Canada stands on the brink of economic upheaval, buffeted by soaring tariffs and mounting global instability. To those who think that further investment in childcare is a luxury we cannot afford in these times, they would be wrong. A robust care economy will be Canada’s best defence, building resilience, boosting productivity, and ensuring our nation’s inclusive future. Most importantly, it enables women—who still shoulder a disproportionate share of caregiving—to fully participate in the labour market, closing long-standing gender gaps in income, leadership, and opportunity.

Analyzing the dynamics of remote work with an intersectional lens—one that pays attention to the compounding impacts of gender, race, Indigeneity, immigration status, disability and other factors—allows us to understand how different groups may be experiencing this transformation in work culture. While remote and hybrid work models have improved many workers’ lives, they are also associated with career penalties, work-family conflict, higher stress levels, and other mental health challenges—particularly for those who were already experiencing inequity. Many of these disadvantages come about not because of anything inherent about remote work but because of the biases, stereotypes and social norms surrounding paid and unpaid work. Organizations therefore need to take measures to ensure well-being and fairness for all employees who are now working from home.

As pandemic restrictions have eased, many of us are still working from home. Whether in a hybrid arrangement or working remotely full-time, a lot of people prefer skipping their commute to enjoy a more relaxed working environment. Statistics Canada reports that 80 per cent of those who began working remotely during the pandemic would prefer to continue working at least half of their hours at home. The way that people perceive and experience work has changed drastically over the last two years.

The widespread shift to remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic has brought about many questions on the future of work. A recent survey by Microsoft of 31,000 workers in 31 countries suggests that 52% of employees are somewhat or extremely likely to prefer hybrid or remote work in the year ahead, and 53% of employees are more likely to prioritize their wellbeing over work than before the pandemic. The way that people perceive and experience work has changed drastically over the last two years. But how have marginalized workers specifically been affected by the shift to working from home? And what types of work design will best facilitate equity, well-being, and opportunity for workers moving forward?

Global authorities such as WHO and the International Labour Organization have proposed interventions to improve the telecommuting experience, such as establishing work–life boundary strategies, designing ergonomic remote workplaces, and maintaining regular social interactions. However, the potential negative gendered consequences remain under-acknowledged. When women work from home, they report a disproportionate increase in domestic labour, childcare-related disruptions, and declines in productivity and mental health. If not addressed, teleworking might exacerbate existing gender inequities in career advancement, health, and rights, among others, especially as global telecommuting rates continue to climb throughout 2022 and beyond.

Public investment in care infrastructure is often framed in terms of helping women join the paid labour force, with the resulting increased returns to the economy. Indeed, a recent estimate of the unmonetized value of unpaid household activities is about $860 billion. That would be more than 37 per cent of GDP if it were counted. Yet, while the evidence is clear that policies creating more affordable and accessible care will help the economy, making care accessible doesn’t just help people join the paid labour force. It is crucial to help dependents live healthy lives, to help children learn and grow, and to ensure older adults age with dignity.

The care economy—the economic sectors that involve paid and unpaid care, including childcare, elder care, and health care—is one of the fastest expanding economic sectors globally. But the complex work involved in this crucial sector tends to be poorly understood, undervalued, and unprioritized. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought an increased focus on care, highlighting how the lack of support for care sectors and the increasing trend of financializing access to care have placed equality and health on fragile grounds during this crisis. This report highlights key policy and research insights on addressing the challenges in the care economy.

We surveyed 69 organizations which collectively employ more than 700,000 people across Canada. The aim of the study was to document the policies and practices for supporting trans and gender non-conforming people applied by Canada’s large employers. This groundbreaking survey shows that while a substantial portion of organizations surveyed have anti-discrimination policies and training that includes gender identity and gender expression, only a fraction of these organizations have broader inclusion policies aimed at providing equitable professional opportunities for trans and gender non-conforming people.

Women leaders are often portrayed in popular culture as suffering from Queen Bee Syndrome (think Miranda Priestly in The Devil Wears Prada). The media is filled with advice about “what to do if you work for a Queen Bee.” But what if the Queen Bee isn’t real? Or at least she’s sorely misunderstood? Gendered differences in expectations make us see Queen Bees when they aren’t really there. Looking across a wide range of studies, there is no evidence that senior women are less helpful (or more harmful) to junior women than senior men are to junior men. Studies find little evidence that women are more competitive towards other women than men are towards other men. And women and men do not differ in their use of aggression. Indeed, having a female manager is, with few exceptions, either positive or neutral on women’s rates of promotions and wages.

Female-led startups find it harder to obtain funding than those led by men; women are often not hired or promoted at the rate of men; and even in the 21st century, women are not paid equally for the same work. The bottom line: the belief that we operate in a meritocracy takes us off the hook from examining the potential for bias in our evaluations of women-led businesses and women leaders.