ensure that everyone has income security. The principles of basic income include adequacy, which means having enough money to live on; autonomy, which offers people more choices; dignity, which means there is no stigma attached; equality of opportunity, which offers opportunities for everyone; non-conditionality, which means it is administered with no strings attached; and universality of access, which ensures that anyone who needs it, gets it. A basic income ensures that everyone has the right to an adequate standard of living.

Let's consider the potential impacts of a basic income on women. First is employment. Offered as an adequate, non-conditional individual benefit, not at the household level, a basic income could enable women's economic independence. Women would have greater choice to further their education or training, to start a business, to stay home to raise a family, or to leave a toxic job or an unsafe job for a better one.

A basic income could thus give women more bargaining power in employment; offer more flexibility in determining their hours of work with resources to pay public and/or private child care providers; and also assign recognition to unpaid work, not as a payment for care work, but as a universal support for care work, thereby providing everyone with a more effective opportunity to engage in it.

In terms of housing, a basic income would ensure mothers' access to adequate housing options and equip them with the financial means to improve their housing prospects.

In relation to intimate partner violence, gender-based violence is on the rise due to COVID-19-related stressors. We know that access to finances is one of the most significant factors determining whether a woman stays in or leaves an abusive relationship. A basic income would provide more choice for women, if and when fleeing intimate partner violence.

Now considering health and mental health, income is the single most important determinant of health. The lack of it results in a multitude of adverse health consequences. Research shows that there is a strong connection between maternal and child health outcomes. Basic income would improve the health and well-being of the mother and child, including the food security of the family. The mental health—

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

I'm sorry, but that's your five minutes. We'll get the rest of it during the questions.

[Dr. Tracy Smith-Carrier]

That sounds good.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Now we'll go to Michelle.

[Michelle van Beusekom, Co-Founder, Protect People in Long-Term Care, As an Individual]

Hi, everyone.

Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members, for the invitation to speak with you today.

I am a co-founder of Protect People in Long-Term Care, an ad hoc citizens group formed in early April in an effort to propel our political leaders to take decisive action to address the unfolding crisis in long-term care.

On April 7 we launched a petition asking for emergency funding, a coordinated national strategy and the implementation of shared standards of care. To date, our petition has garnered over 77,000 signatures from every province and territory in Canada.

I'd like to underscore that those of us with loved ones in long-term care saw this tragedy coming. The systemic gaps and failures are something we are intimately familiar with. We saw what happened in Spain and Italy in February, and we knew what was coming our way. When families and volunteers were locked out on March 13 in many parts of the country, we knew that staff, who were already overstretched, would quickly become overwhelmed. We couldn't understand why staff were having to fight to get access to PPE, and we watched in anguish and horror as outbreak after outbreak was announced, yet long-term care homes in many jurisdictions were not being prioritized by their public health authorities for testing to ensure the rapid assessment and cohorting of residents.

This was the case in my own parents' long-term care home in Brampton, Ontario, which had to wait an agonizing nine days after their first positive case before their public health authority would finally give them access to testing for all residents. In their long-term care home, 50% of residents and almost 60% of staff were infected. Twelve people died, including two staff. Staffing levels were so depleted by COVID that the military had to be called in.

Canada has catastrophically failed the residents and workers in long-term care, and women have disproportionately shouldered the impacts of a tragedy that could and should have been avoided. I'm speaking of the workers, the majority of whom are racialized women, as we've heard today, whose work is undervalued and underpaid.

As we know, understaffing is a chronic gap in this sector, an issue that has been flagged for decades. In addition, many employers, especially those working in the for-profit spectrum, refuse to offer full-time work so they can avoid paying benefits. This forces low-wage staff to juggle shifts at various locations to make ends meet. The individuals, mainly women, doing this work have been put in an impossible situation and are left overstretched and often ill-equipped to care for vulnerable residents. They in turn have found themselves disproportionately exposed to the virus and at risk of bringing it home to their loved ones.

I'm also speaking about the family members and volunteers—again, overwhelmingly women—whose unpaid labour in normal times is the glue that holds this broken system together. Hundreds of us essential caregivers were locked out in mid-March. We were forcibly separated from our fragile and vulnerable loved ones and, in many cases, were not able to get regular updates. In the worst cases, loved ones died alone with no family member present. Families and workers alike will be living with the trauma caused by this devastation for the rest of our lives.

Here we are now in a second wave. Over 10,000 people in Canada have lost their lives to COVID-19. Eighty per cent of them were living in long-term care, the worst record in all OECD countries. The root problems have been documented in study upon study over decades: chronic understaffing, poor labour practices, an absence of shared standards of care, outdated infrastructure, deregulation and lack of accountability. To quote Doris Grinspun from the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario, “It is disheartening, exhausting and expensive to continue to study problems that are known and understood and where the missing factor is the political will to act decisively”.

In the throne speech, the federal government made a commitment to national standards for long-term care, yet, almost six weeks later, details and a timeline have not been shared. With the number of cases on the rise again and dozens of homes in outbreaks across the country, it is imperative that all levels of government come together and a timeline and action plan be put into place.

The solutions are known—

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

I'm sorry, but that's your time. You can get to the rest during the questions.

We will start our first round with Ms. Wong for six minutes.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses. In fact, in the two panels there were some interactions that could be looked at holistically. As I've mentioned before, I've visited many in long-term care. I've been delivering masks to long-term care workers. As an immigrant woman myself, I definitely notice all the challenges for people of minority, especially women.

What steps could have been taken from the government side to ensure improved health outcomes in long-term care homes? We're now already in the second wave, or for some the third wave.

Ms. van Beusekom, can you address this very important issue, please? I applaud your organization.

[Michelle van Beusekom]

Thank you very much, and thank you for the question.

I think that in the immediate term, the issue requiring immediate attention is staffing and staff ratios. In a previous panel the call for a minimum of four hours one-on-one care per day, an ask that's been around for a very long time, was flagged. It's essential to support the staff with increased staff ratios and having the right ratios of registered nurses, personal care workers and resident assistants.

We talked about the wages. Vicky spoke to it so eloquently. This work is skilled work, but it's undervalued. People seem to think it's nothing to take care of a person with dementia. It is hard work to understand the needs of that person and how to communicate with that person. As a society we have to value that work. We have to pay for that work and give people permanent jobs. That's the place to start.

A great study was written by the Royal Society of Canada. Pat Armstrong was part of that. She was here last week. The solutions are mapped out. It's people like Pat and Carole Estabrooks who have done the work. It's there. The heavy lifting is done, once again by women. What we need is for the decision-makers, the provinces and federal government, to come together with the experts and act now, before it's too late.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Thank you, Ms. van Beusekom.

I have another question for you to address. You didn't mention the fact that caregivers, either unpaid or in paid jobs, definitely themselves need caring. It's about caring for the carers. Whether they're unpaid or in paid jobs, I think we have to look at both sides. Since some people are losing confidence right now in long-term care, they are keeping their own seniors at home and caring for them there. These caregivers, who are unpaid, actually need a lot of support. In England they have a very good system. They have associations like Care for the Carers, and the employers are also asked to help support these workers.

Looking at the holistic picture, what do you recommend that our government should have done?

[Michelle van Beusekom]

First off, it's essential that workers in long-term care be properly supported. Caregiver burnout is huge. It's the reason my mother went into long-term care. My father—he's a man, but there are men who do this work as well—was becoming burnt out. Some people would like to keep their loved ones at home, and because of COVID, out of guilt, many people have taken their loved ones out of their long-term care. They quickly get overwhelmed. Both of my parents are now in long-term care. My mom has advanced dementia. My dad has many complex issues. They require a community of care. Long-term care is the right solution for them. If I were trying to do that at home, I would become totally overwhelmed.

We need the supports in place if people are going to care for someone at home. It's not just about money. It's about having support workers who are coming into the home to make sure they are not trying to do everything, because their mental health will suffer and their quality of life will suffer as a result. We need to look at it holistically, to your point, and have those options for people to remain at home longer. We also need to make sure that those caregivers at home are being given the supports they need to make that feasible and for them to not have to sacrifice their career and other things in order to be able to offer a dignified quality of life to their loved ones.