Winnipeg Free Press

Winnipeg Free Press (Newspaper) - September 18, 2020, Winnipeg, Manitoba C MIYIK PAGE A7 Winnipeg free PressTHINKTANKA7 FRIDAY SEPTEMBER 18, 2020 PERSPECTIVES EDITOR: BRAD OSWALD 204-697-7269 • BRAD.OSWALD@FREEPRESS.MB.CA • WINNIPEGFREEPRESS.COMIdeas, Issues, Insights ADRIAN WYLD / THE CANADIAN PRESS Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland recognizes that the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has hit women particularly hard. During pandemic, the moms aren't alrightCLIFTON VAN DER LINDEN FOLLOWING her recent installation as Canada’s first female finance minister, Chrystia Freeland was quick to acknowledge that a promotion such as hers is a rarity for a woman in the era of COVID-19. “The economic challenge created by the coro-navirus is hitting women particularly hard,” said Freeland in a media scrum following her appointment. “It’s hitting mothers particularly hard. We are seeing women’s participation in the workforce falling very sharply.” Freeland’s comments echo mounting evidence of the disproportionate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on women around the world. A recent report from the Royal Bank of Canada found that women’s participation in the Canadian labour force fell by 4.7 per cent between February and May. There are multiple factors that have contributed to what has been dubbed the “she-cession,” but child-care obligations are one of the most frequently cited. During the same period, employment among women with toddlers or school-aged children fell by seven per cent, whereas men with children in the same age groups only saw a decline of four per cent. The evidence indicates that in households with children, the ramifications of shelter-at-home measures — which shuttered schools and childcare centres across the country while at the same time prohibiting families from soliciting support with child care from anyone outside the home — have fallen disproportionately to women. In the middle of an economic crisis where many child-care supports are suddenly withdrawn, parents cannot be faulted for reaching the difficult but ostensibly rational conclusion that the higher income earner should remain in the workforce. But the pervasive gender gap in earnings, which sees women make less on average than men, means that a man’s career is generally favoured in this calculus. In addition, it’s not clear that the difference in earnings between men and women always determines how child-care obligations are allocated. Research has shown that, even in cases where women are the primary breadwinners in a household, they assume more of the household duties. In a recent study published in Politics && Gender, my co-authors and I sought to better understand how increased child-care obligations during the COVID-19 pandemic were shared between women and men in Canada. Drawing on findings from the COVID19Moni-tor.org initiative, an ongoing public opinion research study by Vox Pop Labs on social impacts of the pandemic, we found striking disparities in Canadian households when it came to the selfreported number of hours spent on child care by women and men even before the pandemic. These disparities are significantly exacerbated by government responses to COVID-19. Vox Pop Labs surveyed 4,070 Canadians over a two-week period in late April and early June regarding the number of hours they spent on various tasks in an average week before the pandemic compared to during the pandemic. Both men and women in Canadian households with children under 15 reported spending an average of 39 per cent more time on child care during the pandemic. So, at least in terms of the proportional increase in hours spent taking care of the kids, men and women seem to have rolled up their sleeves in equal measure (although men are known to overestimate their respective contributions to child care). But this measure belies a massively uneven distribution of child-care obligations between men and women in Canada prior to the pandemic, which set the conditions for even greater disparity once the pandemic hit. Even before COVID-19 triggered shelter-at-home measures, women with children at home re- ported spending more than twice as many hours on child care than men. Men reported an average of 33 hours per week spent on child care prior to the pandemic, compared to 46 hours during the pandemic. Women reported spending 68 hours on child care on average in a given week before COVID-19 struck, and 95 hours thereafter. To put things into perspective, these findings suggest that the average Canadian mother spent 13.5 hours per day on child care in late April and early June — roughly equivalent to the average waking hours of young children. While the sample includes stay-at-home-parents, who already spend the majority of their waking hours on child care, it also includes women who report being employed full-time. Working full-time hours coupled with full-time child care would theoretically allow for just 2.5 hours of sleep per night. Obviously, this is untenable. Something has to give. These findings are some of the most alarming yet when it comes to measuring the impact that the pandemic-related measures have had on mothers in Canada. The findings of our study also show that Canadian women with children at home have taken a hit to their mental health when compared with their male counterparts, which comes as little surprise given the circumstances. Once the pandemic begins to subside, the focus on economic recovery must take stock of the gendered implications of emergency measures, particularly for women in households with young children. This is essential if we are going to make up for the uneven burden shouldered by Canada’s mothers during this crisis. Clifton van der Linden is an assistant professor of political science and director of the Digital Society Lab at McMaster University. This article has been edited for length; the full version can be seen at winnipegfreepress.com or theconversation.com/ca. For Trump, science is just another enemyKAREN TUMULTY PRESIDENT Donald Trump doesn’t think Americans should put much stock in scientific consensus. He prefers to sprinkle our most intractable and urgent problems with pixie dust and promises that — presto! — they will simply vanish. The latest example of Trump’s magical thinking came Monday, when the president dismissed a suggestion that the dozens of fires raging across the West could be related to human-caused climate change. Although 2020 is on track to be one of the hottest years on record, the president told state and local officials in McClellan Park, Calif., that “it will start getting cooler. You just watch.” Wade Crowfoot, California’s secretary for natural resources, objected: “I wish science agreed with you.” “Well, I don’t think science knows, actually,” Trump replied. Sound familiar? This is the same president who has insisted — repeatedly — that the novel coro-navirus would simply “go away.” “It’s going to disappear. One day — it’s like a miracle — it will disappear,” he said in February, when U.S. coronavirus cases still numbered in the dozens. As we now know, from what he told Bob Woodward at the time, the president knew that the virus was far more dangerous than he was telling the country. Had Trump been more honest about the threat, he might have generated great support for social distancing or put in place a widespread testing regimen, as other countries did, potentially blunting the impact of COVID-19. Instead, the president continues to thumb his nose at safety measures. On Sunday night, he held an indoor rally in Henderson, Nev. Thousands of his sup- porters packed a warehouse, disregarding a state order limiting indoor gatherings to 50 people. “We are already making the turn. We’re making that round, beautiful, last turn” to a post-pandemic future, Trump told the generally mask-free crowd. None of this comports with reality. The U.S. is approaching a grim milestone of 200,000 COVID-19 deaths. Yet Trump expects Americans to suspend any doubts that a safe and effective vaccine could be available by “a very special date. You know what date I’m talking about.” That date, of course, is Nov. 3, which happens to be Election Day. Scientific advancement is worth pursuing, Trump apparently believes, if it aligns with his political advancement. Even if a vaccine is rolled out by year’s end, Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, cautions that life will not return to anything that resembles prepandemic normal until the middle or end of 2021. Meanwhile, as Fauci tries to temper expectations for the days and months ahead, the administration gave a conspiracy theorist and Trump sycophant a leading role in shaping the Department of Health and Human Services’ messaging. Michael Caputo was appointed assistant secretary of public affairs in April despite having no background in health care. He came under fire in recent days for his efforts to manipulate and quash the weekly reports by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which painted a less rosy picture than Trump does about the pandemic. On Sunday, Caputo went on an unhinged rant on Facebook Live, first reported by the New York Times, in which he claimed that CDC scientists who put out data undercutting the president’s ver- sion of reality are engaging in “sedition.” “There are scientists who work for this government who do not want America to get well, not until after Joe Biden is president,” Caputo claimed. His 26-minute tirade included urging Trump supporters to prepare for armed conflict with left-wing “hit squads” after the election: “If you carry guns, buy ammunition, ladies and gentlemen, because it’s going to be hard to get.” Caputo apologized on Tuesday and said he is considering a leave of absence. But the question remains: Why was a political operative put in such a critical job during a mounting national health emergency? Meanwhile, Scientific American, the country’s oldest continuously published monthly magazine, has broken 175 years of tradition and, for the first time, endorsed a candidate for president. “The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the U.S. and its people — because he rejects evidence and science. The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which cost more than 190,000 Americans their lives by the middle of September,” editors wrote. “He has also attacked environmental protections, medical care, and the researchers and public science agencies that help this country prepare for its greatest challenges.” They added: “That is why we urge you to vote for Joe Biden, who is offering fact-based plans to protect our health, our economy and the environment.” Imagine how refreshing it would be to have a president who sees science as a solution, not the enemy. (c) 2020, The Washington PostAline Chretien was a force to be reckoned withWARREN KINSELLA IMAGINE you’re in an Ottawa hotel suite with a former prime minister of Canada and a former president of the United States. Secret Service members watch the door and a photographer is getting ready to take some shots. Imagine that. But then imagine the door opens and in walks Aline Chretien, looking as beautiful and elegant as always. And then imagine that the former president, Bill Clinton, rises to greet her like one would an old friend. And there’s genuine affection and respect in his voice. Imagine that the former prime minister, Jean Chretien, also rises to greet his wife. And there’s love and actual reverence shining on his face, and in what he says to her. She smiles and it’s such a beautiful smile. Imagine all that. And then Clinton insists that Aline Chretien stands at the centre, because that’s where she belongs. And everyone smiles and the photographer takes the picture. In the 30-plus years I’ve worked for him and supported him — because I’ve never really stopped doing either — there has been always one truth about Jean Chretien, Canada’s 20th and best prime minister: he would never have been prime minister without her. He would never have achieved the great things he achieved without her. In the office, we simply referred to her as “Madame.” She came from a small town, with humble roots, like him. She didn’t ever require us to stand on ceremony for her. She was quiet, much of the time, and left the politics to him. But she loved people and people loved her. One night, he invited me to a party at 24 Sussex Drive, the official residence of the prime minister. I wasn’t sure why I was there: the place was full of their old friends from Shawinigan, Que., all laughing and talking. There were no politicians or celebrities. They were cab drivers, labourers, teachers, waitresses and small business owners. The Chretiens introduced me to their Shawinigan friends as “a fighter” for them, which was an honour. And then Madame sat down at the piano — an instrument she had taught herself to master, much later in life -and started to play and sing. And the place was alive with her voice and everyone singing along. She fiercely defended her husband for years, going back to when they were teenagers. When the Conservatives mocked his facial paralysis in an ad, she was furious and told me that “Jean is handsome.” And everyone knows the story about how she was awakened by footsteps inside 24 Sussex, and quickly locked the bedroom doors to keep a knife-wielding intruder at bay until the RCMp could be summoned (the PM famously gripped an Inuit stone carving as protection while they waited). But when a too-ambitious finance minister tried to drive her husband out, she became resolute. They had a mandate and they would not be pushed. One night, at a wedding, she took me and a couple of other former Chretien staffers aside. She pointed at me. “He tells the truth about Jean,” she said to them. “He fights for Jean. We all have to fight for Jean.” And we did, we did. But none as much as her. She was his rock, his truest love, his everything. And I confess that I’m so worried for him now. Did you ever love someone so much that they took your breath away when they simply walked into a room? Did you ever find yourself simply sitting at the edge of a group of people, watching your true love charm and delight those people, and saying nothing because you’re so proud and amazed that she chose you? Did you ever love someone so much that you accepted, as a matter of course, that God sent her to you so you could breathe again, and so you could put one foot in front of the other and go out into the day? Did you ever owe everything you are, everything you achieved, to just one extraordinary person, who you loved so much that she was the air you breathe? You don’t have to imagine a true love like that. You don’t have to imagine it. Because that is how much Jean Chretien loved Aline Chretien, who died on Sept. 12 at age 84. And we all loved her as we love him. Warren Kinsella is a Canadian journalist, political adviser and commentator. © Troy Media FILE: NATIONAL POST STAFF PHOTO Former prime minister Jean Chretien and his wife Aline attend the Canadian Songwriters Hall of Fame ceremony in Toronto in 2008. A_09_Sep-18-20_FP_01.indd A7 # i-17 8:57 PM ;