"Despite recent gains, women remain an undervalued and underdeveloped human resource . . . For when women are empowered, families are strengthened, socially-constructive values are taught, . . . and the global economy-upon which so many American jobs depend-expands."- Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright (1)
As the proceeding chapters have shown, despite some economic gains, politicians, academics and the public are increasingly questioning neoliberal policy-making. Neoliberal trends such as free trade are currently being scrutinized for tendencies to increase socioeconomic inequality and instability between and within nation-states. As a result, it has become increasingly apparent that markets alone are unable to provide stable and healthy lives for all members of society. In this manner, the failures of free trade and related neoliberal policies are significantly affecting various groups of women. "Economic changes associated with trade liberalization have reduced women's chances of achieving greater equality in many countries. Opportunities for education and training have been reduced and the burden of domestic labor increased." (2) In addition, with multinational corporations receiving less scrutiny from governments, human rights violations, especially those against women, continue to go unpunished in the name of productivity and profits. These general effects of trade liberalization have not escaped the development of the North American Free Trade Agreement. As NAFTA has developed, social discrepancies with regards to women have increased, thus, furthering social instability and unfair trade. The following chapter will explore how NAFTA has decreased the social stability of women within the signatory nations with regards to human rights, work, and their ability to sustain themselves and their families. Thus, demonstrating how NAFTA needs to be revised to include and remedy women's concerns, so as to develop a stronger, more effective NAFTA economy and trinational partnership.
In order to understand how NAFTA can have divergent effects on men and women, it is necessary to examine how gender shapes an individual's participation and treatment within market structures. Historically, female participation and treatment within the paid-labor workforce has developed differently from their male counterparts. This is because markets do not develop in isolation from the gendered social structures that surrounds them. (3) Within most social structures, women have historically been responsible for reproductive responsibilities in the form of child care and household work. In the past, these responsibilities generally removed women from participating in the paid-labor force. However, the past 40 years a steady increase in women's participation in work outside of the home has occurred. Yet, in general, women have had to maintain their historical domestic responsibilities in addition to the new demands of the market, thus enduring a "double burden." (4) In this manner, women's participation in the paid-labor force tends to differ from men:
. . . women's responsibilities for social reproduction performed in the form of unpaid domestic labor influence their position in labor markets as paid laborers. Women's labor force participation rate is lower than men's. However, women tend to have a greater combined labor burden consisting of paid and unpaid activities in the world economy. Occupations and industries tend to be gender-typed, and those that are associated with the female gender tend to be lower paying and of lower social status. Women also often receive lower wages for the same work. They tend to engage more frequently in part-time, casual, flexible, or informal labor activities as a result of their unpaid domestic labor responsibilities. (5)
Thus, due to these gender-based distinctions, market-based policies often affect women in a different manner than men.
While it is true that the disparities between men and women in the paid-labor force existed before the implementation of NAFTA, these disparities are being sustained or even increased by NAFTA and its corresponding neoliberal policies. Due to NAFTA-enhanced competition, corporations increasingly seek to limit their production expenditures through lower labor costs. In the case of Mexico, corporations are able to sustain low production costs not only due to lower wages, but also to fewer women-rights related expenditures; the latter aspect resulting from the Mexican government's negligent enforcement of its labor laws. Without effectively enforced regulations, women's rights such as equal pay for equal work, prevention of sexual discrimination, and (in the case of Mexico and Canada) paid maternity leave, are increasingly ignored by cost-cutting corporations. These discrepancies not only decrease the social equality of women, but also increase the practice of unfair trade between the NAFTA nations. This is because negligent enforcement of labor laws in Mexico gives corporations operating there an unfair trade advantage by making labor a below cost input. In addition, NAFTA encourages governments to reduce their social spending in order to reduce their presence in society and to make their operations more efficient. Yet, the burden of minimizing government expenditures significantly falls upon low-income women whose chances to obtain social equality and stability are undermined by increasing cuts in social safety-nets.
The following sections will explore how changes in market structures brought on by NAFTA have affected women in Mexico, Canada and the United States. However, due to the large and diverse population of women within these nations, this paper limits its analysis to a few select examples where NAFTA is disproportionately affecting women. The following sections will look at how the maquiladora industry along the Mexico-U.S. border and the deterioration of the social welfare system in the U.S. and Canada are threatening women's social equality and stability.
Despite Mexican laws and principles in the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) which prohibit sexual discrimination and guarantees equality between men and women, numerous violations against women persist within Mexico. This discrimination has been most noticeably documented in the maquiladoras that line the Mexican side of the U.S.-Mexico border. In 1996, over 2,000 maquiladora-type firms were in operation in border towns in Mexico, with women representing about 60% of their labor force. (6) In numerous maquiladoras, discrimination exists with regards to what type of jobs women are hired for, how well they are trained, and what working conditions they are forced to endure.
Many Mexican women entering the paid labor force lack a high education or other job related skills. As a result, since the maquiladoras provide numerous unskilled jobs, they often represent the only viable option for many women. In addition, the corporations operating in the maquiladoras often specifically request women workers. According to several maquiladora employers, the ideal maquiladora worker is described as "docile, undemanding, nimble-fingered, non-union, and unmilitant [sic]," - a description viewed aptly suited to the female worker. (7) As a result, numerous maquiladora advertisements specify that the applicant be female. In fact, one company, in advertising for unskilled production personnel, simply used the term "Personal Femenino." (8)
Proponents of the maquiladora system argue that this demand for female workers in the paid labor market is a positive development for women. They stipulate that the maquiladora system is beneficial for women as it gives women more earning power and independence outside of the home. (9) From one perspective, this is true. According to Susan Tiano, a University of New Mexico sociology professor, "The maquiladoras did sort of liberate women . . . They offered women a wedge into the workforce which they could use to bid for autonomy in the home and the community." (10) However, by entering the paid-labor force, women are finding new challenges in the form of sexual discrimination in the workplace, thus undermining this newfound autonomy. If women's "liberation" into the paid-labor force only means that women are free to be exploited in paid production as well as in the private sphere, then it is not necessarily emancipation; rather the locus of subordination has only been shifted, but not eliminated. (11) Evidence from the development of women's participation in the maquiladoras exemplifies the latter perspective rather than its hopeful counterpart.
As noted earlier, women define approximately two-thirds of the maquiladora labor force. While at first this seems to represent a positive development for women, this statistic becomes tarnished when looking at the types of jobs women tend to hold. Several empirical studies have indicated that women predominately work in the lower, easy entry (and low wage) sector of employment. (12) As mentioned above, it is not unusual for maquiladora employers to specify the gender wanted. Thus, according to one case study, none of the jobs that requested women were in skilled production (mechanics, technicians, engineers) or control (supervisors, managers), rather almost 89% were unskilled production jobs. (13) In this manner, women are often specifically targeted for the least-skilled jobs, reflecting discriminatory hiring practices.
Even if the tendency for women to be hired only for the least-skilled jobs is merely a reflection of lower levels of education when entering the work force and not one of sexual discrimination by the employer, once hired, women often endure discrimination that inhibit their advancement. According to research conducted by Kathryn Kopinak, women tend to be subordinated as workers with regards to accessibility to higher-skilled (and higher-paying) jobs; men tend to gain more skill with seniority whereas women do not. (14) One reason for this stems from the fact that women often receive less job training than men, thus ensuring their subordination within the workplace. According to interviews of workers conducted by Kopinak, among workers who did receive training for their present jobs (and three quarters said they did), there were huge gender differences, with women receiving 8 days of training on average and men receiving 22 days. (15) Therefore, not only were women workers segmented into the lowest level of work from the onset, but they were far less likely to benefit from any technology transfer that might result from training or to move up by acquiring skilled jobs.
In addition to the sexual discrimination displayed by the maquiladora hiring process and training, many women endure harassment and poor working conditions on the job. The most notable and obvious examples of sex discrimination that women endure at numerous maquiladoras is the practice of pregnancy testing. Not only are women asked on employment applications when they had their last menstruation, but women are routinely subjected to pregnancy tests to ensure they are not pregnant so that employers can avoid dealing with mandatory maternity leave benefits. (16) In addition, women are subjected to poor general working conditions:
Speaking only on condition of anonymity, women working in the Erika factory in Reynosa told . . . of assembling medical kits without the benefit of mouth and nose covering to protect them from noxious fumes. . . . [and that] they were often dizzy from the fumes with which they worked but were not allowed to take breaks. A number of women from different factories told . . . of being paid for fewer hours than they had actually worked; of being denied time off to take their children to the doctor because the women themselves were not sick; . . . of being told to clean the factory's rest rooms when work was slow . . . (17)
Therefore, while numerous laws exist that prohibit discrimination against women, they continue to be subjected to a variety of discrimination and poor working conditions within the maquiladoras. This blatant indifference to women's rights is enhanced by neoliberal economic policy making exemplified by NAFTA.
Although the maquiladora system in Mexico was originally established in the 1960s, the introduction of NAFTA sustains inequality for women and locks in a system of non-regulation of women's rights: a system of free, but unfair trade. In the past 15 years, the number of corporations in the maquiladoras has more than tripled, totaling over 2,000. (18) It is estimated that over 80% of these are owned by U.S. corporations that seek lower production costs in the form of lower labor wages, and lack of governmental enforcement of labor standards. Although Mexico has highly developed labor standards written into their constitution and other domestic laws, enforcement is weak, thus allowing some U.S. corporations to take advantage of this situation. This dynamic is exemplified with the usage of pregnancy testing in Mexico. According to Mexican law, pregnant women have a right to a total of twelve weeks of 100% paid maternity leave. (19) In a highly competitive market, like the maquiladora region, such labor costs are viewed as a considerable drawback since companies are competing with companies that do not have to worry about maternity leave costs, such as in the U.S. (20) The lack of Mexican governmental enforcement creates an unfair trade scenario: it gives companies a chance to exploit workers to become more competitive.
Yet, despite the publicity surrounding such exploitation, the Mexican government still has lax enforcement of its labor laws - especially those that involve women's rights. Though this is due in part to a patriarchal society failure to recognize women's rights, this is also largely due to the pressure that exists for the Mexican government to remain competitive in a changed economic system:
In the first eleven months of 1995, the maquiladora sector generated US$29.5 billion in export earnings for Mexico. . . . it is the largest source of dollars for Mexico, surpassing oil and tourism. The Mexican government benefits from the hard currency earned from the value assessed on finished maquiladora goods and the employment the maquiladora sector provides from hundreds of thousands of Mexicans. (21)
Thus, women's inequality and sexual discrimination within the maquiladoras persists because of a confluence of neoliberal interests and needs: the economic interest of maquiladora operators to keep their operating costs as low as possible, the government's interest in attracting and keeping foreign investment, and women's desperation for jobs. (22) It is important to emphasize that free (but not fair) trade underlined by NAFTA sustains these practices.
In the U.S. and Canada, the analysis of the effects of NAFTA on labor has focused mostly on the suppression of labor union power versus companies, and the threat of job losses to other regions within NAFTA. However, a closer look reveals that NAFTA also encourages the deterioration of the social safety nets through cuts in governmental social spending. This deterioration is significantly affecting women, who account for the majority of social program recipients. (23) Consequently, these women are subjected to increasing instability within the paid-labor force and their social environment.
In Canada, the fight against the negative effects of free trade has encompassed the agendas of women's groups since the beginning of negotiations for the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement (CUFTA). The National Action Committee on the Status of Women (NAC) and its then vice president, Marjorie Griffin Cohen, developed this opposition. She argued that women would most likely feel the brunt of the impact CUFTA because they dominate the work force of Canada's most vulnerable, less competitive, branch-plant manufacturing industries. (24) This domination has been especially evident in Canada's garment industry, where women account for 90% of the work force, and where 80,000 jobs have been lost since the implementation of CUFTA. (25) While some of these women are able to find new jobs, these jobs tend to be lower-paying, high-turnover jobs concentrated in clerical, sales, and service industries; the majority of which are part-time and nonunion. (26) Furthermore, even if women do retain their manufacturing jobs, they are often faced with decreasing wages. (27) Thus, numerous women in Canada are losing their ability to participate in stable, secure, and high-paying jobs once exemplified in the unionized manufacturing sector. Although some free trade advocates claim that these losses cannot be attributed solely to NAFTA or CUFTA, the fact that these changes began to occur with the same changes in the international economic system, which NAFTA is a result of, demonstrates that these forces cannot be overlooked. (28)
As NAFTA perpetuates a less stable labor market, women are more likely to need government assistance through health care programs, unemployment benefits, day care for children, and accessibility to re-training programs or higher education. However, governments are increasingly prohibited by NAFTA in their ability to provide social programs that would help women through the transitions forced upon them. First, NAFTA encourages privatization of public institutions and virtually prohibits the creation of new public services that would replace private enterprise. This is due to clauses within NAFTA that requires permission from trading partners before implementing any new public programs. Furthermore, governments who do get permission must provide compensation for any losses that the private sector might incur. (29) With an increasing amount of companies providing services across national borders, the ability of the government to provide compensation, and thus establish new social programs, becomes diminished.
In addition to inhibiting the state, neoliberal policies and free trade agreements encourage states to minimize their spending and reduce their deficits to become more competitive. This is done in the name of not only making governments more efficient and thus strengthening the economy, but it is also a response to the needs of corporations. As a result of the heightened competition created by free trade, corporations often seek tax breaks, claiming they are necessary to their ability to stay competitive. When governments comply, the government reduces its tax revenue, which then encourages cuts in social spending. (30) As numerous studies have shown, since the implementation of NAFTA, social spending cuts have been made in the both U.S. and Canada. Often these cuts have had an inimical effect upon women, especially those with dependent children-- as seen in Vicky Vanderpol's Chapter on NAFTA's affects upon children
While it may seem to be economically healthy in theory for governments to reduce their spending, the way states cut their budgets can have detrimental effects. Often the first program to be cut are government social programs that serve as a safety-net for many women. For example, in the early 1990s Canada eliminated its family allowance, a monthly stipend to all mothers of about $40 per child. Furthermore, the government is gradually restricting eligibility for unemployment insurance, moving toward coverage only for full-time, year-round workers ñ a standard that fewer than half of Canadian women meet. (31) Even programs with strong public support, like universal and comprehensive funding of medical care, are being abandoned by the federal Canadian government, leaving only the provinces to cope. (32)
Like their counterparts in Canada, many women in the U.S. are losing their public safety-nets due to debilitating cutbacks in federal spending. Since the mid-1930s when the first legislation to provide for the poor in the U.S. was established, women have fought for welfare programs that address the special needs of poor women with children. In the U.S., single-parent mothers with dependent children comprise 95% of child support recipients below the poverty line; and in general, single-parent women comprise the majority of recipients of all government assistance programs. (33) However, the policies represented by NAFTA have forced a change from what used to be viewed as the right of women and children to receive support to what is now seen as an illegitimate burden upon society. (34) This is evident in the recent welfare reform initiated in the U.S. in 1996, where the same policymaking mindset that formed NAFTA has encouraged less supportive public spending.
In August, 1996 President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, the legislation which repealed the 60 year old social safety-net for the poor. The act significantly reduced funding for those in need of cash assistance and food stamps, and in instead required recipients to work. (35) With single-parent mothers representing the majority of welfare participants, these reforms are seriously affecting low-income women. To politicians seeking to both increase national productivity and reduce government spending, it makes sense to force welfare recipients to find work. However, these acts have important real life consequences, especially for those women who subscribe to welfare benefits to sustain themselves and their families:
. . . this legislation . . . imposes inflexible limitations and requirements on millions of welfare recipients - many of whom are women with few employable skills, insufficient education, literacy problems, experiencing domestic violence and trauma, or likely to have small children with little access to child care services. In addition, . . . [it is feared that] with new requirements for states to reduce the welfare rolls, recipients would be pushed into workfare jobs paying sub-minimum wages inadequate to support a family or that they would not be able to find jobs in economically depressed areas. With no safety-net and expanded restrictions on funding and eligibility, some poor women who are not able to find work will have no alternative support. (36)
Thus, while the idea of cutting financial support and forcing recipients to work may be theoretically sound, applying this theory causes numerous women to fall farther below the poverty line. Furthermore, the government has not increased funding for education, job training, and transitional support programs to meet the potentially huge demand the welfare reform will create, further illustrating that the Welfare Reform Act was more a budgetary action rather than an attempt at reforming the underlying causes of poverty. (37)
Furthermore, the U.S. welfare reform fails to recognize the reasons behind why numerous welfare recipients need the government's assistance. The recent reforms are targeted at eliminating opportunity for people who take advantage of welfare by avoiding to retrain people and finding them stable jobs. In many cases, it is not a case of laziness that determines whether a person seeks welfare assistance. A study conducted by the Harvard Medical School and the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, found that 92% of homeless women and 82% of welfare recipient women with homes reported experience of severe physical or sexual assault at some point in their lives. (38) For numerous women, welfare benefits have served as a way to sustain themselves and their families after leaving an abusive situation. Thus, welfare has often served as a safety net for people who have been undermined by a variety of life factors - not just an inability to find a job. However, the recent reforms encouraged by neoliberal policies ignore this aspect. As governments turn more and more to the private sector to provide solutions, they forget that pre-existing social discrepancies and non-market factors influence the ability of people to sustain themselves and participate in market systems. Thus, illustrating the governments neglect of their primary role as the public sector in providing goods and services that the private sector can not or will not provide.
NAFTA undermines the ability of low-income and single-parent women to stay above the poverty line and decreases the stability of their positions within labor markets and society. Job loss, deterioration of social safety-nets, and the inhibition of the creation of new social programs, are all consequences of free trade and its supportive neoliberal policies. The next section will look at why these issues, and those mentioned in the previous sections, should be addressed within the NAFTA framework in addition to measures taken at domestic levels.
Traditionally, the above issues regarding women's rights and social needs have been addressed at local, community, or domestic governmental levels. However, the implementation of NAFTA brings a new dimension to the problem, exemplifying the need to address women's rights within NAFTA in addition to domestic institutions.
As outlined before, NAFTA is sustaining sexual discrimination in Mexico's maquiladoras. While it is necessary for action to be taken at domestic levels, the matter needs to be addressed within NAFTA's institutions. First, while the maquiladora industry is located in Mexico, U.S.-based corporations own the majority of the plants. In this manner, both nations need to take interest when human rights violations are occurring. Second, all three NAFTA countries have signed the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) and are thus responsible for upholding the principles of this agreement. The NAALC calls on the U.S., Mexico, and Canada to:
. . . promote, in accordance with their respective laws, high-skill, high productivity economic development in North America by . . . encouraging employers and employees in each country to comply with labor laws and to work together in maintaining a progressive, fair, safe, and healthy working environment . . . . (39)
Although the NAALC does not create any minimum standards that NAFTA nations are bound to comply with, the signatory nations are committed to upholding their own labor laws. (40) By failing to enforce its laws against sexual discrimination, Mexico is in violation of the NAALC and needs to be held accountable to the laws of NAFTA. This not only would improve upon the lives of women maquiladora workers, it would also reduce labor discrepancies and unfair trade between the NAFTA nations.
In addition, it is clear that issues surrounding the ability of governments to provide a safety net for their citizens also need to be addressed within NAFTA structures. In the long run, NAFTA economies will suffer if continued cuts in social spending further inhibit the state from creating new programs, because this will undermine social stability by reducing the state's credibility and thus undermining the development of the market. (41) As exemplified earlier, reducing social spending diminishes the accessibility lower-income women have to secure jobs, welfare benefits and other support mechanisms, such as training and education. Consequently, their opportunities to lead secure and stable lives for themselves and their families are significantly reduced. This in turn decreases the stability of the lives of these women, causing a reduction in the potential growth and strength of the economy's labor force. In addition, many of these women have dependent children, and as exemplified in the chapter by Vicky Vanderpol, the future of the NAFTA economies is dependent upon the health, education, and developmental stability of the next generation. To make economic development stable and sustainable, the state must ensure the social fundamentals remain, such as welfare and education, because it needs to guarantee that current and future generations will have the ability and opportunity to contribute productively to the economy. By encouraging cuts in social programs and the elimination of the women's safety net, NAFTA reduces the well-being and productivity of the working population, thereby undermining its attempts to stimulate the economy. Therefore, if NAFTA is to succeed, it must incorporate measures that will facilitate, rather than discourage, the social stability of women.
As a result, NAFTA needs to be revised to recognize the importance of upholding women's rights and to encourage social spending to provide safety nets in the form of strong welfare, health care, job training and education. In doing so, governments will enhance the productivity and creativity of their labor force, and thus strengthening their economy in the end.
Although it is imperative that women's issues examined in this paper are addressed on domestic levels in each country, it is important that steps are also taken within the NAFTA framework to promote needed social programs through a public safety net. These steps include: revising the NAALC to make enforcement of the principles regarding women's rights more effective; revising NAFTA to let governments establish various new social programs without having to provide private sector compensation; establishing access for women's groups/NGOs to advise NAFTA decision-makers; and creating a statement within NAFTA which endorses the principles outlined in the United Nations' Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
Although the NAALC contains procedures to address violations of its commitments, the NAALC system is largely ineffective, especially with regards to women's rights. While the NAALC does list equality between men and women as a principle signatory nations should uphold, any violations of this principle cannot be sanctioned. (42) The tri-national Evaluation Committee of Experts (ECE), which addresses issues of equality, can only issue evaluations and recommendations, thus it has no enforcement power and lacks the authority to issue sanctions for violations. Even if sexual discrimination violations could be addressed at a level with sanctions, it is estimated that the current resolution process of such a grievance would take more than 1,210 days. (43) Therefore, while issues of sexual discrimination are addressed within the NAALC, the complaint/resolution process is highly inefficient and ineffective. Thus, if states like Mexico are to be held accountable for their negligent enforcement of women's rights, significant changes will have to be made to make the NAALC more effective.
In addition, in order for the instability NAFTA induces on low-income women workers to be reduced, it is necessary for social programs within each signatory nation to be enhanced, and not diminished as they have been. While most of the changes concerning this issue will have to take place at a domestic level, it is imperative to lift the prohibitions imposed by NAFTA clauses that prohibit governments from implementing social programs. Governments need be free to establish new social programs that help sustain the social safety net without having to bear the enormous cost of compensating the private industry.
Furthermore, in order to ensure future developments within NAFTA incorporate the need for social stability, various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) need be allowed to advise NAFTA decision-makers. Numerous NGOs that focus on the need to obtain social equality and stability for women already have strong political and social histories in each of the three NAFTA nations. Increasingly, many of these groups are speaking out against the destabilizing effects of current neoliberal restructuring through a variety of methods. For example, the Regional Women's Committee of CONAMUP in Mexico not only organizes political fights against neoliberal restructuring, but also provides numerous social services: starting health centers and clinics, providing training in nutrition, creating consumer co-ops so peasants can sell their products directly to the city dwellers, etc. (44) In addition, groups such as the Asian Immigrant Women Advocates in California are directly challenging plant closures by researching alternative options for companies and their employees. (45) Furthermore, in response to the impact of economic restructuring encouraged by NAFTA, women's groups are establishing international links; Mujer a Mujer (MAM), based in Mexico City and in San Antonio, Texas, is a pioneer of this form. MAM is a pioneer because it "links women in common sectors across borders in order to foster a common global analysis of local issues and to develop common strategies and common actions." (46) Allowing NGOs such as Mujer a Mujer to consult with NAFTA decision-makers would strengthen NAFTA's ability to recognize and avoid some of its destabilizing effects on society and women's lives. Doing so will improve the lives of women, their families, and will stabilize the social foundation for healthy and productive economies. Lastly, women's NGO participation in NAFTA structures would enhance the credibility of future developments of NAFTA, making it a stronger, more democratic document.
Finally, NAFTA signatories should agree to uphold the principles outlined by the United Nations' Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which has been ratified by 154 countries - including Canada and Mexico (but not the United States). By doing so, the principle that discrimination against women is intolerable will be enhanced at an international level. Furthermore, it would require the U.S. to ratify CEDAW, which would not only help the fight against discrimination against women, but it would also lend credibility to the U.S. as a leader in human rights issues - a reputation which is currently being internationally criticized.
As it exists now, NAFTA sustains and encourages neoliberal decision-making that undermines the social stability of women in the signatory nations. Without changes to prevent negligent enforcement of anti-discrimination laws and further cuts in social spending, NAFTA will increase the instability of the social networks supporting the economy. In the long run, this will undermine the neoliberal market and decrease the productivity and sustainability of NAFTA economies. Therefore, it is imperative NAFTA be amended to incorporate methods that will enhance social stability in Canada, the United States, and Mexico. Not only will this improve the lives of women in these nations, but also it will ensure future generations can participate in strong, productive, and healthy economies.