Between 1970 and 1995, average family incomes in Canada increased by 32 percent. This increase, however, has affected only the richest 30 percent of families. The other 70 percent of families have experienced a decline in family income National Council of Welfare, 1995:85). Hardest hit are families headed by single mothers. Such families have almost doubled in the past 25 years and approximately 40 percent of the bottoms 10 percent of income earners are single-mother families, as compared to 24 percent in 1970 (Women in Canada, 1995).
When we examine the statistics for the ‘poorest of the poor’, it is not surprising that Aboriginal women are even more likely to be poor than other women. In 1990, 33 percent of Aboriginal women were living below the low-income cut-off (Women in Canada, 1995).
The Treasury Board Secretariat (1999:30) reports “almost 12% of women were also members of another designated group.” As a percentage of all women employed in the federal public service, women in a visible minority group comprised 5%, women with disabilities, 3.7%, and Aboriginal women, 3.2%. These figures stand in direct contradiction to the governmental platform and it’s regulated Employment Equity Act (1995:sections; 43,44,45). The Consultation Group on Employment Equity for Women (1995) identifies the “double disadvantage” these women face. For example, Aboriginal women tend, even more than other women, to be compressed into lower levels of occupational groups (Frideres, 1998). The report suggests that special attention be paid to the group of women belonging to the other designated groups (Treasury Board Secretariat, 1999). But it also notes that “given the relatively low numbers of women at the levels studied in the federal work force who are doubly disadvantaged, the methodology did not permit double disadvantage to be included as a separate factor in the focus group study (Treasury Board Secretariat, 1999:45).” One implication of being doubly disadvantaged is that the attitudinal barriers could result in an even lower probability of these employees being chosen for developmental and/or advancement opportunities (Townson, 2000; Vogel, 2000).
Another facet of this issue is a lack of accommodation in the context of cultural heritage (Kymlicka, 1998). Aboriginal women are often expected to assimilate into the workplace with little or no recognition of their cultural heritage (Frideres, 1998). Should a member of a minority be required to take leave related to the observance of religious holidays and community/family events, while the leave is usually granted, the unspoken messages sent to that employee is that they are being provided with a special privilege (Consultation Group on Employment Equity for Women, 1995; Kymlicka, 1998; Frideres, 1998); whereas managers would never question the practice of an employee taking time off to celebrate the birth of Christ (Treasury Board Secretariat, 1999; Consultation Group on Employment Equity for Women, 1995).
As well as being poorer than men, and more reliant on social assistance and other government transfers, women are more vulnerable to becoming poor (Statistics Canada, 1998). Women’s income from all sources is about 58 percent of men's income, and there is an equivalent gap in pension benefits, with women receiving only 58.8 percent of the Canada Pension Plan/Quebec Pension Plan pension benefits that men receive (Townson, 1996). As of 1994, 40 percent of women, compared to 27 percent of men, held non-standard jobs, that is, they were self-employed, had multiple jobs, or jobs that were temporary or part-time (Townson, 1996). Many of these jobs were minimum wage jobs and were unlikely to be unionized and unlikely to provide pensions or benefits (Torjman, 1995; Townson, 1996). Also, at the time of marriage breakdown, women become poorer, while men's income increases (Women in Canada, 1995). This means that many women are one non-standard job, or one marriage breakdown, away from needing government income assistance (MacBride-King, 1990).
During the 1995 through 2000 period women were hit by restructuring of social programs at both the federal and provincial levels (Day, Young and Won, 1998). This has exacerbated the pre-existing condition of women's disproportionate poverty and is a bitter irony for women (Townson, 2000). As noted, far from implementing the steps set out in the Platform for Action, measures have been instituted which have worsened the situation of Canadian women (Wilson Report, 1998). Monica Townson in her Report Card states, “Governments in Canada have not developed strategies to deal with women’s poverty. In fact, many of the policies they have implemented recently have exacerbated the problem and have undoubtedly contributed to increasing poverty rates for women (2000).”
Reduction of the deficit and, more recently, the debt has been a key focus for the Canadian government since the early 1990s (Torjman, 1995). Economists have argued that this recent expenditure reduction has resulted in, among other things, a shift in the burden of social welfare from the federal government to provincial government (Day, Young and Won, 1998). This restructuring has caused the elimination of programs directly and adversely affecting women, the poorest members of our society (Cohen, 1994).
In 1995, the federal government repealed the Canada Assistance Plan Act (CAP) and replaced it with the Canadian Health and Social Transfer by means of the Budget Implementation Act (1995) and the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act (1985).
There are many problems inherent with the replacement of the Canada Assistance Plan (CAP) by the Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST), as legislated by the Budget Implementation Act (Wilson Report, 1998). The Budget Implementation Act (1995) cut approximately six billion dollars from the money transferred by the federal government to the provinces for health, post-secondary education and social assistance and social services, adversely affecting women first. This was a reduction in payments of 35.1 percent between 1996 and 1999 (Townson, 2000; Vogel, 2000). The federal government eliminated key rights ended 50-50 cost-sharing for social assistance and social services. While it rolled funds for health care, post-secondary education, social assistance and key social services into one undifferentiated block transfer; and cut the total amount of the transfer from the federal government to the provincial governments (Budget Implementation Act, 1995; Townson, 2000; Wilson Report, 1998).
Under the Canada Assistance Plan provinces were required to respect and protect certain rights as a condition of receiving federal funds (Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, 1985c). These rights included the right of any person in need to receive welfare, the right to an amount of welfare sufficient to meet basic needs, the right to appeal when social assistance is denied, and the right not to have to work for welfare (Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, 1985c; Budget Implementation Act, 1995). Of the national guarantees imposed under CAP, only one residual prohibition against provincial residency requirements remains in force under the CHST (Wilson Report, 1998).
These were essential rights that women relied on because of their vulnerability to poverty (Day, Young and Won, 1998). They were Canada's most explicit guarantees in domestic law of economic and social rights, and were of particular importance to women, given women's high poverty rates (Day, Young and Won, 1998).
The federal government no longer provided 50 percent of the real cost to provinces of providing welfare, legal aid for family and non-criminal matters, and designated social services (Budget Implementation Act, 1995). Now, all of the services traditionally funded under CAP compete for provincial funding priority, along with health care and post-secondary education (Budget Implementation Act, 1995). The federal government transfers money in one block fund to the provinces for all of these social programs to be spent however each province chooses (Budget Implementation Act, 1995). This directly affects training funds many women need to access to participate on an equal footing in the labour market (Torjman, 1995; Vogel, 2000). The government has not implemented mandatory employment equity requirements in the public service and in the broader public sector, including private companies that receive government subsidies and contracts (Vogel, 2000). In addition, financial and other supports have not been made available to women and other equality-seeking groups pursuing training and education in non-traditional fields (Torjman, 1995; Townson, 2000; Vogel, 2000).
The welfare-related services that were designated under CAP for cost-sharing included: attendant services for people with disabilities; child care services; services to unemployed people to assist them to enter the workforce; child welfare services to assist children who are neglected or abused; shelters and other services for women fleeing male violence; respite services to assist parents caring at home for children with severe disabilities or an ailing elder (Budget Implementation Act, 1995; Torjman, 1995; Townson, 2000).
While some provinces will continue to provide some of these services, there is no certainty. Under 50-50 cost-sharing, for every dollar they spent on these designated services, provinces (with some exceptions) were able to recover 50 cents from the federal government (Torjman, 1995). Now, actual provincial spending has no effect on the amount of federal transfer. This important incentive for enhanced provincial service levels was removed by the federal government (Torjman, 1995).
Instead of the previous cost-sharing scheme in use under CAP, the federal government now uses a block-funding formula (Budget Implementation Act, 1995). Federal monies are transferred to the provincial governments in block grants, with no stipulation as to what the money must be spent on. Thus, more stigmatized social programs, such as income assistance, compete for funding out of the same general pool of money with more popular programs such as health care and post-secondary education (Wilson Report, 1998; Townson, 2000). In establishing such a funding formula, the federal government has relinquished its influence over provincial spending on health, social service and post secondary education (Day, Young and Won, 1998; Vogel, 2000).
Women's persistent poverty and economic inequality are caused by a number of factors and ameloirated by governmetns residual approach to policy. "The social assignment to women of the unpaid role of caregiver and nurturer for children, men, and old people" (Townson, 1999), the fact that in the paid labour force women perform the majority of the work in the “caring occupations” and this “women’s work” is lower paid than “men's work” (Townson, 2000).
The lack of affordable, safe child care; the lack of adequate recognition and support for child care and parenting responsibilities that either constrains women's participation in the labour force or doubles the burden they carry (Vogel, 2000).
In her newly issued Report Card on Women and Poverty, economist Monica Townson finds that there has been virtually no improvement in poverty rates of Canadian women since the Royal Commission on the Status of Women issued its Report some 30 years ago (2000).
Given these realities, it is clear that the equality rights of women can only be recognized when the gendered nature of poverty and economic inequality are acknowledged and addressed through commitment to policy.
To summarize, this paper illustrated that there are many barriers still preventing women from full and equal participation in the Canadian economy and in particular the labour market. Many of these barriers are premised on women’s unequal burden in relation to homemaking, childcare and community care responsibilities. Women’s struggles, especially those whom do not live privileged lives due to poverty, racism, ageism, and ableism, must be viewed in relation to the gendered practices of governmental policy and how it plays a central role in the changing relationship between women, the state, and the economy. The individualistic and instrumental perspectives of policy approaches to employment equity also direct attention away from issues of race, gender and class, while simultaneously reinforcing inequalities based on these differences.
Upon review this paper supports my contention that relative poverty among women is evidence of Canada’s residual approach to Employment Equity.
Having offered this proof, I conclude in suggesting the review and modification (with the full and equal participation of women) of economic and social policies with a view to achieving the objective of the employment equity. Women's poverty and economic inequality are not only evidence of Canada’s residual commitment and gendered approach to the Employment Equity Act. This is also evident violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights Freedoms, under which it is regulated.
Bibliography:
Budget Implementation Act 1995, S.C. 1995c. Ottawa: Queen’s Printers, 1996.
Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Work in Progress: Tracking Women’s Equality in Canada. Canada.
Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, 1994.
Day, S., Young, M and Won, N., Canadian Women’s Civil and Political Rights submitted to: National Association of Women and the Law, November 1998.
Employment Equity Act and the Employment Equity Regulations (1995; 1996), Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, October 24, 1996.
Fawcett, G., Living with a Disability in Canada: An Economic Portrait, Ottawa: Human Resources Development Canada, 1996.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, R.S.C. 1985c.
Frideres, J., Aboriginal peoples in Canada: Contemporary conflicts. Scarborough, ON: Prentice-Hall Canada, 1998.
Kymlicka, W., Finding our way: Rethinking ethnocultural relations in Canada. Toronto, ON: Oxford University Press, 1998.
MacBride-King, J., Work and Family: Employment Challenge of the ‘90s, Ottawa: Conference Board of Canada, 1990.
National Council of Welfare, Poverty Profile 1995, Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada: 1997.
National Council of Welfare, Arnold Brun, Vice-Chairperson, Notes for a Presentation to the Standing Committee on Finance, 28 April: 1998.
National Council of Welfare, Profiles of Welfare: Myths and Realities, Ottawa: Spring, 1998.
Wilson, Senator L., The Wilson Report on Canadian Women’s Civil and Political Rights, submitted to: the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in November 1998 and to the United Nations Human Rights Committee in March 1999.
Women in Canada: A Statistical Report, Third Edition Ottawa: Industry, 1995.
Townson, M., Non-Standard Work: The Implications for Pension Policy and Retirement Readiness, Women’s Bureau, Human Resources Development Canada, 1996.
Townson, M., A Report Card on Women and Poverty, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives: 2000.
Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in Canada.Vol. I. Ottawa, ON: Supply and Services Canada, 1996.
Statistics Canada, General Social Survey, Initial Data Release from the 1992 General Social Survey on Time Use Ottawa: Statistics Canada: 1993.
Statistics Canada, 1990 General Social Survey, Cycle 7, Time Reports, Ottawa: 1990.
Torjman, S., The Let-Them-Eat-Cake Law, Ottawa, Caledon Institute of Social Policy: 1995.
Vogel, D., Women's Economic Equality Strategy , submitted to: The Ministry of Women's Equality, Government of British Columbia, September 21, 2000
