Evidence of meeting #3 for Status of Women in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was child.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Marilyn Gladu
All right.
In the interest of time, I'm going to chop everybody's turn to five minutes.
We're going next to Ms. Zahid and Ms. Sidhu, who are splitting their time.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Salma Zahid Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to thank both of the witnesses for appearing before the committee today. Thanks a lot. Your input is really very important. I will be sharing my time with Ms. Sidhu.
My first question is for Ms. Smith-Carrier.
Thank you for all the work you have done on a basic income. I hear from my constituents and many women in my riding, especially racialized women and new immigrant women, that they are mostly working on hourly wages with no paid benefits. They are taking care of their families, and they have to support them. Many are single parents who are working hard to put food on the table. They don't get any opportunity to upgrade their skills to get more competitive jobs where they could succeed in their careers.
Do you have any evidence or any previous examples? How do you think a basic income would help women who are working at low-level jobs?
12:15 p.m.
Associate Professor, King’s University College at Western University, As an Individual
Yes. Absolutely. Often, one of the questions we're asked is about the whole notion of work disincentives. Are people going to stop working if they get money? It's an interesting question because there is a slight reduction—in North American experiments anyway— in work participation, but it's largely due to things that we would think are actually helpful.
Because a basic income provides a way for people to decide whether they want to stay at home a little bit to take of children, whether they want to leave their job and go to another job, whether they want to go on and do more education and further their training, it allows all of those options to be on the table for them.
That has caused a slight or a very modest reduction. For example, in the MINCOME experiment in the 1970s where they saw a slight reduction, it had to do with people going back to school to further their skills and also with mothers who wanted to stay at home for a little bit to raise their babies. At the time they only had four weeks in maternity leave. They really wanted to spend a little bit more than a month with their kids, so some of those folks took their basic income and stayed at home with those kids, and when the kids grew, they were able to get back into the workforce. But it really does provide much more opportunities for women to pursue what they want to do, and even to get out of toxic, non-safe jobs and have some bargaining power to be able to say, no, I'm going to a better job because I can do that.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Salma, for sharing time with me.
Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today and for your advocacy on the changes we need in long-term care homes.
I would like to recognize all staff and the CAF members who helped residents in long-term care in Quebec and Ontario.
Michelle, as a resident of Brampton South I thank you for offering your personal experiences with the long-term care system. As we all know, your mom and dad reside in the same long-term care home.
The federal government has committed to working with the provinces and while respecting provincial jurisdictions establishing national standards for long-term care. What would you like to see in those national standards, and specifically for women in long-term care?
12:20 p.m.
Co-Founder, Protect People in Long-Term Care, As an Individual
Thank you very much, MP Sidhu, for the opportunity and the question.
I think what we immediately need to see is a timeline first and an action plan. We need the federal government and the provinces and territories and the incredible expertise that exists on the subject around the same table.
We know that staffing is key, and I spoke about those staff ratios already. We need fair wages within this sector. Within the context of COVID, we need testing priority for LTCs and prioritized cohorting with regard to the outbreak. That's why things got really bad in my parents' LTC, and it's still happening now.
We need a maximum of two people per room. That could be implemented immediately. We need universal access for the essential caregivers because that's very uneven across the country.
Then in the longer term, of course, we need norms and standards of care and training. We need norms in terms of infrastructure. Accountability is key. I'm sure you all saw the report on Marketplace on the CBC. Horrifying. Absolutely horrifying.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Marilyn Gladu
I'm sorry, but that's the time for that question.
Now, Madame Larouche, you have five minutes.
12:20 p.m.
Bloc
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
I want to thank both witnesses for their very compelling presentations on two topics that I find particularly relevant, as a critic for the status of women and the status of seniors.
We all know that the pandemic has disproportionately affected senior women. I want to take this opportunity to point out that we're currently celebrating National Caregiver Week. It's mainly women and senior women who take action and carry out this invisible work. I'm thinking of them this week. I hope that a day will be set aside for us to take into consideration their invisible work.
I now want to address the issue of long-term care facilities, or CHSLDs. To wrap up the topic of family caregivers in Quebec, I want to say that, once again, we have a great model. I witnessed the establishment of the first support home for caregivers. I want to highlight the work done by the Fondation Maison Gilles-Carle and by the staff at the Maison soutien aux aidants in Granby. They work very hard and support family caregivers.
Canadian health transfers dropped from 50% to less than 20%. To support our family caregivers and our CHSLDs, don't we urgently need to take action and increase this percentage to at least 35%? Wouldn't this be a way to give Quebec and the provinces the resources to provide better wages to these people and to improve the nurse-patient ratio?
I want to acknowledge the work carried out by the “guardian angels”, who worked very hard during the pandemic and who are often immigrant women. I think that it's high time to give Quebec back the resources to get things done. How could the federal government take steps to provide more personal protective equipment, or PPE, and more rapid testing? The federal government must work hard to improve care beyond the national standards for CHSLDs.
I want to hear Ms. van Beusekom's thoughts on this issue.
12:25 p.m.
Co-Founder, Protect People in Long-Term Care, As an Individual
You're not going to like this, but I am a firm believer in national standards and I think long-term care should come under the Canada Health Act and that the provinces and the federal government have to get past all of this jurisdictional bickering. They have to put human lives at the centre. For God's sake, if you put human lives at the centre of this and work together, you can all agree on national standards that are good for everyone so that someone in Chicoutimi and someone in Dawson City get the same standard of care.
Of course, everyone will implement it in their own way, because there are specific needs in every region, but what is wrong with national standards? It's the bickering that is stopping us. Look at how many people died in Quebec. Look at how many people died in Ontario. There will be more of that if you guys can't come together and work this out. I'm counting on you guys, and so are the 77,000 who signed our petition.
12:25 p.m.
Bloc
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
Thank you for your honest answer. However, I don't think that people in Quebec and Ontario fail to place seniors at the top of their list of concerns. What happened was caused by a lack of funding. I strongly believe this.
I now want to speak to Tracy Smith-Carrier about universal basic income, another topic that could create some conflict between Quebec and the federal government.
Wouldn't it be better to implement other standards to help women? Once again, how long would it take to implement this universal basic income? I want to hear your thoughts on this topic.
12:25 p.m.
Associate Professor, King’s University College at Western University, As an Individual
The ability of the government to respond quickly in the wake of the pandemic by providing emergency benefits tells us that we can act quickly to ensure a prosperous future for all, sort of building on CERB and the Canada recovery benefit, which offered vital supports for individuals and families. These can become useful platforms for the launch of a permanent program that will provide the necessary security and stability post-COVID.
We know that people behave differently if they know that the income assistance they're receiving is only temporary. With a permanent basic income, people, and women in particular, will be better equipped to make important decisions that have long-term implications for them and their families, whether those are going back to school, starting a business or finding new work opportunities. There are lots of opportunities for us to work together to achieve this goal. It is an explicitly feminist policy featuring intersectionality and GBA+ analysis.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
12:25 p.m.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Thank you.
Ms. Smith-Carrier, you've talked about the women who are highly impacted by COVID, obviously, and we've heard, of course, of the 5 Cs. Often, these are women working at low-wage jobs and in precarious employment. They don't have supports, benefits or things like access to child care in the same way.
There's very much a juxtaposition or a comparison between that and people living on the social assistance programs that currently exists. People are forced to live on the very bare minimum and in such poverty that they don't have that choice. Those seem to be the ways we're going about it at this time, so I'd like you to expand on how the guaranteed basic income breaks that cycle of poverty and what can actually be saved. In terms of the highly policed and bureaucratic financial supports and the limited supports we currently see in the system, what can be saved through this?
12:25 p.m.
Associate Professor, King’s University College at Western University, As an Individual
That's a great question. I don't know that we would necessarily need to have a social assistance system. We could redirect those resources. There are a lot of other places where we could use those workers, as you know. Caseworkers could be put into housing, into child care and into long-term care—all of the things we've been talking about today.
Yes, having the money go directly to the people, as opposed to the systems that monitor people, is probably the better way to go, and it would ultimately end poverty. If the basic income were offered at a level that was adequate, it would eliminate poverty. A lot of the issues that you raised in terms of the depth of poverty—the stigma and the shame that are attached to some of these programs—would just no longer exist, and people would have the income that could act as a buffer when they're between jobs or when they are deciding to start a new business or go back to do more educational training.
Yes, there's a lot of research that's been developed up to now, research on past trends for programs, basic income pilots and programs. I think there is a wealth of literature that we can look at in terms of how to do this and how to do it well.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Ms. van Beusekom, you spoke about, of course, national standards and the need for there to be that certain level no matter where you live and no matter who you are in Canada. Of course, I spoke before about my provincial colleague's push, in the the proposed time to care act, for four hours of care per day per resident. Do you believe that ultimately our separation of long-term care is inappropriate and that it should actually be pulled under something like the Canada Health Act to ensure that there is equality of care?
12:30 p.m.
Co-Founder, Protect People in Long-Term Care, As an Individual
Yes, I do. I think that ultimately long-term care should come under the Canada Health Act.
When the legislation for Canada's long-term care system was put into place, people weren't living as long. When you look at who is in long-term care now, you see so many people in their eighties and nineties. I think the percentage is that 85% suffer from some form of dementia. These are people with really complex needs, and they're medical needs. It's not just about an assisted living kind of context. These are medical needs, and they should fall under the Canada Health Act.
I just want to say that there is a quality to these lives, because sometimes people are scared of old age and of dementia, and they feel there's not a quality to these lives. There is a quality and a beauty to them, and as a society we have a responsibility to support our most vulnerable citizens. We're really failing them.
Yes, that's how I feel we should ultimately address it: by bringing it under the Canada Health Act.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Marilyn Gladu
Thank you so much.
We are out of time for our panel today, but I want to thank our witnesses. Your heartfelt testimony has really helped us.
Members, as you know, we are going to go in camera. That means you have to log off this Zoom session and log into the next Zoom session with the extra password that was sent to you. We'll see you there right away.
[Proceedings continue in camera]