By Don White.

Nothing makes me despair more for the future of our species than dogged adherence to traditional, mutually-impoverishing gender roles. Exactly that seems to be the basis of many reactions to two Notices of Motion for the next Nanaimo Council meeting, December 4, 2019.

Notices of both motions were given at the previous meeting by Councillors Erin Hemmens and Tyler Brown. The first: “That a report be prepared for council with a draft policy and framework for ensuring gender parity on all city committees and task forces.”

The second: “That a report be prepared for council with a draft policy and framework for reimbursing childminding expenses for members of Council and City Committee Members that are incurred as a result of participation in official City of Nanaimo meetings”.

The two councillors are requesting that staff look into and report back on two novel possibilities: that the City facilitate gender parity in its governance, and do so, if feasible, by providing childcare when needed by participants during meetings at our City Hall.

Not all public reactions on broadcast and social media are favourable. A frequent objection to the motion for parity is that appointments to committees and City Council must be based strictly on qualifications, not on gender. Opposition to the childcare motion include statements that other people had (and have) to pay for their own childcare; providing childcare should be for those who need it, not everyone; and the costs will increase our local taxes even more.

When I contacted Councillors Brown and Hemmens, they answered that qualification remains the criterion for appointment. Studies show that women are as qualified as men, said Hemmens, and when women run, they have the same chance of winning. But women tend not to put themselves forward because they believe they are not qualified, even when they are; while men view themselves as qualified even when they’re not.

Perspective is another important factor, Hemmens added. Women have greater concern for social justice and developing consensus. Since these are fundamental to the governance most of us believe we want, gender disparity can mean we lose those most qualified to serve. To get the broadest range of qualifications requires equal representation of both genders.

The fact that Brown and Hemmens are asking for staff to report back on developing equity as policy, not as a bylaw, is important, Brown said. “Forced parity does not work well or result in useful change.” Policy simply indicates the placement of the goalposts, not when penalties are levied. The phase “ensuring gender parity” only provides a goal to aim for, not an enforceable rule with penalties for non-compliance.

The second motion for staff reporting on the feasibility of providing free childcare when a parent is attending a council or committee meeting recognizes that it is the lack of such supports that often keep women out of politics (and many other arenas).

It’s a fact that women still carry the major load for home, child, and elder care, and that care frequently keeps women from running or sitting on committees, said Hemmens. If women are disproportionately hampered, providing daycare will be an equalizer. The intention is to lower this barrier for everyone, said Brown. The ask of staff is to look at the provision of childcare during meetings as a way to make governance more closely represent the voters.

Studies tend to support the views of Brown and Hemmens. A federal standing committee Report on the Status of Women, April 2019 states: “From increased attention on social issues that impact women’s lives to an often more collaborative working environment … It is undeniable that women’s increased political participation as elected officials leads to better social, economic and political outcomes for everyone.”

As for the lack of parity nationwide, statistics from Equal Voice reveal that with 98 women elected federally in the 2019 election, Canada reached 29% representation of women and the rank of 54th globally for elected women. That’s it. Males outnumber females by greater than 2:1.

Our lack of parity comes with attendant costs. A 2017 report by the McKinsey Global Institute states: “Advancing women’s equality in Canada has the potential to add $150 billion in incremental GDP in 2026, or a 0.6 percent increase to annual GDP growth. That is 6 percent higher than business-as-usual GDP growth forecasts over the next decade.”

Consequently, the motions of Brown and Hemmens actually represent things many others know already. Nor are they the first to consider providing childcare as a means of increasing the benefits of gender parity at the local level.

The North Vancouver City Council unanimously approved a six month pilot study to “support parents with children who want to attend meetings and may not be able to afford childcare.” The purpose is to address the same issue that Hemmens and Brown have noted, i.e. to “overcome inequities that hamper citizens’ ability to engage with their local government.”

If someone else can do it, should we not, at least, consider it? Shouldn’t our Council have City staff take a closer look? And should we not, as voters, keep open minds until staff has tabled their reports? Personally, I prefer to be a leader of such movements than risk being left behind.

Having an open mind requires accurately parsing the motions carefully and focussing on the most important bits of theory and policy application.

We are all aware that inequitable differences exist between the genders in governments and industry. Most of us concede the truth of Hemmen’s claim that the bulk of the household, child, and elder care still falls on women/mothers. Likewise, that the load imposed by the latter, contributes to the inequities we see daily in the former.

It also seems true, unfortunately, that arguments to maintain disparities often seem based largely on traditional or misguided thinking. Yes, females provide most nurturing among all sexually-reproducing species. But we aren’t bound by natural selection strategies. Because we all crave fats and sugar doesn’t mean we all need become morbidly obese.

Yes, many other cultures similarly constrain women. However, not all do, nor in human history are all societies male-biased in their governance. Many early hunter-gatherer societies were far more egalitarian than us. The argument “whatever is, is right” comes from the Eighteenth Century.

Arguing choices should be based only on individual merit seems equally fallacious. If women are prevented from running because they can’t be freed from childcare, than the current lack of parity has nothing to do with merit. It’s about an obstacle to merit that half the population faces.

The argument that providing childcare should be based on the users’ need is similarly narrow. There are other needs to consider than the users’ ability to secure childcare on their own. There are other priorities that may be higher in the general public’s interest than small increases in their taxes.

Given that half our population, females, are effectively hampered from participating in local governance by the constraint of looking after younger children; and that this same portion of our population hold that social justice, consensus, and social connection are more important than do males; it’s difficult to justify any resulting lack of the social justice – a factor we desperately need – on the cost of occasionally providing childcare.

Should a financial needs assessment be considered once the program is up and running? Sure. Why not? No reason why we should finance social services for the upper 1%. But first, let’s get it underway.

If we honestly want our community to reflect the parity of voters, it is time to begin working openly towards rectifying the gender imbalances that currently exist in government. If North Vancouver has the cultural integrity and bravery to take this step, why can’t we?

For those who argue that parity is an issue for other levels of government, not municipal, I argue that there is no better place to address this issue than locally. What may be difficult to achieve federally or even provincially, is entirely within our power to do municipally.

I argue that those who maintain that municipal government is only about repairing potholes are – deliberately or not – evading the larger possibilities of their duties and wishes of the voters.

Getting more women involved on our committees and sitting our Council can only be mindfully regarded as beneficial for everyone within our city. Conversely, failing to achieve gender parity can only be to all of our disadvantages.

If we can possibly facilitate achievement of gender parity merely by providing childcare while a parent is attending a council or committee meeting, we should – at the very least – have City staff produce a report on costs and feasibility of such a program.

Overall, given the possible benefits achieved, the costs of such a program seem low. North Vancouver estimates the cost for their six month study to be $15,000. Compared to the simplest PR initiative or consultation fee, funding childcare for civic participants may yield the kind of cost-benefits we want. If Nanaimo develops better decision-making and governance through fostering gender parity, it seems cheap at many times that price.

Council needs to pass these two motions and have staff take a closer look.